Safe standing: a response from Paul Barber

[RedSteve65]

I think his response is well thought out and covers the points that have been discussed.

 

[Brovion]

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.

Exactly. All-seater stadia have absolutely nothing to do with safety and everything to do with revenue. All those who say 'remember Hillsborough' every time this debate comes up would do well to remember this fact.

 

[Gritt23]

Is everyone being so reasonable, and pleased with this response because we suddenly realise that the Board read NSC and see what we are posting?

To my mind, this is a carefully considered response, but still spouts the same rubbish we were angry about yesterday. To suggest that offering a choice of standing in one area of the stadium or sitting in all other areas of the stadium is somehow "non-inclusive" is complete and utter tosh. We want a choice, we want to be listened to and consulted on certain matters within the stadium, and as long as we possibly can we want to believe we are NOT just bank balances to be drained to the max by the football club. Sadly, that's exactly what we are, and we were foolish to even believe this club would view us any differently.

 

[mikeyjh]

Unfortunately, as we have previously explained to fans on North Stand Chat, whilst the vast majority of supporters who wish to stand will be very well behaved, some fans simply won't be. Stadium safety experts, including our own, advise that standing areas allow such individuals who wish to behave badly or appropriately to do so in a way that simply isn't possible in a modern all seater stadium such as ours.

This is the most garbage argument I've heard - What on earth is he actually trying to say? What is this 'bad behaviour'? In the dark ages of the 80s, I must have watched Derby from the terraces hundreds of times, and I can tell Mr Barber (who I suspect has never stood on a terrace), that every single time there was trouble, it was either a) Outside of the ground or b) In the seats. This implied correlation between the terraces and 'misbehaviour' is absolute boolocks and will stand up to no scrutiny.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

If this safe-standing gets the governmental nod, and attendances start to drop at the AMEX (two likely events) I think the club will consider installing it at Falmer.

 

[father_and_son]

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

Whilst I'm pro safe standing, I do disagree with this statement. Terracing only works for certain heights of people if it is pitched at certain angles, the steeper the angle the more accessable for short people. I know a number of people (mostly women) who won't attend gigs purely because its not much fun looking at someone else's back for the duration.

I did feel that PB's response was considered and well put and that should, for now at least, put the argument to bed (at least in so far as its a local club issue). Campaigning needs to be directed at the highest level so that ALL clubs get a legal option for standing.

That aside I think its wrong to change ANYTHING mid-season, people in NS and elsewhere bought SEATS and shouldn't have to stand if they don't want to. It was made pretty clear that sitting the back (4) rows wouldn't be so strictly enforced. The club should [as far as possible] honour the "promise" made and the fans should abide by the rules (official or otherwise) that were in place. I can only assume that the current clamp down is a result of abuse of the concession given.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

This is the most garbage argument I've heard - What on earth is he actually trying to say? What is this 'bad behaviour'? In the dark ages of the 80s, I must have watched Derby from the terraces hundreds of times, and I can tell Mr Barber (who I suspect has never stood on a terrace), that every single time there was trouble, it was either a) Outside of the ground or b) In the seats. This implied correlation between the terraces and 'misbehaviour' is absolute boolocks and will stand up to no scrutiny.

The AMEX already has a pretty poor behaviour record with seats.

 

[Tunny Wells CP]

Chaps, I'm very much involved with the safe standing movement and wrote an article for the Croydon Ad, which coaxed CPFC out the closet around two months ago.

Can I suggest (if no one hasn't already) that you invite Jon Darch down to the Amex to demonstrate the rail seat model to both club officials and fans. This is the fella, who has mamaged to get all the clubs on board so far and who almost single handly has persuaded the Scots to relax no standing rules in the SPL.

Jon, along with support from safety experts and even a senior police officer, has a presentation of the model arranged at Parliament next Tuesday - but he always welcomes more support.

Email safe.standing@gmx.com

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

The AMEX already has a pretty poor behaviour record with seats.

Really, do you think so? I'd have thought that problems have been relatively few when considering the huge number of fans we've had.

 

[ngood77]

Was the press release that attila refers to ever published online ? Apologies, but I cannot find it for the life of me. Ta

 

[One4the.road]

Fair enough now let's put it to bed and get behind the club we love ..

 

[Tunny Wells CP]

By the way I have just spent three evenings pulling out quotes from the 16,000 FSF safe standing petition, inlcuding plenty in support from women and disabled people. Stuff your club is spiouting about inclusion is quite frankly rubbish.

 

[Ninja Elephant]

By the way I have just spent three evenings pulling out quotes from the 16,000 FSF safe standing petition, inlcuding plenty in support from women and disabled people. Stuff your club is spiouting about inclusion is quite frankly rubbish.

I am all for safe standing being reintroduced to UK stadiums. I think it is right that people should have the choice of seating or standing, and I think that there is more than enough demand, especially in our case. Personally, I wouldn't give up my seated position to go and stand behind a goal but I can understand a lot of people don't agree with my standpoint on that.

However, I think the response from Paul Barber is absolutely fantastic and everything he says is reasonable and understandable in my opinion. I had a low opinion of him when he first arrived, but I have changed that over the last few months. Everything is transparent with him, he isn't hiding in the boardroom and letting others do his bidding in public. He writes a good column in the programme and he regularly responds to emails from fans. They might not all end up on here, but there are plenty of examples of when he's not just delegating responsibility but getting involved himself. I have a lot of respect for him and I find it hard to criticise this response when he is pointing to the fact that we would need restructuring of a stadium we're still building to make a change.

 

[Gazwag]

I could understand the argument in season 1 that some fans are complaining that they want to sit when other around are standing BUT we are now in Season 2 - Why didn't those who want to sit request a move to either a lower part of the NS or ESU/SS at the end of last season, when they had priority to move as well - SS is exactly the same as the NS but everybody sits - problem solves in my eyes

 

[drew]

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.

Your last sentence is a bit disengenuous bearing in mind at lower league football the attendences are, in general, considerably a smaller percentage of a grounds capacity than they are in the permiership and championship. As for rugby, there are a fair few that play at league grounds and could you tell me how, with regard to the others, their attendences compare as a percentage of the capacity of the ground they play at? With regard to gigs, at most, the focal point, ie the stage, is at a higher level than those standing so surely the line of vision is up as opposed to football where you are looking down on to the pitch which, admittedly, shouldn't be a problem provided the angle of the terrace is steep enough.

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 ?

Why compare Bury with Brighton, they both have all seater stadia!!! However, take Torquay as an example, they have a capacity of 6,500 but don't even get half that through the door for most of their home games. It is far from nonsense, just common sense.

 

[34064 Fighter Command]

This is the most garbage argument I've heard - What on earth is he actually trying to say? What is this 'bad behaviour'? In the dark ages of the 80s, I must have watched Derby from the terraces hundreds of times, and I can tell Mr Barber (who I suspect has never stood on a terrace), that every single time there was trouble, it was either a) Outside of the ground or b) In the seats. This implied correlation between the terraces and 'misbehaviour' is absolute boolocks and will stand up to no scrutiny.

I suspect he must be referring to pitch invasions and such like.This is especially true when you remember what happened at Heysel in 1985.

It's also needs to be pointed out that Hillsborough wasn't the only event that led to the removal of terracing but it was the culmination of a long period where supporters became less well behaved, we had fences put up around every ground, but in most cases where there was seating extending up to the touchline the fencing was not considered necessary. In fact it was the specific COMBINATION of terraces and fencing that lead to Hillsborough, not the terracing pure and simple.

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

By the way I have just spent three evenings pulling out quotes from the 16,000 FSF safe standing petition, inlcuding plenty in support from women and disabled people. Stuff your club is spiouting about inclusion is quite frankly rubbish.

Buzzwords and mission statements is how it is today , we play at a community stadium but who is the community ?

 

[Easy 10]

Why compare Bury with Brighton, they both have all seater stadia!!! However, take Torquay as an example, they have a capacity of 6,500 but don't even get half that through the door for most of their home games. It is far from nonsense, just common sense.

Sorry, I wasn't aware Gigg Lane is already an all-seater. But the point remains, most lower league grounds do still have terracing. The fact that Torquay (in your example) get crowds of less than half their capacity is an irrelevance. Plainmoor has a capacity of 6,500, of which 2,950 is seating (thank you Google). Therefore, if Torquays safety certificate decrees that 3,550 can safely stand at a little old ground like Plainmoor, then why on earth can this concept simply NOT be tolerated at a modern, 21st century "state-of-the-art" stadium ?

Its defintely NOT on grounds of "safety". Can we at least just put that one to bed ?

 

[Easy 10]

it was the specific COMBINATION of terraces and fencing that lead to Hillsborough, not the terracing pure and simple.

Terracing was not the cause of Hillsborough at all, it was a combination of a heck of a lot more than that, as we now know.

 

[KZNSeagull]

Its defintely NOT on grounds of "safety". Can we at least just put that one to bed ?

The incidence of trouble at matches has gone down dramatically since the introduction of all seater stadia. It could be argued, therefore, that all-seater football grounds are safer.

It would be very difficult to argue with the powers that be, that other factors are involved as well and that the above is just a coincidence.