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.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
The touchline at the CBS is surely much further away than the pictorial example in the drawin
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'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.
I think that last paragraph doesn't do you any favours.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.
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 rowsYou’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.
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 anywayAs 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.
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.also as i am sue has been pointed out, you move the away fans and people will just move to be close to them
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?
Bollocks. A couple of hundred teenagers at best who think they're well 'ard.also as i am sue has been pointed out, you move the away fans and people will just move to be close to them
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?
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
14 and 15 are probably the blocks you could do more easily with less impact on the pitch view for adjacent seated fans.Block 15 and 16 would be perfect.
Those seats are not in use during concerts either. It's a win/win.
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?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.
Unfortunately it wouldn’t be up to us.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.Why??
You'd likely find we'd consider putting it into the away end too.
Unfortunately it wouldn’t be up to us.
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.
14 and 15 are probably the blocks you could do more easily with less impact on the pitch view for adjacent seated fans.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?