Safe Standing - Support the Early Day motion

[Nugent]

2 minutes ago, davieG said:

If the row in front of those back 3/4 rows decides to sit then every row in front will have to sit so I'm not convinced by your point of view. I doubt it would be the whole Kop though.

Yeah that's true hadn't thought of that, like you said though, very unlikely we'll see the whole of the Kop standing.

[promised land]

5 minutes ago, Nugent said:

 

 

How anyone thinks the whole of the Kop would be made safe-standing is beyond me considering its only the back 3/4 rows that stand, with the rest only getting out their seat if we're pushing for a goal and get a corner in the last 10 minutes.

That's a fairly big brush you're tarring us all with in the kop.

 

I'm row T and would stand but as the rows behind me, about 20  all sit I can't stand my ground. BTW I'm not moving to a standing area either, been here for years just like every other sitter around me  

[Voll Blau]

9 minutes ago, Nugent said:

If the KP was to get safe-standing surely it would be in the SK1 corner, as it's far away enough from the away fans, far enough away from the executive boxes and already houses a fair amount of standers.

 

How anyone thinks the whole of the Kop would be made safe-standing is beyond me considering its only the back 3/4 rows that stand, with the rest only getting out their seat if we're pushing for a goal and get a corner in the last 10 minutes.

Reckon way more would stand if they had the option.

[MarriedaLeicesterGirl]

22 minutes ago, davieG said:

I doubt it but no one's going to it unless there's a good chance of standing becoming legal as it cost a fair bit more to install/replace.

Thanks. but it does mean if a club does install them "in case," that would be a good sign. 

 

I am an American, and many smaller stadiums in the US have stuff similar to rail seating. My wife showed me pictures of terracing (which we don't have) and described it, and I admit I was terrified thinking about ... but rail seating is completely different (which I am sure you all know)

[Sammy]

Bit of a different point but I looked in to this a couple of years ago and just do not feel that PL clubs will really have the incentive to go forward with this and I fear it may just be a publicity thing to try and appease people.

 

They are making so much money and with instillation costs and the expectation (which would end up being a requirement if the FSF did a good job) to lower ticket prices would mean that in the short run they'd lose quite a lot of money. They also don't want the fear of any security risks/bad publicity because of it. 

 

While it's a great idea and I would love to see it introduced I think our best chance would be clubs like Celtic and hopefully some others to manage to get it and have a good couple of years of publicity with it. That said the government will still have to change the law (which for me should have started being discussed since the Goldring coroner's inquest showed the government's justification for a ban on standing and alcohol at games is flawed)

[davieG]

18 minutes ago, MarriedaLeicesterGirl said:

Thanks. but it does mean if a club does install them "in case," that would be a good sign. 

 

I am an American, and many smaller stadiums in the US have stuff similar to rail seating. My wife showed me pictures of terracing (which we don't have) and described it, and I admit I was terrified thinking about ... but rail seating is completely different (which I am sure you all know)

It would certainly  be a good sign, aren't  spurs thinking of putting some in their new stadium?

[Corky]

1 hour ago, Voll Blau said:

Reckon way more would stand if they had the option.

I agree, I reckon many are open to either way of watching the game but are in areas of predominantly sitters and doen't want to cause a scene so go along with the wishes of those around them. We have many standing at away games that probably sit at home matches.

[Rob1742]

If you want an example of how stupid Goverment is, this surely is it.

 

1. There is a consumer need for this to happen.

2. There is a farcicle situation going on at the minute where people are standing when they should be sitting, so currently the situation is flawed. 

3. There are action groups pressing for something to be done.

 

How many years has this been going on?

 

What chance have the poor people who have had four chair persons in the major child abuse enquiry got to get an enquiry sorted if something this simple can't be sorted? 

 

Or if you are looking at a linked case, how long did the Hillsborough enquiry take? 

 

So for me, how can anyone vote for any party when simple situations take decades to resolve.

 

If this was an entrepreneur who could deal with this in his own business it would have been resolved within a week.

 

Absolute farce and just tells you what we have to deal with in many situations. 

 

[yorkie1999]

18 hours ago, promised land said:

Why do you keep banging on about expansion?

 

You have started numerous threads on it and now mention it in others, I know a boro fan who isn't a city member yet has bought tickets to the boro game in the home end, not just one either, a few altogether.

 

While we have seats available so non members can do that expansion will never happen. Accept it and move on.

 

As for safe standing, Everton are on Liverpool's side about having no plans to push for it so it's likely nothing will ever come of it other than talk and gossip.

 

It would take only one incident to point the finger at the premier league or fa for those families to bring it all back in the news.

 

From your posts you sound too young to remember 89 and everything that dragged on afterwards until now but while that's still being brought up in what seems like annual events I can't see safe standing going ahead.

 

Yes I'm all for it but reality says I doubt any of us will see it anytime soon.

But the point is, if safe standing was around in 89, the tragedy at Hillsborough would never have happened and we also wouldn't have standing in seating areas, and all the hassle that goes with it, as we have now.

[promised land]

1 hour ago, yorkie1999 said:

But the point is, if safe standing was around in 89, the tragedy at Hillsborough would never have happened and we also wouldn't have standing in seating areas, and all the hassle that goes with it, as we have now.

True but safe standing was not needed for 100 or so years before 89 was it?

 

They will talk about safe standing for years before anything actually happens, you can't look at Celtic as a barometer either as Scottish law is different to here.

[AndWhat?]

The Hilsborough tragedy would have happened if the Leppings Lane end had seats in it!

 

 

[Bilo]

3 minutes ago, AndWhat? said:

The Hilsborough tragedy would have happened if the Leppings Lane end had seats in it!

 

 

It could have been even worse owing to the lack of crush barriers and literally thousands of trip hazards.

[GingerrrFox]

25 minutes ago, AndWhat? said:

The Hilsborough tragedy would have happened if the Leppings Lane end had seats in it!

 

 

Exactly! The deaths were caused by shithouse policing and people forcing their way into the ground without tickets. The current situation is more unsafe than rail seating. The sooner the powers that be realise this, the better football experiences will be for those that want to stand and those that don't.

 

At away games for example, they could sell the first x number of rows as seated tickets and the rest behind all standing. It's the sensible solution. 

[AndWhat?]

Man Utd asking their season ticket holders for their opinions on Safe Standing. 

 

Wonder what the feeling towards it would be from our season ticket holders?

 

[sylofox]

On ‎19‎/‎11‎/‎2016 at 13:51, GingerrrFox said:

Exactly! The deaths were caused by shithouse policing and people forcing their way into the ground without tickets. The current situation is more unsafe than rail seating. The sooner the powers that be realise this, the better football experiences will be for those that want to stand and those that don't.

 

At away games for example, they could sell the first x number of rows as seated tickets and the rest behind all standing. It's the sensible solution. 

Nothing to do with tickets or any fan just piss poor policing.

 

All they needed to do was put the kick off back 15 mins. Not sling open the gates and create a free for all.

[promised land]

22 minutes ago, AndWhat? said:

Man Utd asking their season ticket holders for their opinions on Safe Standing. 

 

Wonder what the feeling towards it would be from our season ticket holders?

 

The younger generations, (i.e. Under concessions) I would imagine will be all for it, the older ones not so, as with away games they like to sit down. I hear it at home most games when we stand up, someone a dozen rows up yelling 'sit down'.

 

I've nothing against that, it's their choice, but that could well be a sticking point, we have a wide spectrum of fans and not just all under 40 years old.

 

I still can't see it ever becoming a reality though. Calling it a slow burner is an understatement when the product has been available for years, still that laws and red tape I suppose.

[sylofox]

4 minutes ago, promised land said:

The younger generations, (i.e. Under concessions) I would imagine will be all for it, the older ones not so, as with away games they like to sit down. I hear it at home most games when we stand up, someone a dozen rows up yelling 'sit down'.

 

I've nothing against that, it's their choice, but that could well be a sticking point, we have a wide spectrum of fans and not just all under 40 years old.

 

I still can't see it ever becoming a reality though. Calling it a slow burner is an understatement when the product has been available for years, still that laws and red tape I suppose.

Why has age anything to do with this Im 50 and fvcking hate sitting. Yes if I was unable to stand (ie not fit) I would sit.

 

But then you move to a seated area.

[davieG]

If it ever comes in I doubt it would be there for away fans well not for a long long while possible until we've had many seasons of no problems in the home rail seating areas.

[steveherbe]

4 minutes ago, sylofox said:

Why has age anything to do with this Im 50 and fvcking hate sitting. Yes if I was unable to stand (ie not fit) I would sit.

 

But then you move to a seated area.

I'm 65 and stand with the lads in sk1. 

Nowt to do with age.

[Ted Maul]

13 minutes ago, promised land said:

The younger generations, (i.e. Under concessions) I would imagine will be all for it, the older ones not so, as with away games they like to sit down. I hear it at home most games when we stand up, someone a dozen rows up yelling 'sit down'.

 

I've nothing against that, it's their choice, but that could well be a sticking point, we have a wide spectrum of fans and not just all under 40 years old.

 

I still can't see it ever becoming a reality though. Calling it a slow burner is an understatement when the product has been available for years, still that laws and red tape I suppose.

Just allocate an area where many people stand already to have rail seating, and invite anyone who didn't want to stand to relocate. Simple.

[promised land]

2 minutes ago, steveherbe said:

I'm 65 and stand with the lads in sk1. 

Nowt to do with age.

So why is it always the older ones moaning when we stand up?

 

Yes it is to do with age, just because you stand doesn't mean every other fan over 65 stands.

 

If they want to sit they could always move further forward but this doesn't happen.

 

I've yet to see a teenager shouting for fans to sit down, it is always some old coffin dodger. 

 

 

[sylofox]

2 minutes ago, steveherbe said:

I'm 65 and stand with the lads in sk1. 

Nowt to do with age.

I know its nothing to do with age promised land made the comment. " not all our fans are under 40"

 

My point was I'm 50 and love to stand and age is not a sticking point.

[red5]

This thread is fcuking hilarious

[Harry - LCFC]

I understand and agree with the complaints above about how unresponsive the government has been. But for me it's worth remembering that the issue keeps rolling on.

 

More good news there with United. Clubs weren't interested five years ago, now several are. I don't agree with promisedland when he says that this will never happen, I think it's just a matter of time when the 'in favour' side has such a better argument.

[purpleronnie]

4 minutes ago, Harry - LCFC said:

I understand and agree with the complaints above about how unresponsive the government has been. But for me it's worth remembering that the issue keeps rolling on.

 

More good news there with United. Clubs weren't interested five years ago, now several are. I don't agree with promisedland when he says that this will never happen, I think it's just a matter of time when the 'in favour' side has such a better argument.

Not really true Harry, these discussions between clubs and fans have been going on for years.  In fact i remember Man utd talking to their fans 4 years ago about this.

 

To get the government to change legislation is a massive task and I can't see any reason why they would.  The sports minister has said they'll be no recommendation to any change.