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

[scousefan]

Tory government clearly still have it in for football supporters.

Always have and always will...

 

[clapham_gull]

Correct it is not a law to stand, but is in contravention of football league regulations - ‘Nobody may stand in any seating area whilst play is in progress. Persistent standing in seated areas whilst play is in progress is strictly forbidden and may result in ejection from the ground’.

As you quite rightly point out it is unenforceable because of the sheer numbers that do it? Does that make it right though?

Which aren't laws.

I point this out not as an advocate of standing in seating areas but to highlight the grey area Police get involved if they and eject someone for standing.

It's a matter between the supporter and the terms and conditions of entry. Nothing to do with the Police unless a crime has been committed.

The behaviour of the Police at Withdean was a bit dodgy for instance.

Sent from my BLA-L09 using Tapatalk

 

[The Albion Roar]

So nothing to do with the decades of hooliganism that precluded that fatal day that gave the powers that be, who were quite rightly hacked off with the neanderthal's following football the excuse they had been looking for.

Everything to do with that, and were wrong to do so. Hillsborough was, to them, a final straw.

To everyone else, given was the fault of the authorities, it was an 'accident' waiting to happen.

Given that one of the worst examples of hooliganism in the 1980s happened at an all-seater stadium (Luton), the decision was clearly not evidence-based.

Sent from my SM-A320FL using Tapatalk

 

[sully]

Surely, with the majority of the North Stand already upright, then the atmosphere would not change from the present one?

Key word majority.

If it was a standing section, it would be better still! It’s not been bad this season.

We just need to give people a choice so that nobody has to stand that doesn’t want to and nobody has to sit who doesn’t want to. It’s simple, really.

 

[The Albion Roar]

Correct it is not a law to stand, but is in contravention of football league regulations - ‘Nobody may stand in any seating area whilst play is in progress. Persistent standing in seated areas whilst play is in progress is strictly forbidden and may result in ejection from the ground’.

As you quite rightly point out it is unenforceable because of the sheer numbers that do it? Does that make it right though?

Maybe. Maybe not. But that's not the question.

The key point is that it hasn't been proved to be unsafe.

Sent from my SM-A320FL using Tapatalk

 

[Dave the OAP]

Twitch

Ditch

 

[Dave the OAP]

Martin perry said we can all stand in the back 6 rows of the north stand, so that is good enough for me

 

[mikeyjh]

The daft things about the govt response is that this IS going to happen - It's entirely inevitable, would require little if any legislation, just a change in policy. Get on with it FFS.

We know that standing persists at ALL grounds - At Pride Park (and I'm sure other grounds) the entire South stand is 'standing', it's basically encouraged by the club. Even Liverpool fans are now very much in favour.

 

[biddles911]

Key word majority.

If it was a standing section, it would be better still! It’s not been bad this season.

We just need to give people a choice so that nobody has to stand that doesn’t want to and nobody has to sit who doesn’t want to. It’s simple, really.

All in favour of choice and would support a standing area for that reason alone but don’t really get the “atmosphere” argument.

I can remember watching many games on the terraces in the “good old days” in the sixties and seventies but my abiding memory is of the pushing and shoving to get “your” spot and the problem of finding a spot without taller people in front of you blocking part of the view (difficult when you’re a young lad without going right to the front!).

Since it’s become the norm at most grounds let’s just go for it but suspect it’s more about personal preference (me, me, me!) than a concern about generating a better atmosphere........




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Nixonator]

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/207040

 

[Saunders]

All in favour of choice and would support a standing area for that reason alone but don’t really get the “atmosphere” argument.

I can remember watching many games on the terraces in the “good old days” in the sixties and seventies but my abiding memory is of the pushing and shoving to get “your” spot and the problem of finding a spot without taller people in front of you blocking part of the view (difficult when you’re a young lad without going right to the front!).

Since it’s become the norm at most grounds let’s just go for it but suspect it’s more about personal preference (me, me, me!) than a concern about generating a better atmosphere........




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They werent advocating going back to the old terracing though they wanted safe standing as has been implemented in other countries including Scotland. This is where the converted seat acts as a safe level barrier to stop surging and you have an allocated place to stand. Basically removing the chance of falling over the seat at shin height in front of you. I agree there was much I wont miss about standing in the North or East terrace. As you say someone could shove their way through at the last minute and stand in front of you, usually over six foot. This wouldnt happen with the system proposed.

 

[Wardy's twin]

What are you on about... No in those days I stood, because there were no seats. Now I sit as there are legally supplied seats... Simples!

There were seats behind the south goal....

 

[Wardy's twin]

True, and if things had remained the same, they'd have moved to somewhere in the \West Stand by now - freedom of choice and all that. Those that were lucky enough to still be able to stand would do so, if they wished.

I am 61, happy to sit in WSU but also happy to stand for away games as it feels like the think to do. That is at away games I expect to sing more and that's easier standing up. If people want to have and be part of a 'kop' then you need to stand. I would be happy to support safe standing in the north and any of the lower tiers if the demand was there.

 

[darkwolf666]

There were seats behind the south goal....

I know, on rare occasions I sat in the South, in fact I was there in the South for the last ever game at the Goldstone, mainly as I didn't think the North the best place for my 6 months pregnant wife to watch the game from!

 

[LVGull]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/43701400

West Brom have had a proposal to introduce safe standing at The Hawthorns rejected by the government.

The pilot scheme would have meant 3,600 seats in the Smethwick End were converted to 'rail seats', which can be locked in an upright position.

West Brom - who are bottom of the Premier League - hoped to install them in time for next season.

Sports minister Tracey Crouch says there are no plans to change the all-seater policy at football stadiums.

That law was introduced followed recommendations made in the Taylor Report into the 1989 Hillsborough disaster, which claimed the lives of 96 Liverpool fans.

But West Brom say their proposal was based on safety concerns, because of persistent standing.

With all the CCTV and technology, I do not see why we cannot go back to terraces.

 

[GT49er]

You too have missed my point. I like being behind the goal, because I like the view it offers, particularly when we are attacking the North.

The regulations insist all seater stadia, so I sit in a seat behind the North goal - you are suggesting now that I be precluded from that because I choose to follow the regulations as laid out, just to appease the clearly vocal minority!

No, I'm suggesting that you're lucky because the rules have changed during your life span and you can sit in a position where you used to stand, but you seem to have a dog-in-the-manger attitude to anyone else's preferences. You get a seat, which is what you want - no reason to oppose some people who want the choice to stand. 30K people can come into the stadium, ffs - if you're sitting comfortably, wtf is it to you if someone somewhere else in that vast crowd is standing? Get over it.

 

[Nixonator]

No, I'm suggesting that you're lucky because the rules have changed during your life span and you can sit in a position where you used to stand, but you seem to have a dog-in-the-manger attitude to anyone else's preferences. You get a seat, which is what you want - no reason to oppose some people who want the choice to stand. 30K people can come into the stadium, ffs - if you're sitting comfortably, wtf is it to you if someone somewhere else in that vast crowd is standing? Get over it.

Because he wants to sit in the most obvious place to have safe-standing installed, and likewise there will be other intransigent and cantankerous ****s scattered around the ground in every feasible placement who will oppose it aswell.

We ****ed it when we first sold season tickets, the demographic of the North can't be changed lightly, only uprooting it with safe-standing or adding to capacity will allow things to move on.

 

[GT49er]

Because he wants to sit in the most obvious place to have safe-standing installed, and likewise there will be other intransigent and cantankerous ****s scattered around the ground in every feasible placement who will oppose it aswell.

We ****ed it when we first sold season tickets, the demographic of the North can't be changed lightly, only uprooting it with safe-standing or adding to capacity will allow things to move on.

Well yes - I think if safe standing is ever brought in, the sensible thing would be to have it behind a seated area. But some people just don't like the idea of some people having something they can't have. I loved standing on the old terraces, but couldn't manage a two hour plus stand these days - in the old Goldstone parlance I would have moved from the north stand to a seat in the west - I wouldn't have expected them to re-arrange the stadium for me!

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

You too have missed my point. I like being behind the goal, because I like the view it offers, particularly when we are attacking the North.

The regulations insist all seater stadia, so I sit in a seat behind the North goal - you are suggesting now that I be precluded from that because I choose to follow the regulations as laid out, just to appease the clearly vocal minority!

If I follow your argument correctly, you sit because you have to sit, whereas you used to stand, so if safe-standing was introduced you'd stand again. So whats the problem?

 

[DavePage]

Bitch.

Dog (proper answer)