Safe standing approved

[Satriales 685]

 

 

[Coneys Knee 983]

At least we won’t have to put up with the moaners tgat complain to the stewards every game, write in to the EDP or even the council for standing at a football match. Long, long overdue in my opinion.

[RobJames 883]

Pointless waste of time and money. The only ones affected will be those already standing ie those in the lower Barclay and the away fans.

 

 

[Mello Yello 2,298]

It'll all end in tiers.....

[Corbs1 90]

I’m in South Stand and will investigate this , waiting for this for some years. At QPR I was in a safe standing area, although every was standing anyway. 

[hogesar 9,717]

29 minutes ago, Coneys Knee said:

At least we won’t have to put up with the moaners tgat complain to the stewards every game, write in to the EDP or even the council for standing at a football match. Long, long overdue in my opinion.

Yep. I also hope it'll refresh and some miserable fckers in the barclay will either not renew or move elsewhere.

[RobJames 883]

3 minutes ago, Corbs1 said:

I’m in South Stand and will investigate this , waiting for this for some years. At QPR I was in a safe standing area, although every was standing anyway. 

Which rather proves my point.

Why have you waited, why have you not moved to a part of the ground where fans already stand ? There will not be bits of the South Stand or River End where barriers are put up. 

It is referred to as 'safe'. Has anyone any evidence of where standing over the past couple of decades has result in any harm ? What's in place works, why introduce something that is utterly pontless ?

[Capt. Pants 4,271]

I note there will be a waiting list to join a safe standing area but no mention of a list to leave it. Doesn't sound as if there will be much movement.

Money well spent!

[Robert N. LiM 4,463]

Excellent news  - long overdue. Since 1992, in fact.

[RobJames 883]

Give that almost every other club sees it as pointless nonsense what difference will it make ?

[Wings of a Sparrow 1,425]

If people think this is going to be like standing in the old Barclay, they are going to be very sadly disappointed.

Lot of money and effort just so people can stand, which they're doing already anyway.

[Fen Canary 855]

A good step forward. Works well in Germany and I’m glad it’s being introduced at Carrow Road

[Google Bot 3,298]

31 minutes ago, Wings of a Sparrow said:

If people think this is going to be like standing in the old Barclay, they are going to be very sadly disappointed.

I do think it's a good step forwards in an attempt to bring that old school standing back, but I agree this is nothing like proper terraced areas.  I fear that standing in that way will be makes fan more lethargic than sitting due to the lack of movement that you've got.

The atmosphere didn't used to come from being stood, it came from being so close to one another and that created a sense of unity and bounce to the grounds.

However, I am excited to use it for the first time.  But I  expect to see vast majority of people just leaning forwards most of the match and then moaning about their backs hurting later.  I mean, we're never happy let's be honest!

[Greavsy 2,418]

1 hour ago, Wings of a Sparrow said:

If people think this is going to be like standing in the old Barclay, they are going to be very sadly disappointed.

But also safer........

[RobJames 883]

"I do think it's a good step forwards in an attempt to bring that old school standing back, "

eh ?

Fans will stand in exactly the same place as now. There will not be any increase in those standing, thats why almost every other club recognises how silly it is ie a complete waste of money.

Perhaps the club will dedicate an area of the ground where fans can shout their approval, or disposal. Another area specially for the purpose of wearing a replica shirt (long over due)

I can only assume the club is getting a grant for this nonsense, otherwis it won't play too well when the cost is put out, and the club is facing a loss of £30m from parachute payments ending. . Perhaps they could incorporate a light that flashes so as to let fans know when it is raining in when it is dark.

[RobJames 883]

1 hour ago, Fen Canary said:

A good step forward. Works well in Germany and I’m glad it’s being introduced at Carrow Road

Does Germany still allow terraces or did it do what some English clubs are now trying. Putting in barriers to no purpose where fans already stand..

Rather like putting a sign above every urinal - p*** here. Then calling the toilet a safe pi**ing area.

So Germany - terraces or supposed 'safe' standing ?

[Fen Canary 855]

46 minutes ago, RobJames said:

Does Germany still allow terraces or did it do what some English clubs are now trying. Putting in barriers to no purpose where fans already stand..

Rather like putting a sign above every urinal - p*** here. Then calling the toilet a safe pi**ing area.

So Germany - terraces or supposed 'safe' standing ?

The Germans have safe standing, where the seats are locked up for domestic matches but can be unlocked and used for European games where standing isn’t allowed. In Germany they allow 3 people to stand per every 2 seats I believe so it increases the capacity in that stand by around 50%. I’m not sure what the British rules will be though

[Google Bot 3,298]

1 hour ago, RobJames said:

Fans will stand in exactly the same place as now. There will not be any increase in those standing, thats why almost every other club recognises how silly it is ie a complete waste of money.

It's not so much about increasing standing, it's about permitting it.  So could be a big change in regards to atmosphere as you can stay on your feet, jump up and down, chant and have a cheeky little push around.... Well, sideways, anyway!

It'll take away the moaning from people who can't see from behind, it'll stop the whole "SIT DOWN!" complaints, and those who beckon stewards trying to get people in the s**t for persistent standing.

It's not perfect, and it won't fully replicate open terracing, but i'm really looking forward to it.  (imo) The millions pissed away on the likes of Normann, Kabak, and Rashica were a complete waste of money, investing a few hundred thousand into the stadium for fans very much isn't.  It will also add an attraction for away supporters who visit.

There's always scope to increase capacity in those areas once installed, as they do in Germany.  Which is why I think it's a good step forward.

Edited February 15 by Google Bot

[RobJames 883]

What is proposed will only cover the areas where standing happens.  I have yet to hear any sensible argument for it. One of things the report said is one of the stipulations is that it must remain one person one seat (area).

Nothing I have read has shown anything that suggest a benefit, and I suspect it will be like VAR. Not so much the problems VAR causes, but that it will be a huge disappointment.

Rather sacks on an innocent man being told he will not now be hung tomorrow............instead, he will be shot.

And as to the thought that as some players turned out not to be what was expected so it is OK to waste money on this - rather misses the point. The former is with hindsight. This is with foresight.

Perhaps it will also be announced that fans can drink in pubs outside the ground before and after the game.  You will now be permitted to buy food in Morrisons before the game.  Smoking will now be allowed in the streets around Carrow Road - all billed under the banner of safe drinking, safe eating and safe smoking.

[Fen Canary 855]

24 minutes ago, RobJames said:

What is proposed will only cover the areas where standing happens.  I have yet to hear any sensible argument for it. One of things the report said is one of the stipulations is that it must remain one person one seat (area).

Nothing I have read has shown anything that suggest a benefit, and I suspect it will be like VAR. Not so much the problems VAR causes, but that it will be a huge disappointment.

Rather sacks on an innocent man being told he will not now be hung tomorrow............instead, he will be shot.

And as to the thought that as some players turned out not to be what was expected so it is OK to waste money on this - rather misses the point. The former is with hindsight. This is with foresight.

Perhaps it will also be announced that fans can drink in pubs outside the ground before and after the game.  You will now be permitted to buy food in Morrisons before the game.  Smoking will now be allowed in the streets around Carrow Road - all billed under the banner of safe drinking, safe eating and safe smoking.

You do realise you don’t have to stand there if you don’t want to? You can still sit in the other areas, it simply gives people a choice to stand in a designated standing area if that’s what they’d prefer. Why do you object to others being given the option to stand if that’s what they want to do? Surely it’s better to have all those in a spot designed for standing rather than the current half and half situation whereby stewards turn a blind eye? 

[Google Bot 3,298]

24 minutes ago, RobJames said:

What is proposed will only cover the areas where standing happens.  I have yet to hear any sensible argument for it.

The club are responsible for the wellbeing and enjoyment of those attend the ground and this provides clarity and guidance to both sets of supporters, it allows the club to operate within legal requirements, and backs those who's choice it will be to take up those positions on match day.

From next season, standing will be treated as a priority in those areas, which we've not had in over 30 years.  That's pretty significant.

[Paul101 94]

12 hours ago, RobJames said:

Which rather proves my point.

Why have you waited, why have you not moved to a part of the ground where fans already stand ? There will not be bits of the South Stand or River End where barriers are put up. 

It is referred to as 'safe'. Has anyone any evidence of where standing over the past couple of decades has result in any harm ? What's in place works, why introduce something that is utterly pontless ?

old standing was not safe still remmeber nearly getting crushed to death in the old cowsheds

[BroadstairsR 2,195]

If it doesn't increase capacity, I just don't see the point. It will be very expensive to make the changes to the ground that are needed. Freedom of choice regarding sitting or standing for 90 minutes at a football ground is a weak argument, imo, and hardly of high priority when you consider it against other so-called freedoms (of speech, of protest etc.) The choice is whether to attend the match in the first place, surely? Also, there is a lot of standing already, it seems, and this can sometimes cause friction.

The one standing spot to one seat rule seems ultra-cautious to me, and this is somebody who as a youngster well remember the so-called sway up and down in the River End. It wasn't very comfortable or safe, and a return to the situation of those days is obviously unthinkable, but can there not be some sort of "pen" situation whereby a certain number of supporters are allocated accordingly?

I bought the book, "The Safe Standing Movement in Football" by Mark Turner, but never got around to reading it much. No doubt, alternatives to the one standing space to each seat will be advocated. 

I'll dig it up.

Edited February 15 by BroadstairsR

[Fen Canary 855]

1 minute ago, BroadstairsR said:

If it doesn't increase capacity, I just don't see the point. It will be very expensive to make the changes to the ground that are needed. Freedom of choice regarding sitting or standing for 90 minutes at a football ground is a weak argument, imo, and hardly of high priority when you consider it against other so-called freedoms (of speech, of protest etc.) The choice is whether to attend the match in the first place, surely? Also, there is a lot of standing already, it seems.

The one standing spot to one seat rule seems ultra-cautious to me, and this is somebody who as a youngster well remember the so-called sway up and down in the River End. It wasn't very comfortable or safe, and a return to the situation of those days is obviously unthinkable, but can there not be some sort of "pen" situation whereby a certain number of supporters are allocated accordingly?

I bought the book, "The Safe Standing Movement in Football" by Mark Turner, but never got around to reading it much. No doubt, alternatives to the one standing space to each seat will be advocated. 

I'll dig it up.

As I’ve said above I believe the Germans have an allocated spot (much like with seating) but they can have 3 standing for every 2 seats, thus increasing the capacity. Probably won’t happen here though because the scousers can’t be trusted unfortunately 

[dylanisabaddog 4,965]

25 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

As I’ve said above I believe the Germans have an allocated spot (much like with seating) but they can have 3 standing for every 2 seats, thus increasing the capacity. Probably won’t happen here though because the scousers can’t be trusted unfortunately 

Yes, it's 3 for 2 in Germany and it works. The only point in doing 1 for 1 here is if it is used as a practice before ultimately moving to 3 for 2.

That could put around 3,000 on the capacity at Carrow Road (River End & Barclay) and would vastly improve the atmosphere. 

If it's going to stay as 1 for 1 it will take 10 years to get the investment back. The only economic reason for doing 1 for 1 is that seats don't need to be replaced. 

3 for 2 also provides the opportunity to reduce admission prices for people standing. 

Edited February 15 by dylanisabaddog

[littleyellowbirdie 2,571]

12 hours ago, RobJames said:

Which rather proves my point.

Why have you waited, why have you not moved to a part of the ground where fans already stand ? There will not be bits of the South Stand or River End where barriers are put up. 

It is referred to as 'safe'. Has anyone any evidence of where standing over the past couple of decades has result in any harm ? What's in place works, why introduce something that is utterly pontless ?

Standing terraces were what allowed the pressure of bodies to build up to crush many people to death at Hillsborough. That was the event that resulted in standing terraces being deemed unsafe and for stadiums to become all seated. Nobody is supposed to stand in an all-seated stadium in theory, although in practise that's unenforcable.

'Safe standing' is a conscious branding effort with terraces with rail seating to emphasise that the rails up the terraces make sure no crushes akin to Hillsborough can occur while also bringing back what many believe was a superior atmosphere when everyone was simply stood together rather than in rows of seats.

Does anyone know if safe standing will mean more people can be accomodated in the same area?

Edited February 15 by littleyellowbirdie

[littleyellowbirdie 2,571]

8 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Yes, it's 3 for 2 in Germany and it works. The only point in doing 1 for 1 here is if it is used as a practice before ultimately moving to 3 for 2.

 

You answered my question as I was writing it! :-)

[dylanisabaddog 4,965]

For those who have the time, here is an independent study of safe standing at Celtic 

https://www.fercoseating.com/files/brochure/hero_upload/fsfcasestudycelticsafestandingrailseat.pdf

[BroadstairsR 2,195]

23 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Yes, it's 3 for 2 in Germany and it works. The only point in doing 1 for 1 here is if it is used as a practice before ultimately moving to 3 for 2.

That could put around 2,000 on the capacity at Carrow Road (River End & Barclay) and would vastly improve the atmosphere. 

If it's going to stay as 1 for 1 it will take 10 years to get the investment back. The only economic reason for doing 1 for 1 is that seats don't need to be replaced. 

3 for 2 also provides the opportunity to reduce admission prices for people standing. 

Not if it's one for one though which seems to be the rule unless the club chooses to embark upon an expensive refurbishment in order to lose revenue .... which is senseless.

Good to read that this is just practise, but why is that even necessary, especially if the decision is made later to change that?  More cost. 

The order of the day from above seems to be from one extreme to the other. Tidal sway to designated standing space. Daft.

Therefore, the club should refrain from making changes until this is thought through properly.

Edited February 15 by BroadstairsR

[littleyellowbirdie 2,571]

10 minutes ago, BroadstairsR said:

Not if it's one for one though, unless the club chooses to embark upon an expensive refurbishment in order to lose revenue .... which is senseless.

The order of the day seems to be from one extreme to the other. Tidal sway to designated standing space. Daft.

It has been a long uphill battle to make the argument for the reintroduction of standing terraces at all given the political influence of the Hillsborough families over policy-making and the emotional element of the Hillsborough tragedy.

The decision to not have more people per square metre is clearly aimed at nullifying any fears of over-crowding; once standing terraces have been introduced at all, changing the number of people allowed on a row is a minor and easy change that will be lobbied for heavily once the first stage is in place and a period of time has passed without incidents.

Once you do get to that point though, Carrow Road can potentially be a 40,000 capacity stadium without a substantial change in the footprint.

Edited February 15 by littleyellowbirdie