I posted about this in the stadium expansion thread but it sunk without a trace around other posts. So, the government yesterday rejected a request from West Brom to turn the stand behind the goal which is shared by home and away fans partly into rail seating: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/43701400 There's a bit of extra info here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/43704338 That's despite the WBA proposal being back by their safety advisory group made up of the police, ambulance, local council etc. I wonder if this risk-adverse decision will backfire on the government? They've been more than happy to weigh in with comment on issues like FA governance and equality in the game, but seemingly won't look at changing an outdated stance on how people should spectate at football games. Are they frightened of the Hillsbrough lobby, who they've spent years courting?
I guess no one wants to be the person to make the call, if there is then some kind of tragedy. It's absurd to think there could be another hillsborough at a modern day football stadium, but then I wouldnt want the responsibility on my shoulders. Admittedly I'm guessing as I havent bothered reading anything about the topic. Personally, I'm all for it. That being said, we are so tedious to watch I quite like sitting slumped in my seat.
The Liverpool fans were asked about this and they seemed quite happy about safe standing but guess there will always be someone not so!
So the "success" of it in Jockland is still being ignored? This is something that really strikes me as "odd" as any government's interference in the running of the country's FA means loss of that FA's "independence" and sanctions (expulsion?) from FIFA?
I well remember in the grim days of the early 90s sitting on the Vicarage Road end terrace before the game, at half time and then again at the end of the game waiting for the results to come through to see if we were doomed yet.
I think I spent the whole Mike Keen era watching for the A to Z half time scores to go up. Like the old ‘tins’ on a cricket score board. Spoilt by my Furphy youth. No furby thing, please. I had vomit in my mouth last week.
The only way we’ll get this back is if local politicians (with an element of accountability) can decide on the issue. CYA artistes like May & Corbyn won’t touch this.
It's all getting quite ludicrous now. So how will the government view WFC's latest initiative to encourage standing in a seating area? Maybe the government should simply encourage everybody to stay seated at all times. Never ever stand up. It is quite dangerous after all. That should facilitate working from home and reduce pressures on transport infrastructure.
Standing was never the problem at Hillsborough. The problem was too many people in too small an area. In fact, if Hillsborough had happened in an all-seater stadium the death count would probably have been far worse (assuming everything else stayed the same).
The main problem at Hillsborough was the "CAGEING" of the fans! Had the fences not been there, the fans could have escaped onto the pitch, and there quite probably would have been no fatalities had they been able to do so.
I prefer an all seater stadium. Aesthetically, I like the look of it. However, I'm not opposed to a small area being allocated for standing, if that's what people want to do.
Like many posters I am of an age where I don't mind sitting to watch football, but I still stand for the exciting bits at home games and I'm happy to stand at away games as necessary. However I think those involved in the safe standing campaign should now focus on the 'unsafeness' of the current arrangements, rather than the perceived benefits of safe standing (better atmosphere etc.). It's now clear that the government are not responding to these benefits so they should be educated as to the potential dangers of not making any changes, hopefully without an incident occurring to demonstrate them.
Well if they go down that route, they won't get very far. How many incidents of crashing have occurred in an all-seater stadium? The government will look at these figures before agreeing to any change. The fact is, all-seater works in making a safer environment for people to watch sport.
No, it doesn't. The all-seater aspect is circumstantial. Pack the same number of people into a caged all-seater area in the same way as Hillsborough unfolded and guess what would happen? What's made football safer is properly handled crowd management (i.e. making sure the right number of people enter an area instead of cramming everyone and their cat into one section) and removing the cages that prevented the Hillsborough victims from getting onto the pitch. The seating has nothing to do with the improved safety of football crowds. It's a longstanding (ho ho) confusion of correlation with causation. For evidence, there are no shortage of standing stadiums for other sports, football in other countries (e.g. Germany), live concerts...the list goes on.
Logic would suggest that all-seater stadiums are safer when everybody sits, but more dangerous when everybody stands, as long as the numbers going into that stand are controlled.
That's the point. There's one seat per person. You cannot crowd a seated area. You would never get the swell of people congregated in the same area. It just doesn't happen. Seats makes a big difference to crowd congestion. It would be illogical to say otherwise.
You really think you can't just let the same number of people in without seats being there? You really think you can't have assigned numbers in standing areas? Good grief. It's already being done elsewhere.
I'm not sure how much difference this is going to make, but I've signed it anyway. A petition for the introduction of safe standing in England https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/207040
The point is that clubs have virtually given up trying to enforce sitting down because it’s impossible without heavy policing. Even little Watford are implying we should now expect standing in the Rookery. Eventually there will be a combination of circumstances, probably not at Vicarage Road, when things get out of hand and some people will get hurt but not 96 deaths, thankfully. To take one example, anyone who was at the 5-0 game at Fulham in our promotion season will remember a great atmosphere but large numbers of fans were squashed in at the top of the stand, not in designated ‘seats’ and filling the stairways. The stewards that night gave up trying to sort it out and there was certainly the potential for a forward surge resulting in people falling.
Did you do Rotherham away a few years ago (Helguson, 1-0)? We had way more in the seats than should have been allowed. One example of many where I've been to games and there are more people than seats. Nothing to do with deaths, more your point that you cannot crowd a seated area. You can.
Theres a noatalgic clamour for a return to terraces and the atmosphere they had, and they were great fun, being packed in celebrating a goal was like being at the front of a metallica concert, which is still allowed. You didnt bring a packed lunch or shopping bags with you as there wasnt space. However the modern implementation of safe standing is akin to going to watch a rock concert and being asked to stand in a specific square metre of space with barriers stopping you moving forward or back. And the concert is James Blunt. Its nothing I'd sign a petition for.
Standing is still better, isn’t it? Safe sitting is like a Blunt concert where the great man, before each song, says ‘And here’s a track from my new album’. (If terms like track & album are still used.)
Could Hillsborough have happened in a seated stand? Yes.. if the crowd management had broken down as much as it did on that day. But.. seated areas were traditionally safer than terracing. Not just when it came to the large scale tragedies which lead to loss of life but on an everyday level, injuries in seated areas were significantly less than standing areas. This fact has often been overlooked in the clammer to re-introduce standing areas. Seats no different to standing used as an argument.. which i find detrimental to the discussion. With all things equal seating has traditionally been safer. Safe standing.. different story.
Not at Bradford they weren't, nor at that other disaster area - Ibrox. Although, to be fair, the last disaster at Ibrox was more to do with egress - too many fans trying to leave early at the same time.
Bradford happened cause the whole stand was a tinderbox. Locked exits and the speed the fire went at worsened the situation. You could argue that the seats burned but that's outside of the normal conversation re seats vs terracing. In normal usage old school terracing led to more injuries etc than seating areas.. but some people won't admit it.
Man Utd fans stand at every away match, (as do most others to be fair), so it was fairly ironic when the stewards at Old Trafford started forcing people to sit down. Even at Wembley against Tottenham we stood all game without anyone even trying to get us to sit down. My point is that the authorities seem blind to the fact that away fans stand all the time now, so how can that possibly be safer than "safe standing". If anyone in "authority" had a brain, (they don't), then they'd trial safe standing for away supporters. However that's wayyyyy to much common sense for them to try.