Safe standing: a response from Paul Barber

[drew]

You have to say that is an excellent response and whilst it doesn't affect me in my WSU seat, I think it answers most of the points thrown at the club recently. Perhaps those arguing for safe standing should divert their attention to the campaign to get the government to change legislation rather than spend most of their time criticising the club.

 

[mune ni kamome]

When/If these financial fair play rules do come in we should be in a great position fan base wise to compete competitively in the top tier. Exciting ride ahead.

 

[drew]

This is a bit crap.

If someone wants to sit down, then they would potentially have a choice of nigh-on three-quarters of the stadium to choose where to sit. Not offering the choice of standing because some fans only WANT to be seated, and only WANT to sit in the North, goes against the idea of "inclusiveness" and borders on "selfishness".

You want to sit, go in the ESU, WSU, ESL, WSL, SWU, SWL or whatevers on offer in the South. You want to stand, go in the North. Wouldn't be much of a concession, would it.

It's not quite as simple as you imply as tickets in many parts of the ground aren't readily available due to season tickets.

 

[steve-c]

as much as i agree with some of paul's response, i would add that my grandad who was registered disabled, my father and me a child of under 10, spent many great years in the north stand in the mid to late seventies and we all survived, safe standing can and should be achievable , but i still love the Amex,

 

[deletebeepbeepbeep]

He typed all that on his iPhone, fair play!

That was my first thought, can't see a spelling mistake either. Effort!

 

[Easy 10]

It's not quite as simple as you imply as tickets in many parts of the ground aren't readily available due to season tickets.

And thats different from the North stand because...?

 

[LamieRobertson]

He typed all that on his iPhone, fair play!

Might have used a bluetooth keyboard though lol

 

[Napper]

The response is typical of a suit not connected to the fans. It is clear from his response he just doesnt get it from a fans perspective.
Interesting line about building on income streams , watch out , Barbers about !

Fair play for replying though. Despite my comments I never expected any other outcome or response.

 

[34064 Fighter Command]

This is a bit crap.

If someone wants to sit down, then they would potentially have a choice of nigh-on three-quarters of the stadium to choose where to sit. Not offering the choice of standing because some fans only WANT to be seated, and only WANT to sit in the North, goes against the idea of "inclusiveness" and borders on "selfishness".

You want to sit, go in the ESU, WSU, ESL, WSL, SWU, SWL or whatevers on offer in the South. You want to stand, go in the North. Wouldn't be much of a concession, would it.

If you are accompanied by a child, or elderly person that's less than 5ft tall, or even if you are an adult who is less than 5ft tall ( and there are many, especially women ), you are effectively excluded from any standing area. I don't think that's particularly inclusive if the person concerned can only see the back of someone elses head and not the game itself.

Personally I think that the justification for wanting a safe standing area has yet to be made. It all smacks of wanting a 'kids free, women free, OAP free ' zone, and I don't think that's acceptable.

 

[Birdie Boy]

A very well thought out response especially from an iPhone!

Am I being too simplistic here but couldn't rails be attached to the seat rails in front for say the back 10 rows and then you can have safe standing in league and cup and if we were ever to get into Europe, the seats are still there. The only obstacles that I can see are a) moving people around the north that want to sit - shouldn't be that big an issue surely, as I suspect a lot of people would want to move from the middle or front to the standing area b) the rail needs to be high enough for safety when standing but low enough when sitting, unless it was detachable which wouldn't be very often at least for the foreseeable future. Cost wise, it is only the cost of the rails and labour..

 

[Bozza]

If you are accompanied by a child, or elderly person that's less than 5ft tall, or even if you are an adult who is less than 5ft tall ( and there are many, especially women ), you are effectively excluded from any standing area. I don't think that's particularly inclusive if the person concerned can only see the back of someone elses head and not the game itself.

Personally I think that the justification for wanting a safe standing area has yet to be made. It all smacks of wanting a 'kids free, women free, OAP free ' zone, and I don't think that's acceptable.

Does it? Really?

One of the features of standing is that your position is not fixed, be it your ability to shift from foot to foot to adjust your viewpoint, move a metre or two, or situate yourself where there are not those who may obstruct your view.

With the Safe Standing proposals, these areas will be far less crowded than terracing from the old days which will give further scope for people to easily position themselves to obtain an unobstructed view.

Remember also, terracing still works well in lower league football, rugby and even at gigs. It works fine for people of all heights.

 

[leigull]

A much better response than the initial Ask the Club reply. Doesn't close the door completely on the idea like the previous statement, just says we are a long long way from it being a realistic option, which is absolutely fine. In ten years time if things have progressed with other clubs successfully trialling it then we can look again.

 

[yxee]

Personally I think that the justification for wanting a safe standing area has yet to be made. It all smacks of wanting a 'kids free, women free, OAP free ' zone, and I don't think that's acceptable.

But do you also then think it's unacceptable for a theme park to use a height restriction on a roller coaster?

 

[Easy 10]

If you are accompanied by a child, or elderly person that's less than 5ft tall, or even if you are an adult who is less than 5ft tall ( and there are many, especially women ), you are effectively excluded from any standing area. I don't think that's particularly inclusive if the person concerned can only see the back of someone elses head and not the game itself.

Personally I think that the justification for wanting a safe standing area has yet to be made. It all smacks of wanting a 'kids free, women free, OAP free ' zone, and I don't think that's acceptable.

So because some fans only want to sit, and would only ever want to sit in the North stand not anywhere else, the choice of having a standing area should be flatly denied to everyone else ?

 

[Dover]

34064 Fighter Command. I am 5'3" on a very good day, and stand in row S, and for the majority of the time I have no problem. The club have put enough rake in the stand for us shorties to see. Now and again I get a six plus footer in front of me, but hey ho, that's life.

Bozza puts the whole point of safe standing, far more eloquently than I ever could in a previous post.

Just glad to see the club are thinking about this issue.

 

[Everest]

If capacity can't be increased would people be willing / happy to pay the same current rate to be able to stand therefore guaranteeing no lose of income for the club.

How about the standers paying extra to help with costs of the alterations?

 

[chucky1973]

im glad they did a response like that, fair play to them.

 

[severnside gull]

I have to say that my views on standing are coloured by my experience in the past and the knowledge that the hooligan element still exists and just needs a small foothold to return to plague our game. No good quoting what happens in Germany. In Germany trains run on a basis that they trust users to buy a ticket with almost no checks. Could that happen here? No chance.............. different cultures.

Good well argued response anyway and economically right now it is a non starter based on reasoned argument. If safe standing becomes a reality championed by others then I am sure the club will review their current stance. My view is that wont be necessary for some time. The government implicated in covering up Hillsboro is highly unlikely to agree to standing where a single incident will be seen as entirely their fault. Political suicide!

 

[Withdean Wanderer]

Seems fair enough to me.

 

[MattBackHome]

Good response.