...so it's either force everybody to sit down (which would have to be all the time, no jumping up to celebrate, otherwise there's a whole complex issue around how much standing are you allowed, 1 minute in 10?), persist with the unsave status quo, or try something different that has had great success elsewhere.
I know your comment was a little tongue in cheek but I really don't think the justification for changing the law (or rules, what ever is the actual position) is just because some won't adhere to it.
I am a bit of a stickler for rules and I would eject fans that refuse to sit down. If the club wouldn't do that I'd call in the Police and charge the club for the overtime. If necessary I would close the stand for a game, then two, then three etc. until, the fans did as they are expected to do. If the club were still unable to get the fans to sit I would remove the safety certificate and not allow the stand to be used again, ever!
I know this all sounds a little far fetched but that would be my response if I was told I had to change the law (or rules) because the fans are so obviously flaunting the current law (rules).
Incidentally it doesn't bother me if fans sit or stand if they are not making me stand when I want to sit, but eventually an injury (or heaven forbid, a fatally) will occur at a football ground where fans were refusing to sit down and at that point we will see another blame game like the Hillsborough disaster.
The flippant comments about the current situation, both on this thread and many, many others remind me of those that I used to hear bragging about bunking into games back when we had terracing. It's ok to flaunt (and ridicule) health and safety when it suits, but most often those making the rules do so with the best intentions and normally have a point. The aim of H&S is not to be popular but to be safer.
I think that is more than sufficient lecturing from me this evening. I don't think standing will be allowed and I don't think fans will all sit in their seats. however, I don't think it is wise to demand standing on the basis that some fans won't sit because the backlash could be more trouble than it's worth.
So, let's get to the nub of the issue regarding a so-called "safe standing area".
You won't get many women in it because they can't easily watch the game over or around their taller /larger male counterparts; you won't get many children for a similar reason and because their parents won't think it's actually safe; you won't get any supporters who feel (rightly or wrongly) intimidated by large numbers of men singing and bouncing around; and you won't get many older supporters because they suffer from ailments that prevent them from standing comfortably for long periods.
So what is actually being asked for is an exclusive area for boisterous young men many of whom will have got boozed up before the match. I'd say that in many grounds, possibly including ours, such an area will have little chance of being "safe" at all and that therefore no sensible club would entertain the concept. (And maybe, post Hillsborough, liability insurers for the more crowded grounds in the top two divisions would take a similar view, making the concept impossible to implement.)
I fear your being serious. Ever been to a game with terracing still in place? Loads of women and children stand to watch football every week below the Championship level. I was watching Maidstone United Saturday and there were more women and children stood than using the available seated stand.
Yes, many, many times since the early 1960s. The last being the pre-season friendly against Crawley this season. No problem at all, few people plenty of room to move around, even when the downpour made only a small part of the terrace usuable.
BUT you said it yourself "below the Championship level" however in a LARGE crowd it is hopeless, my wife, who is small and light gets to see next to nothing of the match and gets buffetted around, usually unwittingly, by larger fans. Hence my point - what is being asked for will not work in the UK in the higher divisions.
The points made about european matches only reinforces the point. The majority of supporters these days see no enjoyment at all in getting completely wrecked and standing up for a couple of hours? I cannot think that any club in England's top two divisions would take a step that would cost them money to achieve by creating such an area and paying for additional stewards/policing: in Charlton's case merely to reduce overall ticket revenue. It makes no commercial sense so why would a club want to do that even if their insurers would allow it?
Nope, never leave my house, scared of the outside world, so have never been near a pub or a town centre.
Oops, forgot, none of that is true. Hard as it is to believe, I'm not a total idiot and have some experience of the world.
So I take it your perfectly happy for tens of thousands of people to stand in seating areas up and down the country, risking the safety of those around them, rather than standing in a small area of each ground specifically designed for the purpose. That seems insane to me, so it's either force everybody to sit down (which would have to be all the time, no jumping up to celebrate, otherwise there's a whole complex issue around how much standing are you allowed, 1 minute in 10?), persist with the unsave status quo, or try something different that has had great success elsewhere.
So suddenly there are thousands of people that want to stand? Seems to me only a handful at the top of north upper, the kop only stands on big games such as you united for the rest of the time it is only 305.306 that stands.
At Borussia Dortmund 27,000 of the 80,000 are standing. Of course they are not all blokes over 180cms.
Please take a look at photos of the rail seats. Then you'll see how it works and that your wife would have no problem there. It really isn't like at old English grounds.
At Borussia Dortmund 27,000 of the 80,000 are standing. Of course they are not all blokes over 180cms.
Please take a look at photos of the rail seats. Then you'll see how it works and that your wife would have no problem there. It really isn't like at old English grounds.
You misunderstand the point I'm trying to make. I am not anti-standing as a concept but by choice neither me or my wife would use such an area. Those rail seats look expensive. Could Charlton afford to rip out seats, reform the concrete base to get the rake right and put in new seats that no one would then use? There's no way our club could or should be wasting money installing them. Sadly, the horrendous cage netting at the front of the Dortmund terrace tells me everything I need to know.
At Borussia Dortmund 27,000 of the 80,000 are standing. Of course they are not all blokes over 180cms.
Please take a look at photos of the rail seats. Then you'll see how it works and that your wife would have no problem there. It really isn't like at old English grounds.
You misunderstand the point I'm trying to make. I am not anti-standing as a concept but by choice neither me or my wife would use such an area. Those rail seats look expensive. Could Charlton afford to rip out seats, reform the concrete base to get the rake right and put in new seats that no one would then use? There's no way our club could or should be wasting money installing them. Sadly, the horrendous cage netting at the front of the Dortmund terrace tells me everything I need to know.
Horrendous cage netting? Now you are going over the top. It is not what you are implying at all. It is this.
As for the cost that is dealt with in the link in my post above (nov.23).
At my age I probably would not move to a standing area at Charlton either, but that's not the point, is it? Lots of people want to stand, they can do so safely nowadays and it will create a better atmosphere.
On such an issue I would assuming it is up to be expect a balanced article, a point in case being the need for a Trust which our survey showed an overwhelming number of our fans support in principle.
We completely understand that we are open to criticism ideally balanced and well argued, and hopefully we can answer that.
At the same time we are working extremly hard on this, you would not believe how much efforts sometimes goes into these things.
Thank you for your support, I just want to know if DRF has signed up? Or is he just going to maintain a 'devil's advocate' role?
Reading between the lines, you are open to criticism but only from those who have signed up? Thats sounds very much like surrounding yourself with Yes men, which can be quite destructive.
I personally haven't read a policy statement from the Trust with objectives that I believe are a) realistic or b) acheiveable and for that reason I haven't signed up.
To further my concerns the Trust now appears to be moving into territory which is way beyond the (vague) remit it has stated thus far and I am becoming futher inclined not to join.
If you want people like me to sign up you would be better off reasurring us about what the Trust is for and what its policies are on issues such as standing rather than making vague statements about them and then trying to bully objectors away from the debate.
If that were the case why would I respond to your messages on here and indeed every other person who is not a subscriber, I have said I would do this, and the evidence is all over this site. I have no way of telling who is or who isn't on here unless they say so.
You seemed supportive of the trust idea and provided me with information at one point which I was most grateful for, hence my asking if you've signed up, I was teasing a little hence the smiley thing. I am genuinely interested though from what perspective people come from, as someone else who was critical (as I said I am open to it) mentioned they were signed up.
I don't think we'll persuade everyone to sign up or please everyone, however the overwhelming majority do want this according to the research.
Finally, as mentioned here and elsewhere we do not have any policies yet other than to form a trust, and listen to fans and represent them, until we reach AGM we believe this is the correct way to operate. I don't believe suggesting that we look at a particular issue close to many fans hearts - among many others that affect fans - in the future is incompatible with that in any way. Indeed one part of that would need to be assertaining what the consensus feeling was via listening to fans.
DRF the trust is being started on December 5th. Until it is up and running it can't really have policies on anything. I have been involved with trying to get the trust started and I would say that 95% of all 'business' has been about just that, how do we get started.
Of course there is a chicken and egg situation here, you may ask 'what's it for?' before it starts, but if a trust knows what it is completely 'for' before it starts then it stifles the desire for people to get involved and created those policies. However then you get the question wrapped up in your quote here:
'I personally haven't read a policy statement from the Trust with objectives that I believe are a) realistic or b) acheiveable and for that reason I haven't signed up.
As I said chicken and egg. Perhaps 'trust' is a poetic word in this context. Policies and objectives will only have meaning if created by the trust after it is formalised. If you think a trust is worthwhile you have to be in it to influence things, or trust it to be working in the best interests of the supporters and let them get on with it.
Okay, let's look at this from a different angle. You are a politician and the Secretary of State at the Home Office. You know you are going to have to deal with the fallout of the Hillsborough fiasco. You also know that once a club has been required to go all seated it must remain so. And that this is imposed by the licence issued by the Sports Ground Safety Authority (SGSA). The specific licence conditions are prescribed in secondary legislation (an Order) made by the Secretary of State under the Football Spectators Act 1989. You know there is a relatively small but vociferous number of people who want to see safe standing in football stadia. You have asked your Dept. to research the matter and it tells you there is only a very, very small chance that someday someone will be killed or seriously injured (KSI) in such an area and even then it would probably not be because of the conditions in the standing area per se. You guess that very few of those people who wish to stand at football games can be bothered to vote, so they are not in your constituency. You know it would be your job to alter the order made under the legislation so that safe standing can be introduced into the top two tiers of English football. You know that under the legislation the SGSA would be required to advise you prior to making any changes. You sensibly assume that no one in their right mind at the SGSA would say, yes that's okay, when it's so much simpler, cheaper and safer to say no. You also know that if you overruled the SGSA advice and changed the order, Sod's Law would dictate that there would be an horrendous but totally unpredicted catastrophe at a football ground and people would be KSI in a standing area. You know it wouldn't be the fault of the set up at the stadium but the rabid national press and hysterical relatives of the KSI would hold you directly responsible. You would be blamed for making what would be perceived as wholly unnecessary changes. You would lose your job and your reputation would be in tatters. So, here are your choices: (a) you keep things as they are which costs nothing and you cannot be criticised; or (b) you change the order and permit safe standing areas to be introduced. What's your answer. I know what mine would be - it's not going to happen is it?
the fact is I believe correct me if I am wrong, that people were killed in situations where safety regulations were not observed, and even then the blame is largely on the police in the case of hillsboro. There is therefore no linkage in that sense, and safety regulations are and would be far tighter, and better enforced. Plus there is the absence of cages. Yes there is a political question but assuming it could be shown that fans wanted it, then that could be resolved too. There are risks with attending any football match seated or not.
Germans can handle there drink English people have two drinks and think they are Danny Dyer. Safe standing at modern stadiums should not be allowed and hopefully never will so will not be getting my vote.
Laughable!! So better to have standing in stated areas then. Because it does and always will
So, let's get to the nub of the issue regarding a so-called "safe standing area".
You won't get many women in it because they can't easily watch the game over or around their taller /larger male counterparts; you won't get many children for a similar reason and because their parents won't think it's actually safe; you won't get any supporters who feel (rightly or wrongly) intimidated by large numbers of men singing and bouncing around; and you won't get many older supporters because they suffer from ailments that prevent them from standing comfortably for long periods.
So what is actually being asked for is an exclusive area for boisterous young men many of whom will have got boozed up before the match. I'd say that in many grounds, possibly including ours, such an area will have little chance of being "safe" at all and that therefore no sensible club would entertain the concept. (And maybe, post Hillsborough, liability insurers for the more crowded grounds in the top two divisions would take a similar view, making the concept impossible to implement.)
I fear your being serious. Ever been to a game with terracing still in place? Loads of women and children stand to watch football every week below the Championship level. I was watching Maidstone United Saturday and there were more women and children stood than using the available seated stand.
Yes, many, many times since the early 1960s. The last being the pre-season friendly against Crawley this season. No problem at all, few people plenty of room to move around, even when the downpour made only a small part of the terrace usuable.
BUT you said it yourself "below the Championship level" however in a LARGE crowd it is hopeless, my wife, who is small and light gets to see next to nothing of the match and gets buffetted around, usually unwittingly, by larger fans. Hence my point - what is being asked for will not work in the UK in the higher divisions.
The points made about european matches only reinforces the point. The majority of supporters these days see no enjoyment at all in getting completely wrecked and standing up for a couple of hours? I cannot think that any club in England's top two divisions would take a step that would cost them money to achieve by creating such an area and paying for additional stewards/policing: in Charlton's case merely to reduce overall ticket revenue. It makes no commercial sense so why would a club want to do that even if their insurers would allow it?
CAFC Fan,
Then surely you or your wife or whoever would chose to sit, because there will still be seats, in fact there will be a lot of seats.
No one will have to stand to watch football. It's about choice. At the moment, some people may have to stand when they don't want to, because others will chose to stand (as I imagine will happen at Millwall). So surely it is in the interest of sitters and standers to offer a safe environment for both?
will the people that are all for safe standing actually go in there or are they like me just wanting to offload a bunch plums into there and just let me get on with enjoying my games?
I think terracing is better for kids, least if they get bored they can run around and play. Rather then be rooted to a seat unable to move. Thats what I did when my Dad first started taking me during the selhurst and upton park days
I support safe standing in principle, but if someone could paint a picture of how it would work for Charlton specifically I’d love to understand as I think some of the assumptions made in the FSF business case are very flawed.
Charlton own a recently modern stadium. The most likely place that Safe Standing could be implemented in the ground would be the North Stand (probably the North Lower) as the South Stand has to remain the away end for safety reasons due to the access paths to the that stand (which I believe may be even more the case since we sold the Lansdowne Mews parcel of land). The North Stand is the most recently developed part of the ground probably has another few years until it’s fully depreciated (so, essentially, we’re still paying the costs on our P&L for building the stand).
Charlton’s attendances are normally approximately 68% capacity, but in the North Stand specifically, the most likely part of the ground to implement safe standing that figure is higher – and in parts of the North upper and particularly amongst the areas of the North Upper where you would imagine the demographic that would most favour moving to safe standing that figure is much higher. These people all buy more expensive tickets to sit in seats, the costs of which have already been accounted for.
Even by the FSF’s own business case (kindly linked by Prague) the payback on converting to seats to rail seating is 10 years. Even then, I would love to know how many seats Charlton have to replace a season (it seems that the FSF business case seemed to think that clubs replace seats when the colour of the plastic fades – I think this is highly unlikely). But lets assume the FSF is correct, it’s business case assumes that you sell you’re entire ground out (we don’t, we sell about 68% as above) and that by implementing safe seating you’d increase this capacity 1.8. Whilst you might be able to fit 1.8 people standing for every seated person, you wouldn’t actually increase the number of people attending by 1.8, not after the novelty of standing had worn off anyway. It’s impossible to predict how much your capacity would increase, and at a club like ours, the likely hood is probably it wouldn’t increase by that much.
The other point of course are the political ramifications. Of course standing isn’t dangerous. Standing didn’t kill anyone at Hillsborough, the multitude of other factors that are well know did. However, and as clearly pointed out by CAFC Fan, no politician would put their neck on the block to support this, at least not any time soon. And, as I understand, it would take a change in the law in England and if there aren’t any politicians willing to take the risk, that change in the law will be a long time coming.
How many SPL teams have taken up the option to implement safe standing ?
"You know there is a relatively small but vociferous number of people who want to see safe standing in football stadia."
Evidence? Well, Prague, nothing that would actually stand up (or sit down) in court but, as Mr Spock would say, it is the logical conclusion. First, there are, what, a couple of thousand members here? Yet this topic, on a football-centric site has just managed to crawl over the 100 odd comments - in a month. I'm not reviewing but, probably 75/80 contributors and it's been, what, a 50/50 split on the facility being made available? Some of those in favour have been in the "nice to have" rather than "must have" category. So what do you think a visiting politician would conclude if he noticed that the thread on Simon Jordan's autobiography is getting more interest! Or that the main topic of conversation at the moment seems to be Nathan's job hunting? Probably the same conclusion as me: most people are happy with things as they are. Second, the FSF says it has 200k+ members. (By comparison, the RSPB has over 1mn and even they sometimes fail to get their voice heard). In any event only 4k FSF members could be bothered to send back their questionnaire. Now the FSF says that 92% are in favour of safe standing, but the actual question seems to have been "Do you want a choice of sitting or safe standing?". It's a loaded question and could easily have been construed by a significant number of respondents to have meant "Do you want to have a choice as to whether you stay sitting or be forced to stand?" The response was inevitable. If a different loaded question had been asked, say, "Do you want your club to spend a significant amount of money introducing a dedicated standing area or would you rather have another striker?" I suspect the answer may have been very different. Whatever, the FSF membership hardly constitutes a representative sample. Third, I've got loads of mates that support various football teams. It's inevitable that when we meet up we do the usual old football chat and banter and sometimes even run through some serious football-related topics. You know what? Safe standing has never been mentioned. Not once.
In the real world I'd say there is empirical evidence that's it's a non-topic. Okay you might get a few platitudes/soundbites from football managers, and the odd MP but in the cold light of day I really cannot see a Govt. (of any persuasion) being prepared to waste its time looking into the issue. Time will tell as to whether I'm right or wrong but don't expect to see it as a vote-winner in any party manifestos come the next election.
I tend to agree with you CAFCFan. However, I don't think it would be a major accident that occurs. It will be the last game of the first season with standing. Whatever team gets promoted will have a pitch invavasion. Without seats to make the flow of people difficult, the whole section will storm the pitch. It wont be mentioned that pitch invasions happen every year for promoted teams. It will be the MPs fault for allowing the seats to be removed.
Being lazy as only part read the thread, but are there really fans of the club who no longer attend due to all seating? I would rather stand but certainly does not stop me watching the team that I support.
I tend to agree with you CAFCFan. However, I don't think it would be a major accident that occurs. It will be the last game of the first season with standing. Whatever team gets promoted will have a pitch invavasion. Without seats to make the flow of people difficult, the whole section will storm the pitch. It wont be mentioned that pitch invasions happen every year for promoted teams. It will be the MPs fault for allowing the seats to be removed.
My god - Has anyone actually looked at the German design? You could not flow on to the pitch as there are railing across each row!!!
Well there is one thing I will concede that we agree on: Neither of us actually know how strong the support for safe standing is. And I agree this should be done before the campaign goes much further. Knowing the likely take up would assist in answering the pertinent questions se9addick raises.
The trouble is, it is Football's job to do this, not individual clubs, but football is the most under-researched consumer business I know. That is because football doesn't think of fans as customers, but as captive mugs who will pay up whatever. The Government should tell the FAPL to cough up for some top-quality market research which accurately defines what % of fans who regularly attend would like to see standing areas, and what % would use them (two different figures). I would agree that the FSF's research is insufficient on its own, although it is currently the best indicator we have.
Well there is one thing I will concede that we agree on: Neither of us actually know how strong the support for safe standing is. And I agree this should be done before the campaign goes much further. Knowing the likely take up would assist in answering the pertinent questions se9addick raises.
The trouble is, it is Football's job to do this, not individual clubs, but football is the most under-researched consumer business I know. That is because football doesn't think of fans as customers, but as captive mugs who will pay up whatever. The Government should tell the FAPL to cough up for some top-quality market research which accurately defines what % of fans who regularly attend would like to see standing areas, and what % would use them (two different figures). I would agree that the FSF's research is insufficient on its own, although it is currently the best indicator we have.
I suspect that the Government don't want to demand research into this as I'm convinced that they will not approve it anyway. From an institutional view point I don't see any benefit to introducing standing, so none of those that would have to demand, or pay for, the research stand to benefit from it.
The more middle class one is the less acceptable they find the idea of standing at spectator events, and the lower the perceived view of those that want to stand is. I know that sounds snobby but in truth the vast majority of the politicians in this country have little empathy with the type of people that they think would like to stand at a football match. On that basis they will all make public statements that will avoid saying 'no' but they will never actually say 'yes'.
Very good article about Germany here by David Conn. Not just the standing but the whole Bundesliga model: 51% fan-owned clubs, investment in academies, telling point about nationalities in the teams when Citeh played Dortmund the other week.
I recently took part in a "safe standing experiment" - the footy was poor but the experience was electric - a great reminder of yesteryear. Thank you Millwall for reminding me what standing was like.
The stewards simply went to clear the aisles every so often and ensure no overcrowding but left people to stand throughout the game - more singing, made the game appear more exiting - would have to ask the players if it made a difference
Would love this. Obviously the JS stand is used as the away end because it's easier to police and control the fans. I've always thought that both ends should be home fans, stick the away lot in the end of the east/west out of the way. It would intensify the atmosphere.
Would love this. Obviously the JS stand is used as the away end because it's easier to police and control the fans. I've always thought that both ends should be home fans, stick the away lot in the end of the east/west out of the way. It would intensify the atmosphere.
Can't, won't be down. Clubs never tried it but still can't be done
The more middle class one is the less acceptable they find the idea of standing at spectator events, and the lower the perceived view of those that want to stand is. I know that sounds snobby but in truth the vast majority of the politicians in this country have little empathy with the type of people that they think would like to stand at a football match. On that basis they will all make public statements that will avoid saying 'no' but they will never actually say 'yes'.
Is this true? If you think of the middle class/posher sports, like golf, or horse racing, they involve the vast majority of the spectators standing. I think this is a statement that is "held to be true", but absolutely no research has been done, which is the point raised above.
The majority of away fans obviously want to stand, as they spend the vast majority of the time doing so. Either some way has to be found to stop them, or some form of safe standing needs to be introduced. The current solution of allowing fans to use seated areas for standing cannot continue forever, it is only a matter of time before some people get seriously injured, especially at ground where there is a high rake in the seating area (e.g. Newcastle where the away fans are high in the top tier, it is only a matter of time before a couple of people fall forward and there is a cascade effect).
Comments
I am a bit of a stickler for rules and I would eject fans that refuse to sit down. If the club wouldn't do that I'd call in the Police and charge the club for the overtime. If necessary I would close the stand for a game, then two, then three etc. until, the fans did as they are expected to do. If the club were still unable to get the fans to sit I would remove the safety certificate and not allow the stand to be used again, ever!
I know this all sounds a little far fetched but that would be my response if I was told I had to change the law (or rules) because the fans are so obviously flaunting the current law (rules).
Incidentally it doesn't bother me if fans sit or stand if they are not making me stand when I want to sit, but eventually an injury (or heaven forbid, a fatally) will occur at a football ground where fans were refusing to sit down and at that point we will see another blame game like the Hillsborough disaster.
The flippant comments about the current situation, both on this thread and many, many others remind me of those that I used to hear bragging about bunking into games back when we had terracing. It's ok to flaunt (and ridicule) health and safety when it suits, but most often those making the rules do so with the best intentions and normally have a point. The aim of H&S is not to be popular but to be safer.
I think that is more than sufficient lecturing from me this evening. I don't think standing will be allowed and I don't think fans will all sit in their seats. however, I don't think it is wise to demand standing on the basis that some fans won't sit because the backlash could be more trouble than it's worth.
BUT you said it yourself "below the Championship level" however in a LARGE crowd it is hopeless, my wife, who is small and light gets to see next to nothing of the match and gets buffetted around, usually unwittingly, by larger fans. Hence my point - what is being asked for will not work in the UK in the higher divisions.
The points made about european matches only reinforces the point. The majority of supporters these days see no enjoyment at all in getting completely wrecked and standing up for a couple of hours? I cannot think that any club in England's top two divisions would take a step that would cost them money to achieve by creating such an area and paying for additional stewards/policing: in Charlton's case merely to reduce overall ticket revenue. It makes no commercial sense so why would a club want to do that even if their insurers would allow it?
At Borussia Dortmund 27,000 of the 80,000 are standing. Of course they are not all blokes over 180cms.
Please take a look at photos of the rail seats. Then you'll see how it works and that your wife would have no problem there. It really isn't like at old English grounds.
Sadly, the horrendous cage netting at the front of the Dortmund terrace tells me everything I need to know.
As for the cost that is dealt with in the link in my post above (nov.23).
At my age I probably would not move to a standing area at Charlton either, but that's not the point, is it? Lots of people want to stand, they can do so safely nowadays and it will create a better atmosphere.
I personally haven't read a policy statement from the Trust with objectives that I believe are a) realistic or b) acheiveable and for that reason I haven't signed up.
To further my concerns the Trust now appears to be moving into territory which is way beyond the (vague) remit it has stated thus far and I am becoming futher inclined not to join.
If you want people like me to sign up you would be better off reasurring us about what the Trust is for and what its policies are on issues such as standing rather than making vague statements about them and then trying to bully objectors away from the debate.
If that were the case why would I respond to your messages on here and indeed every other person who is not a subscriber, I have said I would do this, and the evidence is all over this site. I have no way of telling who is or who isn't on here unless they say so.
You seemed supportive of the trust idea and provided me with information at one point which I was most grateful for, hence my asking if you've signed up, I was teasing a little hence the smiley thing. I am genuinely interested though from what perspective people come from, as someone else who was critical (as I said I am open to it) mentioned they were signed up.
I don't think we'll persuade everyone to sign up or please everyone, however the overwhelming majority do want this according to the research.
Finally, as mentioned here and elsewhere we do not have any policies yet other than to form a trust, and listen to fans and represent them, until we reach AGM we believe this is the correct way to operate. I don't believe suggesting that we look at a particular issue close to many fans hearts - among many others that affect fans - in the future is incompatible with that in any way. Indeed one part of that would need to be assertaining what the consensus feeling was via listening to fans.
Of course there is a chicken and egg situation here, you may ask 'what's it for?' before it starts, but if a trust knows what it is completely 'for' before it starts then it stifles the desire for people to get involved and created those policies. However then you get the question wrapped up in your quote here:
'I personally haven't read a policy statement from the Trust with objectives that I believe are a) realistic or b) acheiveable and for that reason I haven't signed up.
As I said chicken and egg. Perhaps 'trust' is a poetic word in this context. Policies and objectives will only have meaning if created by the trust after it is formalised. If you think a trust is worthwhile you have to be in it to influence things, or trust it to be working in the best interests of the supporters and let them get on with it.
You are a politician and the Secretary of State at the Home Office.
You know you are going to have to deal with the fallout of the Hillsborough fiasco.
You also know that once a club has been required to go all seated it must remain so. And that this is imposed by the licence issued by the Sports Ground Safety Authority (SGSA). The specific licence conditions are prescribed in secondary legislation (an Order) made by the Secretary of State under the Football Spectators Act 1989.
You know there is a relatively small but vociferous number of people who want to see safe standing in football stadia. You have asked your Dept. to research the matter and it tells you there is only a very, very small chance that someday someone will be killed or seriously injured (KSI) in such an area and even then it would probably not be because of the conditions in the standing area per se.
You guess that very few of those people who wish to stand at football games can be bothered to vote, so they are not in your constituency.
You know it would be your job to alter the order made under the legislation so that safe standing can be introduced into the top two tiers of English football.
You know that under the legislation the SGSA would be required to advise you prior to making any changes. You sensibly assume that no one in their right mind at the SGSA would say, yes that's okay, when it's so much simpler, cheaper and safer to say no.
You also know that if you overruled the SGSA advice and changed the order, Sod's Law would dictate that there would be an horrendous but totally unpredicted catastrophe at a football ground and people would be KSI in a standing area.
You know it wouldn't be the fault of the set up at the stadium but the rabid national press and hysterical relatives of the KSI would hold you directly responsible.
You would be blamed for making what would be perceived as wholly unnecessary changes. You would lose your job and your reputation would be in tatters.
So, here are your choices: (a) you keep things as they are which costs nothing and you cannot be criticised; or (b) you change the order and permit safe standing areas to be introduced.
What's your answer.
I know what mine would be - it's not going to happen is it?
Laughable!! So better to have standing in stated areas then. Because it does and always will CAFC Fan,
Then surely you or your wife or whoever would chose to sit, because there will still be seats, in fact there will be a lot of seats.
No one will have to stand to watch football. It's about choice. At the moment, some people may have to stand when they don't want to, because others will chose to stand (as I imagine will happen at Millwall). So surely it is in the interest of sitters and standers to offer a safe environment for both?
I can't see how anyone can argue against this!??!
What is your evidence for the following remark?:
"You know there is a relatively small but vociferous number of people who want to see safe standing in football stadia."
Charlton own a recently modern stadium. The most likely place that Safe Standing could be implemented in the ground would be the North Stand (probably the North Lower) as the South Stand has to remain the away end for safety reasons due to the access paths to the that stand (which I believe may be even more the case since we sold the Lansdowne Mews parcel of land). The North Stand is the most recently developed part of the ground probably has another few years until it’s fully depreciated (so, essentially, we’re still paying the costs on our P&L for building the stand).
Charlton’s attendances are normally approximately 68% capacity, but in the North Stand specifically, the most likely part of the ground to implement safe standing that figure is higher – and in parts of the North upper and particularly amongst the areas of the North Upper where you would imagine the demographic that would most favour moving to safe standing that figure is much higher. These people all buy more expensive tickets to sit in seats, the costs of which have already been accounted for.
Even by the FSF’s own business case (kindly linked by Prague) the payback on converting to seats to rail seating is 10 years. Even then, I would love to know how many seats Charlton have to replace a season (it seems that the FSF business case seemed to think that clubs replace seats when the colour of the plastic fades – I think this is highly unlikely). But lets assume the FSF is correct, it’s business case assumes that you sell you’re entire ground out (we don’t, we sell about 68% as above) and that by implementing safe seating you’d increase this capacity 1.8. Whilst you might be able to fit 1.8 people standing for every seated person, you wouldn’t actually increase the number of people attending by 1.8, not after the novelty of standing had worn off anyway. It’s impossible to predict how much your capacity would increase, and at a club like ours, the likely hood is probably it wouldn’t increase by that much.
The other point of course are the political ramifications. Of course standing isn’t dangerous. Standing didn’t kill anyone at Hillsborough, the multitude of other factors that are well know did. However, and as clearly pointed out by CAFC Fan, no politician would put their neck on the block to support this, at least not any time soon. And, as I understand, it would take a change in the law in England and if there aren’t any politicians willing to take the risk, that change in the law will be a long time coming.
How many SPL teams have taken up the option to implement safe standing ?
First, there are, what, a couple of thousand members here? Yet this topic, on a football-centric site has just managed to crawl over the 100 odd comments - in a month. I'm not reviewing but, probably 75/80 contributors and it's been, what, a 50/50 split on the facility being made available? Some of those in favour have been in the "nice to have" rather than "must have" category. So what do you think a visiting politician would conclude if he noticed that the thread on Simon Jordan's autobiography is getting more interest! Or that the main topic of conversation at the moment seems to be Nathan's job hunting? Probably the same conclusion as me: most people are happy with things as they are.
Second, the FSF says it has 200k+ members. (By comparison, the RSPB has over 1mn and even they sometimes fail to get their voice heard). In any event only 4k FSF members could be bothered to send back their questionnaire. Now the FSF says that 92% are in favour of safe standing, but the actual question seems to have been "Do you want a choice of sitting or safe standing?". It's a loaded question and could easily have been construed by a significant number of respondents to have meant "Do you want to have a choice as to whether you stay sitting or be forced to stand?" The response was inevitable. If a different loaded question had been asked, say, "Do you want your club to spend a significant amount of money introducing a dedicated standing area or would you rather have another striker?" I suspect the answer may have been very different. Whatever, the FSF membership hardly constitutes a representative sample.
Third, I've got loads of mates that support various football teams. It's inevitable that when we meet up we do the usual old football chat and banter and sometimes even run through some serious football-related topics. You know what? Safe standing has never been mentioned. Not once.
In the real world I'd say there is empirical evidence that's it's a non-topic. Okay you might get a few platitudes/soundbites from football managers, and the odd MP but in the cold light of day I really cannot see a Govt. (of any persuasion) being prepared to waste its time looking into the issue. Time will tell as to whether I'm right or wrong but don't expect to see it as a vote-winner in any party manifestos come the next election.
Well there is one thing I will concede that we agree on: Neither of us actually know how strong the support for safe standing is. And I agree this should be done before the campaign goes much further. Knowing the likely take up would assist in answering the pertinent questions se9addick raises.
The trouble is, it is Football's job to do this, not individual clubs, but football is the most under-researched consumer business I know. That is because football doesn't think of fans as customers, but as captive mugs who will pay up whatever. The Government should tell the FAPL to cough up for some top-quality market research which accurately defines what % of fans who regularly attend would like to see standing areas, and what % would use them (two different figures). I would agree that the FSF's research is insufficient on its own, although it is currently the best indicator we have.
The more middle class one is the less acceptable they find the idea of standing at spectator events, and the lower the perceived view of those that want to stand is. I know that sounds snobby but in truth the vast majority of the politicians in this country have little empathy with the type of people that they think would like to stand at a football match. On that basis they will all make public statements that will avoid saying 'no' but they will never actually say 'yes'.
The stewards simply went to clear the aisles every so often and ensure no overcrowding but left people to stand throughout the game - more singing, made the game appear more exiting - would have to ask the players if it made a difference
Obviously the JS stand is used as the away end because it's easier to police and control the fans. I've always thought that both ends should be home fans, stick the away lot in the end of the east/west out of the way. It would intensify the atmosphere.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/20679867
The majority of away fans obviously want to stand, as they spend the vast majority of the time doing so. Either some way has to be found to stop them, or some form of safe standing needs to be introduced. The current solution of allowing fans to use seated areas for standing cannot continue forever, it is only a matter of time before some people get seriously injured, especially at ground where there is a high rake in the seating area (e.g. Newcastle where the away fans are high in the top tier, it is only a matter of time before a couple of people fall forward and there is a cascade effect).