Safe Standing at the King Power Stadium

[Trekerz]

Anything but option 1 will be absolutely pointless towards the atmosphere btw. I hope UFS and FT really push that to the club 

[davieG]

14 hours ago, ShepshedFox1884 said:

It feels to me like the club will go option 2 or 3 which while better than nothing is still not great. Option 2 won’t create a real atmosphere as chants can’t get round the stadium with half of the stand trying to get involved and the other half clapping along to it. The SK1 G1 corner is better but still not great sound won’t reach away end meaning our home support will still seem shit even if it does improve. Should be whole stand or should have been swapped with family stand, idk why that wasn’t put forward as an option as it was the best out of all of them 

Doesn't the Family stand have access to the shop at H/T if so they'll never move it.

[UniFox21]

Option 1 is ideal, feel like we'll end up with option 2.

[FoxesTalker]

This is the single biggest opportunity since the stadium move to change the layout, so the club need to ensure they get it right. Like many others, hoping for option one but that seems unlikely.

[FoxesTalker]

23 hours ago, Spudulike said:

Also to add, I'd like to see the 'Kop' renamed to something more original. For the more mature fan, the Kop was left behind at Filbert St and what we have now has never compared. Wasn't it named the Fosse Stand originally? That'll do.

I've mentioned about the Fosse Stand name before, and originally the blocks weren't actually known as SK1 to SK4.

[Spudulike]

15 hours ago, Trekerz said:

Anything but option 1 will be absolutely pointless towards the atmosphere btw. I hope UFS and FT really push that to the club 

I think that option 2 is a decent compromise. Almost makes it a 2-tier stand adding a bit of character and, hopefully, the bottom half is eventually converted. Less forever STH's would be asked to move so less friction. 

[purpleronnie]

What are the odds on the club taking no option at all?

[ShepshedFox1884]

2 minutes ago, purpleronnie said:

What are the odds on the club taking no option at all?

Less than sacking cooper 

[Nolucklcfc]

8 minutes ago, purpleronnie said:

What are the odds on the club taking no option at all?

The only other options really are the north stand and part of the east but I can’t see them doing that. 

[FoyleFox]

Asking possibly a dumb question here but, it's says 'safe standing - it's coming' in the attached document. It's actually just a consultation that's coming, correct?

And the proposed options are ones The Foxes Trust/UFS have designed, nothing proposed by the club? 

Has the club indicated they are genuinely in favour of proceeding with any level of safe standing? 

Reading the document in full, it seems more that they've agreed to a chat about it not that it's coming. Is that an incorrect interpretation? 

Not wishing to sound as though I don't think it's progress, just assessing what that is in reality. 

[purpleronnie]

21 minutes ago, FoyleFox said:

Asking possibly a dumb question here but, it's says 'safe standing - it's coming' in the attached document. It's actually just a consultation that's coming, correct?

And the proposed options are ones The Foxes Trust/UFS have designed, nothing proposed by the club? 

Has the club indicated they are genuinely in favour of proceeding with any level of safe standing? 

Reading the document in full, it seems more that they've agreed to a chat about it not that it's coming. Is that an incorrect interpretation? 

Not wishing to sound as though I don't think it's progress, just assessing what that is in reality. 

Correct, as far as I'm aware the club haven't proposed anything.  People seem to be assuming or believe that this has stemmed from the club and is definitely happening.

[lebleu]

Option 1. The club should be unique and strategise with union fs to locate them centrally or groups in each block to ensure its success as a vibrant home end. Great news though at last. 

[Stadt]

Option 2 would be best. Some exclusivity first means there’s more fervent demand.

 

7K is probably far too many and will end up with people sitting down and avoids the relocations it needs to be a success. 
 

Additionally, a smaller amount is more likely to have proper rail seating rather than just the crap bar across the seats.

[Nolucklcfc]

22 minutes ago, Stadt said:

Option 2 would be best. Some exclusivity first means there’s more fervent demand.

 

7K is probably far too many and will end up with people sitting down and avoids the relocations it needs to be a success. 
 

Additionally, a smaller amount is more likely to have proper rail seating rather than just the crap bar across the seats.

If Southampton can do it, we can. Similar size fanbases and similar in terms of support. I don’t see why they’d have more fans willing to do that than ours. Although we do seem to have an aging fanbase in fairness. 

[Stadt]

16 minutes ago, Nolucklcfc said:

If Southampton can do it, we can. Similar size fanbases and similar in terms of support. I don’t see why they’d have more fans willing to do that than ours. Although we do seem to have an aging fanbase in fairness. 

They did it proactively. I think we’d really dilute the effect by having more people in it than necessary - especially at first. There’s always the scope to expand it.

 

Just sticking a rail in won’t make people leave and subsequently they’ll sit down. It has to be a concerted effort to make a genuine standing section. 4k rather than 7k standing is more realistic.

Edited 16 November 2024 by Stadt

[Foxes_Trust]

1 hour ago, purpleronnie said:

Correct, as far as I'm aware the club haven't proposed anything.  People seem to be assuming or believe that this has stemmed from the club and is definitely happening.

The consultation process was first revealed by the club in the first FAB meeting, our separate article extracting information from the minutes detailed at timetable including:

 

February 2025

• Decision on the installation of independent barriers and the timing.
• Fans Advisory Board updated.

Therefore a final decision will be taken in February as to whether it’s feasible to install for next season 

 

However prior to that will be a fan consultation process, one of the FCC Working Groups will be discussing safe standing next Wednesday, then the second FAB meeting a week later will discuss the consultation process before launching in December.

 

Union FS & the Foxes Trust are keen to play a major part in the consultation process given proposals already submitted to the club as yet without a response

 

 

[Nolucklcfc]

6 minutes ago, Stadt said:

They did it proactively. I think we’d really dilute the effect by having more people on it than necessary - especially at first. There’s always the scope to expand it.

 

Just sticking a rail in won’t make people leave and subsequently they’ll sit down. it has to be a concerted effort to make a genuine standing section. 4k rather than 7k standing is more realistic.

Oh agreed. The club need to handle this well. I still think they’ll do the bare minimum required. 

[davieG]

4 hours ago, Nolucklcfc said:

If Southampton can do it, we can. Similar size fanbases and similar in terms of support. I don’t see why they’d have more fans willing to do that than ours. Although we do seem to have an aging fanbase in fairness. 

I've no doubt you could fill it if you were starting from scratch but those 7K would have mostly have to come from existing ST holders plus a few from members

[Nolucklcfc]

46 minutes ago, davieG said:

I've no doubt you could fill it if you were starting from scratch but those 7K would have mostly have to come from existing ST holders plus a few from members

Hard to say if it would take off or not without consulting with those in the Kop. Many people may be happy to stand but obviously all 7k won’t want to. 

[FLAN]

I’d likely get moved by this and with my dad being too old to stand wouldn’t stay. But I’d absolutely be in favour of it to bring more atmosphere and give my son a chance to experience standing 

[davieG]

If they're any nearer to starting the expansion I doubt they'll want to consider G1 & G2

[sylofox]

On 16/11/2024 at 09:46, davieG said:

Doesn't the Family stand have access to the shop at H/T if so they'll never move it.

The club can't swap the Kop with the family stand. The police won't allow it and the ground would not get a safety ticket.

On 16/11/2024 at 13:40, purpleronnie said:

Correct, as far as I'm aware the club haven't proposed anything.  People seem to be assuming or believe that this has stemmed from the club and is definitely happening.

The way it's written suggests it's the club. Even putting in a completion date in. I doubt the club will even respond to it as it looks like some rocky little kid has put it together.

 

Looks good on FT to start with. The reality is they have probably sabotaged anything happening.

[Sol thewall Bamba]

18 minutes ago, sylofox said:

The club can't swap the Kop with the family stand. The police won't allow it and the ground would not get a safety ticket.

The way it's written suggests it's the club. Even putting in a completion date in. I doubt the club will even respond to it as it looks like some rocky little kid has put it together.

 

Looks good on FT to start with. The reality is they have probably sabotaged anything happening.

You think the club will pause the whole thing (that they're only doing because the SGSA are on their back and threatening their licence), because the trust put an article on their website?

Edited 18 November 2024 by Sol thewall Bamba

[sylofox]

2 hours ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

You think the club will pause the whole thing (that they're only doing because the SGSA are on their back and threatening their licence), because the trust put an article on their website?

My first point has nothing to do with safe standing. It's about swapping the kop and the family stand.

 

 

The second point is about safe standing. The bit the trust have put up reads like it's from the club and going to happen. When actually it's a proposal from FT and UFS. I don't see our owners liking what's been put and the way it reads.

 

Have the club actually said its going to happen? Have they said when? Have they said how many seats?

Do you really think they will tell us the options and give us a say in what happens?

 

Trying to back our owners into a corner is a bad idea imo.

[Sol thewall Bamba]

1 hour ago, sylofox said:

My first point has nothing to do with safe standing. It's about swapping the kop and the family stand.

 

 

The second point is about safe standing. The bit the trust have put up reads like it's from the club and going to happen. When actually it's a proposal from FT and UFS. I don't see our owners liking what's been put and the way it reads.

 

Have the club actually said its going to happen? Have they said when? Have they said how many seats?

Do you really think they will tell us the options and give us a say in what happens?

 

Trying to back our owners into a corner is a bad idea imo.

I think you're overestimating the input "the owner" has. 

 

The safety officer at LCFC is doing this to get the SGSA off his back. I don't disagree personally that the Trust's wording is quite assumptive at this point but to suggest they'll cancel the whole thing and risk having their safety licence withdrawn (meaning no fans in the ground at all) is ludicrous