Safe Standing at the AMEX: Yes or No?

[teaboy]

Which is immaterial because transport can't cope with bigger crowds.

Indeed. However, that doesn't mean it's a bad idea. Football League rules would need to change before we'd see it happen, but at grounds shared with rugby clubs it makes perfect sense to get in asap.

 

[symyjym]

No it wouldn't, because the North Stand concourse is only capable of accommodating the amount of people it already has seats for in the stand.

Well if you checked out the calculation website link I provided it explains that this includes part of the Away section. The calculation is a 15% increase.

Please have a look at the evidence first before arguing the point.

 

[BHAZiggy]

I was in the North Stand for the play-off match. As far as I can tell, it is already a standing area.

 

[Curious Orange]

Well if you checked out the calculation website link I provided it explains that this includes part of the Away section. The calculation is a 15% increase.

Please have a look at the evidence first before arguing the point.

The only point I have made is that the North Stand capacity has been met already, and this has been previously stated by the club in relation to the impact of installing rail seating there. Quite frankly I don't believe fitting rail seating in the South Stand is going to increase the capacity of the Amex by 3-4k as you suggest, even if its concourse is bigger than that in the North, bearing in mind it is now smaller than when originally built since the entrance to the South Stand boxes was installed.

I am not against rail seating in any way. I just don't think it is a magic bullet for increasing the capacity at the Amex.

 

[teaboy]

Would probably increace the capacity at the Amex by 3 or 4 thousand.

http://www.safestandingroadshow.co.uk/the-proposal/the-proposal-continued---the-sums

Well if you checked out the calculation website link I provided it explains that this includes part of the Away section. The calculation is a 15% increase.

Please have a look at the evidence first before arguing the point.

The only point I have made is that the North Stand capacity has been met already, and this has been previously stated by the club in relation to the impact of installing rail seating there. Quite frankly I don't believe fitting rail seating in the South Stand is going to increase the capacity of the Amex by 3-4k as you suggest, even if its concourse is bigger than that in the North, bearing in mind it is now smaller than when originally built since the entrance to the South Stand boxes was installed.

I am not against rail seating in any way. I just don't think it is a magic bullet for increasing the capacity at the Amex.

The potential increase in capacity is for a hypothetical ground without the constraints of the Amex. You could put rail seats in every part of the Amex but wouldn't be able to increase the capacity due to the transport issues (as they currently stand) and the concourse sizes (where applicable). Unless adding rail seats would allow 12-coach trains to stop at Falmer and Lewes then the capacity is what it is.

This doesn't mean they shouldn't be installed though, for all the reasons I've given further up.

 

[symyjym]

The only point I have made is that the North Stand capacity has been met already, and this has been previously stated by the club in relation to the impact of installing rail seating there. Quite frankly I don't believe fitting rail seating in the South Stand is going to increase the capacity of the Amex by 3-4k as you suggest, even if its concourse is bigger than that in the North, bearing in mind it is now smaller than when originally built since the entrance to the South Stand boxes was installed.

I am not against rail seating in any way. I just don't think it is a magic bullet for increasing the capacity at the Amex.

Ok it doesn't matter to me if you believe it or not, I can see that you still haven't viewed the weblink calculation info I posted, so I will copy an extract onto here;

The Green Guide currently permits 1.8 standing fans per space required for a seat. The sums are thus as follows:

Stadium A

Current capacity: 35,000

Two-tier stand behind each goal

Lower tier of the ‘home end’ (3,500 seats) converted to safe standing

A section of the ‘away end’ (1,750) converted to safe standing

Total seat spaces converted: 5,250 (15% of capacity)

Total standing spaces created: 9,450 (5,250 x 1.8)

 

[Acker79]

Ok it doesn't matter to me if you believe it or not, I can see that you still haven't viewed the weblink calculation info I posted, so I will copy an extract onto here;

The Green Guide currently permits 1.8 standing fans per space required for a seat. The sums are thus as follows:

Stadium A

Current capacity: 35,000

Two-tier stand behind each goal

Lower tier of the ‘home end’ (3,500 seats) converted to safe standing

A section of the ‘away end’ (1,750) converted to safe standing

Total seat spaces converted: 5,250 (15% of capacity)

Total standing spaces created: 9,450 (5,250 x 1.8)

None of that counters the fact that the club will still only be allowed to admit as many people as they currently do. We may be able to fit more seats in, no one is disputing that. But people are limited by the size of exits, transport links, concourse size. Why add more seats if you're not allowed to let more people in to fill them?

 

[Willy Dangle]

How much do you think it would cost to have it done for the north stand?

It would be free. Just announce that the ground is being sold to build a toy shop and hey presto you have a standing area.

 

[symyjym]

p.s. It's not something you would do to it's maximum overnight, but you could convert just the first ten rows in the middle front of the North Stand behind the goal.

 

[Curious Orange]

Ok it doesn't matter to me if you believe it or not, I can see that you still haven't viewed the weblink calculation info I posted, so I will copy an extract onto here;

The Green Guide currently permits 1.8 standing fans per space required for a seat. The sums are thus as follows:

Stadium A

Current capacity: 35,000

Two-tier stand behind each goal

Lower tier of the ‘home end’ (3,500 seats) converted to safe standing

A section of the ‘away end’ (1,750) converted to safe standing

Total seat spaces converted: 5,250 (15% of capacity)

Total standing spaces created: 9,450 (5,250 x 1.8)

I did have a look at your link, but discounted the information therein due to the limiting factor of the size of the Amex concourses - the capacity of the North Stand cannot be increased by just installing rail seats, and it is debatable as to whether the same is true for the South.

 

[Acker79]

I did have a look at your link, but discounted the information therein due to the limiting factor of the size of the Amex concourses - the capacity of the North Stand cannot be increased by installing rail seats, and it is debatable as to whether the same is true for the South.

The problem here, I think, is you are using 'capacity' as in "most number of people legally allowed in", and symyjym is using 'capacity' as in "number of seats that could fit in the stands".

 

[Curious Orange]

The problem here, I think, is you are using 'capacity' as in "most number of people legally allowed in", and symyjym is using 'capacity' as in "number of seats that could fit in the stands".

Quite, there is no reason I can see why rail seats shouldn't be fitted in either the North or South Stands should circumstances change. It just won't affect the capacity in terms of the number of people actually allowed into those areas as symyjym seems to think.

 

[bn1&bn3 Albion]

I heard about 6 months ago there was talk of improving Falmer station, if that is the case then hopefully that would solve the transport issue but there is still the matter of the concourse size. I'm guessing the concourse/exit sizes only affect newly built grounds because Ashton Gate, The Valley and Fratton Park would surely be much harder to evacuate in the case of an emergency..

 

[symyjym]

Quite, there is no reason I can see why rail seats shouldn't be fitted in either the North or South Stands should circumstances change. It just won't affect the capacity in terms of the number of people actually allowed into those areas as symyjym seems to think.

Curretnly we have a capacity of almost 31,000 so we couldn't legally allow any more in with only 31,000 seats so of course we are at our limit as it stands.

What I am suggesting is that you could easilly increase part of the North Stand by 2 or 3 hundred and get permision to do so without much stretch of imagination. You would increase in trial phases. The argument is not "no never".

 

[Acker79]

Curretnly we have a capacity of almost 31,000 so we couldn't legally allow any more in with only 31,000 seats so of course we are at our limit as it stands.

What I am suggesting is that you could easilly increase part of the North Stand by 2 or 3 hundred and get permision to do so without much stretch of imagination. You would increase in trial phases. The argument is not "no never".

We can easily increase the north stand by 2 or 3 hundred seats.

Getting permission to allow 2 or 3 hundred more people into the stand is not easy, because laws limit people based on exits, not numbers of seats. No, it's not "no, never", it's more "no, not until the laws are changed to allow more people per exit/per sq m of concourse, which doesn't appear to be happening anytime soon, especially as people seem to be getting bigger, on average with each generation".

 

[Curious Orange]

What I am suggesting is that you could easilly increase part of the North Stand by 2 or 3 hundred and get permision to do so without much stretch of imagination. You would increase in trial phases. The argument is not "no never".

*sigh*

So what do you propose to do about the concourse for the North Stand then? That is the limiting factor, not the number of seats. If you can come up with something easy and cheap then I'm all ears - bear in mind that it'd need to be both physically bigger and require more toilets at the very least.

 

[symyjym]

*sigh*

So what do you propose to do about the concourse for the North Stand then? That is the limiting factor, not the number of seats. If you can come up with something easy and cheap then I'm all ears - bear in mind that it'd need to be both physically bigger and require more toilets at the very least.

Can you post a link to the club quote or document that says the concourse is at it's maximum capacity and we have reached out limit forever?

 

[Curious Orange]

Can you post a link to the club quote or document that says the concourse is at it's maximum capacity and we have reached out limit forever?

attila met with club representatives some time back, and it was mentioned then - See his notes on this board from that meeting.

Happy now, or do you wish keep on flogging this poor dead donkey?

Just to reiterate, I am not against installing rail seating.

 

[Acker79]

Can you post a link to the club quote or document that says the concourse is at it's maximum capacity and we have reached out limit forever?

Or an email response to Attila

I have given this its own thread since some people may miss it if it's just tailed on to the other one, and it's obviously important. If the moderators want to move it that's fine.
This is a lot better than that press release, anyway....

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. Surely there are enough revenue streams for that to happen, Paul? We already have reduced prices for pensioners and kids: why should working people on low incomes be priced out of games, including, I know, some who were in the forefront of the battle to secure the stadium? Football as a microcosm of society.....

Interesting that safe standing is deemed 'non inclusive'. With safe standing, everyone has a choice. You can choose to stand in the North Stand or sit anywhere else in the home fans' part of the stadium. The current system is Hobson's choice (wonder where he is now?)

Interesting, and predictable, that the 'misbehaviour' argument is used. Every other country in Europe has safe standing. The authorities in Germany, the home of safe standing, are very happy and rightly so. I have stood many times on the Gegengerade at St Pauli with a pint (and in the Cup semi v Bayern a pint and a flare!) and never had any problems, nor seen any around me, just LOADS of atmosphere, noise and colour!

Interesting that the North corners are mentioned since Derek Chapman told me that at a board meeting he suggested not putting the seats in and waiting for a trial to be possible: quoting him 'this went down like a lead balloon' !
Understandable, since of course legislation does not permit such a trial as present. Of course the seats should go in. That leaves us in the same position as every other club if/when legislation permitted it.

My view, already expressed elsewhere is that we take the long view. Support the national campaign for safe standing, and if/when it starts being introduced at other grounds in the UK, simply pose the question again, in the manner to which we've become accustomed to over the last 15 years In the meantime, enjoy our lovely new stadium, eat all the pies, drink all the beer and hope we have something approaching a defence at the valley on Saturday......

The 'at this time' in the middle of the reply is perhaps the most interesting bit of all. Keep plugging away, Derek

Dear John

Thank you for your e-mail.


Martin has told me about the effort and commitment that you and many other supporters have put in over the years in support of our Club - bringing in Dick and his consortium, fighting for planning permission, and even campaigning for real ale at the stadium.


The Brighton story is now well known the football world over and what has been achieved here is simply fantastic. I am absolutely delighted to now be playing a small part in helping to shape the next chapter in this remarkable Club's history.


I know that Derek Chapman has already responded to you on the Museum issue but just to confirm the tenders for the various packages are now at an advanced stage and we hope to be in a position to award the work very soon.


We are all looking forward to a grand opening ceremony for the museum and huge credit should go to Tim Carder who has been the inspiration behind this important and exciting project for the Club.

With regard to safe standing, you won't be surprised to hear that we are well aware of the various recent articles and message board threads. We have also discussed the issue at Board level and the Club's position is that we are not able to support the proposal at this time. The reasons for this are threefold.

Firstly, it's important to be clear that if there was a change in legislation and standing at football stadia was permitted, it would not result in an increase in the capacity of our stadium.


The reason for this is that the capacity of a stand is not just simply calculated on the area of the terracing itself. It is also constrained by the width of exit routes, means of escape and the back-up facilities including number of toilets and catering kiosks.


The Amex was designed in compliance with the current editions of the Green Guide to Safety at Sports Grounds and current legislation, and to increase the capacity of the north stand would result in the need for major structural alterations to all of these elements.


On the basis therefore that the capacity of our stadium would not increase and the general expectation would be for ticket prices in a standing area to be reduced in price, this would result in a significant loss of revenue for the Club.


At a time when the Chairman and the Club has invested over £100 million in what is considered to be one of the world's best all seater stadiums and with new financial fair play rules now on the horizon - meaning the Club needs to build its revenues - you will appreciate this would not be a sensible direction for the Club to take, particularly when more than ever before our income levels will dictate what we can invest on the pitch.

The second reason is that this is the wrong time for us to be considering this proposal or offering to provide a venue for a trial. As you know we are in the final stages of completing the additional capacity for the stadium taking us up to a total capacity of 30,750. The north-east and north-west corners are due for completion in March in time for the final matches of the season and we are in detailed negotiations with our Safety Advisory Group over the amendments to the Safety Certificate that will be needed to allow us to bring these new areas in to use.


We do not see any imminent signs of the Government altering legislation for standing at football matches and therefore we cannot stop the process of installing seats in accordance with our planning permission or securing the necessary final approvals from our Safety Advisory Group and Building Control.


If we were to stop and wait for a change in legislation - that may of course never come - we will not hit the ambitious target we have set to have these seats available before the end of the current season and so, to avoid any disruption to this process, we must stick to our current plans.

Finally, we are genuinely concerned about the inclusiveness of a standing area. We understand and appreciate that there is a body of supporters who would like to stand at football matches but there is also a group – not necessarily vocal on North Stand Chat or other message boards but who do watch matches from the North Stand as well as other areas of the stadium - who are totally against standing at matches. We do receive messages and e-mails from these supporters as well as from those who support standing.


In our opinion, whilst a standing area may attract the more vocal supporter - and as much as this may be attractive for stadium atmosphere - it also means that other sectors of the supporter community including children, women, the elderly, and disabled supporters (who don't need or want to use our special disabled seating areas) would not be able to access an important and popular area of our Stadium.


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.


At the Amex we have worked very hard to ensure that all areas of the stadium are as safe, welcoming, and inclusive to as many people as possible and therefore a standing area goes against that philosophy on a number of levels and so it's not a direction we wish to take.

I appreciate that this response is not what you will want to hear but I do hope that you and other supporters who have expressed views on this matter, either directly to us or through North Stand Chat, will now better understand and respect the Club's position. Much has been achieved here in recent years and it's very important that we continue to build our Club inclusively and with the growing importance of financial fair play rules uppermost in our minds.


Martin and I would of course be happy to meet with you to explain our position further or to answer any questions you may have. In the meantime, thank you for your continued support for the Club. I look forward to meeting you at some point soon.


Kind regards, Paul

Paul Barber
Chief Executive
Brighton & Hove Albion FC

Sent from my iPhone​

https://nortr3nixy.nimpr.uk/showthread.php?265745-Safe-standing-a-response-from-Paul-Barber

 

[symyjym]

attila met with club representatives some time back, and it was mentioned then - See his notes on this board from that meeting.

Happy now, or do you wish keep on flogging this poor dead donkey?

Just to reiterate, I am not against installing rail seating.

Nothing wrong with asking anyone for a document to back something up, that's what forums are about.

I mean who is Curious Orange? Why should I believe anyone who doesn't use their own name?