South Stand home end? (9 Viewers)

[Calista]

I think it’s a matter of time before ‘safe standing’ just becomes proper standing, like in places like Germany. Seats are removed, terraces create areas like the yellow wall at Dortmund. I’ve done it, it’s very well organised and safe, UEFA were a whisker away from allowing standing and the increased capacities that come with it for next years euros. It’s a matter of time before international tournaments allow it.
Obviously there’s factors like concourse space, toilets, exits etc to negotiate. But if done properly it’s makes for an unbelievable atmosphere.
For me a bar in front of a fold up seat is just a bit shit. But it’s a start I guess

Yeah, for me there was never anything inherently unsafe about standing and watching football. It’s only an issue if you (tragically and unforgivably) let far too many people into a standing enclosure. The answer is … er … not to let too many people in.

 

---

[Peter Billing Eyes]

The touchline at the CBS is surely much further away than the pictorial example in the drawin

I'm sorry, it isn't. Your equation may be correct in regards to pitch and visual perspective, but it lacks dynamic differences to this case study.

- The seated areas behind the safe standing section that I have proposed are already restricted by several vomitorias, so even with 5 rows removed, the damage isn't as bad as you think it is. It is 5 rows of 19 seats only, across 4 blocks. That equals 380 seats.
- The safe standing rail seats can fit more people than your normal seat, so you will win some of that 389 back as well.

The damage on capacity is extremely minimal, and you would have an absolutely amazing standing terrace behind one of the goals. It would be one of the best home ends in the EFL if it was set up right.

You’ve really skewed the digits to suit your own narrative there, completely disregarding the corners (which would still be impacted - vomitory or not) and that the loss in capacity would be a minimum of 5 rows plus quadrants; you have also suggested in previous posts that the standing to seating ratio should be more than one to one, which if you understood currently UK legislation would realise that this isn’t possible. What I am saying is that your proposals aren’t tangible without considerable consideration to cost and infrastructure and you simply don’t like me disagreeing. I like your ideology, but it’s not practical. That’s fine.

 

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

You’ve really skewed the digits to suit your own narrative there, completely disregarding the corners (which would still be impacted - vomitory or not) and that the loss in capacity would be a minimum of 5 rows plus quadrants; you have also suggested in previous posts that the standing to seating ratio should be more than one to one, which if you understood currently UK legislation would realise that this isn’t possible. What I am saying is that your proposals aren’t tangible without considerable consideration to cost and infrastructure and you simply don’t like me disagreeing. I like your ideology, but it’s not practical. That’s fine.

I haven't skewed the digits whatsoever. Look at the photo that I posted and then overlap that with the stadium plan. I haven't modified the whole blueprints of the arena. The seats are currently where the seats are... There would be a circa 1% capacity change to the stadium at most with my proposal. We already have thousands of seats that aren't usable due to segregation and this would hardly change either.

Your approach is odd. You seem desperate for it not to work. Inflating the amount of unusable seats, posting pictures of people's eyeline (which again doesn't really mean much in the grand scheme of this), and then rolling out lines about legislation which doesn't really mean a lot. To be so against this is a bit odd, unless you have some kind of agenda or vested interest.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

I haven't skewed the digits whatsoever. Look at the photo that I posted and then overlap that with the stadium plan. I haven't modified the whole blueprints of the arena. The seats are currently where the seats are... There would be a circa 1% capacity change to the stadium at most with my proposal. We already have thousands of seats that aren't usable due to segregation and this would hardly change either.

Your approach is odd. You seem desperate for it not to work. Inflating the amount of unusable seats, posting pictures of people's eyeline (which again doesn't really mean much in the grand scheme of this), and then rolling out lines about legislation which doesn't really mean a lot. To be so against this is a bit odd, unless you have some kind of agenda or vested interest.

I think that last paragraph doesn't do you any favours.

You saying legislation doesn't mean a lot. Of course it does. It means everything. If you don't follow the legislation then the ground doesn't get a safety certificate. Then no-one's standing. Or sitting. So if the rules say you can only have as many people standing as would be sitting that's what the club would have to do.

Eyelines again are extremely important. It's what determines whether people can see or not and thus the quality of their experience. And there would be an impact for some of those in the corners if the people in the middle were standing.

These are valid points showing flaws, not an agenda.

Next game turn up early, sit in one of the seats above the vomitory level and get someone to stand in the rows below it and see how far they have to go down before they don't block any of the pitch. If you're in the corner try sitting down on the edge of the first block that you'd have as sitting and get someone to stand a few rows down on the edge of the block next to it you'd have a standing in and see how much your view would be obscured.

I honestly don't know how many would result in an obscured view. I suspect it would be quite a fair few more than two, but can't be sure. But as I say it is something that could be checked.

 

[Calista]

You’ve really skewed the digits to suit your own narrative there, completely disregarding the corners (which would still be impacted - vomitory or not) and that the loss in capacity would be a minimum of 5 rows plus quadrants; you have also suggested in previous posts that the standing to seating ratio should be more than one to one, which if you understood currently UK legislation would realise that this isn’t possible. What I am saying is that your proposals aren’t tangible without considerable consideration to cost and infrastructure and you simply don’t like me disagreeing. I like your ideology, but it’s not practical. That’s fine.

For my part, there’s really no need to take offence, as none was ever intended (you’ve responded to two people at once, so I can’t speak for anyone else). I made clear previously I wasn’t being confrontational, just startled that your calculations involved so many rows of seats being removed. For what it’s worth, having looked at a few photos of football grounds, I suspect you are right and I am wrong in regard to needing to take out about 5 rows At the next game, I'll pay some attention to the effect of people standing further down.

I’d still be very interested though whether the considerable distance to the touchline affects your calculations?

In any case, as I said before reducing the capacity wasn’t even a concern for me, and wouldn’t necessarily make safe standing ‘impractical’. It’s a trade off between the cost of that and the benefit of giving City fans the option of watching the games in a new way from an ideal vantage point. At the moment we’ve got a reduced capacity anyway because of the insistence on wide separation between rival fans.

Hardly anyone has shown any support for the idea on this thread, which surprises me but there you go I thought it was a topic worth raising, but we are all different. Other fans seem far more interested in stuff like the design of the shirts, but I barely notice it when they make a change. I couldn't even describe the current kit in any detail - it's sky blue!

PUSB

 

[David O'Day]

As someone who actually attends games in said "loud" bit which is the corner.

Most of us are quite happy there, it was pretty dead and lonely in league 2 up there and we didn't move.

 

[David O'Day]

also as i am sue has been pointed out, you move the away fans and people will just move to be close to them

 

[Calista]

As someone who actually attends games in said "loud" bit which is the corner.

Most of us are quite happy there, it was pretty dead and lonely in league 2 up there and we didn't move.

Fair play DoD, if that's where people like to be it's a bit surprising but I've no problem with it at all. I'm too old for it anyway

 

[Calista]

also as i am sue has been pointed out, you move the away fans and people will just move to be close to them

Again I'm sure that's true (to the extent that the SAG allow it). Of course in Earlsdon's picture he's hardly moved the Away lot at all, and actually brought City fans closer to them (with physical separation between Home standing and Away seated). It might not be possible, and if people don't want it fair enough.

 

[Calista]

To clear up the point about a standing area blocking the view of seated supporters, I checked it out for myself at the Stoke game. Peter Billing Eyes is quite correct in saying you'd need to take out 5 rows of seats behind the standing area.
That's not the issue for me anyway. The question is whether to offer standing, and if so where. Little enthusiasm has been shown on here for the South Stand, and a surprising amount of people seem to actually like the corner because of acoustics. So maybe the whole Singer's Corner (front to back) could be converted to safe standing? Because of the angles, you might get away with very little loss of capacity. And who knows, by catering for fans in that area as valued paying customers rather than a 'problem', the perceived stewarding issues might be dissipated?

 

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

To clear up the point about a standing area blocking the view of seated supporters, I checked it out for myself at the Stoke game. Peter Billing Eyes is quite correct in saying you'd need to take out 5 rows of seats behind the standing area.
That's not the issue for me anyway. The question is whether to offer standing, and if so where. Little enthusiasm has been shown on here for the South Stand, and a surprising amount of people seem to actually like the corner because of acoustics. So maybe the whole Singer's Corner (front to back) could be converted to safe standing? Because of the angles, you might get away with very little loss of capacity. And who knows, by catering for fans in that area as valued paying customers rather than a 'problem', the perceived stewarding issues might be dissipated?

Five rows is nothing. It would be worth it. That poster clearly has an agenda and was inferring you would have to remove half a stand to even entertain a standing terrace.

People are sentimental towards the corner but it's still tinpot with a stadium our size.

 

[SkyblueDad]

Can’t see “safe” standing being anywhere near the away fans, if it happens which I doubt I’d say it will be North Stand

 

[Alan Dugdales Moustache]

also as i am sue has been pointed out, you move the away fans and people will just move to be close to them

Bollocks. A couple of hundred teenagers at best who think they're well 'ard.

 

[pusbccfc]

To clear up the point about a standing area blocking the view of seated supporters, I checked it out for myself at the Stoke game. Peter Billing Eyes is quite correct in saying you'd need to take out 5 rows of seats behind the standing area.
That's not the issue for me anyway. The question is whether to offer standing, and if so where. Little enthusiasm has been shown on here for the South Stand, and a surprising amount of people seem to actually like the corner because of acoustics. So maybe the whole Singer's Corner (front to back) could be converted to safe standing? Because of the angles, you might get away with very little loss of capacity. And who knows, by catering for fans in that area as valued paying customers rather than a 'problem', the perceived stewarding issues might be dissipated?

Block 15 and 16 would be perfect.

Those seats are not in use during concerts either. It's a win/win.

 

[pusbccfc]

Can’t see “safe” standing being anywhere near the away fans, if it happens which I doubt I’d say it will be North Stand

Why??

You'd likely find we'd consider putting it into the away end too.

 

[Calista]

Block 15 and 16 would be perfect.

Those seats are not in use during concerts either. It's a win/win.

14 and 15 are probably the blocks you could do more easily with less impact on the pitch view for adjacent seated fans.

 

[Peter Billing Eyes]

Five rows is nothing. It would be worth it. That poster clearly has an agenda and was inferring you would have to remove half a stand to even entertain a standing terrace.

People are sentimental towards the corner but it's still tinpot with a stadium our size.

I don’t have an agenda, I do have issues with your simplistic idea which is unworkable without considerable investment. We don’t own the stadium, why would conversion to standing with a loss of capacity be a priority for Frasers Group?

 

[Sick Boy]

Why??

You'd likely find we'd consider putting it into the away end too.

Unfortunately it wouldn’t be up to us.

 

[SkyblueDad]

Why??

You'd likely find we'd consider putting it into the away end too.

Will a standing area increase our attendances ? and the away tickets it’s all down to money and that would be the main reason, I’m not against it just don’t see it happening.

 

[pusbccfc]

Unfortunately it wouldn’t be up to us.

Granted but Fraser's are unlikely to put safe standing elsewhere if they did consider it.

 

[pusbccfc]

Will a standing area increase our attendances ? and the away tickets it’s all down to money and that would be the main reason, I’m not against it just don’t see it happening.

It's more down to the safety aspect. As the club often mention, persistent standing in a seated area isn't always safe. It's why Cardiff, QPR, and many PL clubs have put safe standing in their away end.

 

[M&B Stand]

How does safe standing work in Germany? – DW – 02/07/2020

Standing at football will evolve in the next 5-10 years.
The way they do it in Germany with removable seats and sections of terraces, strictly stewarded on entry. Increases capacity’s, you obviously need room in the concourse, enough toilets, exits etc.
The UEFA organising committee almost allowed standing at next years euros in Germany, but couldn’t agree it in time.
It’ll come back in the future.

 

[Skybluedownunder]

What I used to find mins boggling was that at Highfield Rd we used to give the away fans part of the side of the pitch and not just stick them behind the goal like most clubs do.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[theferret]

14 and 15 are probably the blocks you could do more easily with less impact on the pitch view for adjacent seated fans.

You'd do all 3 blocks I think, everyone stands in 14, 15 and 16 already, so to not include 16 wouldn't make much sense as everyone would continue to stand in that block. I think this will happen in next 2-3 years.