Safe standing: a response from Paul Barber

[trueblue]

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

Try telling that to my girlfriend who's about 5'1". She's never really been able to see properly on terracing and we always buy seats at gigs nowadays as 2 hours stating at the back of someone's head takes the fun out of it.

It was a good point made earlier that people who are criticising the club over this would be better putting their efforts into getting the legislation changed. If safe standing was adopted widely there'd be much more of a case for a rethink. Until then, it's a largely pointless argument. Personally, I'd rather see the rules on drinking within sight of the pitch relaxed first as that's more of an anachronism.

 

[34064 Fighter Command]

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

A roller coaster is designed to accomodate the average person of average proportions. It is perfectly acceptable to exclude those people who cannot be safely secured within the restraining mechanism because they are too short, too tall, to fat, or even too thin. That's because with the nature of the forces exerted on the human body by a ride they will be able to slide within their seat, or even fall out of it altogether.

Now by all means fit your roller coaster with 3-point harneses if you must, but it would mean every one has to be indiviually adjusted, AND checked before the ride could proceed - that's not really practicable.

The question is somewhat disingenuous and I'm not quite sure what point you are trying to make here........

 

[del strangefish]

He typed all that on his iPhone, fair play!

Cut and paste

 

[deletebeepbeepbeep]

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.

My understanding of 'safe standing' is that you get given a seat number and you effectively stand in front of your seat/barrier with a number on it, so I'm not sure moving around would be that easy although admittedly moving either side of somebodys shoulder wouldn't be a problem in most cases (and this goes back to the identifying any wrong doers which I think given these measures is a pretty weak point given the number of camers we have in the Stadium).

 

[Buckley's Mad Eye]

I'd be happy to pay the same amount to stand as sit if revenue is the major consideration. Standing and singing at a football match is a joy, and the reason why I bother to attend away matches.

I hope that safe standing will be an issue that continues to be pursued.

 

[34064 Fighter Command]

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 ?

Essentially, you are correct - the fact is that if you want to stand then you can't, and in all serioussness, I don't think that's much of an imposition on people. However, I accept that some people may want to stand, just as I accept that some people want to smoke, however, what's so onerous about sitting that causes people a problem. It's not as if you being prevented from standing altogether is it, it's just within the stadium 'bowl' itself, and is no different to being told that you cannot consume alchohol there either.

Atilla seems to have this as a bit of a personal crusade, and like all people who feel passionately about their own views, they very rarely accept a counter arguement.

 

[Jim D]

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.

I've been thinking about these 'fans perspective' and 'income streams' comments. It seems that there is a real demand amongst the football viewing public for a return to 'traditional' ways of watching it. I would see this in much the same way that, several years ago, there was a demand for food produced using more traditional methods. This, in turn, led to the rise (and rise) of the organic produce market. But the return to traditional methods didn't lead to a return to lower prices - quite the opposite as it became more labour intensive. I can see a similar argument in the pricing of 'safe standing' tickets as these areas may well need a higher level of policing/stewarding than for seats.

Would those in favour still be as numerous if faced with a 10% 'security surcharge' for a ticket to the safe standing area?

 

[Napper]

I've been thinking about these 'fans perspective' and 'income streams' comments. It seems that there is a real demand amongst the football viewing public for a return to 'traditional' ways of watching it. I would see this in much the same way that, several years ago, there was a demand for food produced using more traditional methods. This, in turn, led to the rise (and rise) of the organic produce market. But the return to traditional methods didn't lead to a return to lower prices - quite the opposite as it became more labour intensive. I can see a similar argument in the pricing of 'safe standing' tickets as these areas may well need a higher level of policing/stewarding than for seats.

Would those in favour still be as numerous if faced with a 10% 'security surcharge' for a ticket to the safe standing area?

Great point and very true.

I'm not to fussed standing at home , as long as where I sit has an atmosphere then its fine . Away would always choose and pay more to stand though.

 

[Doc Lynam]

Well thought out response and agree the club is just following the current legislation. One note maybe more of the stewards around the North stand need to be a bit more reasonable like you Mr Barber.

 

[Easy 10]

Essentially, you are correct - the fact is that if you want to stand then you can't, and in all serioussness, I don't think that's much of an imposition on people. However, I accept that some people may want to stand, just as I accept that some people want to smoke, however, what's so onerous about sitting that causes people a problem. It's not as if you being prevented from standing altogether is it, it's just within the stadium 'bowl' itself, and is no different to being told that you cannot consume alchohol there either.

Atilla seems to have this as a bit of a personal crusade, and like all people who feel passionately about their own views, they very rarely accept a counter arguement.

I'm happy to accept a counter-argument, but I have yet to see a very convincing one as to why fans should not be allowed to have a choice of whether to sit, or whether to have an area in the stadium where they can stand.

Its a nonsense that the right to a terrace is dictated by the division the club finds itself in. When going to a match, is a supporter of Bury more at risk than a supporter of Brighton ? If so, how is that considered acceptable ?

 

[attila]

I'm happy to accept a counter-argument, but I have yet to see a very convincing one as to why fans should not be allowed to have a choice of whether to sit, or whether to have an area in the stadium where they can stand.

Its a nonsense that the right to a terrace is dictated by the division the club finds itself in. When going to a match, is a supporter of Bury more at risk than a supporter of Brighton ? If so, how is that considered acceptable ?

Spot on.

I, too, am happy to accept a counter-argument, but I don't see one. Not just 'why Bury and not Brighton?'...Why rugby and not football.....Or, why not football, but OK at all other sporting activities in this country? (As far as I know - please correct me if I'm wrong) And, obviously, taking 'league position' into account, why Brighton (or any other club in England) and not former European champions Borussia Dortmund?
I have experienced the wonderful, truly inclusive atmosphere that safe standing, and low ticket prices, brings in a modern context. It's just a piss off that to do so I have to go abroad..

 

[Giraffe]

I take that as a "currently, it's a no, but may happen in the future"..

There is no chance of it happening unless we expand thw stadium itself to a greater level with additional tiers. It can't happen with the current structure, you would virtually need to rebuild parts of the stadium to allow for this. That would only happen if we needed capacity more than the 31-35k talked about. How likely is that? It's possible but I would say unlikely. Also given what he said, they can charge more for seating than standing so why would they bother?

 

[34064 Fighter Command]

I'm happy to accept a counter-argument, but I have yet to see a very convincing one as to why fans should not be allowed to have a choice of whether to sit, or whether to have an area in the stadium where they can stand.

Its a nonsense that the right to a terrace is dictated by the division the club finds itself in. When going to a match, is a supporter of Bury more at risk than a supporter of Brighton ? If so, how is that considered acceptable ?

There is no 'right' to a terrace any more. The fact is that lower league clubs were granted exemption from the Taylor Report's recommendations, and susequent legislation, on purely economic, not safety grounds ( i.e. they did not have the financial wherewithal to convert there grounds from standing to seated accommodation ).

The facts are however, that the Football League, and subsequently the Premier League and FA, made the provision of 'All seater' stadium a condition of promotion ( and de-facto relegation ) to incentivise Clubs to make the necessary Ground Changes that Taylor wanted as 'best practice'. Clubs were allowed periods of grace to operate within the higher leagues with terracing, only on condition that they met agreed deadlines to replace said terracing with seating, or close said terracing and prohibit it's use.

So as I said, there is no 'right' to terracing, if you are in either the Championship or Premier league. The fact that terracing still exists in the lower league, doesn't make it safe, nor do you have a choice as to whether you can even use it or not, as more often than not, it has been closed by the club concerned as that's the cheapest way the club can comply with the safety requirements that both the Leagues, and the Local Authorities impose upon them. Where it is still in use, then the club have probably got long term plans to fit seats on it - just like many clubs have done before them.

 

[34064 Fighter Command]

Spot on.

I, too, am happy to accept a counter-argument, but I don't see one. Not just 'why Bury and not Brighton?'...Why rugby and not football.....Or, why not football, but OK at all other sporting activities in this country? (As far as I know - please correct me if I'm wrong) And, obviously, taking 'league position' into account, why Brighton (or any other club in England) and not former European champions Borussia Dortmund?
I have experienced the wonderful, truly inclusive atmosphere that safe standing, and low ticket prices, brings in a modern context. It's just a piss off that to do so I have to go abroad..

Because Rugby fans can get along with each other, don't need massive Policing or segregation, and don't start fights amongst themselves - they leave all that to the players on the pitch.

And that's a fact - pure and simple.

I'm afraid to say it, but football is still having to pay for the legacy of 'firms' up and down not just this Country, but across Europe as well ( ask any Spurs fan who was in that Rome bar a couple of weeks back ) who like nothing better than to organise a ruck amongst themselves and use the pretext of football as a means to plan and execute it. This just doesn't happen in any other sports or mass audience participation event I can think of, even the most violent like boxing and bullfighting, where you'd expect levels of testosterone to be at all time highs.

 

[Everest]

Just thought, are the people in the WS boxes made to sit, or can they stand?

 

[Philzo-93]

I think that response is much better than the one on the other thread! Barber seems very understanding about the whole thing, which is great to see, but also acknowledges there are barriers that will prevent this and will want to be able to abide by legislation from government and the sport's governing bodies too.

Still no excuse that the North Stand can't stop being an orchestra to our atmosphere

 

[yxee]

A roller coaster is designed to accomodate the average person of average proportions. It is perfectly acceptable to exclude those people who cannot be safely secured within the restraining mechanism because they are too short, too tall, to fat, or even too thin. That's because with the nature of the forces exerted on the human body by a ride they will be able to slide within their seat, or even fall out of it altogether.

Now by all means fit your roller coaster with 3-point harneses if you must, but it would mean every one has to be indiviually adjusted, AND checked before the ride could proceed - that's not really practicable.

The question is somewhat disingenuous and I'm not quite sure what point you are trying to make here........

I think I understood your sentence to mean that safe standing discriminates against shorter people, but my point was that the height restriction on a roller-coaster is a similar idea and it is not seen as discriminatory because it is based purely on public safety. If 10% of the stadium has a height restriction, and that restriction was not based on any arbitrary prejudice but on practical considerations, surely it's understandable? If you can't see then it's best to go somewhere where you can sit, and everyone can enjoy the game as they like to.

The alternative seems to sound very much like "if not everyone is tall enough to be able to enjoy safe standing, then nobody can".

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

Interesting that loss of revenue is cited as one of the factors - so this is obviously considered more important than the inclusivity factor of fans on lower incomes being able to watch games.

With Moulescoomb being so close to the stadium, it'd be interesting to know how many Albion fans living there actually attend fixtures. A survey of Brighton-based Amex attendees would doubtless make for interesting reading - are they all Tim Nice But Hove Born and Breds from the more affluent areas of BN1, or is it a more evenly spread across the city (and the county).

 

[Easy 10]

There is no 'right' to a terrace any more. The fact is that lower league clubs were granted exemption from the Taylor Report's recommendations, and susequent legislation, on purely economic, not safety grounds ( i.e. they did not have the financial wherewithal to convert there grounds from standing to seated accommodation ).

The facts are however, that the Football League, and subsequently the Premier League and FA, made the provision of 'All seater' stadium a condition of promotion ( and de-facto relegation ) to incentivise Clubs to make the necessary Ground Changes that Taylor wanted as 'best practice'. Clubs were allowed periods of grace to operate within the higher leagues with terracing, only on condition that they met agreed deadlines to replace said terracing with seating, or close said terracing and prohibit it's use.

So as I said, there is no 'right' to terracing, if you are in either the Championship or Premier league. The fact that terracing still exists in the lower league, doesn't make it safe, nor do you have a choice as to whether you can even use it or not, as more often than not, it has been closed by the club concerned as that's the cheapest way the club can comply with the safety requirements that both the Leagues, and the Local Authorities impose upon them. Where it is still in use, then the club have probably got long term plans to fit seats on it - just like many clubs have done before them.

Sorry, but I just can't buy into this argument. A ground with terracing is either safe, or it isn't. This isn't 1989. Every ground in this country must meet stringent regulations nowadays, and have a regularly reviewed safety certificate to allow it to operate. A specific capacity is designated to every area of the ground, and every weekend, thousands upon thousands upon thousands of fans are standing, perfectly safely, on terraces. If it wasn't safe, it wouldn't be allowed. Yes, some areas of terracing have been closed in the lower leagues because they are crumbling, and do not meet todays safety standards, as we saw for ourselves at the Goldstone. But the reasons they are not renovating those will more likely be down it not being necessary as they don't attract the crowds to warrant the investment of upgrading their older terraces.

The argument that all stadiums in the top two divisions must be all-seater, or have plans in place to convert in order to therefore be deemed "safe" is a nonsense. Its an argument that just cannot be squared.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

My understanding of 'safe standing' is that you get given a seat number and you effectively stand in front of your seat/barrier with a number on it, so I'm not sure moving around would be that easy.

This is not the case at the German grounds I have stood at; standing was unreserved.