Standing back on the agenda?

[Making Plans 957]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/25136422

[Juggy 0]

I think it needs to make a return for the sake of football finances.

There are several clubs in this league who want to increase capacity but are unwilling to risk the financial outlay for fear of relegation, including us and West Brom.

A safe standing area gives us the opportunity to increase capacity at much lower cost, and even has the potential to allow us to offer lower cost entry into standing areas while increasing revenue sufficiently to cover the costs of installing safe standing.

It would be ridiculously cheap for us to convert the Barclay Lower and snakepit to safe standing and take our capacity to 30000 in the process.

[Buh 0]

Needs to come back. the situation we currently have is not fit for purpose.

[littleyellowbirdie 3,138]

This happens with everything. Things are done a certain way, you get a disaster, things change to stop disasters happening, disasters don''t happen for a while and people start saying ''Oh the old way was fine'' things revert and the cycle repeats. Think it was a mistake dumping all of the blame for Hillsborough on the police. Photojournalist friend of mine was at Hillsborough the day after and the stands were awash with empty beer cans. Thing is the police opening the gates was only one part of the disaster. Disasters are always a chain of events, not just one thing and that''s why you need something in the possible sequence of events that''s failsafe. Seating is that thing.

[Juggy 0]

littleyellowbirdie doesn''t seem to understand the difference between standing areas in the 1980''s and "safe standing".

The clue is in the name really. There really is no point in trying to talk about something you don''t understand.

[littleyellowbirdie 3,138]

[quote user="Le Juge"]littleyellowbirdie doesn''t seem to understand the difference between standing areas in the 1980''s and "safe standing".

The clue is in the name really. There really is no point in trying to talk about something you don''t understand.[/quote]Perhaps you''d like to explain then?

[lake district canary 4,830]

Some of the younger generation wouldn''t know what to do if they had to stand for 90 minutes.   The ones that are tanked up would probably fall over, the ones that aren''t tanked up would probably get tired after half an hour and go off and find somewhere to have a rest.......[:O]

[The ghost of Michael Theoklitos 0]

[quote user="littleyellowbirdie"][quote user="Le Juge"]littleyellowbirdie doesn''t seem to understand the difference between standing areas in the 1980''s and "safe standing".

The clue is in the name really. There really is no point in trying to talk about something you don''t understand.[/quote]Perhaps you''d like to explain then? [/quote]http://www.fsf.org.uk/campaigns/safe-standing/Have a read of some of the information. If you take a look at the safe standing rail seats being used in Germany, you''ll see there would be no chance of a Hillsborough type desaster happening as a result of standing when these rail seats are installed.

[littleyellowbirdie 3,138]

[quote user="The ghost of Michael Theoklitos"][quote user="littleyellowbirdie"][quote user="Le Juge"]littleyellowbirdie doesn''t seem to understand the difference between standing areas in the 1980''s and "safe standing".

The clue is in the name really. There really is no point in trying to talk about something you don''t understand.[/quote]Perhaps you''d like to explain then? [/quote]http://www.fsf.org.uk/campaigns/safe-standing/Have a read of some of the information. If you take a look at the safe standing rail seats being used in Germany, you''ll see there would be no chance of a Hillsborough type desaster happening as a result of standing when these rail seats are installed.[/quote]Thanks for that. Looks like an excellent approach. They should get the rules changed ASAP in that case as it would massively increase capacity with little investment.

[The ghost of Michael Theoklitos 0]

[quote user="littleyellowbirdie"][quote user="The ghost of Michael Theoklitos"][quote user="littleyellowbirdie"][quote user="Le Juge"]littleyellowbirdie doesn''t seem to understand the difference between standing areas in the 1980''s and "safe standing".

The clue is in the name really. There really is no point in trying to talk about something you don''t understand.[/quote]Perhaps you''d like to explain then? [/quote]http://www.fsf.org.uk/campaigns/safe-standing/Have a read of some of the information. If you take a look at the safe standing rail seats being used in Germany, you''ll see there would be no chance of a Hillsborough type desaster happening as a result of standing when these rail seats are installed.[/quote]Thanks for that. Looks like an excellent approach. They should get the rules changed ASAP in that case as it would massively increase capacity with little investment.[/quote]I honestly can''t see what the issue with this is once people understand the proposals on the table. There are so many benefits for clubs, and football in general in regards to increased capacities, lower ticket prices, and the potential for increase in gate receipts for clubs.The only possible drawback I could see would be the overcrowding of stand facilities (bar, toilets etc.). A solution to that might need to be forthcoming, but apart from that, it seems like a no-brainer.Unfortunately, the images of Hillsborough have put a bit of a stigma around the whole idea. However the people running the campaign are going a great job keeping it on the agenda and getting it into the media. The more people understand the proposals, the less people would object.

[Syteanric 1]

i''m indifferent to the idea but i do feel that if it was going to happen it would have by now...

[YankeeCanary 0]

[quote user="jas the barclay king"]i''m indifferent to the idea but i do feel that if it was going to happen it would have by now...[/quote]

I''m certain that someone must have said almost exactly the same thing to Christopher Columbus.

[Darth Catbeard The Old 0]

It makes so much sense and solves so many problems but of course with it being this country the government will drag their heels and we won''t get it for decades if at all. There are no downsides what so ever, this rule should have been changed the second it was thought up!

[Johnny Stump 1]

If you did a straight swap, say, In the lower Barclay, standing where there is now seats, how many extra would you get in?

Genuine question.

[Making Plans 957]

A helicopter crashes on a pub but will we stop them flying over CitiesThe ceiling falls down in a theatre but will we make people sit outside to watch showsNo

[birchfest 401]

Thing is people are going to stand regardless, so why not embrace it and make it safe... How anyone can look at those safe standing areas and see them to be dangerous I have no idea! The Germans have been using it for years and that is a nation that is fairly conservative with regulations, and shock horror no issues... At Dortmund it allows for 25.000 people to be safely in one stand!

[littleyellowbirdie 3,138]

Thought I''d submit an e-petition on the subject on the government website to force a debate. Just wating for it to be approved. There is one already, but it''s badly worded, only got 16 signatures and only calls for a trial. Should be 100,000 football supporters out there willing to sign it don''t you think?

[lake district canary 4,830]

[quote user="Johnny Stump"]If you did a straight swap, say, In the lower Barclay, standing where there is now seats, how many extra would you get in?

Genuine question.[/quote]

In the absence of any other reply - I can''t see how it would add to the attendance at all.  The space a person takes standing up wouldn''t be that much different to sitting down, and the terracing would have to be rebuilt to make it any different - which isn''t going to happen.   If the seats had been installed on the old terracing, then when you took the seats out, the standing room would be too narrow for safety, so again it would have to be rebuilt, so unless anyone says different I would say it wouldn''t add anything to the attendance. 

[littleyellowbirdie 3,138]

[quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="Johnny Stump"]If you did a straight swap, say, In the lower Barclay, standing where there is now seats, how many extra would you get in?

Genuine question.[/quote]

In the absence of any other reply - I can''t see how it would add to the attendance at all.  The space a person takes standing up wouldn''t be that much different to sitting down, and the terracing would have to be rebuilt to make it any different - which isn''t going to happen.   If the seats had been installed on the old terracing, then when you took the seats out, the standing room would be too narrow for safety, so again it would have to be rebuilt, so unless anyone says different I would say it wouldn''t add anything to the attendance. 

[/quote]That video that was posted earlier in this thread said a stand of 3,000 seated can accommodate up to 5,700 with the railed standing terraces they use at Hannover. That would take Carrow Road from 27,220 capacity to about 50,000 capacity.

[lake district canary 4,830]

[quote user="littleyellowbirdie"][quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="Johnny Stump"]If you did a straight swap, say, In the lower Barclay, standing where there is now seats, how many extra would you get in?

Genuine question.[/quote]In the absence of any other reply - I can''t see how it would add to the attendance at all.  The space a person takes standing up wouldn''t be that much different to sitting down, and the terracing would have to be rebuilt to make it any different - which isn''t going to happen.   If the seats had been installed on the old terracing, then when you took the seats out, the standing room would be too narrow for safety, so again it would have to be rebuilt, so unless anyone says different I would say it wouldn''t add anything to the attendance.  [/quote]That video that was posted earlier in this thread said a stand of 3,000 seated can accommodate up to 5,700 with the railed standing terraces they use at Hannover. That would take Carrow Road from 27,220 capacity to about 50,000 capacity.[/quote]I think that would depend on the structure of the existing terracing.  The cost of alterations would probably be prohibitive. This image shows the problem.  There is more than enough room to stand up as it is, but to create almost double the amount of people standing, you would have to rebuild/reconfigure the terracing at some cost, plus the cost of barriers - I don''t think its going to happen in a hurry.   If they ever find a solution for the hotel corner, a standing area could be planned then, if the rules are changed to allow it.  

[littleyellowbirdie 3,138]

[quote user="lake district canary"]I think that would depend on the structure of the existing terracing.  The cost of alterations would probably be prohibitive. This image shows the problem.  There is more than enough room to stand up as it is, but to create almost double the amount of people standing, you would have to rebuild/reconfigure the terracing at some cost, plus the cost of barriers - I don''t think its going to happen in a hurry.   If they ever find a solution for the hotel corner, a standing area could be planned then, if the rules are changed to allow it.   [/quote]I''m not sure you''d necessarily have to reconfigure the terrace levels as such. With these rail seats, the default is standing with the option of sitting if someone needs it for some reason. Granted, anyone who does sit will take up more seats, but I imagine that would be the minority.Equally whereas with a seat you''d have 1 layer of people behind a barrier, you could probably have two or maybe three. The barrier still serve to prevent crowd surge effects in that scenario while fitting more people on a level of the terrace.That would mean just ripping out the seats and installing the rail seats.

[Bill 1,788]

they would need to ban and/or charge the gutbuckets moreif each fan is given an allocated amount of space then that should be the same size at the turnstileif they can''t get ni then it means they will be encroaching on someone else''s space as happens now in the seats

[Buh 0]

Literally just make the lower Barclay and snakepit standing. Give notice to people that it is a standing area so they can move their season ticket and swap with others in other areas. Don''t cram people in just leave it the same but allow standing. It''s very simple.

[littleyellowbirdie 3,138]

[quote user="Buh"]Literally just make the lower Barclay and snakepit standing. Give notice to people that it is a standing area so they can move their season ticket and swap with others in other areas. Don''t cram people in just leave it the same but allow standing. It''s very simple.[/quote]You mean just leave the seats in place?

[Buh 0]

Yeah, why rip them up? you never know when you might need them. Concert, event etc + you might want to sit down to eat or just rest your legs at half time or whatever.

[Juggy 0]

"If you did a straight swap, say, In the lower Barclay, standing where there is now seats, how many extra would you get in?"

It would almost double the capacity of the Lower Barclay if this happened.

[Juggy 0]

People are missing the concept a bit here. You don''t get the option to sit down if you need to, the seats are locked upwards and you can''t just sit on them if you need to.

They keep the seats because in some competitions (e.g. European competition) you need to have seating. Plus they can use it for events.

So for example if the Barclay Lower currently holds 3000 people (hypothetical) they would get 3000 people in seated, or they could lock the seats and get in 5700 people (from the example given).

The reason that this type of standing is safe is that there is a rail on each row, so it is impossible for the crowd to surge forward and crush people like they did in the 80''s.

Presumably there would just be two people standing for every one which would otherwise be seated, on each row.

There won''t be an option to just say "I''m sitting today, get off my row mate I''m putting the seat down", if people want to sit they would have to buy a ticket in a seated area. The club just have the option to put the seats down and sell seated tickets if they so choose.

[lake district canary 4,830]

[quote user="Le Juge"]Presumably there would just be two people standing for every one which would otherwise be seated, on each row. [/quote]That would make it very cramped for space. It would mean that on each level, people would have to stand behind someone else, or at least be looking through a gap.  Doesn''t sound great.

[The ghost of Michael Theoklitos 0]

[quote user="Le Juge"]People are missing the concept a bit here. You don''t get the option to sit down if you need to, the seats are locked upwards and you can''t just sit on them if you need to.

They keep the seats because in some competitions (e.g. European competition) you need to have seating. Plus they can use it for events.

So for example if the Barclay Lower currently holds 3000 people (hypothetical) they would get 3000 people in seated, or they could lock the seats and get in 5700 people (from the example given).

The reason that this type of standing is safe is that there is a rail on each row, so it is impossible for the crowd to surge forward and crush people like they did in the 80''s.

Presumably there would just be two people standing for every one which would otherwise be seated, on each row.

There won''t be an option to just say "I''m sitting today, get off my row mate I''m putting the seat down", if people want to sit they would have to buy a ticket in a seated area. The club just have the option to put the seats down and sell seated tickets if they so choose.[/quote]Correct.And further, you wouldn''t convert the whole stadium. You would have designated safe standing areas. Therefore, people would buy a standing ticket, or a sitting ticket in one of the other stands.Its not all or none, nor is it either /or, if that makes sense.

[The ghost of Michael Theoklitos 0]

[quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="Le Juge"]Presumably there would just be two people standing for every one which would otherwise be seated, on each row. [/quote]That would make it very cramped for space. It would mean that on each level, people would have to stand behind someone else, or at least be looking through a gap.  Doesn''t sound great.[/quote]True, however I''d argue more comfortable than the old terraces in the old days. Besides, if it doesn''t sound great to you. That''s fine. You''ll still have the option to buy a seat in a seated stand. No one would be forcing you to stand unless you bought a standing ticket.It''s not about everyone standing. It''s about those who want to stand being able to.