Safe Standing

[Dan+]

Safe standing to me is like goal line technology. It's a common sense solution, there are no losers (seriously, people who think this means the whole ground gets converted to standing are plain ignorant) yet for some reason it just doesn't get the push. There's clearly a demand for it. It benefits both those who want to stand and those who want to sit.

[Stan]

Shame . About the only good thing they've done all season and it gets rejected. 

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

Quote

 

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.

 

 

[Dan+]

It's just absolutely ridiculous how continuously ignorant people who have the power to make these decisions are. Unbelievable.

[Stan]

I hate the way it was just brushed off by that Sports Minister so bluntly. Absolute joke. 

[Inverted]

An example of pure governmental inertia. Policy-makers just clinging to the status quo rather than bothering to expend the tiny mental effort to understand the overwhelming lack of empirical justifcation for it. 

[Honey Honey]

What are you all complaining about, it makes no difference whatsoever. The fans are already standing in the proposed sections. Don't give me this bollocks that you are disappointed for safety reasons 

[Dan+]

1 hour ago, Inverted said:

An example of pure governmental inertia. Policy-makers just clinging to the status quo rather than bothering to expend the tiny mental effort to understand the overwhelming lack of empirical justifcation for it. 

I've been listening to the radio and the general consensus, that I agree with, is that she's bottled it because if anything did go wrong, she'd take the blame.

I find that a depressing scenario in all honesty, because I can say with near certainty that if something did go wrong, it wouldn't be to do with the design. I heard a bloke ring up and say he's against it because a bloke pissed on him on a terrace once. I actually can't grasp how anyone can put those things together and draw a correlation.

It's absolutely piss poor.

[Honey Honey]

36 minutes ago, Dan said:

I've been listening to the radio and the general consensus, that I agree with, is that she's bottled it because if anything did go wrong, she'd take the blame.

I find that a depressing scenario in all honesty, because I can say with near certainty that if something did go wrong, it wouldn't be to do with the design. I heard a bloke ring up and say he's against it because a bloke pissed on him on a terrace once. I actually can't grasp how anyone can put those things together and draw a correlation.

It's absolutely piss poor.

[Danny]

3 hours ago, Cannabis said:

Absolutely pathetic from the government as per, safe standing is the way forward in getting an atmosphere back in English football.

It really wouldn't, lower leagues aren't a haven for great atmospheres and everyone has terracing.

Young fans need to take the imitative for atmospheres to improve, I'm not for European style ultras because culturally it's like an Englishman calling someone "dude" but that sort of organisation from fan groups with young people at the heart of it to create something is what English football needs.

[Dan+]

18 minutes ago, Danny said:

It really wouldn't, lower leagues aren't a haven for great atmospheres and everyone has terracing.

Young fans need to take the imitative for atmospheres to improve, I'm not for European style ultras because culturally it's like an Englishman calling someone "dude" but that sort of organisation from fan groups with young people at the heart of it to create something is what English football needs.

Completely agree with that. I definitely think safe standing is needed and it supplements this, but ultimately people in this country just haven't got the mentality anymore.

The whole matchday experience just isn't built around the atmosphere now. Definitely think the 18-40 year old local fan hasn't been catered for as much as they should've been in this country.

[Smiley Culture]

A load of faux outrage here, let's be honest. The people who want to stand will carry on standing, those that want to sit will carry on doing just that. 

I don't buy that standing equates to a better atmosphere either. It's the big players and big games that create atmosphere at Football, not some lumps of metal screwed together in the form of barriers that create atmospheres. Take Celtic, the only British club with this form of safe standing, as an example. It's not games against Ross County or watching blokes who've come from the English League Two now playing for Kilmarnock that gets the crowd going, it's European nights in the depths of Winter against Paris St Germain and games against Rangers and seeing people like Kenny Miller, a former Celtic player, wearing a Rangers shirt that creates an atmosphere.

[Guest]

6 hours ago, Cannabis said:

Absolutely pathetic from the government as per, safe standing is the way forward in getting an atmosphere back in English football.

To be honest there is safe standing in the lower leagues and the apmosphere isn't always great. I think a lot of the good atmospheres were due to alcohol being allowed. 

[ScoRoss]

Ludicrous how it is considered safe enough in Scotland, but not in England.

[Inverted]

3 hours ago, ScoRoss said:

Ludicrous how it is considered safe enough in Scotland, but not in England.

Especially considering that in most other respects our government is noticeably more paternalistic. 

[Dan+]

You could write a page full of laughable contradictions in the ruling. It'll be here eventually, they're just prolonging the inevitable.

[Stan]

'more evidence required'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/43816195

Quote

 

More evidence is needed before safe standing can be allowed at top-flight stadiums, the Premier League has said.

Earlier this month, sports minister Tracey Crouch rejected West Brom's request to trial safe standing.

The legislation forbidding it was introduced following the Taylor Report into the 1989 Hillsborough disaster.

"This subject is complex and nuanced and clearly requires more research," said the Premier League, whose clubs discussed it at a meeting last week.

BBC Sport understands that fans numbering in the low thousands have been asked for their views over the past 16 months by polling company Populus, on behalf of the Premier League.

The statement added: "The results so far suggest a majority of fans like the idea of standing areas in principle but only 5% want to stand for an entire match.

"Additionally, the majority want the option of being able to stand and sit.

"Taking this into account, we understand and appreciate why the Minister for Sport would require far more evidence before considering a change to the current all-seater policy."

On Monday, English Football League chief executive Shaun Harvey said he would "robustly" ask the government to change its stance because of "significant popular demand".

Crouch's decision has been criticised heavily by both fans and safety experts, with an online petition to force the government to debate the issue having amassed more than 56,000 signatures.

West Brom's 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.

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

Scottish Premiership leaders Celtic introduced safe standing in the summer of 2016.

Manager Brendan Rodgers endorsed the move, saying it helped to create a "better ambience", but admitted "it may not be for every club".

The All Party Parliamentary Group for Football is set to discuss the issue on 1 May.

 

 

[Dickie]

So they present a safe and cheap option to bring in more supporters and to enhance the atmosphere and probably help them bring in a little bit more of a profit and they get rejected. Wow

[Dave]

Only five per cent of football fans want to stand up at a match for the whole 90 minutes, according to a survey carried out by the Premier League.

Those are the initial findings of wide-ranging research into safe standing at top-flight football matches.

The Premier League survey also discovered the majority of fans surveyed like the idea of safe-standing areas, but say they would like the option to stand or sit during a match.

[Rick]

Yeah, I don't care really. I don't want to stand the whole match.

[Inverted]

3 hours ago, The Palace Fan said:

 

 

Is this match-going fans or everyone who is a fan of a Premier League team?

Frankly I find that really surprising. 90 minutes, with a break in the middle, is not long to stand. People will happily stand in a bar or club for a couple of hours at least, or go to a gig and stand for easily more than an hour. And generally in those situations you won't have a rail to lean against.

[Bluewolf]

Standing at matches used to be part and parcel of the day and you never heard anyone moaning about not being able to sit down anywhere... Health & Safety has softened us all up.. Now we come to expect a seat as a bare minimum and the idea of standing is like throwing us all into the dark days of football again.. Mass standing obviously can have implications on Safety so caution would be ok but I don't see any reason why each club can't accommodate a section of the stands where fans can be if that's what they want to do. It would be in one area or certain rows and fairly easily controlled and that way you can have the best of both.. 

Seems funny really because just about everyone and his mum is standing the minute either side is attacking the goal anyway and then you end up getting lectured over the tannoy for not sitting and ruining everyone else's enjoyment, You are up and down like a yoyo half the game anyway so don't see what the big issue is.

As long as a club can show a requirement for it and that it can be reasonably controlled Clubs should be able to decide for themselves whats best for their fans.. 

[Smiley Culture]

No one wants to stand up? BUT...BUT...it’s like the old days and standing up creates an atmosphere. 

[Bluewolf]

1 hour ago, Smiley Culture said:

No one wants to stand up? BUT...BUT...it’s like the old days and standing up creates an atmosphere. 

Are you implying that a view to having standing in stadiums is an old fashioned one??? I could be just mis-reading it so feel free to correct me if I am off track here.. 

 

[Smiley Culture]

43 minutes ago, Bluewolf said:

Are you implying that a view to having standing in stadiums is an old fashioned one??? I could be just mis-reading it so feel free to correct me if I am off track here.. 

 

No but it’s usually cited as a reason why we should have safe standing. 

[Bluewolf]

1 hour ago, Smiley Culture said:

No but it’s usually cited as a reason why we should have safe standing. 

Yea, there are some that try to use that as a reason and at some clubs they may be right but not all of them which is why I don't have a problem with them tailoring it to meet the clubs attempts to keep the fans happy but not going over the top with it.. I mean St James Park and Anfield for example normally have a pretty decent atmosphere and they don't have standing other clubs might feel it helps to at least have the option..