Standing...why vote no?!

[Mr.Carrow 394]

Slightly bewildered why 30% of people who took the trouble to vote on the safe standing poll voted against. Unless someone can explain to me different, it seems that the attitude is "I don`t like standing, therefore i don`t want you to be able to"! It has been proven without a shadow of a doubt that standing areas, if properly designed and organised, are just as safe as seating areas- you could argue even safer as they could be quicker to evacuate. So why are some people so against giving those who would prefer to stand at football the chance to do so?

[Baracouda 47]

I agree...

You could also twist the argument around, and say the real reason is the British authorities have no confidence in the British Police since Hillsborough, and whilst the German authorities have more confidence in their policing of standing areas. And it''s really nothing to do with the fans.

[Yorkshire Canary 118]

It was not just the memory of Hillsborough that puts off  many in the middle age/older group of supporters, it was also the scenes and safety at many other grounds particularly in the 1970s and 1980s Norwich included. as a child i was at Hillsborough for a cup game i lived there then and i have never been to frightened on the way out my feet did not touch the ground for about 5 minutes as i was just in a flow of tightly packed supporters and this was about a decade before the disaster. I would never ever want to see standing reintroduced. i understand that the proposals are much more restricted but that could be viewed as the thin end of the wedge. The arguement is imo all academic as i dont think any government would agree to it. I have been standing at lower league games since [ carlisle ] when visiting relatives but that is totally different when the crowd is only 4000 and capacity is about 12000.

[zemas tendon 0]

Makes no difference to the ''Snake pit'' we stand if we want!!

[Nicko 0]

It''s not really an issue at the moment. There''s already trouble with fans sitting down and it will only intensify if people are standing up. Football/society isn''t quite ready for a change like this.

[Nicko 0]

People do stand if they want to stand, there is very little anyone can do about it.

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 2,424]

[quote user="Yorkshire Canary"]It was not just the memory of Hillsborough that puts off  many in the middle age/older group of supporters, it was also the scenes and safety at many other grounds particularly in the 1970s and 1980s Norwich included. as a child i was at Hillsborough for a cup game i lived there then and i have never been to frightened on the way out my feet did not touch the ground for about 5 minutes as i was just in a flow of tightly packed supporters and this was about a decade before the disaster. I would never ever want to see standing reintroduced. i understand that the proposals are much more restricted but that could be viewed as the thin end of the wedge. The arguement is imo all academic as i dont think any government would agree to it. I have been standing at lower league games since [ carlisle ] when visiting relatives but that is totally different when the crowd is only 4000 and capacity is about 12000.[/quote]

The return of 70/80s standing isn''t what is being proposed though - and most of those problems arose due to clubs failing to stop unticketed fans entering grounds and thus overcrowding resulted (as well as some clubs ignoring safety recommendations on maximum capacity). Things have moved on a long way since then and it is impossible to envisage a return of these kinds of issues.

 

Having attended many games at Dortmund and watched several from their ''Yellow Wall'' (a single standing side to their stadium which holds 25,000 fans) I can categorically say I have never witnessed any of the problems you talk about, it has always felt safe and no point did my feet leave the ground (unless I wanted them to).

 

I would recommend people read up about Safe Standing rather than dismiss it out of hand, or compare it to the old fashioned stadiums of 40 years ago. In no ways would it be ''the thin edge of a wedge'' and I''m sure you will agree it isn''t just the standing that has changed about attending football matches since the 1970s - the corporate nature of football these days means that while it may feel more sanitised it is certainly much safer overall.

[Mr.Carrow 394]

With respect, whether it is viable or an issue (which it very clearly is...), isn`t really the point i`m getting at. I just don`t understand why people would vote to prevent other people from watching a game in the way they prefer just because they don`t want to. 

Yorkshire, i was kind of expecting a few responses like that and i do understand where you are coming from. However, it has been proven on the continent that standing areas can be as safe,maybe safer, than seats so i really don`t think bad memories of unsafe terraces have much relevance. The roads used to be much more dangerous but they didn`t ban cars, they just brought in measures to make them safer.

[e10_yellow 0]

Nicko. Fans are already standing up in seated areas. Show some evidence that it will ''intensify'' if people are in a designated standing area. If we''re throwing around speculation I''d perhaps speculate that if the authorities gave the concession for football fans to do what they''re already doing (standing up) in a designated safe area then there might be less inflammatory behaviour against stewards trying to get people to sit down.

People need to understand that safe standing is NOT TERRACING. Hillsborough is completely irrelevant in this argument. Hillsborough was 1. not caused by the fact the fans were standing and 2. even if it was, this would not be a return to a Hillsborough-style terrace.

Say we establish a priority of the following for designing football grounds for matchday experience.

1. Safety. Above all else.

2. Ensuring that all attending are comfortable and able to enjoy and view the game how they see fit and according to their needs (i.e. if shorter or unable to stand for long periods)

3. Allowing for a good atmosphere

Can anyone put forward any actual reasons based on evidence and fact why any of those would be detrimentally affected by the introduction of safe standing in certain sections of the ground, and indeed that it would not even improve supporter experience?

1. Safety. Safe standing has been used for many years in the top divisions in Germany without incident. Given fans in, say, the lower Barclay, Snakepit and away sections are already standing throughout the match in seated areas (with the inherent danger of falling over the row in front during celebrations), how can it not be safer to have them doing exactly the same thing but with a barrier behind and in front of each individual to prevent crushes, surges or falling?

2. All attending are comfortable. Again and again we have the argument on here that fans go to an away match who, for whatever reason, prefer to sit, but given the culture of standing away as indicated above are forced to stand. Designated standing and seating areas would give fans a choice. If you want to stand, go in the standing area. If you want to sit, you can still buy a seat, and you''d be able to sit in it. No more arguments in the stand, we can all enjoy the game how we want to.

3. Atmosphere. Who ever saw a choir sitting down to sing? Fans stand at football anyway and always will because you can get a better atmosphere going stood in a group. The authorities need to stop burying their heads in the sand, accept that standing at football will always happen, and look to give clubs the option of providing the safest environment possible in which to do so.

[GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary 2,035]

I think I''m right in saying that I''ve sttod for the entire match at every home match this season in the lower barclay, so we''re almost at the German situation now of standing in a designated area, just that it happens to be in front of a numbered seat that isn''t used.

for those who vote for no standing and cite Hillsborough for their reasons should remember that the principle reason for that tragedy for that there was an unscalable fence and the front of the terrace, standing areas today wouldnt have these fences.

[shefcanary 2,955]

My objection is purely a financial one.  The only way standing is likely to be reintroduced is on a one for one capacity basis - that is there will be no increase in capacity so forget about it being some panacea to reduce admission income.  Indeed if you look at the techincal aspects of re-introduction, it will actually cost a lot more than simple bolting of seats onto terraces - the picture that shows what has been introduced in some German stadia (which were built from scratch so costs were not as important) shows a huge amount of steel work going in (perhaps that is one reason why the German economy is more robust than the UK''s).  If anything to make it pay standing may actually cost more for a ticket.  I also think it will add to ongoing stewarding and policing costs (I''m sure local PCC''s will use it as a reason for bumping up their matchday fees).

 

As others have said McNasty has already done the sums and cannot see any benefit for Norwich, only extra cost to be diverted from the playing budget.  Apart from Vile who are struggling badly to fill their stadium so need a gimmick to fill it again, no other Premier League club is interested as they''re doing very well thank you. 

 

So, the question would be: investment in a new squad or invest in limited standing areas - that''s the hard choice and I would go with the former.  Unless we re-build completely either the Barclay or River End stands (or build Tom''s folly).

[e10_yellow 0]

shefcanary. In Germany at least I think the calculation is that for every 1 fan in a seated section you can get 1.8 fans when standing, so the 1 to 1 isn''t quite accurate. Dortmund''s capacity is 80,645 for league matches (when standing is in operation) and 65,590 for European games (when UEFA legislation states they have to ''unlock'' the seats in their safe standing rail seats, so no standing), so there is a commercial benefit.

While it may not be right for Norwich City at the present time, as for many other clubs, why should we still accept that current legislation prevents clubs from even considering the option? If we were building a new ground from scratch, maybe it''s something we might consider. We are not just Norwich fans, we are football fans. I''m well aware that Norwich are unlikely to do this any time soon but it''s about a wider issue of fan experience rather than just whether McNasty''s back of a fag packet calculations would make it worthwile for us, and if not, just dismissing it.

[ZLF 335]

I have voted  yes - but its no different to any other vote -  people for for their reasons and if we dont  agree with it then thats their choice and right and I dont see the need to understand why they have their opinion.

 

The majority want some standing, nearly to a 3 to 1 ratio.  Good stuff

 

[nutty nigel 7,902]

Votes like this are pretty pointles though. It''s just a gimmick. People do what they do not what they say they''re going to do. I wouldn''t be surprised if half those who say they want a return to terracing wouldn''t use it if it was built.

 

Me personally? I agree with the concept of having terrace areas. I couldn''t use it now though. But it would, if nothing else, negate the need for stewards in other areas to continually go up and down the aisles asking people to sit down.

 

 

[Mr.Carrow 394]

Zippers, personally i think the intelligent way to look at any issue is to try to understand it from all angles therefore i very definately think it`s important to "See the need to understand why they have their opinion". To go out of your way to vote against other people having the right to do something that you do not have to do yourself is a pretty big deal in my book, and i`d just like to see the logic behind that decision explained.

E10, thanks for explaining it better than i could!

[Indy 3,471]

One could sya we are slwoly returning to the late 70''s, early 80''s problems, with the recent throwing of objects, pitch invasion and proposed netting around the grounds.

Now some people want standing!

Now I''m not saying things are naywhere near the levels they were back then, but I believe football has moved on and if standing areas ar to be considered it has to be in the same confinds of each seat, you buy.

Restricted it to a section of the Barclay or Snake Pit would be a good starting point for our ground as this are the areas which cause the most problem for stewards by standing anyway.

I couldn''t care for standing and those who miss standing I ask why? do you really miss the piss running down the teraacing, the constant knobs at the back throwing drinks and god knows what to the front, do you miss being crushed with the surging forward? Did that back in the 70''s, 80''s and I''m not too bothered if it doesn''t come back. But not bothered if it does either.

[Mr.Carrow 394]

Cheers Indy, i`m assuming by that you would at least not vote against people having the chance (in principle) to do it if they chose to!  Me and my mates absolutely loved the terraces and i have to say i never experienced torrents of piss or drinks being thrown!  Very much looking forward to Peterborough.  I think people should keep in mind that safe standing as in the German model is a million miles away from the old terraces.

[GenerationA47 864]

A good question to put out there, Mr Carrow. Some of the opposition we can assume will be an instant reaction against change to the status quo on the part of a minority (ironically given the history). But I assume most opponents of safe standing are expressing a basic precautionary attitude, given what they know about the past. (Albeit their views are hence based on misconceptions about what is actually being proposed, and the huge difference between the ''then'' and ''now'' situations.) I find it a comforting thought that attitudes to safety have changed so much, in a positive direction of travel, over the years, even though in this case I believe it is misplaced and may be holding back what I would see as progress.

 

Anyway I''m in the group of those who think limited safe standing will become a reality in the near future in the top divisions, and thoroughly look forward to it.

[lake district canary 0]

The modern ideas of standing spaces are more like cattle pens.    Barriers in front, barriers behind - surrounded by metal bars - doesn''t seem worth the effort and expense just to allow standing.    Its the only way standing would be allowed as the old style terracing is never going to come back in the top divisions. Also, the standing areas of the future - if it''s allowed again - will not bring back the past.   There will still be viewing issues and difficulty for people to see and less room for manouvre.    The best compromise would be a standing area at the back of a stand for people who want to stand with seated areas at the front, thus seated people will never have their view blocked. 

[Mungo Bumpkin 0]

LDC - do you stand in front of your computer when watching the match being streamed in the comfort of your own home?

Mungo

[ZLF 335]

Apologies for my rather flippant response Mr C.   

 

My thinking was most 70/30 votes would allow a carried motion and its unlikely you will ever win many more around.  

 

I guess my real question is what was the purpose of the vote and what level of approval is needed to enable some action?   70% is usually a strong mandate

[ncfcstar 342]

[quote user="lake district canary"]The modern ideas of standing spaces are more like cattle pens.    Barriers in front, barriers behind - surrounded by metal bars - doesn''t seem worth the effort and expense just to allow standing.    Its the only way standing would be allowed as the old style terracing is never going to come back in the top divisions. Also, the standing areas of the future - if it''s allowed again - will not bring back the past.   There will still be viewing issues and difficulty for people to see and less room for manouvre.    The best compromise would be a standing area at the back of a stand for people who want to stand with seated areas at the front, thus seated people will never have their view blocked. 

[/quote]Why should seated people have any influence on this decision though?  No one is advocating a stadium with no seats, if people want to sit there will be plenty of other areas in the stadium for them to sit in.  I do not see the problem with introducing safe standing to football grounds across the country.  I don''t think it would work at Carrow Road because the H&S people will cry blue murder if more people get crammed into the concourses below the Barclay or any of the other stands including the more modern Jarrold.If people choose to stand then that is their choice and ''viewing issues'' are something they''ll have to deal with, it''s ridiculous to say that this should be a reason for not installing safe standing.  There is enough support for it, and they''ll be plenty of seats for people who prefer an unrestricted view.I really do not see the issue with standing in football, yes Hillsborough was a terrible disaster but in modern times people still stand in the lower leagues, they stand at both codes of rugby and probably most of all they stand at gigs.  If anyone has been to a rock gig, or someone like Pendulum, they''ll know how ''crazy'' that standing can be at a gig, packed into a small room with no real way to escape and no barriers splitting the crowd up, but no one seems to take issue with this?!  Why is football overshadowed by something that happened 20 odd years ago when people are standing week in week out at other events.

[lake district canary 0]

[quote user="Mungo Bumpkin"]

LDC - do you stand in front of your computer when watching the match being streamed in the comfort of your own home?

Mungo

[/quote]

When I go to away matches I stand, when I go to home matches I sit, when I''m at home watching a stream I am usually pacing around. 

Next question............

[ZLF 335]

I am not sure gigs in small rooms (capacity in hundreds to low thousands of like minded fans with no real history of disasters or violence)  or rugby crowds (smaller capacity, again no history) are good comparisons.   Likewise lower leagues,  where the capacity for grounds is usually far in excess of the actual attendance,   making the risks lower - the reason its the top two leagues is paartly due to the volume of people.

 

We CAN look abroad to show that safe terracing can be successful for a mass audience and keep fan segregation (still an issue given the increasing bizarre frequency of things such as coin throwing and fan invasions) and the far more stringent safety certificate process that is now in place to ensure stadia are maintained to a safe standard.

 

The 70% shows there is a real appetite for the reintroduction of a standing area in football stadia (for NCFC I say keep the away fans in seats and only home standing,  either part or all of either the lower barclay or River End) so I do anticipate it happening,  just not sure when.   

 

 

[GMF 1,010]

Perhaps those voting against the idea of standing are just being bloody minded and getting their own back on those who insist on standing at away games, so everyone else has to stand whether they like it or not?

[NCFCRulz 0]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

With respect, whether it is viable or an issue (which it very clearly is...), isn`t really the point i`m getting at. I just don`t understand why people would vote to prevent other people from watching a game in the way they prefer just because they don`t want to. 

Yorkshire, i was kind of expecting a few responses like that and i do understand where you are coming from. However, it has been proven on the continent that standing areas can be as safe,maybe safer, than seats so i really don`t think bad memories of unsafe terraces have much relevance. The roads used to be much more dangerous but they didn`t ban cars, they just brought in measures to make them safer.

[/quote]I am a ST Holder and dont mind the idea of standing, HOWEVER if I was a casual, and I liked a seat then I would vote no on the basis that instead of having to try and get 1 of the 3,500 casual tickets that Norwich tend to have available for home games, I would now only be able to target say 2,500 as some casual seats will have been removed, thus lowering my chances of being able to see a game.Its quite logical tbf for a casual that likes to sit

[lake district canary 0]

ts not going to be easy to organise.   If you have a new standing area somewhere, are you going to allocate tickets to a particular spot? Season ticket only sections?  General sale sections?   If you designate an area where season tickets holders are sitting at the moment as a standing area, where do those people go to if they don''t want to stand?   You would have to make it an across the board reorganisation.    Expense of doing that plus the cost of new barriers etc. would be unnecessary.     I''m not against the idea, just wonder if it is worth it, when you can already stand at the exciting moments, then sit in the less exciting parts of a game.   

[ZLF 335]

Yes - there would have to be a reallocation of seating for those in the chosen standing area,  but like the redevelopment of the dug outs its a short term pain.   There would be a flwo around the stadium as those championing standing move into the area (freeing up seats) while others move out.    If the demand is as great as stated it could free up some season ticket seats too.

 

It would increase capacity without the (whisper it) cost of moving ground or full time impacts of rebuilding a stand (converting an area likely to be quicker?)   

 

[Dubai Mark 0]

I am definately somebody who personally never ever wants to stand again (in the traditional manner), that is, if there was no alternative, this is because:

- I never liked standing even when Carrow Road was standing (and I must have done so hundreds of times)........why?.....because you had to get to the ground early to ensure you got the best position, it took an age to get out for refreshment or to relief yourself, kids cant see without a box to stand on and it was generally to tightly packed to be comfortable.

- I was at Villa Park like many others the day of the Hillsborough tragedy, and the Holt End that day was also an accident waiting to happen, and for me clear evidence that standing in the way it was done then was dangerous and should have been stopped many years before. 

- I experienced many other scary moments in addition to Villa Park whilst standing, including at Carrow Road in the Barclay, at Portman Road several times and various other grounds around the country including the old Wembley.

BUT......having read carefully articles about the type of seating being suggested.......it sounds a fantastic compromise to me and would for example be an excellent solution for the Barclay Lower, it would also increase capacity and revenue, so a "win-win".

This type of standing area, providing it incorporates smaller sectioned areas with easy access must be the way forward. So, despite my personal preferences I would certainly be very positive on introducing this type of standing in parts of some grounds.....lower tiers at both ends would be ideal. I really cannot understand why anybody would have a problem with it.

In the meantime, being a grumpy git, I would like to see everyone sitting in their seat (OK to stand of course at times of excitement shall we say) and a little more legroom included in any new seating areas, a minimum legroom criteria should come in, as at Carrow Road and many other grounds it''s ridiculous and can be uncomfortable.......oh, maybe I should start to stand.....OTBC 

 

 

 

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

[quote user="shefcanary"]

My objection is purely a financial one.  The only way standing is likely to be reintroduced is on a one for one capacity basis - that is there will be no increase in capacity so forget about it being some panacea to reduce admission income.  [/quote]

Alternatively given the demand for standing a premium could be charged!