Safe standing progress

[Nobby Royal]

Oh well, we can all go home then.

This is rather more encouraging (certainly more encouraging than Star).

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.dailym ... xpert.html

[multisync1830]

This is such a hypothetical argument.

The Government would have to change secondary legislation to enable all seater standing.

What would be their motivation to do it? Win a few votes of a few football fans.

What is the risk? A change in the rules leads to increased anti social behaviour, which would be scrutinised very carefully immediately after a change in the law. The Minister would get the abuse, media scrutiny, and consequential political storm of being the Minister who allowed the standing to return, and therefore was responsible for the increase in anti social behaviour.

Conclusion
There is very little political upside, there is a large political risk.

Its never going to happen.

I agree with your premise regarding the upside but disagree with your final conclusion. I see it as almost inevitable . The tide has turned and SS will slowly be introduced. A Liverpool supporters + vote will be seen as a sea change in this debate

[multisync1830]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-4746344/Liverpool-fans-vote-majority-favour-safe-standing.html

Liverpool supporters vote by a huge 88 per cent majority in favour of safe standing after 18,000 take part in poll
A total of 17,910 people voted online with the majority favouring use of rail seats
Spirit of Shankly organisation say result was 'a significant step' for safe standing
Liverpool's most influential fan organisation will be in favour of introduction
1989 Hillsborough disaster led to all-seater stadiums in football's top two tiers

[BR0B0T]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-4746344/Liverpool-fans-vote-majority-favour-safe-standing.html

Liverpool supporters vote by a huge 88 per cent majority in favour of safe standing after 18,000 take part in poll
A total of 17,910 people voted online with the majority favouring use of rail seats
Spirit of Shankly organisation say result was 'a significant step' for safe standing
Liverpool's most influential fan organisation will be in favour of introduction
1989 Hillsborough disaster led to all-seater stadiums in football's top two tiers

WGAF what Liverpool fans think about it!

[Silver Fox]

When the government lets us have a beer during the game like every other sport then maybe they'll consider letting some people stand in front of their seats

[CountryRoyal]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/43701400

Safe standing: West Bromwich Albion have proposal rejected by government

West Brom have had a proposal to introduce safe standing at The Hawthorns rejected by the government.

The pilot scheme would have meant 3,600 seats in the Smethwick End were converted to 'rail seats', which can be locked in an upright position.

West Brom - who are bottom of the Premier League - hoped to install them in time for next season.

Sports minister Tracey Crouch says there are no plans to change the all-seater policy at football stadiums.

That law was introduced followed recommendations made in the Taylor Report into the 1989 Hillsborough disaster, which claimed the lives of 96 Liverpool fans.

But West Brom say their proposal was based on safety concerns, because of persistent standing.

The club's director of operations Mark Miles, who has led the proposal, described the decision as "surprising" and "disappointing".

"I think the minister has taken a short-sighted view and is preventing the club from creating a safer environment for supporters," he said.

"The all-seater policy was developed over 25 years ago and football is a very different place now."

Miles has travelled to Scottish champions Celtic and German club TSG 1899 Hoffenheim, where the same system is used.

"The system we proposed is well tested across Europe and has also worked successfully at Celtic, who are governed by different legislation than in England and Wales," he said.

"We were prepared to run a pilot which would enable the club to gather data and feedback to further inform us in the issue of crowd safety.

"But I have become convinced that rail seating would enhance safety. The club is extremely disappointed with this decision and we have written back requesting a review."

A spokesperson for the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport said: "We have no plans to change our position and introduce standing accommodation at grounds in the top two divisions covered by the all-seater policy.

"Alongside the sports ground safety authority we will continue to monitor the issue of spectator accommodation and the use of safe standing where it is permitted."

How would it have worked?
The standing positions would have been offered to both home and away supporters.

Away fans would have been given a choice of whether to stand in the upper section of the stand or sit in the lower part.

Ticket prices were expected to remain unchanged and the necessary changes would have been completed in time for the new season in August, when the Baggies are likely to be playing in the Championship.

West Brom's safety officials have tried a number of initiatives to resolve the problem of persistent standing in certain areas of the ground.

The club sought to allay security fears and problems with identifying troublesome fans by highlighting their high-resolution cameras fitted in the stands.

Advanced ticketing and new turnstile operations have also been introduced in recent years.

Officials are also said to have emphasised they would enforce a much more stringent requirement for fans in other sections of regular seating to remain seated.

History of all-seater stadiums
The current legislation relating to all-seater stadiums dates back to the early 1990s and the recommendations of the Taylor Report.

That requires all clubs in the top two divisions of English football to have seating.

Any sanctioning of 'rail seating' would not require a change in the law. Instead, it is thought to be down to the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport to modify how they exercise powers given to them by the legislation.

Celtic - given Scottish clubs are not subject to the legislation affecting their English counterparts - successfully applied to Glasgow City Council to install 'rail seating'.

Their 2,600 rail seats were used for the first time in July 2016 and the club have had visits from a number of English sides keen to learn from their experience.

[Silver Fox]

West Brom have their safe standing proposal nixed by the government

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/43701400

[blueroyals]

Sadly, it'll need somebody standing up in a seated area at a game to topple over to their death before the government will take their fingers out of their ears and listen. You can't force 1000s of people to sit down if standing as is the case in most games these days. Logistically impossible. Therefore the best thing you can do is to make it safe.

[Snowflake Royal]

This was never going to be an easy or quick victory, particularly under the Conservatives, but the very fact that a PL club has put in a trial proposal and intend to ask for a review of the rejection is extremely positive. Especially given the utterly empty reason for rejection.

It'll probably take a few other club's making requests, and maybe a change of government, but it will get there. Now would be a good time for fans to write to the Minister and their local MP about this to show there is a groundswell of support.

[Elm Park Kid]

It's so sad that this is still being opposed. I mean after Hillsborough you can understand why emotion overrode logic. . . but now it's purely a political issue of MPs having to put up with Daily Mail scare stories for months on end.

[muirinho]

This was never going to be an easy or quick victory, particularly under the Conservatives, but the very fact that a PL club has put in a trial proposal and intend to ask for a review of the rejection is extremely positive. Especially given the utterly empty reason for rejection.

It'll probably take a few other club's making requests, and maybe a change of government, but it will get there. Now would be a good time for fans to write to the Minister and their local MP about this to show there is a groundswell of support.

There's a petition right now, if anybody wants to sign

"Allow Premier League and Championship football clubs to introduce safe standing"
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/207040

Also, the FSF have organised an event at Westminster on 1st May to promote Safe Standing, with Celtic's safety guy explaining how it works for them, if you are keen on Safe Standing, let your MP know, and ask him/her to attend
https://twitter.com/The_FSF/status/984370066337693696

Of course all of you follow me on twitter anyway, so you already know all of this.

[From Despair To Where?]

It's so sad that this is still being opposed. I mean after Hillsborough you can understand why emotion overrode logic. . . but now it's purely a political issue of MPs having to put up with Daily Mail scare stories for months on end.

It wasn't really a question of emotion over logic. At the time, the condition of many grounds was shocking and it was the right decision at the time as many clubs would not have voluntarily made improvements.

It is the Taylor Report that initiated the change in the law that drove massive ground improvements and created the conditions whereby the decision should be revisited 25 years later.

[Snowflake Royal]

Cheers

[tmesis]

It's so sad that this is still being opposed. I mean after Hillsborough you can understand why emotion overrode logic. . . but now it's purely a political issue of MPs having to put up with Daily Mail scare stories for months on end.

It wasn't really a question of emotion over logic. At the time, the condition of many grounds was shocking and it was the right decision at the time as many clubs would not have voluntarily made improvements.

The poor conditions were largely swept away after the Bradford fire.

The condition of Hillsborough, after all, wasn't remotely a factor in what happened.

[From Despair To Where?]

Well, apart from not having valid safety certificate and Hillborough was regarded as one of the best grounds in the country at the time.

The poor conditions were by no means swept away after Bradford. I remember going to away grounds in the late 80s that were in a shocking state.

[tmesis]

Well, apart from not having valid safety certificate and Hillborough was regarded as one of the best grounds in the country at the time.

As said, there was absolutely nothing about the condition of Hillsborough that was in any way responsible for what happened. The problem was with access and exits, which is what the Taylor report dealt with (beyond the terracing ban).

The poor conditions were by no means swept away after Bradford. I remember going to away grounds in the late 80s that were in a shocking state.

It depends what you mean by "shocking". I went away a lot in that era, and while there were certainly a few tatty grounds, I don't recall many stands being shut as a result of the Taylor Report - certainly nothing like what happened over the summer of 85.

The idea that only the Taylor Report forced clubs to build new stands is a bit let down by the fact that clubs in the 4th tier have also rebuild stands, even with little imminent prospect of needing to go all seater. It certainly gave clubs a nudge, and forced the issue for many, but there was a happy coincidence of the major rebuilding period in the mid 90s matching a time when there was major money coming into the game for the first time.

[From Despair To Where?]

Whilst not being a direct reason for Hillsborough, it was indicative of how football supporters were regarded at the time, fenced in in unsafe areas, and treated as a problem. Pick up any fanzine in the aftermath of Hillsborough and they were all awash with stories of crumbling terraces, aggressive policing, uncaring clubs and how this was a tragedy waiting to happen. I went to few dreadful grounds in the late 80s; St Andrew's, Molyneux, Deepdale, Ewood Park, Bloomfield Rd, Boundary Park, Bootham Crescent, Selhurst Park (I remember the away end being a glorified building site) just off the top of my head.

The Taylor Report was not an emotional reaction to a tragedy but an acknowledgement that enough was enough and something had to change.

The game is different now so it is time to revisit these decisions and see if there is another way that works.

[Elm Park Kid]

Whilst not being a direct reason for Hillsborough, it was indicative of how football supporters were regarded at the time, fenced in in unsafe areas, and treated as a problem. Pick up any fanzine in the aftermath of Hillsborough and they were all awash with stories of crumbling terraces, aggressive policing, uncaring clubs and how this was a tragedy waiting to happen. I went to few dreadful grounds in the late 80s; St Andrew's, Molyneux, Deepdale, Ewood Park, Bloomfield Rd, Boundary Park, Bootham Crescent, Selhurst Park (I remember the away end being a glorified building site) just off the top of my head.

The Taylor Report was not an emotional reaction to a tragedy but an acknowledgement that enough was enough and something had to change.

The game is different now so it is time to revisit these decisions and see if there is another way that works.

I'm not saying that the Taylor Report was an entirely emotional reaction, just that the mandatory enforcement of all-seater stadiums in the top flight was unnecessary on the grounds of public safety. It was a simplistic response that sounded correct to most people after Hillsborough but largely irrelevant to the issue of crowd control

[Sutekh]

Whilst not being a direct reason for Hillsborough, it was indicative of how football supporters were regarded at the time, fenced in in unsafe areas, and treated as a problem. Pick up any fanzine in the aftermath of Hillsborough and they were all awash with stories of crumbling terraces, aggressive policing, uncaring clubs and how this was a tragedy waiting to happen. I went to few dreadful grounds in the late 80s; St Andrew's, Molyneux, Deepdale, Ewood Park, Bloomfield Rd, Boundary Park, Bootham Crescent, Selhurst Park (I remember the away end being a glorified building site) just off the top of my head.

The Taylor Report was not an emotional reaction to a tragedy but an acknowledgement that enough was enough and something had to change.

The game is different now so it is time to revisit these decisions and see if there is another way that works.

I'm not saying that the Taylor Report was an entirely emotional reaction, just that the mandatory enforcement of all-seater stadiums in the top flight was unnecessary on the grounds of public safety. It was a simplistic response that sounded correct to most people after Hillsborough but largely irrelevant to the issue of crowd control

Said at the time it was a ridiculous thing to force on clubs, after all it's not the standing that's unsafe it's the way it's managed. Sadly though it's what everyone outside of the game wanted to hear so that's what we all got.

[tmesis]

Whilst not being a direct reason for Hillsborough, it was indicative of how football supporters were regarded at the time, fenced in in unsafe areas, and treated as a problem. Pick up any fanzine in the aftermath of Hillsborough and they were all awash with stories of crumbling terraces, aggressive policing, uncaring clubs and how this was a tragedy waiting to happen. I went to few dreadful grounds in the late 80s; St Andrew's, Molyneux, Deepdale, Ewood Park, Bloomfield Rd, Boundary Park, Bootham Crescent, Selhurst Park (I remember the away end being a glorified building site) just off the top of my head.

The Taylor Report was not an emotional reaction to a tragedy but an acknowledgement that enough was enough and something had to change.

The game is different now so it is time to revisit these decisions and see if there is another way that works.

I'm not saying that the Taylor Report was an entirely emotional reaction, just that the mandatory enforcement of all-seater stadiums in the top flight was unnecessary on the grounds of public safety. It was a simplistic response that sounded correct to most people after Hillsborough but largely irrelevant to the issue of crowd control

It was brought in because the government shoehorned in a demand for a single solution that covered both safety and crowd control. Had it not been for that extra requirement, terraces almost certainly wouldn't have been banned.

Trouble nearly always came from terraced areas, so joining the dots was a simplistic exercise.