[Albion] Safe Standing Survey Results

[Brovion]

As an older person, who doesn't object to change, I do think 'lifestyle' is very much a strange reason. Nobody chooses arthritis or dodgy health conditions as they age.
I did complete the survey, said I was in favour of safe standing, and also said I am in the North, and that I stand occasionally when the game is exciting ie Albion attacking the north goal.

Surely the survey was only sent to STHs in the North Stand? I would imagine if you asked someone from WSU for example if they would like a Standing option the answer would be an emphatic 'No!'

EDIT: Having read the posts after yours it seems that, no, they asked everybody. The outcome then is hardly surprising. They may just as well have asked SCCC members what they thought, it doesn't affect them either.

 

[nickbrighton]

I think survey should only be sent to North Stand Season ticket holders only, as it really only affects them.

I said yes to safe standing but it's not going to happen in the WSU. I choose that area because it's got a good view and only being 5ft 3 on a good day, I prefer not to have people standing in front of me.

I have no issues with people standing in the North Stand if that is what they want to do.

but it doesnt only affect them, it may seem that way, but if the choice is spend the money on safe standing for a few, or outside toilets for everyone, then if the toilets dont get built because safe standing was installed , everyone who would ever use them is affected- a far greater number



If money wasnt an issue then yes- put in safe standing for the people who want it snd improve the facilities elsewhere in the stadium for everyone else, but that isnt the case. The club have a finite amount of money, surley its best to spend that on the majority

 

[Bold Seagull]

I’m pleased , I hate standing unless we look like we might score !

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

OK, time to initiate club-approved cost-effective Plan B: atmosphere gets improved by means of the 90% of home fans that aren't in the North Stand making some atmosphere-improving noise. Crazy talk I know...

 

[ozzygull]

but it doesnt only affect them, it may seem that way, but if the choice is spend the money on safe standing for a few, or outside toilets for everyone, then if the toilets dont get built because safe standing was installed , everyone who would ever use them is affected- a far greater number



If money wasnt an issue then yes- put in safe standing for the people who want it snd improve the facilities elsewhere in the stadium for everyone else, but that isnt the case. The club have a finite amount of money, surley its best to spend that on the majority

I guess so, but I am no kill joy. If the club can afford it, people want it and it does not affect me negatively or hurt any one, then I won't object to it.

Now if they said on the survey it is safe standing or outside toilets I may have answered it differently

 

[Brovion]

but it doesnt only affect them, it may seem that way, but if the choice is spend the money on safe standing for a few, or outside toilets for everyone, then if the toilets dont get built because safe standing was installed , everyone who would ever use them is affected- a far greater number



If money wasnt an issue then yes- put in safe standing for the people who want it snd improve the facilities elsewhere in the stadium for everyone else, but that isnt the case. The club have a finite amount of money, surley its best to spend that on the majority

That's a bit naughty. Was it presented as kind of 'opportunity cost' option then? "If you have this then you can't have that". (I'm not a STH so I didn't see it).

It's a bit like the government asking us if we want money spent on Education or the NHS.

 

[SUIYHP]

Think it was a bit of a moot gesture as the club had made their mind up already on their preferred budgetary plans. I personally support safe standing but if the club arent ready them Im not going to complain

 

[Cotton Socks]

Was the survey only of NS STH’ers? On the actual principle, it should’ve been just that.

The view of safe standing opponents sitting 75 metres away, should have no bearing.

The email was sent to those with purchase history as well, basically anyone could participate.

 

[Easy 10]

As an aside, I noticed (from photos) that fans were SITTING in the safe standing area at Wembley for the women's finalissima last week...

Sounds standard.
Women HATE it when men leave the seat up.

 

[nickbrighton]

That's a bit naughty. Was it presented as kind of 'opportunity cost' option then? "If you have this then you can't have that". (I'm not a STH so I didn't see it).

It's a bit like the government asking us if we want money spent on Education or the NHS.

no it wasnt at all, it was IIRC along the lines of would you like to have safe standing, would you move to a safe standing area , would you pay more for....etc. So the results werent skewed by a safe standing or more toilets type of question

I

 

[dazzer6666]

Only 5000 odd people bothered to fill in the survey. That is the problem.

Part of it at least but need to delve deeper. As the above posts indicate, potentially looks like plenty of those objecting wouldn't even be affected.........virtually impossible though to have representative results - really need those who would have to move from the proposed safe standing areas, those in them who want to stand and those elsewhere who would want to move to the safe standing. Can't remember if 'existing location' was one of the questions but if it was, would be better to filter out the 'more relevant' responders to give a better representation of views - for example, if the 2,500 or whatever it was that wanted it are all either in the standing parts of the NS, or would move from elsewhere, then the club have the answer, as it's doubtful many more than that number of seats would be converted anyway.

5000 could simply mean 2500 really want it, 100 currently in the NS who would likely have to move don't want it and 2400 wouldn't be affected. A safe standing section of 2500 would be a good addition I suspect - essentially replicating an away end.

 

[Giraffe]

The most interesting element of this release is this:

“We are currently considering reconfiguring the visiting supporters area in the south stand, and so we will re-visit the safe standing proposition once we have a fully costed and approved plan. This work won’t be complete until the 2024/25 season at the earliest.”

Hopefully means a slight switch away from behind the goal. I’m sure every manager has requested this but I suspect De Zerbi more forcefully!

 

[Hotchilidog]

The most interesting element of this release is this:

“We are currently considering reconfiguring the visiting supporters area in the south stand, and so we will re-visit the safe standing proposition once we have a fully costed and approved plan. This work won’t be complete until the 2024/25 season at the earliest.”

Hopefully means a slight switch away from behind the goal. I’m sure every manager has requested this but I suspect De Zerbi more forcefully!

This is excellent news and long overdue.

 

[dazzer6666]

The most interesting element of this release is this:

“We are currently considering reconfiguring the visiting supporters area in the south stand, and so we will re-visit the safe standing proposition once we have a fully costed and approved plan. This work won’t be complete until the 2024/25 season at the earliest.”

Hopefully means a slight switch away from behind the goal. I’m sure every manager has requested this but I suspect De Zerbi more forcefully!

Shift the away support from behind the goal and reconfigure parts of the South into safe standing, which will also be next to the away support, presumably in the SE or SW corner - sorted

 

[Bodian]

Two of my sons went to Spurs away on Saturday, they got told to sit down in the safe standing area by a steward. Some of our fans further back in the same area couldn’t see because they wanted to sit down.

Should have asked for the stewards decision to be reviewed based upon the evidence of it being a standing area. Reviews based on evidence are done well at Spurs....

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Sounds standard.
Women HATE it when men leave the seat up.

Sake! They'll be wanting a Safe Seating Survey next

 

[Paulie Gualtieri]

Shift the away support from behind the goal and reconfigure parts of the South into safe standing, which will also be next to the away support, presumably in the SE or SW corner - sorted

Basically what I was trying to say earlier (between meetings is my defence )

 

[JBizzle]

So a majority of the tiny group sampled wouldn't pay more for a safe sranding place. Quelle surprise, then! The club can breathe easy for another year or two before the call for another survey gets too noisy.

Out of interest, why should someone in the WSU have to pay more for their season ticket so you can have a safe standing section in the North?

On your point though, you're right, very few people in the East, West and South will voluntarily pay more so 10% of the stadium can stand up. The survey will probably always remain pointless on account of that logic alone.

That said, if the club said they'll install safe standing but the cost is added to the price of 4,000 STs in the North Stand that want safe standing, I'm sure it'll fly though.

 

[JBizzle]

Was the survey only of NS STH’ers? On the actual principle, it should’ve been just that.

The view of safe standing opponents sitting 75 metres away, should have no bearing.

Unless they have to shoulder some of the cost of the change...

 

[Dibdab]

At Wolves it seemed to help. I don’t have other examples to comment on in this country.

Actually I'd agree with that but not sure what the atmosphere was like there before the switch. One of the more impressive home efforts this season.