South Stand home end? (1 Viewer)

[play_in_skyblue_stripes]

I actually like the North stand. I've always been a behind the goal person for both football and Aussie rules. I've never enjoyed being on side of pitch. Perhaps the infatuation with the side of pitch seating was purely down to cost savings by SISU and shutting the ground down.
My other opinion is by segregating everything actually increases bad behaviour. I've been to Sheffield united last two season and actually no issues whatsoever with everyone coming out together.

 

---

[Calista]

I actually like the North stand. I've always been a behind the goal person for both football and Aussie rules. I've never enjoyed being on side of pitch. Perhaps the infatuation with the side of pitch seating was purely down to cost savings by SISU and shutting the ground down.
My other opinion is by segregating everything actually increases bad behaviour. I've been to Sheffield united last two season and actually no issues whatsoever with everyone coming out together.

For some people such as yourself the North Stand is obviously first preference, and that's great. But after originally bring the home end, it was off limits for so long that it's now more like a sort of overspill for when we have a bigger gate. Somehow we've wandered into a situation where we don't really have a home end at all, and that's what disappoints me.

 

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

I don’t see why you shouldn’t at least be shortlisted for Architect of the Year

I like what you’ve done there in principle, including the safe standing. It gives Sky Blues fans the area behind the goal, and relegates away supporters to the corner. Currently it’s the other way around, which is my main objection to how things are now.

But are there really 3000 seats in the yellow bit? And I guess you've assumed that the SAG are going to give up on their apparent demand for an enormous No Man’s Land on each side of the Away section? That's what makes things so difficult to solve, and their approach seems like overkill to me.

Flattered, I'll take a shortlist!

You make valid points. An alternative I suppose, is to build a safe standing in the North Stand, which could be decent. Maybe not as popular though. I think the concept of having one of the stands behind the goal having a standing area from the pitch to half way up, would be awesome. So many stadiums in the UK are devoid of any personality, it would be nice if ours could be different.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

I'm not sure how will this picture will come out, but I was feeling a bit poorly and bored this afternoon, so had a think about this discussion.

Key:

Yellow - New Singers Corner - Approx 2000 Capacity
Red - New Away End - Approx 3000 Capacity
Black - New Safe Standing Section - Approx 2000 Capacity

The section above the black square then becomes pretty much another tier, which could look smart behind a decent safe standing section, which itself would fit nicely between the two large entry/access points. The away end would need to comply with the minimum league standards (3000 I believe) and therefore might need some jiggling, but the rest of the stadium after that pretty much stays as it is.

I know I'm not going to win architect of the year, but it's some food for though, perhaps.

View attachment 28715

I like the idea, but I think the people who you would want to populate the corner would just want to be as close to the away fans as possible and would go next to them regardless.

With safe standing, the issue with our stadium is that there is no walkway halfway up, so if you just pick a particular row for safe standing to end then those in the few rows behind will be unable to see. So then others in the seating will stand, and then the people behind them and the people behind them etc.. You'd have to remove a few rows of seat because of the problem.

There is also the issue of maintaining the segregation between home and away in the concourse with the east stand, but I'm sure some sort of wall/barrier could be erected.

Alternatives, though not ones I think I favour either are:

Safe standing would have to be at rear of the stand so as to not disrupt the enjoyment of others.

Safe standing is one or two entire blocks near the away end corner. This allows people to both be near the away fans and stand. However it would require better behaviour from some of the fans in that area and stringent ticket checks in the safe standing area to prevent overcrowding. We'd really need our owns fans to help police and call out dickhead behaviour and those being somewhere they shouldn't be.

 

[shmmeee]

I'm not sure how will this picture will come out, but I was feeling a bit poorly and bored this afternoon, so had a think about this discussion.

Key:

Yellow - New Singers Corner - Approx 2000 Capacity
Red - New Away End - Approx 3000 Capacity
Black - New Safe Standing Section - Approx 2000 Capacity

The section above the black square then becomes pretty much another tier, which could look smart behind a decent safe standing section, which itself would fit nicely between the two large entry/access points. The away end would need to comply with the minimum league standards (3000 I believe) and therefore might need some jiggling, but the rest of the stadium after that pretty much stays as it is.

I know I'm not going to win architect of the year, but it's some food for though, perhaps.

View attachment 28715

Only issue is you can’t choose where singers corner is. It creates itself. I do think going back to two sides by the away fans is a good idea. Not sure the club or the arena would be up for the expense when it means fewer away tickets though and likely no increase in home fans to compensate.

 

[pusbccfc]

I'm not sure how will this picture will come out, but I was feeling a bit poorly and bored this afternoon, so had a think about this discussion.

Key:

Yellow - New Singers Corner - Approx 2000 Capacity
Red - New Away End - Approx 3000 Capacity
Black - New Safe Standing Section - Approx 2000 Capacity

The section above the black square then becomes pretty much another tier, which could look smart behind a decent safe standing section, which itself would fit nicely between the two large entry/access points. The away end would need to comply with the minimum league standards (3000 I believe) and therefore might need some jiggling, but the rest of the stadium after that pretty much stays as it is.

I know I'm not going to win architect of the year, but it's some food for though, perhaps.

View attachment 28715

Would need safe standing at the back for the acoustics.

 

[pusbccfc]

SAG of Sheffield now limited capacity at Sheffield Wednesday after limited the capacity at Sheffield United.

 

[Johhny Blue]

I like the idea, but I think the people who you would want to populate the corner would just want to be as close to the away fans as possible and would go next to them regardless.

With safe standing, the issue with our stadium is that there is no walkway halfway up, so if you just pick a particular row for safe standing to end then those in the few rows behind will be unable to see. So then others in the seating will stand, and then the people behind them and the people behind them etc.. You'd have to remove a few rows of seat because of the problem.

There is also the issue of maintaining the segregation between home and away in the concourse with the east stand, but I'm sure some sort of wall/barrier could be erected.

Alternatives, though not ones I think I favour either are:

Safe standing would have to be at rear of the stand so as to not disrupt the enjoyment of others.

Safe standing is one or two entire blocks near the away end corner. This allows people to both be near the away fans and stand. However it would require better behaviour from some of the fans in that area and stringent ticket checks in the safe standing area to prevent overcrowding. We'd really need our owns fans to help police and call out dickhead behaviour and those being somewhere they shouldn't be.

Maybe the safe standing area should have a "Must be smaller than this line" signs

 

[Calista]

I do think going back to two sides by the away fans is a good idea.

Sorry, not sure what you mean by that?

 

[Calista]

With safe standing, the issue with our stadium is that there is no walkway halfway up, so if you just pick a particular row for safe standing to end then those in the few rows behind will be unable to see. So then others in the seating will stand, and then the people behind them and the people behind them etc.. You'd have to remove a few rows of seat because of the problem.

Somebody standing a couple of rows down doesn't obscure your view, so surely only one or possibly two rows of seats would need to go? A small matter in the context of making such a change.

 

[chiefdave]

SAG of Sheffield now limited capacity at Sheffield Wednesday after limited the capacity at Sheffield United.

could be good news for us tbh. the more times dumb stuff like this happens the more likely it is to be picked up by someone like the FSA or the national press. If its in the spotlight there might be some pressure to justify these decisions

 

[shmmeee]

Sorry, not sure what you mean by that?

At the moment there’s barely a corner by the away fans opposite singers corner. It’s the one corner that doesn’t go all the way back. So having a full block each side is a good idea imo wherever you put them.

 

[Calista]

At the moment there’s barely a corner by the away fans opposite singers corner. It’s the one corner that doesn’t go all the way back. So having a full block each side is a good idea imo wherever you put them.

Maybe we should call that Swingers Corner to encourage friendly intermingling of home and away fans?

 

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

Would need safe standing at the back for the acoustics.

I just think it looks weird that way. I think it needs to be the opposite in my personal opinion.

 

[Peter Billing Eyes]

I'm not sure how will this picture will come out, but I was feeling a bit poorly and bored this afternoon, so had a think about this discussion.

Key:

Yellow - New Singers Corner - Approx 2000 Capacity
Red - New Away End - Approx 3000 Capacity
Black - New Safe Standing Section - Approx 2000 Capacity

The section above the black square then becomes pretty much another tier, which could look smart behind a decent safe standing section, which itself would fit nicely between the two large entry/access points. The away end would need to comply with the minimum league standards (3000 I believe) and therefore might need some jiggling, but the rest of the stadium after that pretty much stays as it is.

I know I'm not going to win architect of the year, but it's some food for though, perhaps.

View attachment 28715

Great idea. However, the section you have highlighted for safe standing would have to have the risers lowered and reprofiled to prevent sightline issues in the seated section behind and the corners. A balustrade would have to be added to the front of the seated section to prevent spectators from falling onto the shallower standing terrace In front. This may also impact on any F&B and storage facilities which are currently incorporated into the existing rake beneath the stand. It’s definitely achievable but the cost vs reward could be prohibitive.

 

[Calista]

Great idea. However, the section you have highlighted for safe standing would have to have the risers lowered and reprofiled to prevent sightline issues in the seated section behind and the corners. A balustrade would have to be added to the front of the seated section to prevent spectators from falling onto the shallower standing terrace In front. This may also impact on any F&B and storage facilities which are currently incorporated into the existing rake beneath the stand. It’s definitely achievable but the cost vs reward could be prohibitive.

I'm not sure that a 'safe standing area' is a shallow terrace. Think it's more like seating with rails to facilitate standing, so the incline would not change?

 

[Peter Billing Eyes]

I'm not sure that a 'safe standing area' is a shallow terrace. Think it's more like seating with rails to facilitate standing, so the incline would not change?

It would have to change if you are proposing a standing area in front of and next to seated sections. Think about it. You would lose at least 5 rows of seating behind the standing section and at least a block of seating into each corner before those seated individuals were not impacted by having a standing spectator spoiling their view.

Without altering the rake of the concrete risers in the standing sections to compensate, a resulting loss of capacity would be somewhere in the region of 2000-3000 spaces due to ‘restricted views’. I disagree with your statement that someone standing a ‘couple of rows down doesn’t impact your view’.

You can’t just put a standing section next to a seated area without considering the effect it has on the those around it. The other option that would not impact sightlines is to have the entire end and corners safe standing, but I’m not sure there would be the uptake for around 7500 fans wishing to stand at the moment.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

In terms of not affecting sightlines it actually makes more sense to have safe standing in a corner.

 

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

I think safe standing in a corner, or like Shrewbury have it, at the top of the stand, just looks shit and tinpot. To me at least, just how you don't do it.

Architecture these days is a lot better than what some are giving it credit for. You can build up gradients pretty easily, and the idea I proposed would work. There wouldn't really be a loss of capacity even if there was a small split where the standing ended and the seating started. Part of the reason for this is the width of the rail 'safe standing' seats is closer, and therefore offers a bit more capacity anyway.

We should have a bit of vision and ambition.

 

[GaryMabbuttsLeftKnee]

I am probably missing something and I am not exactly a hooligan so can't say I go looking for it, but I've been to 100ish grounds and the CBS is the only one I know of (it could be bias because it's the one I hear the most about) that has fans/safety groups so obsessed with the location of the away end. Most grounds I have been to, I have wandered around trying to work out which the away end is, and shockingly I have never been randomly attacked by the vicious locals. Last night I asked a steward as I had no idea. I went to Leeds & Everton away with a mate who supports Arsenal. Walked among home fans the entire way in/way out. I didn't see any trouble whatsoever. Most aggressive thing I heard was a slightly menacing southern softy/dirty northern bastard exchange that plateaued. I really don't think it is the warzone that some people think it might be and as many have insinuated before, normalize fans walking among each other (with policing obviously) and you will probably find people aren't quite so 'hard' and the groups getting involved are much, much smaller and makes it easier to police.

 

[Calista]

It would have to change if you are proposing a standing area in front of and next to seated sections. Think about it. You would lose at least 5 rows of seating behind the standing section and at least a block of seating into each corner before those seated individuals were not impacted by having a standing spectator spoiling their view.

Without altering the rake of the concrete risers in the standing sections to compensate, a resulting loss of capacity would be somewhere in the region of 2000-3000 spaces due to ‘restricted views’. I disagree with your statement that someone standing a ‘couple of rows down doesn’t impact your view’.

You can’t just put a standing section next to a seated area without considering the effect it has on the those around it. The other option that would not impact sightlines is to have the entire end and corners safe standing, but I’m not sure there would be the uptake for around 7500 fans wishing to stand at the moment.

Fair enough, and from your vocabulary (reprofiling, risers and rakes ) you clearly have technical knowledge in this area. I agree that there probably wouldn't be demand for 7500 standing.

But I'm curious about your conclusions, because it seems to me that when I go from a seated position to standing, my head lifts by a couple of feet at most. Why would that require taking out ‘at least 5 rows’ behind me, and a whole block to the side? On Earlsdon's pic, the two tunnels are a natural boundary on each side.

Here are some people from Humberside on Saturday. By definition, it’s OK to sit one row behind a seated person, with your midriff at the level of their head (white arrow). A standing person’s head is level with the midriff of someone three rows back (red arrow), so if you took out two rows (black arrows) why wouldn’t it work? Maybe I'm missing something about perspective? I guess to install a balustrade () you might lose another row, but 5 rows does seem a lot.

I can see the possible downside to losing overall capacity, and obviously it would make sense not to fall below the minimum to host elite events (I seem to recall that there was a rationale in making the Ricoh above 30,000 for some things?).

 

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

Fair enough, and from your vocabulary (reprofiling, risers and rakes ) you clearly have technical knowledge in this area. I agree that there probably wouldn't be demand for 7500 standing.

But I'm curious about your conclusions, because it seems to me that when I go from a seated position to standing, my head lifts by a couple of feet at most. Why would that require taking out ‘at least 5 rows’ behind me, and a whole block to the side? On Earlsdon's pic, the two tunnels are a natural boundary on each side.

Here are some people from Humberside on Saturday. By definition, it’s OK to sit one row behind a seated person, with your midriff at the level of their head (white arrow). A standing person’s head is level with the midriff of someone three rows back (red arrow), so if you took out two rows (black arrows) why wouldn’t it work? Maybe I'm missing something about perspective? I guess to install a balustrade () you might lose another row, but 5 rows does seem a lot.

I can see the possible downside to losing overall capacity, and obviously it would make sense not to fall below the minimum to host elite events (I seem to recall that there was a rationale in making the Ricoh above 30,000 for some things?).

View attachment 28731

Some good points.

As I mentioned above, the safe standing area within the natural barriers (which I think looks smart) would be a few thousand people, so even if you did (worst case scenario) lose 5 rows behind, you might lose 500 off the capacity. It certainly wouldn't be thousands just for that one area and the CBS is steeper than it is being credit for in that aspect. You would also make several hundred of that back of said capacity loss, as the safe standing area can hold more people than your normal seating area. Density of capacity is higher. I really don't think it is an issue other than cost and proper project & building planning.

I would advise those advocating for it to be at the top, to honestly look at Shrewsbury. It just looks silly to me, and I would probably rather not have it at all than have it if it were going to look like that. Meanwhile, to look at an example of how you can revamp a stadium, look at RCD Mallorca who are mid-process. You can do pretty much anything these days. As I said, let's have some ambition (and somebody to pay for it)!

 

[Calista]

Safe standing naturally involves some physical separation measures from the surrounding seating. Therefore if planned and executed well, it shouldn’t be beyond the wit of man to enable standing CCFC fans to be in the South Stand, even if moving the away fans isn’t practical. CCFC standing in the whole of blocks 11 to 13, and at least part of 10? Maybe there’s a clever way to have some Away capacity in the upper sections of 10 and 11 whilst maintaining separation of entrances / exits, thus enabling CCFC standing right across behind the goal? I realise there would also need to be changes in the concourse etc., and that money would need to be spent.

With sensible measures like railings etc. plus CCTV, the SAG might even be satisfied that World War Three can be avoided.

Just look at how our noisiest fans have been literally sidelined under the current arrangements, compared to the away contingent. There’s 50 yards of separation, but still armies of stewards and police. It can be counter-productive in that it creates an antagonistic atmosphere, much like the cages used to do.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

I think safe standing in a corner, or like Shrewbury have it, at the top of the stand, just looks shit and tinpot. To me at least, just how you don't do it.

Architecture these days is a lot better than what some are giving it credit for. You can build up gradients pretty easily, and the idea I proposed would work. There wouldn't really be a loss of capacity even if there was a small split where the standing ended and the seating started. Part of the reason for this is the width of the rail 'safe standing' seats is closer, and therefore offers a bit more capacity anyway.

We should have a bit of vision and ambition.

Why does it look shit and tinpot?

Standing in the corner is what we, effectively, already have with Singer's Corner. Imagine being in the WT all those years ago and being told that at the new ground their equivalent would be in the corner of the new stadium. You'd have been laughed at. And that was done by fans choosing to move there - the intention was for the north stand to be the WT equivalent.

Another point is that having it at the back of the stand or in the corner arguably makes it less likely for there to be incursions onto the pitch as those percieved most likely to do it won't have as easy access to the pitch.

Fair enough, it looks a bit better for the TV cameras to see fans going ape-shit behind the goal when we score, but we've not had that at the Arena. Yet for many the atmosphere is a good as it's ever been. If you're in the noisy section it's a good atmosphere regardless of exactly where it is in the stadium. It can still be loud and make for a great atmosphere.

It feels like you're basing this more on what you feel seems better.

 

[Alan Dugdales Moustache]

Just look at how our noisiest fans have been literally sidelined under the current arrangements, compared to the away contingent. There’s 50 yards of separation, but still armies of stewards and police. It can be counter-productive in that it creates an antagonistic atmosphere, much like the cages used to do.

View attachment 28736

If we got 25k + every home game that 50 yards of separation would shrink .

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Fair enough, and from your vocabulary (reprofiling, risers and rakes ) you clearly have technical knowledge in this area. I agree that there probably wouldn't be demand for 7500 standing.

But I'm curious about your conclusions, because it seems to me that when I go from a seated position to standing, my head lifts by a couple of feet at most. Why would that require taking out ‘at least 5 rows’ behind me, and a whole block to the side? On Earlsdon's pic, the two tunnels are a natural boundary on each side.

Here are some people from Humberside on Saturday. By definition, it’s OK to sit one row behind a seated person, with your midriff at the level of their head (white arrow). A standing person’s head is level with the midriff of someone three rows back (red arrow), so if you took out two rows (black arrows) why wouldn’t it work? Maybe I'm missing something about perspective? I guess to install a balustrade () you might lose another row, but 5 rows does seem a lot.

I can see the possible downside to losing overall capacity, and obviously it would make sense not to fall below the minimum to host elite events (I seem to recall that there was a rationale in making the Ricoh above 30,000 for some things?).

View attachment 28731

You've got to consider the angles that people are looking at the pitch. Being in the midriff of someone three rows back is fine if they're looking straight ahead, but they won't be. They'll be looking at a slight downward angle at the pitch (which would be determined by how steep the stand is) and in order for them to have a view of every part of the pitch that downward angle could actually be quite significant. A similar thing happens if someone is standing to the side of you and being able to see the corner of the pitch.

I guess the only way to work it out is next game someone to sit down and have someone stand in the rows in front until the point where the person sitting down can see the entire playing area.

 

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

Why does it look shit and tinpot?

Standing in the corner is what we, effectively, already have with Singer's Corner. Imagine being in the WT all those years ago and being told that at the new ground their equivalent would be in the corner of the new stadium. You'd have been laughed at. And that was done by fans choosing to move there - the intention was for the north stand to be the WT equivalent.

Another point is that having it at the back of the stand or in the corner arguably makes it less likely for there to be incursions onto the pitch as those percieved most likely to do it won't have as easy access to the pitch.

Fair enough, it looks a bit better for the TV cameras to see fans going ape-shit behind the goal when we score, but we've not had that at the Arena. Yet for many the atmosphere is a good as it's ever been. If you're in the noisy section it's a good atmosphere regardless of exactly where it is in the stadium. It can still be loud and make for a great atmosphere.

It feels like you're basing this more on what you feel seems better.

Having been to a million stadiums around the world, it is absolutely based on what I feel seems better.

A standing terrace should be bottom up, behind one of the goals. It's not even an argument, based on experience.

 

[Peter Billing Eyes]

Current planning for stadia in the U.K. determines that a maximum seating pitch is 34 degrees. The CBS represents a rake of between 30 and 34 degrees a fair representation of which is shown in the image below, including the recognised distance to the nearest touchline. It’s fair to say that to have a reasonable ‘C’ ratio of visibility to every section of the pitch, the individual seated would need at least 5 clear rows of seating in front of them to avoid sightline issues created by spectators standing in front.

 

[Calista]

Current planning for stadia in the U.K. determines that a maximum seating pitch is 34 degrees. The CBS represents a rake of between 30 and 34 degrees a fair representation of which is shown in the image below, including the recognised distance to the nearest touchline. It’s fair to say that to have a reasonable ‘C’ ratio of visibility to every section of the pitch, the individual seated would need at least 5 clear rows of seating in front of them to avoid sightline issues created by spectators standing in front. View attachment 28740

I'm sure the equation is right, but have you put in the actual numbers for the CBS?

 

[Calista]

I'm sure the equation is right, but have you put in the actual numbers for the CBS?

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

 

[Peter Billing Eyes]

I'm sure the equation is right, but have you put in the actual numbers for the CBS?

If you have cast iron numbers, I’d be happy to look at it. For now, the diagram above is not far off. The ‘C’ data for the CBS is definitely nowhere near what you may think and the potential loss of seats is far greater than 500.

 

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

If you have cast iron numbers, I’d be happy to look at it. For now, the diagram above is not far off. The ‘C’ data for the CBS is definitely nowhere near what you may think and the potential loss of seats is far greater than 500.

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.

 

[Calista]

If you have cast iron numbers, I’d be happy to look at it. For now, the diagram above is not far off. The ‘C’ data for the CBS is definitely nowhere near what you may think and the potential loss of seats is far greater than 500.

I haven't got hard numbers, and of course the touchline isn't fixed in position anyway, it's just a painted line which might be moved. Here's a shot of the other end of the ground, where it looks like at least 12 yards from touchline to first row (i.e. same as from penalty spot to goal line), perhaps 15 yards or even more? Hard to judge because of the perspective.

The 500 figure wasn't mine btw.

 

[Calista]

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.

Yes if PBE is right about the 5 rows (and I'm happy to bow to his judgement on that), the number of seats lost can still be minimised in various ways as you describe.
But for me the total capacity is a red herring anyway, it's more about giving City fans better options.

 

[M&B Stand]

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