Safe standing approved

[dylanisabaddog 4,931]

Just in case anyone is put off Thurlow Nunn football because you have to stand, fear not. There is covered seating at all grounds. 

[hogesar 9,682]

41 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

To be clear, I'm not moaning about this at all. I enjoy the experience of standing at top flight matches, as a regular away fan I don't think I've been made to sit down for ages. I was just pointing out the weaknesses in the business plan of the introduction widely at a place like Carrow Road. 

Ok fair enough. I'm not looking at it from a business point of view because I don't believe the club are either - if they were it wouldn't be happening. Although you could argue customer-satisfaction in this ever-growing consumer-felt world of football is a pretty big part of that.

[shefcanary 2,410]

Just now, hogesar said:

Ok fair enough. I'm not looking at it from a business point of view because I don't believe the club are either - if they were it wouldn't be happening. Although you could argue customer-satisfaction in this ever-growing consumer-felt world of football is a pretty big part of that.

See, that's my problem Hoggy, I've always got my business head on! Shocking - enjoy the game! 🙂 

[Google Bot 3,278]

4 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

See, that's my problem Hoggy, I've always got my business head on!

You must be a nightmare to go shopping with!

[shefcanary 2,410]

Just now, Google Bot said:

You must be a nightmare to go shopping with!

I am. I'm looking at how many sales per square feet the shop could achieve, rather than the merchandise!

[RobJames 881]

1 hour ago, hogesar said:

I shouldn't be surprised after the past few days but it astounds me that anyone could possibly complain about this.

Basically, the club done a survey. Me and everyone around me in the Lower Barclay would much prefer safe standing. We stand anyway. Clearly the survey suggested the same.

So the club has done something that isn't going to make them money but is going to please the fans it impacts, and might even lead to a better atmosphere if some movement happens. 

Since the booing of subs midgame i've seen a million excuses for it and a lot of "well if the club just handed out an olive branch" which I still don't understand but this looks like the club taking a small financial hit for pleasing a section of fans and improving safety a bit.

complaining ?

You spin pointing out how pointless this is with complaining. It does nothing other than waste a whole pile of money. That is why there is such a poor take up elsewhere.

Clubs have lied through their teeth about this, and what do we get. Some supporters are being complicit in this deceit. One of the original claims by the club was that it broke ground regulations and so would bring down the wrath of god on them. It hasn't

Another myth is 'health and safety', whereas they do not decide. It is insurance. Yet again if this was a problem insurance companies would not insure the ground, with the consequent closure,

So we have fans on here squeaking that this is some kind of victory, Yeh, having NOTHING change other than some barriers put in. is a victory ? Fans in these areas will still stand as they do now.  So what has changed. Nothing.

There is nothing 'dangerous' about terracing otherwise insurance companies would not accept terracing. Lower league and Germany clubs have terracing (NOT 'safe' standing). The problem with terracing previously was the unlimited amount of fans being allowed to enter the ground. The same problem that would occur if the same unrestricted access to seating was allowed.

Those UK clubs that still have terracing restrict the number of tickets sold.  That is what supporters groups have been calling for. It can be done but this nonsense is not that. Maybe City will next put up signs outside the turnstiles

'FANS CAN NOW ENTER STANDING UP'

Edited February 15 by RobJames

[king canary 7,609]

13 minutes ago, RobJames said:

complaining ?

You spin pointing out how pointless this is with complaining. It does nothing other than waste a whole pile of money. That is why there is such a poor take up elsewhere.

Clubs have lied through their teeth about this, and what do we get. Some supporters are being complicit in this deceit. One of the original claims by the club was that it broke ground regulations and so would bring down the wrath of god on them. It hasn't

Another myth is 'health and safety', whereas they do not decide. It is insurance. Yet again if this was a problem insurance companies would not insure the ground, with the consequent closure,

So we have fans on here squeaking that this is some kind of victory, Yeh, having NOTHING change other than some barriers put in. is a victory ? Fans in these areas will still stand as they do now.  So what has changed. Nothing.

There is nothing 'dangerous' about terracing otherwise insurance companies would not accept terracing. Lower league and Germany clubs have terracing (NOT 'safe' standing). The problem with terracing previously was the unlimited amount of fans being allowed to enter the ground. The same problem that would occur if the same unrestricted access to seating was allowed.

Those UK clubs that still have terracing restrict the number of tickets sold.  That is what supporters groups have been calling for. It can be done but this nonsense is not that. Maybe City will next put up signs outside the turnstiles

'FANS CAN NOW ENTER STANDING UP'

Someone else mentioned elsewhere that you were the latest incarnation of Bill/City1st and I wasn't totally sure until now. 

The wonderful combination of an unnecessarily aggressive tone combined with being loudly wrong about stuff. How it has been missed.

[Google Bot 3,278]

8 minutes ago, RobJames said:

It does nothing other than waste a whole pile of money.

You're happy to promote the illegal free streaming of club content though, right? 

[Corbs1 89]

Home or away I’d prefer to stand, but I’m conscious of not wanting to disturb others, and I’m not aware of standing at Carrow road being official; I’d rather not be arguing with stewards etc. When  I returned to being a season ticket holder (happy to bypass the prem) I  took a tick where one could find a seat. 

[kingsway 94]

Common sense prevails at last!

 

Its now 32 years since proper areas designed for standing in were converted to all seats back in 1992, yet still to this day many fans in the lower Barclay and the Snakepit choose to stand, even those not old enough to remember the days up to 1992!

 

Safe standing means that every person in the area has a rail in front of them which means that surges like we saw in the old days can't happen. In fact safe standing will be safer than the current situation of fans standing in front of their seat which increases the danger of being pushed from behind into the seat in front of you which acts as a potential trip hazard. Another element of safe standing that does what it says on the can is the 1:1 ratio which means that a seated area will hold the same number of people if converted to safe standing. - Anyone thinking that the introduction of safe standing will result in an increase in capacity are wrong because legislation won't allow it and quite rightly so because an increase in capacity would also mean an increase in the danger.

 

I see it mentioned that Norwich City FC needs to think about this. Well they have now for a long time and have waited to see how effective safe standing has been at other clubs who've already introduced it. -  It has been a roaring success where it has been introduced.

 

A complete no brainer, I congratulate the club for making this decision, one which will improve the safety of spectators at Carrow Road!

 

 

 

 

  

Edited February 17 by kingsway

[BroadstairsR 2,178]

11 hours ago, kingsway said:

Common sense prevails at last!

 

Its now 32 years since proper areas designed for standing in were converted to all seats back in 1992, yet still to this day many fans in the lower Barclay and the Snakepit choose to stand, even those not old enough to remember the days up to 1992!

 

Safe standing means that every person in the area has a rail in front of them which means that surges like we saw in the old days can't happen. In fact safe standing will be safer than the current situation of fans standing in front of their seat which increase the danger of being pushed from behind into the seat in front of you which acts as a potential trip hazard. Another element of safe standing that does what it says on the can is the 1:1 ratio which means that a seated area will hold the same number of people if converted to safe standing. - Anyone thinking that the introduction of safe standing will result in an increase in capacity are wrong because legislation won't allow it and quite rightly so because an increase in capacity would also mean an increase in the danger.

 

I see it mentioned that Norwich City FC needs to think about this. Well they have now for a long time and have waited to see how effective safe standing has been at other clubs who've already introduced it. -  It has been a roaring success where it has been introduced.

 

A complete no brainer, I congratulate the club for making this decision, one which will improve the safety of spectators at Carrow Road!

 

 

 

 

  

So I take it you are not in favour of the German system mentioned above, ie. 3 for 2?

That seems to work well, will no obvious decrease in spectator safety.

The increase in capacity will also make it more likely that the club can offer a reduction for standers.

 

Edited February 16 by BroadstairsR

[Nik Vawn 129]

Pleased to see this, I’m sure we were told it would never happen!

[......and Smith must score. 1,345]

20 hours ago, king canary said:

Someone else mentioned elsewhere that you were the latest incarnation of Bill/City1st and I wasn't totally sure until now. 

The wonderful combination of an unnecessarily aggressive tone combined with being loudly wrong about stuff. How it has been missed.

It’s odds-on Rob James is the latest version of City 1st but he just might be trying to put us off the scent. 

There’s no mention of ‘ whiners ‘ which normally occurs at least three times per rant.

3/10 for effort 

[Conrad 170]

2 hours ago, BroadstairsR said:

So I take it you are not in favour of the German system mentioned above, ie. 3 for 2?

That seems to work well, will no obvious decrease in spectator safety.

The increase in capacity will also make it more likely that the club can offer a reduction for standers.

 

One of our problems, I guess,  may be to do with the fact that the lower Barclay was designed as terracing and not for seating. Our seats have been shoehorned into spaces for which they were never intended. A return to standing, but with seating in place, may be a safety issue which may negate any future move to a 3 for 2 spacing arrangement.

 

This is, of course, in addition to one seat - one standing space - one ticket allowing those in power to be able to identify any miscreants as well as ensuring that there are no crowding issues. All as identified by others.

[Blofield Canary 11]

Anyone suggesting future move to 3 in 2 seats/safe standing clearly does not stand in the Lower Barclay at present. I'm on the end of the row and I already have one foot in the gangway most of the time as there is hardly enough space for everyone to stand if the row is full. No way is there room for 50% more spectators.

[shefcanary 2,410]

Yes, it may seem simple to introduce 3 for 2, but there are fire certification, health & safety and building control issues to that. Evacuation plans might be compromised for instance. I am sure these are designed on the current seating plan, and that they have only just safely got within the those limits with that amount of seating. To be clear I am absolutely certain the size of doors etc on escape routes, even the number of toilets, are the bare minimum for the number of seats installed. To accommodate 3 for 2, then effectively you are going to have to increase the size of escape route doorways, the number of vomitories, the width of stair cases and increase the amount of toilet provision. Hugely expensive and some of those matters are fundamental to the design of the stand and thus extremely expensive so that it probably gets you to a position of having to knock the stand down and rebuild! 

So fine as an idea, but a hell of a lot of knock on issues follow. 

[Google Bot 3,278]

14 minutes ago, Blofield Canary said:

I'm on the end of the row and I already have one foot in the gangway most of the time as there is hardly enough space for everyone to stand if the row is full. No way is there room for 50% more spectators.

You're taking up less sideways space when standing, consider a full bus.

[Google Bot 3,278]

5 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

To be clear I am absolutely certain the size of doors etc on escape routes, even the number of toilets, are the bare minimum for the number of seats installed.

There was over 20,000 in there for Elton John with a lot of the stadium inaccessible due to the staging and other areas closed off.

[shefcanary 2,410]

23 minutes ago, Google Bot said:

There was over 20,000 in there for Elton John with a lot of the stadium inaccessible due to the staging and other areas closed off.

20,000 in the lower Barclay and Thorpe Corner alone?

Fantastic, let's do that every week and we will achieve 60,000 every week if applied to the rest of the ground!

[Commonsense 626]

On 14/02/2024 at 18:44, RobJames said:

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.

 

 

You are of course right. I stand in the lower Barclay throughout the match as does everyone around me ( although I do remember the time 10-15 years ago when the stewards tried to get people to sit- a thankless task!). I can’t see what difference it will make beyond protecting the club if the authorities suddenly get difficult about standing in seated areas. I remember the furore a few years ago in block B of the Barclay. People need to realise this is not a return to terraces , nor will it be like Germany- where the Yellow Wall et al are pretty unsafe.

one plea please don’t create what they did at Liverpool, where the rows are so tight it is virtually impossible to move along them.

[TIL 1010 4,750]

The implementation of safe standing and the cost involved for the snakepit means no redevelopment of the City Stand of which it forms part is not on the horizon.

[sillysausage 13]

12 hours ago, Conrad said:

One of our problems, I guess,  may be to do with the fact that the lower Barclay was designed as terracing and not for seating. Our seats have been shoehorned into spaces for which they were never intended. A return to standing, but with seating in place, may be a safety issue which may negate any future move to a 3 for 2 spacing arrangement.

 

This is, of course, in addition to one seat - one standing space - one ticket allowing those in power to be able to identify any miscreants as well as ensuring that there are no crowding issues. All as identified by others.

I'm sure when the Barclay was rebuilt there was no standing terrace, it was designed as all seater. The River end had seats bolted on the old terrace.

[Mello Yello 2,296]

8 hours ago, Google Bot said:

There was over 20,000 in there for Elton John with a lot of the stadium inaccessible due to the staging and other areas closed off.

Yeah.....'and I'm still standing'.....

[kingsway 94]

9 hours ago, Blofield Canary said:

Anyone suggesting future move to 3 in 2 seats/safe standing clearly does not stand in the Lower Barclay at present. I'm on the end of the row and I already have one foot in the gangway most of the time as there is hardly enough space for everyone to stand if the row is full. No way is there room for 50% more spectators.

100%!

 

The Barclay lower tiers present capacity is more than enough when considering exits and the concourse. I'm firmly in favour of safe standing having 1:1 ratio with a seated area meaning that a spectator area will hold the same amount of people whether it is seats or safe standing. In my opinion any increase in capacity when converting to a safe standing area seriously compromises the safety. 

[Conrad 170]

8 hours ago, sillysausage said:

I'm sure when the Barclay was rebuilt there was no standing terrace, it was designed as all seater. The River end had seats bolted on the old terrace.

If it was, I stand corrected. My memory is not what is was. I remember all 4 stands being replaced but clearly not what happened within. I thought that both the Barclay and River End had terracing.

[BroadstairsR 2,178]

If it doesn't allow for an increase in capacity, then why the expense of converting?

 

[Wings of a Sparrow 1,419]

28 minutes ago, BroadstairsR said:

If it doesn't allow for an increase in capacity, then why the expense of converting?

 

I think the main reason is that it will allow fans who currently persistently stand, to stand now, but within the guidelines of the law with no further threat of punishment to the club.

That's my take.

[Wings of a Sparrow 1,419]

9 hours ago, sillysausage said:

I'm sure when the Barclay was rebuilt there was no standing terrace, it was designed as all seater. The River end had seats bolted on the old terrace.

I'm pretty sure the spacing for steps and the spacing for seats are two different things, in that you can't just bolt seats onto existing standing terracing.

[......and Smith must score. 1,345]

5 minutes ago, Wings of a Sparrow said:

I'm pretty sure the spacing for steps and the spacing for seats are two different things, in that you can't just bolt seats onto existing standing terracing.

I’m pretty sure that’s what they did in the South Stand in 1975.

[Wings of a Sparrow 1,419]

1 minute ago, ......and Smith must score. said:

I’m pretty sure that’s what they did in the South Stand in 1975.

I stand to be corrected.

Said the man in the orthopedic shoes 😁