Safe standing approved

[JonnyJonnyRowe 650]

13 hours ago, RobJames said:

The only ones affected will be those already standing ie those in the lower Barclay and the away fans.

Eh?

If you want to stand you go in that area, if you want to sit you go elsewhere. Not difficult is it.

[Jim Smith 2,378]

I assume what will happen with this is some people in the Barclay and snake pit  who want to sit will move out and will be replaced by favs who want to stand but currently can’t get tickets in there. Should help the atmosphere. Good thing in my view. 

[Capt. Pants 4,502]

15 minutes ago, JonnyJonnyRowe said:

Eh?

If you want to stand you go in that area, if you want to sit you go elsewhere. Not difficult is it.

Quite.

I don't know why the whiners are moaning about it.

If it doesn't affect you then there isn't really a reason to have an opinion on it. It's not even as though season ticket prices were increased by much to pay for it. The revenue from the Liverpool game should cover it as well.

[The Raptor 1,377]

Do we still have to stand in our allocated 'seat' place? That's how I understand it works in other grounds. If not it's going to be a big crush at the back when it's pissing down with rain like Tuesday!

[Wings of a Sparrow 1,570]

10 hours ago, Greavsy said:

But also safer........

But people stand now anyway. I don't get the point or what experience the fans will get from it.

Waste of time and money we don't have in my humble opinion.

[JonnyJonnyRowe 650]

7 minutes ago, Capt. Pants said:

Quite.

I don't know why the whiners are moaning about it.

If it doesn't affect you then there isn't really a reason to have an opinion on it. It's not even as though season ticket prices were increased by much to pay for it. The revenue from the Liverpool game should cover it as well.

Exactly everybody should be happy.

Might be a few of those middle aged divorcees in the snakepit who need to move quietly to the edge of the city stand while they wait for their first knee/hip replacement, and I'm sure you that will cramp their style, but for most they will be relieved to not have chaps in shiny jackets walking up and down the aisle telling people to sit down every 3 minutes.

[JonnyJonnyRowe 650]

Just now, Wings of a Sparrow said:

But people stand now anyway. I don't get the point or what experience the fans will get from it

They won't get some Karen behind them telling them to sit down or some chap in an orange jacket telling them off. Feels like an improvement in the matchday experience to me. And clearly the hope will be that they will loosen the rules at some point to allow us to squeeze a few more in.

[......and Smith must score. 1,436]

I suppose they’ve had to make provision for the ground to be temporarily converted to an all-seater for European games.

Now that really IS a waste of money…..

[BroadstairsR 2,272]

I didn't realise that it was to be at Carrow Road until this today:

https://www.pinkun.com/sport/norwich-city/24120749.norwich-city-unveil-safe-standing-plans-carrow-road/

Premature and expensive if you ask me.

Yet that silly old Main Stand remains intact.

Edited February 15 by BroadstairsR

[Gordon Bennett 811]

Presumably the main difference is that those standing will have something to lean against like the old terraces.

If extra people can be squeezed in and it removes those who want to sit from those areas then it's definitely a good thing IMO.

[Capt. Pants 4,502]

1 minute ago, Gordon Bennett said:

Presumably the main difference is that those standing will have something to lean against like the old terraces.

If extra people can be squeezed in and it removes those who want to sit from those areas then it's definitely a good thing IMO.

Indeed. Plus it prevents surging and crushing, safe standing.

It won't be old fashioned terracing where the barriers were every 3 or 4 rows.

 

[ncfcstar 303]

21 minutes ago, Wings of a Sparrow said:

But people stand now anyway. I don't get the point or what experience the fans will get from it.

Waste of time and money we don't have in my humble opinion.

The point is people stand when they technically aren't supposed to, the same applies to away fans.  A bigger waste of money would be the club not implementing it and then having to close down sections of the stadium for X amount of games because the SAG have determined the club aren't doing enough to stop persistent standing in seated areas.

Fans have consistently asked the club for safe standing, and the club have been working on this for at least 4-5 years before they have made the decision to go with it (and yes I know that for a fact after previously sitting on the OSP).

[Jim Smith 2,378]

I can’t imagine it costs “that” much either. They just appear to stick a few rails in! Not even sure they change the seats!

[shefcanary 2,622]

2 hours ago, dylanisabaddog said:

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. 

Two points here and my thoughts.

The first is that there will still be seats in the railings for when / if Norwich qualify for Europe (as noted above this is true of German clubs, it is true here in England). This obviously doesn't reduce maintenance costs because the seats still have to be maintained.

The second is that the real reason for this is a legal / health & safety one. The club, amongst many others in the UK, has been threatened with part ground closure because of persistent standing in seated areas. Although most consider this well OTT, it happens. By installing rail seating (and I use this term rather than safe standing, as rail seating is a better description), then the issue of persistent standing goes away in those areas. Revenue is maintained albeit at a slightly higher cost although the clubs hope costs of stewarding will be reduced.

The biggest issue moving forward will be whether "persistent standing" in non-rail seating areas continues. Technically fans who do, and the club itself, will still face legal consequences of banning  / closures. I am convinced it will. 

Thus in the long run, it will still be seen as a pointless exercise in the UK. The costs of policing persistent standing will not disappear and the revenue preserved is outweighed by the cost of maintenance and stewarding.

If you want to stand and drink beer whilst watching football, go to a non-league match. The professional game is different, like going to the Theatre in the West End rather than the church hall at the end of your road. Fill up in the L&C then sit and marvel at the coaches tactical prowess and the teams ineptitude.

[shefcanary 2,622]

2 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Nobody is supposed to stand in an all-seated stadium in theory, although in practise that's unenforcable.

God, you do spout a lot of rot. Do read the Safety of Sports Grounds Act.

Ultimately the licence to operate a stadium can be withdrawn from the club: Safety certification - SGSA . The only reason there aren't wholesale removals, with the occasional partial closure of seating areas for persistent standing and / or abusive behaviour, is because local authorities are politically run: local politicians will do everything not to lose a few thousand votes, but will force clubs via the local Sports Advisory Groups (SAGS) to increase stewarding plus write letters to season ticket holders to raise pressure on supporters to "obey the rules". The clubs don't like this enforced extra cost, but have to grin and bear it, much like the cost of policing around stadia on match days.

Norwich have had a real problem with their local SAG for many years because many season ticket holders in the lower Barclay in particular complain about not being able to sit and watch the match. A few years ago this got very public with the result, I think (and will bow to people ITK on this), that the club managed to relocate the people complaining. But is a stadium that is "sold out" at most games that becomes increasingly difficult to achieve. The SAG is thus used to force the club to act. 

And now it is.

[jaberry2 597]

17 hours ago, Satriales said:

 

 

TBH i'm not sure why everyone gets so wet over this subject. 

[king canary 8,085]

17 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

The biggest issue moving forward will be whether "persistent standing" in non-rail seating areas continues. Technically fans who do, and the club itself, will still face legal consequences of banning  / closures. I am convinced it will. 

Thus in the long run, it will still be seen as a pointless exercise in the UK. The costs of policing persistent standing will not disappear and the revenue preserved is outweighed by the cost of maintenance and stewarding.

I really don't follow this.

If safe standing areas get sold out and there is still persistent standing elsewhere then the obvious answer would be to expand the standing areas- it will also give the stewards some help in that if people keep standing in seated areas they can push them to relocate to the standing area.

20 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

If you want to stand and drink beer whilst watching football, go to a non-league match. The professional game is different, like going to the Theatre in the West End rather than the church hall at the end of your road. Fill up in the L&C then sit and marvel at the coaches tactical prowess and the teams ineptitude.

But...why? Safe standing is the norm in top flight football all over the world. Why does it have to be different in the UK? Why specifically at football? Nobody would insist any and all major gigs have to be all seated, why is football different?

[ncfcstar 303]

37 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

The biggest issue moving forward will be whether "persistent standing" in non-rail seating areas continues. Technically fans who do, and the club itself, will still face legal consequences of banning  / closures. I am convinced it will. 

There is nowhere else in the ground where persistent standing is an issue.  Fans who want to stand now have the option of moving to the Lower Barclay/Snakepit (which are the areas that currently suffer from persistent standing, and why they have been chosen for the rail seating).

I agree that the SAG have forced the clubs hand in a sense, but it's not like they've rushed into this decision they have taken their time and studied how rail seating has been trialed at other clubs before committing to installing at Carrow Road.

[shefcanary 2,622]

Just now, king canary said:

I really don't follow this.

If safe standing areas get sold out and there is still persistent standing elsewhere then the obvious answer would be to expand the standing areas- it will also give the stewards some help in that if people keep standing in seated areas they can push them to relocate to the standing area.

But...why? Safe standing is the norm in top flight football all over the world. Why does it have to be different in the UK? Why specifically at football? Nobody would insist any and all major gigs have to be all seated, why is football different?

I hear your frustration, but it ain't that simple.

Expansion of safe standing becomes a problem of diminishing returns for the club in the current legislative environment. Whilst you enjoy standing, a large number of season ticket holders actually prefer to sit most of the game, just jumping up to cheer goals etc. Can clubs risk losing the revenue of those supporters because they impose an uncomfortable rail seating option on them. My experience at grounds with rail seating is that it is a very uncomfortable watch if it is deemed a seated match, as all the paraphernalia attached to them reduces knee room and is bad for your posture. So given the choice between sitting and standing, those people will effectively be forced to stand anyway, which actually risks losing their money.

At the Carra, as I mentioned, in theory matches are continually "sold out", there is very little scope for relocating wholesale supporters who want to sit, and also at an affordable price (with the highest season ticket prices in the championship if the only option between a £600 a season seat in the Barclay is a more expensive one in the City Stand, can they be persuaded to shell out the difference - nah, those supporters will stop going). Of course the City Stand could be rebuilt increasing capacity and thus the scope for increasing the amount of rail seating. But it is interesting that at Liverpool the increase of this when they trebled the size of the Anfield Road stand was relatively small mainly because as I also mentioned the European competition regulations require 100% seating, and Liverpool deem themselves more interested in that for TV rights purposes rather than worry about people wanting to stand. So, with Attanasio coming in I can't see any mass expansion of rail seating at the Carra with the current demography of our supporters, not until some major surgery to the stadia is made. 

The latter issue of European competitive matches is where I have difficulty with your second point. I am aware of German stadia having relatively large areas of "safe seating", but they are in fact just rail seating as if the club plays in Europe they have to "sit" anyway. So please clarify the point that standing is normal the world over? Sure policing of standing varies widely, but the basic rule of one person / one ticket / one seat is in place almost universally in top flight sporting stadia and music venues with capacities over 10,000. It makes policing easier and reduces the risk of a mass tragedy. Football in the UK isn't different, governments the world over are keen to avoid those mass tragedies. That is the driver. How they police people once in the stadium however is down to local policing, which I agree can make all the legislation nonsensical but such is life.

If you want to stand, drink beer and watch football in the UK go to a non-league ground. You'll enjoy it. But if you want to do all three anywhere in the world for a top flight match, increasingly Germany alone allows that opportunity, unless you can bribe a steward / policeman. Government's are too frit. 

[shefcanary 2,622]

15 minutes ago, ncfcstar said:

There is nowhere else in the ground where persistent standing is an issue.  Fans who want to stand now have the option of moving to the Lower Barclay/Snakepit (which are the areas that currently suffer from persistent standing, and why they have been chosen for the rail seating).

I agree that the SAG have forced the clubs hand in a sense, but it's not like they've rushed into this decision they have taken their time and studied how rail seating has been trialed at other clubs before committing to installing at Carrow Road.

You may be right on that - I accept when I attend it tends to be in the South Stand and apart from at the back no-one stands for long (albeit I've been told to sit down quite often as I linger after a close bit of excitement - "it's me knees, you know!" 😉 ). But once its allowed in the Barclay, it will be interesting if it encourages people elsewhere to stand. At some point I still see the cry of "sit down" not being enough to force a group to do just that as the demography of fans evolves. It may just be that the practise works down from the back of the other stands. 

The delay in the introduction I suspect is mainly because of the financial implications, possibly affected by Attanasio and the prospect of further ground improvements including the long overdue replacement of the City Stand. The survey of fans preferences was only done last year, so the exact "demand" was unknown and it is not the sort of thing you can introduce in the middle of the season. Also it may be that the capital cost is reducing as manufacturer's scale up production of rail seating.

And we're never going to qualify for Europe are we? 😉 

[dylanisabaddog 5,490]

16 minutes ago, ncfcstar said:

There is nowhere else in the ground where persistent standing is an issue.  Fans who want to stand now have the option of moving to the Lower Barclay/Snakepit (which are the areas that currently suffer from persistent standing, and why they have been chosen for the rail seating).

I agree that the SAG have forced the clubs hand in a sense, but it's not like they've rushed into this decision they have taken their time and studied how rail seating has been trialed at other clubs before committing to installing at Carrow Road.

That's not the case I'm afraid. I moved seats last summer because the man in front of me would not sit down. And no, before you ask, the club wouldn't do anything about it. 

@shefcanary

Has anyone been to Dortmund? I know they change arrangements for European games. Are the flip down seats there installed permanently or do they just slide them in for European games? This must be an issue at Celtic as well. 

I smiled when I read the bit about us qualifying for Europe but perhaps you're right and we should allow ourselves to dream😊

I do know that there is a cost saving due to not having to replace seats as it was mentioned when discussed at a shareholders meeting pre Covid. But how it all works in practice I'm afraid I have no idea. 

I'm all in favour of standing at football. It's not for me because of back issues. Although I regularly walk around 35 miles a week, standing still just isn't possible for me for that length of time (no idea why!) . So if it was introduced I might start going to away games again. 

[king canary 8,085]

6 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

Expansion of safe standing becomes a problem of diminishing returns for the club in the current legislative environment. Whilst you enjoy standing, a large number of season ticket holders actually prefer to sit most of the game, just jumping up to cheer goals etc. Can clubs risk losing the revenue of those supporters because they impose an uncomfortable rail seating option on them. My experience at grounds with rail seating is that it is a very uncomfortable watch if it is deemed a seated match, as all the paraphernalia attached to them reduces knee room and is bad for your posture. So given the choice between sitting and standing, those people will effectively be forced to stand anyway, which actually risks losing their money.

I think you're building something of a strawman.

There is clearly demand for a safe standing area, nobody is suggesting the entire stadium goes safe standing. Fans who don't want to stand can still buy seated tickets, they won't be driven away from the club? 

10 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

Sure policing of standing varies widely, but the basic rule of one person / one ticket / one seat is in place almost universally in top flight sporting stadia and music venues with capacities over 10,000.

Similarly this is another strawman- nobody is suggesting safe standing would change this. There may come a time when safe standing can lead to an increase in capacity but it isn't going to be a return to the 70's where you just sell as many tickets and squeeze in as many people as you can.

11 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

European competition regulations require 100% seating

This isn't correct anymore- https://thefsa.org.uk/news/uefa-approves-safe-standing-use-at-european-games/

What is obvious is there is demand for this- supporters groups have been pushing for standing areas for years across the UK and Europe, safe standing exists in America, Australia, France, Germany and Hungary and we see at stadiums across the country that plenty of people prefer to stand.

To just say 'go to non-league' is a non-starter. Right now trying to enforce the regulations is near impossible, it makes more sense to explore options to allow people to stand rather than just continue the current status quo.

[hogesar 10,051]

53 minutes ago, king canary said:

I really don't follow this.

If safe standing areas get sold out and there is still persistent standing elsewhere then the obvious answer would be to expand the standing areas- it will also give the stewards some help in that if people keep standing in seated areas they can push them to relocate to the standing area.

But...why? Safe standing is the norm in top flight football all over the world. Why does it have to be different in the UK? Why specifically at football? Nobody would insist any and all major gigs have to be all seated, why is football different?

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.

[shefcanary 2,622]

3 minutes 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.

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. 

[Google Bot 3,537]

1 hour ago, shefcanary said:

This obviously doesn't reduce maintenance costs because the seats still have to be maintained.

Completely different type of seat, they will sit flush and be constructed of mild steel.  Not a moulded plastic which deteriorate over time.

1 minute ago, shefcanary said:

I was just pointing out the weaknesses in the business plan of the introduction widely at a place like Carrow Road. 

This is more a health & safety plan, not business.  I think it's great that we're seeing investment into progressing the stadium, personally.

Edited February 15 by Google Bot

[shefcanary 2,622]

Just now, Google Bot said:

Completely different type of seat, they will sit flush and be constructed of mild steel.  Not a moulded plastic which deteriorate over time.

Hmm, your point being? They still require maintenance - the old 3 in 1 / WD40 every three months or so at least, plus regularly testing to ensure they can move or haven't been bent out of shape. As not likely to be used regularly that will be marginally more expensive than "normal" seating maintenance, but will add up.

[Google Bot 3,537]

Just now, shefcanary said:

Hmm, your point being? They still require maintenance

The associated material costs in maintaining them is where the savings are.  What you describe is just basic maintenance labour overheads.  

[king canary 8,085]

11 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. 

Without meaning to be rude, your posts don't read like that at all- particularly the insistence that fans who want to stand should go elsewhere.

Not everything the club does has to be about business plans and making money. Sometimes it is about improving the fan experience, which this is.

[ncfcstar 303]

32 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

That's not the case I'm afraid. I moved seats last summer because the man in front of me would not sit down. And no, before you ask, the club wouldn't do anything about it. 

@shefcanary

Has anyone been to Dortmund? I know they change arrangements for European games. Are the flip down seats there installed permanently or do they just slide them in for European games? This must be an issue at Celtic as well. 

I smiled when I read the bit about us qualifying for Europe but perhaps you're right and we should allow ourselves to dream😊

I do know that there is a cost saving due to not having to replace seats as it was mentioned when discussed at a shareholders meeting pre Covid. But how it all works in practice I'm afraid I have no idea. 

I'm all in favour of standing at football. It's not for me because of back issues. Although I regularly walk around 35 miles a week, standing still just isn't possible for me for that length of time (no idea why!) . So if it was introduced I might start going to away games again. 

OK, but anecdotal evidence isn't proof.  I appreciate you had a frustrating experience, but the issues with persistent standing occur most commonly in the lower Barclay and Snakepit - a few people refusing to sit here and there aren't going to be focused on by the SAG which is one of the reasons why the club have had to act in Barclay/Snakepit and in the South Stand away section.

The seats at Dortmund are permanently in place, but are locked 'up' for Bundesliga games and available for seating on European nights.

[shefcanary 2,622]

6 minutes ago, king canary said:

Without meaning to be rude, your posts don't read like that at all- particularly the insistence that fans who want to stand should go elsewhere.

Not everything the club does has to be about business plans and making money. Sometimes it is about improving the fan experience, which this is.

My apologies if the tone read like that. I am not against rail seating per se, just the concept being promoted that it is "safe" standing and the misconception that somehow it will make things easier for clubs. It won't, there are cost involved which some would argue should be prioritised elsewhere, but should reduce tensions between fans and stewards in those areas. But standing at a match is never safer than planting your posterior on a seat to watch it, so shouldn't be described as such. But that is not a reason for not introducing rail seating and take your point that it might improve relations between the club and supporters.  

I prefer standing at matches, taking appropriate precautions, as others do.

And the point of promoting non-league football is just that; with the FA and EPL trying their damnedest to avoid the trickle down financing of non-league football, I'm just advocating that at such matches you can stand, drink and watch competitive and entertaining football and thus put money in their coffers. Try it sometime, it might reduce people's capacity to boo at the Carra.