Haydos Posted 24 March 2011 Posted 24 March 2011 Personally I don't think this is going anywhere any time soon but I'll do all I can to support it. In my opinion it would be a fantastic step forward and there are too many fans that want to watch a football match how it should be watched and they are currently ignored and consistently fobbed off with hollow arguments.
iBleedLeicesterColours Posted 24 March 2011 Posted 24 March 2011 Doing as much as I can to promote. Now that the ball is rolling, we need to make the most of it. As has been said loads of Leicester. I will say, not sure if this is significent, but theres a lack of women on there, may be used against ?
Dom_Harborough Fox Posted 24 March 2011 Posted 24 March 2011 Doing as much as I can to promote. Now that the ball is rolling, we need to make the most of it. As has been said loads of Leicester. I will say, not sure if this is significent, but theres a lack of women on there, may be used against ? New approach - everyone get your mrs & your mum to sign as well
lcfc_jme Posted 24 March 2011 Posted 24 March 2011 New approach - everyone get your mrs & your mum to sign as well Already done that had that idea yesterday. Winner. Pitiful number really considering how many are supposedly "pro-choice" and how many fans stand week-in, week-out at games. Hopefully it's a slow-grower and there'll be an unbelievable upturn in numbers.
acooling08 Posted 24 March 2011 Posted 24 March 2011 Plus one. Still support it and signed the petition.. but the FL won't allow it in a million years!
ajthefox Posted 25 March 2011 Posted 25 March 2011 signed and in the process of posting it around, would be amazing if it ever happened
sbfox Posted 25 March 2011 Posted 25 March 2011 For argument sake, the real problem I can see with this is numbers. Say for example, 10% of our ground is given over to standing. That's what, about 3000ish people? Now, can you imagine the unholy fight there would be for those 3000ish standing spacs?! It'd be mental...
Simmo86 Posted 25 March 2011 Posted 25 March 2011 For argument sake, the real problem I can see with this is numbers. Say for example, 10% of our ground is given over to standing. That's what, about 3000ish people? Now, can you imagine the unholy fight there would be for those 3000ish standing spacs?! It'd be mental... They'd be 3000 tickets for those 3000 spaces
Haydos Posted 25 March 2011 Posted 25 March 2011 They'd be 3000 tickets for those 3000 spaces Think he means for tickets maybe? Either way it would only be a good thing.
EnglishOxide Posted 25 March 2011 Posted 25 March 2011 The Premier League will oppose moves to reintroduce standing areas at top-flight football matches in England.The Football Supporters' Federation (FSF) is to launch an online petition calling for the return of standing areas in the top two divisions. But Premier League spokesman Dan Johnson said: "Our view is that the benefits of all-seater stadia far outweigh the return of standing areas." Terraces were banned following the Hillsborough disaster in 1989. The issue of allowing some standing areas has been revisited a number of times since all-seater stadiums became compulsory in 1994. Continue reading the main story They [all-seater stadiums] have led to more women and more children attending the games and no matter how safe standing can be made, seating is always safer Dan Johnson Premier League spokesman Kate Hoey tried to back a scheme when she was sports minister in 2001 but the-then Government blocked it. The FSF held a meeting on Monday with representatives from the police, Government and football authorities. FSF chairman Malcolm Clarke argued that many fans already stand all match despite having seats which is viewed as a safety risk. Clarke told the Guardian: "Fans do believe they have lost something in the move to all-seating. We will be doing further research to respond to the concerns of those who are not yet convinced." Sports minister Hugh Robertson said he would examine the evidence for safe standing but played down any likelihood of a change to the law. Referring to the prospect of an accident or crowd trouble if terraces were reintroduced, Robertson told the meeting: "The minister's head would be on a spike on Tower Bridge before he could draft a resignation letter." The Government insists no compelling case has been made to bring back standing areas. "Football grounds are safer and more comfortable than they were 20 years ago," said a spokesman for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. "All-seater stadia are the best means to ensure the safety and security of fans and have been a contributing factor to the increased diversity of those attending matches in recent years. "The Government appreciates that there are some supporters who would like to see the return of standing areas at football stadia, but do not believe that a compelling case has been made to change the policy." Premier League spokesman Johnson added: "They [all-seater stadiums] have led to more women and more children attending the games and no matter how safe standing can be made, seating is always safer. "We will not be encouraging the Government to change the law." Which is why they would sit in the seated areas. When the BBC publish biased and stupid comments like this without said comments being challenged really annoys me. Poor journalism. What's worse is that alot of people will be reading and going 'fair play, can't have women and children getting hurt'.
Dom_Harborough Fox Posted 25 March 2011 Posted 25 March 2011 Exactly. It was much better reported in David Conn's article in The Guardian in my opinion. If safe-standing areas were brought in to stadia, the majority (around 80%) of the capacity of each of those stadia would remain all-seated. Women, children and anybody else who might prefer to sit would still have the vast majority of the ground to choose from, away from the standing sections that would supposedly scare them off.
LCFC_Josh Posted 25 March 2011 Posted 25 March 2011 I have signed the petition in support of safe standing.
sbfox Posted 25 March 2011 Posted 25 March 2011 They'd be 3000 tickets for those 3000 spaces Not LITERALLY a fight.... Logically though, I can imagine there would be a huge demand for standing tickets and we all know what happens when demand outstrips supply, right? Price increases! Then we'd get a spiral of high prices, people not wanting to pay for them, calls for lower prices, more protests, etc etc. I'm not against the idea per se, but I don't think its ever going to be as easy as wacking 3000 standing seats in to the Kop.
Fosse Boy Posted 25 March 2011 Posted 25 March 2011 Not LITERALLY a fight.... Logically though, I can imagine there would be a huge demand for standing tickets and we all know what happens when demand outstrips supply, right? Price increases! Then we'd get a spiral of high prices, people not wanting to pay for them, calls for lower prices, more protests, etc etc. I'm not against the idea per se, but I don't think its ever going to be as easy as wacking 3000 standing seats in to the Kop. What about 4, 5 or 6,000 then? English Oxide is spot on by the way. Complete spin for the uneducated masses from some news outlets. Really do despair at how they swallow the police, Premier League and other organisations' propaganda so readily.
Simmo86 Posted 25 March 2011 Posted 25 March 2011 Not LITERALLY a fight.... Logically though, I can imagine there would be a huge demand for standing tickets and we all know what happens when demand outstrips supply, right? Price increases! Then we'd get a spiral of high prices, people not wanting to pay for them, calls for lower prices, more protests, etc etc. I'm not against the idea per se, but I don't think its ever going to be as easy as wacking 3000 standing seats in to the Kop. I was thinking along the lines off...whoever brings the biggest bat gets a standing space!
CheshireFox Posted 25 March 2011 Posted 25 March 2011 I've signed so that's one more female on there! btw this: They [all-seater stadiums] have led to more women and more children attending the games and no matter how safe standing can be made, seating is always safer what a bunch of crapola! do they think that the only women who go to the footie only go because they have to take the kids?? or because they go with their other half? and have to be able to sit down? anyway, the whole point they are missing is that there would still be seating (IE IN THE FAMILY STAND??) ffs. have the sexist pigs that run football actually taken any surveys since standing was banned or are they using all of this as very convenient excuses for not actually listening to supporters at all?
ajthefox Posted 25 March 2011 Posted 25 March 2011 the worst thing about all of the dribble, besides the sexism and all the rest is that they persist in ignoring the fact that you probably have a good couple thousand standing at every all seater stadia in the country every flipping week. Seating may be safer than standing, but safe standing is definitely safer than standing where there are seats..
Guest Bilo Posted 25 March 2011 Posted 25 March 2011 The idea that only all-seater stadia are capable of attracting families to games is a lazy, unfounded platitude that betrays the lack of knowledge the footballing bodies have of safe standing models in Europe. Football is a family pastime wherever there are safe standing areas as some families head for the seated areas and, as the children get older, families stand together in the safe standing areas. Seating for families is a soundbite that sounds good on biased press releases and is aimed at stepping on what is a growing movement, nobody with an ounce of intelligence should be fooled by their obscurantism. At least most have the good sense to look through what is essentially propaganda by those with a vested interest in the status quo.
Ozwin Posted 25 March 2011 Posted 25 March 2011 Probably more effective would be for us all to go around pushing young children that stand on seats off of them to highlight the dangers of seating.Those teeth would all fall out in a few years anyway and their bones mend easy, so it isnt like you are really doing anything wrong.
Guest Bilo Posted 29 March 2011 Posted 29 March 2011 Over 9,000 signatures so far... I'm an unoriginal twat but couldn't resist. Still, going reasonably well. Could do with a bit more of a push on other forums for all clubs to really give it a boost though.
Jackirius Posted 29 March 2011 Posted 29 March 2011 I'm an unoriginal twat but couldn't resist. Still, going reasonably well. Could do with a bit more of a push on other forums for all clubs to really give it a boost though. Great program.
lcfc_jme Posted 29 March 2011 Posted 29 March 2011 I'm an unoriginal twat but couldn't resist. Yes! Heroic!! 9,000 is decent, yeah, but to stand any chance of even being considered by the suits it needs to head towards 100,000 minimum I'd imagine.
Fosse Boy Posted 29 March 2011 Posted 29 March 2011 When you think in terms of the grand scheme of how many people stand (and indeed attend) football matches, 9k is a nothing figure. Everyone should of course sign this and show their support but the FSF's constant use of online petitions really does them no favours. A dozen people standing outside our ground one matchday could probably get a similar amount of signatures with ease. This campaign really needs fans uniting away from their computer screen. Kenny Dalglish's horrendous article served to highlight the ridiculous and baseless old prejudices this campaign faces but until we actually do something more physical and visual together his side of the "argument" (and the awful proaganda organisations like the Premier League keep pumping through) is sadly certain to keep winning out.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.