rupert_bear
Well-Known Member
Apparently Shrewsbury Town have been given permission to have safe standing next season. Could that happen here ? If so what part of the ground.
Safe Standing ? (7 Viewers)
- Thread starter rupert_bear
- Start date
pastythegreat
Well-Known Member
The part that we own maybe?
Covstu
Well-Known Member
its installed already!
if it did it would be blocks 15, 14 but the ownership is probably an issue
Earlsdon_Skyblue1
Well-Known Member
I'm really for safe standing and want to see all clubs have it. Being on a terrace in Germany was probably one of the best football experiences I have ever had.
I think it needs to be at the front though. I feel as if they have put it the wrong way round here? If it was going to be at the Ricoh they should do it behind one of the goals, bottom half for example.
Here's a video of Shrewsbury:
I think it needs to be at the front though. I feel as if they have put it the wrong way round here? If it was going to be at the Ricoh they should do it behind one of the goals, bottom half for example.
Here's a video of Shrewsbury:
Earlsdon_Skyblue1
Well-Known Member
I don't think they look good in corners, just my opinion though,
I would do block 26 - 33. Bottom half of the stand.
pastythegreat
Well-Known Member
I think it's all a load of tosh from the FA all this safe standing bollocks! Are they charging teams to do risk assessments and the likes? I've been to numerous grounds this season and stood! Is that UNSAFE standing? No? So why is it legal to sell standing tickets for seamless stands but you have to seek permission to tale seats out if theyre already there?
Covstu
Well-Known Member
don't disagree but you would have to be realistic about who would take this up, even in 16 you would have people complain.I don't think they look good in corners, just my opinion though,
I would do block 26 - 33. Bottom half of the stand.
Covstu
Well-Known Member
its more dangerous in the current format, I normally come home with loads of bruises on my shins!!!
pastythegreat
Well-Known Member
Joy Division
Well-Known Member
Its a sight line issue why they have been installed at the back, with a single tiered stand you would have to lose out on 2 or 3 rows of seats behind the standing section if this was the case.
Joy Division
Well-Known Member
Its also a way of regulating seating and standing in stadiums. If a stadium has a standing section it gives those standing in a seated part of the stadium no excuse. I do prefer standing but it is incredibly unfair on some people who genuinely need a seat the way some people stand at games.
rupert_bear
Well-Known Member
Always stood myself until it all changed after the Hillsboro tragedy. That’s nearly 30 years ago many fans now have hardly stood on
a terrace. Don’t think they would ever go back to pack ‘em in like sardines strategy. The best thing about standing is you can move away from the obnoxious, pissed up knob, doing your nut in.
a terrace. Don’t think they would ever go back to pack ‘em in like sardines strategy. The best thing about standing is you can move away from the obnoxious, pissed up knob, doing your nut in.
rupert_bear
Well-Known Member
That is very true at the Notts County home game there was a guy by me little more than 5 foot tall just couldn’t see because of fans in front standing.
Nick
Administrator
At the minute it's about respecting the people around you, I have no issue with either standing or sitting if need's be. At MK Dons away there were a fair few old people who couldn't stand all game and missed what was going on because of people standing in front of them.
However if everybody at the front stands up, people behind them stand up etc.
However if everybody at the front stands up, people behind them stand up etc.
Earlsdon_Skyblue1
Well-Known Member
You'd have people complaining everywhere, you're right. It's a CCFC thing I think!
If I was in charge and we didn't have Wasps, I would rip the seats out and go for this area:
Ring Of Steel
Well-Known Member
The arguments against safe standing are falling by the wayside one by one, it would be brilliant.
The govt came out and said "we have listened and its only a minority that want it back"- then WBA came forward. If enough clubs back it, then the govt themselves will be the minority and they will have to look at it.
The benefits for top clubs is pretty obvious- for every 10 seats you can have 18 standing spaces, so for Man Utd the Stretford End lower tier capacity goes from 8,000 to over 14,000- more money (unless they sell standing tickets dirt cheap). Clubs can increase capacity without spending millions and also enhance the atmosphere.
When I was growing up, English grounds were the envy of Europe- Italy, Germany, Spain all had immaculate, gleaming "stadiums" but we had the cramped, dirty, but atmospheric as hell "football grounds". Clearly there were also thousands of people fighting & brawling so we don't want that back- but aside from Anfield and a couple of others, we are now light years behind Germany for example in terms of atmosphere. The govt/ league think that the perfect "matchday experience" involves a comfy seat, easy access, tasty food and not too much noise, just my view but the perfect "matchday experience" is having a bit of that (the access probably), but then an atmospheric environment so you feel a part of the match as opposed to an audience member.
We just need enough clubs to say they want it- then it has to become a serious possibility.
Be careful though- that area becoming standing would put our capacity at something like 36,000- truly a sight to behold if 6,000 turn up... But lets say we owned the ground- we could lose some capacity by splitting the stands into tiers (like the old sky blue stand), add standing to get capacity back up a bit- hey presto you instantly have a ground with much more character, more intimate, and more atmospheric.
The govt came out and said "we have listened and its only a minority that want it back"- then WBA came forward. If enough clubs back it, then the govt themselves will be the minority and they will have to look at it.
The benefits for top clubs is pretty obvious- for every 10 seats you can have 18 standing spaces, so for Man Utd the Stretford End lower tier capacity goes from 8,000 to over 14,000- more money (unless they sell standing tickets dirt cheap). Clubs can increase capacity without spending millions and also enhance the atmosphere.
When I was growing up, English grounds were the envy of Europe- Italy, Germany, Spain all had immaculate, gleaming "stadiums" but we had the cramped, dirty, but atmospheric as hell "football grounds". Clearly there were also thousands of people fighting & brawling so we don't want that back- but aside from Anfield and a couple of others, we are now light years behind Germany for example in terms of atmosphere. The govt/ league think that the perfect "matchday experience" involves a comfy seat, easy access, tasty food and not too much noise, just my view but the perfect "matchday experience" is having a bit of that (the access probably), but then an atmospheric environment so you feel a part of the match as opposed to an audience member.
We just need enough clubs to say they want it- then it has to become a serious possibility.
Be careful though- that area becoming standing would put our capacity at something like 36,000- truly a sight to behold if 6,000 turn up... But lets say we owned the ground- we could lose some capacity by splitting the stands into tiers (like the old sky blue stand), add standing to get capacity back up a bit- hey presto you instantly have a ground with much more character, more intimate, and more atmospheric.
Ring Of Steel
Well-Known Member
No chance it would be back to sardines- for a start I think the days of 2,000 people smashing through the turnstiles have gone... I'd like to see someone try to smash through our turnstiles, the incredible hulk would be hard pushed to do that
I don't get why more clubs aren't already all over this- take Chelsea, they want to spend hundreds of millions on a new ground that holds 60,000, for a fraction of that they could get somewhere near that capacity at Stamford Bridge by turning the ends into rail seating. Maybe a bad example as they have hundreds of millions, but take Burnley- they could get to 25,000 easily instead of spending millions upon millions to build a new ground that holds the same, and would not have a fraction of the atmosphere that Turf Moor does.
The relevance for us of course... if we moved into the Butts we could have 25,000 on that site no problem, with one end all rail seating, 25,000 individual seats though is a big old footprint for a site like that.
italiahorse
Well-Known Member
Especially as they can be used as seats as well.
Liquid Gold
Well-Known Member
I honestly can't see why anybody would have a problem with it.
Ring Of Steel
Well-Known Member
actually one of the problems with it is that it can feel more cramped...
You can no longer walk up and down the terraces and there are about 3 people for every 2 seats
Seating plan
Safe standing plan
You can no longer walk up and down the terraces and there are about 3 people for every 2 seats
Seating plan
Safe standing plan
Ring Of Steel
Well-Known Member
no- works as the plan above, they use a ratio of 1.8 people per seat
Borussia Dortmund- capacity when using standing places= 81,360, capacity all seated 65,829
The ratio of standing places to seating places varies, but there are always more when standing
for the stadium geeks out there... The proposal - continued (2) - Safe Standing Roadshow.co.uk
Borussia Dortmund- capacity when using standing places= 81,360, capacity all seated 65,829
The ratio of standing places to seating places varies, but there are always more when standing
for the stadium geeks out there... The proposal - continued (2) - Safe Standing Roadshow.co.uk
Joy Division
Well-Known Member
If that section was replaced with standing you would lose capacity in the red area as those seats would need to be removed. Standing would need to be either at the rear, the whole end standing or a structural redesign to incorporate seats at the rear.
Ring Of Steel
Well-Known Member
In Germany its close to 2 people per seat, here though apparently as Joy Division points out, the design of the building itself means that it might not be that high- exits etc
Tottenham's new ground has been designed so that if safe standing becomes a reality they can increase capacity by quite a bit
Tottenham's new ground has been designed so that if safe standing becomes a reality they can increase capacity by quite a bit
ashbyjan
Well-Known Member
Green Paper uses a ration of 1:1.8 - in Germany the figures differs from ground to ground, between 1.2 and 1.8 but a safe average would probably be 1.5. For a bit of economics on the issue
The proposal continued - The sums: Stadium A - Safe Standing Roadshow.co.uk
The proposal continued - The sums: Stadium A - Safe Standing Roadshow.co.uk
Ring Of Steel
Well-Known Member
Yep, it would be a squeeze, people would need to be clear on that...
Dortmund- either 14,000 seats or 25,000 standing
Dortmund- either 14,000 seats or 25,000 standing
Nick
Administrator
It would only really matter when it is sold out and it is crammed in, it wouldn't be that comfortable crammed in for a sell out but would be OK if its like it is now where you have a row to yourself.
I can't see how if at full capacity it is that much safer, especially if a goal goes in and some people go apeshit and people start falling over?
I can't see how if at full capacity it is that much safer, especially if a goal goes in and some people go apeshit and people start falling over?
Ring Of Steel
Well-Known Member
If people start jumping around now then they can end up falling forward over seats (as I, ahem, know from experience)- with rail seating you have a barrier that comes up to your belly in front of you, you aren't falling anywhere except maybe sideways, which is better than flying forward and down over 2 rows of seats, at an alarming rate of knots
Apparently its much easier for medical people as there are no seats in the way of the aisle.
All conjecture I guess- I'm in favour of it and you only have to compare the atmospheres here & abroad where they have it, to see that it does 100% undoubtedly improve the atmosphere. If they can get 25,000 people in one stand every game without any major incidents then I'd say it can't be that dangerous.
Apparently its much easier for medical people as there are no seats in the way of the aisle.
All conjecture I guess- I'm in favour of it and you only have to compare the atmospheres here & abroad where they have it, to see that it does 100% undoubtedly improve the atmosphere. If they can get 25,000 people in one stand every game without any major incidents then I'd say it can't be that dangerous.
Earlsdon_Skyblue1
Well-Known Member
It would look shit though, and I don't think the atmosphere would be as good.
You wouldn't lose that many seats at all so I think it would be worth it.
If people are in agreement that the atmosphere at German games is better, then replicate that. This back to front stuff isn't right in my opinion.
Ring Of Steel
Well-Known Member
Yep, spot on- Shrewsbury have shoehorned it in after the fact- looks wrong and will feel wrong. I actually have no clue why they've done it- its not as if they urgently need higher capacity and its a half arsed job they've done at best.