[Football] WBA Safe Standing proposal turned down...

[el punal]

I’m glad to be in the minority in appreciating the beauty of open terracing at football grounds then.

All seater bowls are ugly beyond belief and actually less safe than terracing when spectators stand en masse.

So, by your premise, the Goldstone was a thing of beauty and the Amex ugly beyond belief.

 

[Triggaaar]

Bitch.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

And yet Shrewsbury are installing safe standing for next season (albeit only about 500 rail seats at the back of one of their stands).

If the Baggies continue their plummet to oblivion they will be able to have safe standing, unsafe standing, astroturf, be able to drink a pint while watching the game, and enjoy overtly racist chanting soon enough.

 

[studio150]

The Government aren't interested as its not a vote winner.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

While my views on safe standing are entirely neutral (as long as I'm not forced to stand - and frankly at away games I have been forced many times - because everyone is standing an permitted to do so - WTF?), I deplore the 'policy' position alluded to be [MENTION=23140]Albion[/MENTION] Roar. I can recall sitting at Brentford away some years ago and the access and egress were so rubbish you had to climb over dozens of people stuffed into tiny seats to get to the lav (and many of us can remember the Brentford lavs - dozens of us forced to piss through a fence owing to the insane queues). How anyone can call this 'safe' is beyond me. At least, if there were a fire it would soon have been put out without the need for Fireman Sam.

 

[GT49er]

If the Baggies continue their plummet to oblivion they will be able to have safe standing, unsafe standing, astroturf, be able to drink a pint while watching the game, and enjoy overtly racist chanting soon enough.

Leave out the racist chanting and the astro turf and that sounds all hunky dory to me! So long as seats are available for those of us who need them these days, of course.

 

[maffew]

I really don't think there's any spite in this - more that they just don't understand, and so will see no tangible reason to take the risk of upsetting the 'safe' status quo.

The thinking will be "people once died and fought at football didn't they? Since we made them all sit down, that doesn't seem to happen. Why risk changing it back?"

I think that's partially true which stinks of ignorance (or lack of common sense/they haveny got the balls to make a decision) and isnt really very democratic is it. Why not let football fans/supports and clubs vote. I'm not really buying the tragedy of Hillsborough to be honest when the inquiry ended up pointing pretty much all at the Yorkshire police, its a very convenient excuse to hide behind (and I really hope that doesnt offend anyone affected its just my opinion)

 

[maffew]

Bitch.

Twitch

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Leave out the racist chanting and the astro turf and that sounds all hunky dory to me! So long as seats are available for those of us who need them these days, of course.

You are forgetting that you'd also be watching West Bromwich Albion

 

[Nixonator]

While my views on safe standing are entirely neutral (as long as I'm not forced to stand - and frankly at away games I have been forced many times - because everyone is standing an permitted to do so - WTF?), I deplore the 'policy' position alluded to be [MENTION=23140]Albion[/MENTION] Roar. I can recall sitting at Brentford away some years ago and the access and egress were so rubbish you had to climb over dozens of people stuffed into tiny seats to get to the lav (and many of us can remember the Brentford lavs - dozens of us forced to piss through a fence owing to the insane queues). How anyone can call this 'safe' is beyond me. At least, if there were a fire it would soon have been put out without the need for Fireman Sam.

If I was forced to sit at some grounds (loftus, hawthorns spring to mind) then I'd be suffering deep vein thrombosis.

Just furious about this whole thing, it is absolutely ridiculous to suggest that standing (in conditions such as rail seating) is dangerous in the slighest. So very out of touch, nothing much changes.

 

[Notters]

Good. How to uglify perfectly good stadia. I stand for big chunks of every game in the North but I like the option of sitting from time to time on my nice padded seat. I do not believe that this has majority support among the entire Albion watching public.

What an odd post. Surely most people want the freedom to choose a standing or seating area?

 

[Giraffe]

It's a strange decision not to allow it. There doesn't appear to have been any common sense used here, just a blanket no.

 

[jasetheace]

errr where and when has anyone suggested that the MAJORITY of support want safe standing (and by the way if you stand for big chunks of the game anyway, you are 1) Blocking someones view who may or may not want to sit down and see because of your selfish actions - unless you are in back row, then you're alright hey? And 2) if your seat flipped up it would be a heck of a lot safer and you would have more room for when you wanted to stand or sit).

So in a nutshell you want to stand up and do so when you want to anyway or am I missing something? (maybe you havent done your homework and are getting safe standing and 80s style terraces a little mixed up hey?)

I am in the North in an area that stands as a matter of course for the vast majority of the game. If I was not, I most likely would not stand and if I did I would always ask the permissions of those immediately behind. Frankly the AMEX is Safe Standing. My main point is why do we want to replace nice clean (padded) lines with metal and more metal?

 

[GT49er]

You are forgetting that you'd also be watching West Bromwich Albion

Even so, it would still be preferable to staying home and listening to Kermode and Mayo!

 

[Nixonator]

I am in the North in an area that stands as a matter of course for the vast majority of the game. If I was not, I most likely would not stand and if I did I would always ask the permissions of those immediately behind. Frankly the AMEX is Safe Standing. My main point is why do we want to replace nice clean (padded) lines with metal and more metal?

If you're not inclined to stand then you probably shouldn't be in the North which is indicative of the demographic problem in our 'home end'. No, the Amex is NOT safe standing. It is standing amongst seating which is dangerous.

 

[maffew]

I am in the North in an area that stands as a matter of course for the vast majority of the game. If I was not, I most likely would not stand and if I did I would always ask the permissions of those immediately behind. Frankly the AMEX is Safe Standing. My main point is why do we want to replace nice clean (padded) lines with metal and more metal?

 

[GT49er]

I am in the North in an area that stands as a matter of course for the vast majority of the game. If I was not, I most likely would not stand and if I did I would always ask the permissions of those immediately behind. Frankly the AMEX is Safe Standing. My main point is why do we want to replace nice clean (padded) lines with metal and more metal?

It's ridiculously simple really. It is so that those who wish to stand can do so without blocking the view of anyone else (and without sometimes being harangued by the stewards) and those that wish to sit can do so without having their view blocked by people standing in front of them.

 

[darkwolf666]

If you're not inclined to stand then you probably shouldn't be in the North which is indicative of the demographic problem in our 'home end'. No, the Amex is NOT safe standing. It is standing amongst seating which is dangerous.

So what you are basically saying is that if I don't want to stand for 90 minutes and sing (I know you haven't mentioned this, but others clearly have on other posts), then I am not allowed to have a behind the goal view, a view I have enjoyed since first watching The Albion in the late 60s.

 

[The Albion Roar]

now hang on, this is confusing. i have read that this isnt strictly a government decision, they legislate all seater but its actually down to league rules that stipulate no standing. Safe standing is based on the premise that there is a seat just not used, correct? hence the Celtic safe standing area. so is this the proposed plan from WBA is flawed, or they bypassed League rules to hit a government wall?

It's not illegal, though the government reserves the right to force clubs to enforce the licensing provisions. From there, it's evident where the power comes from.

In this instance, the government (after 'advice' from the SGSA) had retained the status quo by denying WBA the right to trial it.

And with 'safe standing' (e.g. at Celtic), the seats are locked into the - for want of a better term - standing position.

Sent from my SM-A320FL using Tapatalk

 

[A1X]

So we know if the PL themselves have a position on this, or is it purely up to individual clubs to ask for it or not?