Safe Standing at the AMEX: Yes or No?

[GreersElbow]

I'd like to know how they inferred standing means poor behaviour. That's nice that they think once we begin standing, we'll become poorly behaved.


Have you seen the stewards, lately, BHAFC?

 

[Garage_Doors]

Looking into the future and safe standing is now legal and some/most clubs support it.
The expectation is that because there will be more standing rather than sitting then the ticket price can be reduced.
How do you expect the material cost of the north stand being converted from seats to "safe seats".
Do you expect the club to again put its hand in it pocket or will there be fans fund raising to cover the cost?

 

[SeagullSongs]

After reading that statement from the club, I feel extremely disappointed.

I wonder how much Hebbard, Camillin, Barber, etc all know about the concept of safe standing?

The capacity of the North Stand is currently around 2700, current income from these seats is - for the sake of argument - 2700 x £28 per seat per game x 23 games per season = £1,738,800 per season. If these seats were converted to rail seats, this would allow for 4860 (2700 x 1.8) safe standing tickets for standard matches. Let's say the price for a single safe standing ticket was £20 per match, this would allow for an income of 4860 x £20 per ticket per game x 23 games per season = £2,235,600 per season, an increase of nearly £500,000 per year.

Of course, ideally, not just the North Stand would be converted to safe standing, but also perhaps half of the South Stand, so all of the above calculations can be multiplied by 1.5 as an approximation.

The line from the statement: "This is in stark contrast to standing areas where a large percentage of the general football watching population are excluded because they would be unable to actually see the pitch." is slightly confusing, as it doesn't really appear to have any substance or weight behind it. Only around 10-15% of the current capacity of the stadium would be converted to safe standing, giving fans who do not wish to stand a choice of 25,000 other seats to sit in.
As this poll (and every other conducted on the topic) shows, a staggering 90% of fans would like the choice to sit or stand at a football match. Implementing safe standing would not only benefit those who want to stand and currently can't, but those who are seated behind such people and have to either endure a poor view of the game (something the club themselves clearly state they wish to combat) or have to confront the person infront of them asking them to sit down. This can create unnecessary tension between fans and also does so between stewards and fans whom are forced to sit down under current ground regulations.

It is natural for the club to say that it cannot support safe standing at this time, due to it being against FA rules, but no, BHA have to go one step further and dismiss the idea completely without any apparent evidence of further thought. Clubs such as Peterborough, Palace and clubs in the SPL are actively supporting the idea of safe standing as they recognise it is a way of revitalising football, halting its current descent into cold, corporate hell.
Although the club may turn their noses up at the idea of lowering ticket prices, they must accept that they can do so while still increasing long-term profit from a large increase in ticket sales. This would also have the added benefit of being more INCLUSIVE by making supporting the Albion a more realistic and affordable prospect for fans who are currently being priced out by the frankly extortionate prices in the Championship, let alone if we get promoted to the Premier League.
Yes, rail seats actually decrease the capacity slightly for international and European matches, I doubt even an optimistic business plan has aims of getting us into Europe within the next 20 years.

Every time I read the phrase family event atmosphere I think my life expectancy decreases by several hours. Do the club - who wouldn't exist were it for the actions of the fans, Dick Knight, etc - seriously want to turn their back on us on this occasion, possibly alienating some fans in the process? I highly doubt it'd be a wise move.

I think a good course of action would be to try and get some of our more famous fans such as Norman Cook and Des Lynam on our side to support the idea. As shown over the last couple of decades, if the majority of Albion fans want something done, there's a bloody good chance it'll get done eventually.
[MENTION=561]Insider[/MENTION], do you think you could 'pad out' some of the opinions of 'the Club' to include some more substantial reasoning. I implore you to try and arrange a visit from the Safe Standing Roadshow, I'm sure they have better persuasive skills that I do and they will have many reasons why it could be beneficial to the club and its finances.
The pressure from fans will inevitably give at some point, even if it's not at the Albion. As soon as one club starts benefitting from the extra revenue gained by safe standing, I'm sure dozens more will follow suit until converting becomes the only realistic way forwards, not only to appease the fans' wishes but as a solid business strategy.

I appreciate I am not really qualified to comment on business strategies, but it cannot cost more than a couple of million to convert to safe standing, some of these temporary losses could be negated by selling some of the seats (or by using them for the North corners instead of ordering more in) and any remaining losses would be wiped out within a couple of seasons due to the extra revenue - I haven't even mentioned that fact that there will be more fans in the ground to spend money on food and drink, and more fans will have more money available to spend due to potentially decreased ticket prices.

I am yet to see one valid (in my eyes) reason to oppose safe standing.

 

[Dirk Gently]

It's also a shame that (although via this board, and not 'officially') the club have been the first to come out in firm opposition to the trial.

Exactly, and very surprising, too. The whole point of a trial like this is to see if/how safe-standing works and whether it does attract hooligans or reduces the number of kids/women going/short people going to games. It's a properly managed evidence-gathering exercise so that the perceptions for/against safe-standing can be exposed or confirmed as true.

To come out with a statement that shows all of this has been prejudged is just arrogant and simplistic. There'd be no criticism if they said "we support and trail and will make a decision based on the results of that trial" but they've just said, effectively "no need for a trail, we've made our minds up and we're not listening to anything whatsoever."

 

[HawkTheSeagull]

The capacity of the North Stand is currently around 2700, current income from these seats is - for the sake of argument - 2700 x £28 per seat per game x 23 games per season = £1,738,800 per season. If these seats were converted to rail seats, this would allow for 4860 (2700 x 1.8) safe standing tickets for standard matches. Let's say the price for a single safe standing ticket was £20 per match, this would allow for an income of 4860 x £20 per ticket per game x 23 games per season = £2,235,600 per season, an increase of nearly £500,000 per year.

The North Stand simply cannot cope with an extra 2000 people and i highly doubt the transport infrastructure would either. Queues for kiosks and train/bus queues are long enough as it is. That and if you add an extra 2000 people, it would be about 2 people to every current Amex seat, there isnt enough room. If it is to be done, just keep the capacity as it is at first, if there clearly is room, if there is demand and if the infrastructure can cope, then look at increasing the capacity.

I can see the club turning its head in the future though once trials have been done at other clubs, shame the club couldnt just say "we cannot make a judgement on it at the moment but we will await results from a clubs trial if it were to take place".

 

[Laridae]

I don't incidentally think we've 'lost our club'. That's not true in the slightest... Their starting point is pretty disappointing..

I agree. Disappointing starting point.

 

[SafeStandingRoadshow]

Looking into the future and safe standing is now legal and some/most clubs support it.
The expectation is that because there will be more standing rather than sitting then the ticket price can be reduced.
How do you expect the material cost of the north stand being converted from seats to "safe seats".
Do you expect the club to again put its hand in it pocket or will there be fans fund raising to cover the cost?

Actually, the financials stack up very nicely and payback is within a very short time - depending on what capacity might be allowed. So the cost issue should not be a barrier to any club considering this if the rules change.

What is sad about your club's stance (if that post truly represents it) is not that they have said "we don't think safe standing would be appropriate for us", but that they have said "The club does not support any move for "safe standing" in football stadia..." That would appear to mean that they don't think safe standing should be allowed anywhere - period. And that they don't even think clubs that want to, like Villa and Posh, should be allowed to run a small trial.

I can only imagine that this is my incorrect interpretation of what they meant to convey, as I struggle to see why any club would be against another one running a trial. If such a trial fails, the idea will go no further. If it works, is hugely popular, enhances stadium atmosphere and increases demand for tickets, it will - with luck - be rolled out.

I hope therefore that the club might consider amending that statement to clarify it's position on trials being run elsewhere. After all, what harm is there in any club saying "we're not sure right now that this is something for us, but we would be interested in seeing how trials go elsewhere and will then make up our minds definitively on the matter"?

In the meantime, to put a smile back on everyone's face:

 

[Garage_Doors]

Actually, the financials stack up very nicely and payback is within a very short time.

So what you are saying is the clubs should pay for the alterations that the fans are protesting for

 

[SafeStandingRoadshow]

So what you are saying is the clubs should pay for the alterations that the fans are protesting for

Nope, not for a long time anyway and only then if the club thinks it's worth it.

What I'm saying is:

(1) that it would be nice if the club would agree that it might be interesting to allow a couple of other clubs to run a trial to see what can be learnt from that process;

(2) that if all goes well, I would hope that the government / SGSA would then define the rules and regulations under which safe standing areas could be set up and operated at all other current all-seater stadia;

(3) that each club - yours included - would then for the first time have the freedom to sit down and consider whether this is something they wanted to do and weigh up the costs vs benefits (just as they do for every other capital expenditure decision); and

(4) if they decide that it is, install such an area - reaping the financial and social benefits that it has calculated at '3' will accrue.

We're a long, long way from point 4. In the meantime, why would anyone want to stand in the way of trials as per point 1?

 

[Dirk Gently]

So what you are saying is the clubs should pay for the alterations that the fans are protesting for

No, what he/she is saying is that if clubs do pay for the alterations that the fans are protesting for (i.e. to meet the clear demand) the increase in capacity that this gives will enable them to make their money back with profits within a short time-scale. So it's worth doing on financial grounds alone.

 

[Mellor 3 Ward 4]

Very disappointing comment from the club.

But then I'm not really surprised. I wrote to the club requesting an explanation regarding the match day ticket pricing policy, and haven't even had the courtesy of a reply.

I subsequently posted a similar question on ATK and got the usual ' I will pass on your comments'

 

[Pavilionaire]

Errr .... no it isn't but agree with the rest of your post.



Why ?

I believe the club have a duty to listen to the Safe Standing Campaign presentation because this is supposed to be a Community Stadium and if "The Community" that use the North Stand overwhelming wished to stand rather than sit it would be churlish to rule it out right at the beginning.

It looks to me as though The Insider thinks it will be a Health and Safety nightmare, that standing fans aren't to be trusted and will sing songs with rude words that will discourage families and females to attend, resulting in an attendance downward spiral back to '80s hooligan doom. However, it wouldn't be ideal for the Albion if other clubs start reintroducing it and decreasing ticket prices for those standing, giving their fans what they really want and for a cheaper price.

 

[teaboy]

I wonder if the club would've been more supportive if the expansion of the East Stand and corners hadn't been granted. With the additional seats it's now unlikely that the Amex will sell out on a regular basis so 'extra' capacity is not needed. If safe standing was installed (assuming the associated legal/planning/transport issues were solved first) the area is likely to be filled by people already in the ground, not extra paying customers - so no additional income from tickets, no additional sales of refreshments, etc, and possibly reduced income due to lower ticket pricing.

Following the club's statement I'd be interested in how they feel about fan behaviour in Germany...

 

[attila]

I wonder if the club would've been more supportive if the expansion of the East Stand and corners hadn't been granted. With the additional seats it's now unlikely that the Amex will sell out on a regular basis so 'extra' capacity is not needed. If safe standing was installed (assuming the associated legal/planning/transport issues were solved first) the area is likely to be filled by people already in the ground, not extra paying customers - so no additional income from tickets, no additional sales of refreshments, etc, and possibly reduced income due to lower ticket pricing.

Following the club's statement I'd be interested in how they feel about fan behaviour in Germany...

I think if safe standing meant lower ticket price in that area (which it should) quite a few people who currently can't afford to go as regularly as they would like would do so. And that is the very definition of 'inclusivity'.
As for Germany, I have stood on the Gegengerade at the Millerntor with a flare in one hand and a pint in the other and never felt safer in my life

 

[Westdene Seagull]

I believe the club have a duty to listen to the Safe Standing Campaign presentation because this is supposed to be a Community Stadium and if "The Community" that use the North Stand overwhelming wished to stand rather than sit it would be churlish to rule it out right at the beginning.

It looks to me as though The Insider thinks it will be a Health and Safety nightmare, that standing fans aren't to be trusted and will sing songs with rude words that will discourage families and females to attend, resulting in an attendance downward spiral back to '80s hooligan doom. However, it wouldn't be ideal for the Albion if other clubs start reintroducing it and decreasing ticket prices for those standing, giving their fans what they really want and for a cheaper price.

Fair enough. Another question if I may, what if the club did find some way to make the North Stand a safe standing area but kept the prices the same - would people still support it ? Is this about getting standing back ( which I do support ) or just about getting cheaper prices ?

 

[Seagull over Canaryland]

I'm another disappointed by the tone of the Club's comments. It's as if they want to crush any further debate on the subject. Yet they will probably create exactly the opposite effect. The Albion, of all Clubs should realise the power of the fans. I think they will regret not be a bit more careful with their wording.

I feel the use of equality issues to justify their stance is a bit disingenuous. They would be quite right to highlight these as serious concerns, but not as grounds to prevent consideration of the issues. I am sure that a blueprint for safe standing will be developed, based on examples safely operating in Europe. I would like to see further evidence that anyone would be disadvantaged / discriminated against if the design is right and operated correctly. However if they can show objective evidence of this at the stadia in Germany then I would understand, but surely there are engineering solutions to such issues? I wouldn't be surprised if there are not designated disabled and family areas even within the safe standing terraces.

I suspect the real issue here is the shallowness of the rake at The Amex eg in the North Stand. Whereas images of the German standing areas appear to be the opposite ie fairly steep so easier to create sufficient height difference between the rows so no-one's view is obstructed.

The Club will be on thin ice if they suggest safety is an issue. Yes there would need to be a specific relaxation of the code of practice to allow for example a pilot of safe standing by Clubs and this would only happen if relevant parties agree very strict controls for this. But, as with most things, if there is a will then safety factors can be 'designed in'.

I suspect the other factor in the Albion's stance is that the timing of this issue so close after the completion of The Amex as an all-seater venue is also a big factor. But why quash the possibility that in several years time eg when we might be in the Premiership and have the additional demand / income to introduce safe standing?

Finally I am curious as to the expertise of who, if anyone, advised the Albion on this matter?

 

[SafeStandingRoadshow]

Fair enough. Another question if I may, what if the club did find some way to make the North Stand a safe standing area but kept the prices the same - would people still support it ? Is this about getting standing back ( which I do support ) or just about getting cheaper prices ?

For my part the answer to that is simple: it's about enabling clubs to offer fans, if they wish, a choice of sitting or standing.

If that also led to reduced admission prices that would be a bonus.

Whether it did or not would almost certainly depend on what rules were put in place in respect of capacities.

It was interesting, however, when I took the roadshow to Wolves last May that fans in their Fans' Parliament said they would be prepared to pay the same to stand as they did for a seat ticket (which many fans already do by paying for a seat and choosing not to use it).

On that day the fans were shown the unit and we had a long discussion about how safe standing might work. Jez Moxey, their chief executive, then asked three questions:

1) How many fans present thought that supporters should have the choice to sit or stand?
2) How many would personally choose to stand?
3) Of those, how many would do so if the price was the same as for a seat?

Of 23 fans present, representing all interest groups (including fans from all four stands, disabled supporters, female fans and supporters from ethnic minorities), 21 agreed that spectators should be given the choice to sit or stand. One voted against and one abstained.

In response to the question about who would personally stand, 6 said they would, i.e. just over 26%.

When asked if they would stand even if the cost was the same as for a seat, all 6 said yes. One supporter even said "...as long as I've got a rail in front of me like on those seats we've just seen."

More on that visit here

 

[Dave the OAP]

Personally I think hell will freeze over before the club look at this sensibly.

 

[Charlies Shinpad]

Yeah us 54 year old geezers are a right handfull after a cup of Bovril !!

 

[Beach Hut]

Personally I think hell will freeze over before the club look at this sensibly.

And so it should in my view, football has moved on from those nostalgic days