Standing back on the agenda?

[Buh 0]

It''s more a case of customer choice for me. I''d like the choice yo stand alongside the choice to sit. Buying a ticket in the Barclay it should be made clear it is a standin area. If you sit, you have no right to moan. The seating situation now is just confused. I want a return to standing not a return to the terraces.

[Juggy 0]

"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."

Can quite easily get two people standing in the floor area that somebody takes up sitting. Plus people who like standing would argue that being squashed together and all cosy was part of the glamour and added to the atmosphere.

[Buh 0]

Cosy? Nah, you''re alright mate. That shouldn''t be allowed

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="The ghost of Michael Theoklitos"][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.[/quote]I understand that.  I''m just trying to understand how you get almost double the amount of people in to a standing area so that they can all see. It obviously works, so that''s great.  I''m all for it.

[The ghost of Michael Theoklitos 0]

[quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="The ghost of Michael Theoklitos"][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.[/quote]I understand that.  I''m just trying to understand how you get almost double the amount of people in to a standing area so that they can all see. It obviously works, so that''s great.  I''m all for it.

[/quote]The numbers are coming from grounds in Germany where the system is already in place. Maybe they have less fat people. [;)]

[Wings of a Sparrow 1,410]

I don''t think there''s anyway that you could squeeze 2 people in for where there is currently just one.

As LDC says, the seating terraces are designed for seating and not standing.I t would require major rework.

Talk of 50,000 capacity is just pure fantasy.

You have to ask what was the capacity when 3 sides of the ground were standing only?

(I can''t remember if The City Stand ever was?)

[Juggy 0]

Well our record attendance is 42000 and that was with a South Stand half the size of the Jarrold.

[Juggy 0]

43,984 even.

[YankeeCanary 0]

[quote user="Le Juge"]43,984 even.[/quote]

I was there. It was quite cozy. Lots of frowning every time someone raised a cigarette to their mouth. The atmosphere was electric.

[kingsway 94]

Yes I''d of loved to have been there that day. I spoke to some Leicester fans who went to that game and they said itwas unbelievably cramped!

Norwich fans there that day would also say that!

 

When I went to Carrow Road in the early 1970''s the ground held 36,000 yet it seemed and was actually smaller than what it now.

 

Nobody wants to go back to them days of crowd surges and general potentially dangerous over packed terraces but there is undeniably still a strong desire from many fans to be able to stand at footbll matches.

 

Hillsborough was nothing to do with terraces. It was more to do with p*ss poor crowd control which evolved out of the atitiude of that era that every football supporter was a potential hooligan (at the start of the crush the police were pushing fans back into the overcrowded terrace and many of us remember the quarter final at West Ham a month before where a similar situation could of happened in the Norwich City fans area) and fences and cages which prevented a quick get exit. Without the police opening the exit gates letting in anyone in of the street whether they had tickets or not and the pens and fences, the disaster would of never happened. And who still blame the terraces should look at the 1996 Ellis Park stadium crush in South Africa where more fans died then Hillsborough and the area was all seated.

 

Nowadays crowd control is superb, fans are treated as human beings and there are no fences and pens. These elements are to me the best things to come out of the Taylor report, all seaters are certainly not.

 

Its 21 years, May 1992, that Carrow Road last saw proper standing areas yet many fans in the barclay and Snakepit still wish to stand even those not born or old enough to remember the old Barclay and River end terraces of 1992.

 

While I think the authorites are slowly warming to the idea of having standing areas again I think it will be with a lot of restrictions.

 

To totally convince the powers that be that standing are completely fool proof I think standing areas should only be allowed to hold as many fans as what the area would hold if all seated. For instance the snakepit currently holds 600-700 and the Barclay lower 3-3200, converted to safe standing areas these would hold the same. When you think about the Barclay lower at present, even if was standing the present capacity of 3-3200 would still be pretty full.

 

When you think about it the complete irony of the present all seater rule is that its far more dangerous to stand behind a seat than what it would be to stand behind a barrier specificly designed for that purpose. If you get pushed from behind the seat in front can act as a trip hazard!

 

Therefore a safe standing are where every fan has there own numbered crush barrier would be safer than the current system.

 

 

[kingsway 94]

The alterations to stands could be paid for out of the huge tv deals that the Premiership gets!

[YankeeCanary 0]

[quote user="kingsway"]

Yes I''d of loved to have been there that day. I spoke to some Leicester fans who went to that game and they said it was unbelievably cramped!

Norwich fans there that day would also say that!

 

 [/quote]

Every time someone decided to have a cigarette ( and many did ) it felt like they were committing sexual assault.

[William Darby 0]

[quote user="kingsway"]

Yes I''d of loved to have been there that day. I spoke to some Leicester fans who went to that game and they said itwas unbelievably cramped!

Norwich fans there that day would also say that!

 

When I went to Carrow Road in the early 1970''s the ground held 36,000 yet it seemed and was actually smaller than what it now.

 

Nobody wants to go back to them days of crowd surges and general potentially dangerous over packed terraces but there is undeniably still a strong desire from many fans to be able to stand at footbll matches.

 

Hillsborough was nothing to do with terraces. It was more to do with p*ss poor crowd control which evolved out of the atitiude of that era that every football supporter was a potential hooligan (at the start of the crush the police were pushing fans back into the overcrowded terrace and many of us remember the quarter final at West Ham a month before where a similar situation could of happened in the Norwich City fans area) and fences and cages which prevented a quick get exit. Without the police opening the exit gates letting in anyone in of the street whether they had tickets or not and the pens and fences, the disaster would of never happened. And who still blame the terraces should look at the 1996 Ellis Park stadium crush in South Africa where more fans died then Hillsborough and the area was all seated.

 

Nowadays crowd control is superb, fans are treated as human beings and there are no fences and pens. These elements are to me the best things to come out of the Taylor report, all seaters are certainly not.

 

Its 21 years, May 1992, that Carrow Road last saw proper standing areas yet many fans in the barclay and Snakepit still wish to stand even those not born or old enough to remember the old Barclay and River end terraces of 1992.

 

While I think the authorites are slowly warming to the idea of having standing areas again I think it will be with a lot of restrictions.

 

To totally convince the powers that be that standing are completely fool proof I think standing areas should only be allowed to hold as many fans as what the area would hold if all seated. For instance the snakepit currently holds 600-700 and the Barclay lower 3-3200, converted to safe standing areas these would hold the same. When you think about the Barclay lower at present, even if was standing the present capacity of 3-3200 would still be pretty full.

 

When you think about it the complete irony of the present all seater rule is that its far more dangerous to stand behind a seat than what it would be to stand behind a barrier specificly designed for that purpose. If you get pushed from behind the seat in front can act as a trip hazard!

 

Therefore a safe standing are where every fan has there own numbered crush barrier would be safer than the current system.

 

 

[/quote]

Referring to the highlighted bit.  It''s the reason why you can get more fans into a section safely, because you haven''t wasted space of a hazardous plastic seats.

Anyway imo the only way clubs wanting to do it, will do it only if it''s financially worthwhile.  Replacing the same number of seats, for the same number of standing. It won''t happen.  Whereas replacing X number with a larger number of standing.  Clubs will more likely be in favour. Potential higher revenue in the future.