[Football] Safe standing

[South west gull]

Brentford QPR & wolves next season safe standing.we need it Brighton

Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk

 

[Brian Fantana]

I think we were one of the few PL clubs openly against it, so I can't see it happening at The Amex without a significant change of heart from PB et al.

Maybe one for the FAB to raise.

 

[RM-Taylor]

Wolves had it last season. In their main noisy stand behind the goal and also behind the other goal where smaller allocations of away fans are housed.

 

[Marty___Mcfly]

And at Wembley. So is officially approved as a thing now? I guess other clubs will end up progressing this now then.

https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...nd-at-wembley-for-first-time-from-next-season

 

[studio150]

Oh joy this must be the 83rd thread on safe standing and we need it at The Amex.

More chance of getting bottle tops and flasks reinstated than seeing safe standing installed at The Amex.

 

[Paul Reids Sock]

Do we actually want it? I was sure some people at Spurs away said that it actually hindered the celebrations?

 

[portlock seagull]

I’ve been safely standing at the Amex since 2011

 

[FloatLeft]

I’ve been safely standing at the Amex since 2011

This! Most of the North Stand are on their feet for the entire game.

Why ‘fix’ what isn’t broken?

 

[Live by the sea]

Brentford QPR & wolves next season safe standing.we need it Brighton

Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk

Why do we need it . I don’t want it nor do most people over 40 ! We like to sit .

 

[Billy the Fish]

This! Most of the North Stand are on their feet for the entire game.

Why ‘fix’ what isn’t broken?

Yep, no need to install rail seats just to do what we're already doing

 

[Husty]

Why do we need it . I don’t want it nor do most people over 40 ! We like to sit .

Sit in the bits that don't get converted then?

 

[drew]

Brentford QPR & wolves next season safe standing.we need it Brighton

Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk

Get a ticket on the north stand and hey presto.

 

[drew]

Sit in the bits that don't get converted then?

Stand in the stand where they turn a blind eye then.

 

[Dibdab]

Thought it looked rubbish at Spurs. Very sterile.

 

[drew]

This! Most of the North Stand are on their feet for the entire game.

Why ‘fix’ what isn’t broken?

Because some idiots can't see that.

 

[Super Steve Earle]

Since this primarily would appear to be a North Stand thing, perhaps North Stand S/T holders should be surveyed to see if they would be prepared to pay more to stand. PB has explained that the cost of changing to rail seats and the reduction in capacity would need to be paid for. I wonder how keen the noisy minority would be to pay more to stand in the same place as they currently stand already. It has already been made clear that standing doesn't mean a free for all of stand where you like, fans still have an allocated place to stand which they pretty much do already. On the other hand, I sit in WSL and have no wish to subsidise the change out of my own pocket.

 

[Justice]

If you are under a certain age then how do miss something you’ve never had the experience of. Didn’t Barber say it would lower the attendance rather than add to it?

 

[Acker79]

If you are under a certain age then how do miss something you’ve never had the experience of. Didn’t Barber say it would lower the attendance rather than add to it?

I believe the club position was that the club are limited in how many people are let into the stadium based on how many people can enter the stadium over an hour, and how quickly everyone can be evacuated in an emergency, rather than by how many seats. So, although safe standing may allow for more seats in the same space, we wouldn't necessarily be allowed to let more people in. (Unless we increased the nunber of exits, but then that would reduce the space available, so would reduce the number of safe standing seats put in so no net gain).

I don't recall them ever saying it would lower attendances (except that more exits proviso), just that it wouldn't necessarily increase them.

This was before they then applied for, and were granted, permission to increase the number of seats last summer.

 

[Wozza]

Not relevant to me personally, as I go to The Amex with young kids, but would like to see the entire North Stand converted.

You'd have to give STHers there the option to switch to seats elsewhere though, and I could see that causing issues. Also, it wouldn't add to capacity and would cost the club money.

So... probably won't happen.

 

[Dave the hatosaurus]

I believe the club position was that the club are limited in how many people are let into the stadium based on how many people can enter the stadium over an hour, and how quickly everyone can be evacuated in an emergency, rather than by how many seats. So, although safe standing may allow for more seats in the same space, we wouldn't necessarily be allowed to let more people in. (Unless we increased the nunber of exits, but then that would reduce the space available, so would reduce the number of safe standing seats put in so no net gain).

I don't recall them ever saying it would lower attendances (except that more exits proviso), just that it wouldn't necessarily increase them.

This was before they then applied for, and were granted, permission to increase the number of seats last summer.

Having been in the safe standing area at Chelsea i am pretty sure it would mean less people in a given area because of all the rails which have to be put in which as i recall mean the seats are actually further apart . Also the rails themselves are a bit of a nuisance getting in and out . So the cost of installation would mean that those who chose to use such an area would probably have to pay more unless the cost was spread over everyone which seems a tad unfair ?