Safe-standing areas - TIME FOR ACTION

[ZacNaloen]

A clever marketing dept would use it as an incentive to get more people into the ground, that's all I'm saying

[roadrunner]

I'm not sure there would be a price difference. If you look to Germany as the example, it's one ticket per seat but you can stand if you prefer and the safety barrier is in front of you. In this case I imagine you can't increase capacity just by standing either.

[weybridgewanderer]

A clever marketing dept would use it as an incentive to get more people into the ground, that's all I'm saying

I would want a clever marketing department would maximise the revenue potential.

That does not always equate to getting more people in.

[roadrunner]

I'm not sure there would be a price difference. If you look to Germany as the example, it's one ticket per seat but you can stand if you prefer and the safety barrier is in front of you. In this case I imagine you can't increase capacity just by standing either.

Of course, the football club could replace the current seating in one stand or the top half of a stand with narrower seats to squeeze more in.

[brendywendy]

therell be a massive demand for standing- and the spaces limited, therefore theyll probably get away with charging the same(or more )

[Silver Fox]

I'll stay sat down thanks, but if you want to stand in your little box in front of a seat then I don't see why you should be stopped

[brendywendy]

at your age its probably best foxo

[Svlad Cjelli]

OK, let's look at the financial aspects, shall we?

According to The Green Guide (the "bible" for stadium design and safety) you can have 18 people standing in the same ground footprint as 10 people sitting (people sitting need slightly less width than those standing as they move around less, but they need a row for their legs and a row for their bums!)

So conversion to a safe-standing area is a relatively cheap way to increase the capacity of an area by 80%.

Let's make some assumptions to put an example cost-model together, based on converting half of the North Stand into a safe-standing area (don't get too hung up on this, it's just an example....)

- Reading is in the PL and is selling out or nearly selling out every game,
- the average cost of an RFC ticket is £20 (a low estimate in a PL scenario)
- the cost of conversion would be half a million pounds (a high estimate for this).

Converting and selling this area would bring in an extra £32,000 (excluding catering, programmes, etc) per match. That would mean that over a 20 match season the club would make a £140K profit after the conversion costs, with no cup ties taken into account. In season two it's all paid for and is pure profit from then on (£640l profit in season two). In commercial terms it's a no-brainer, as long as you're confident of selling the extra capacity. We're not at the moment, but it's not inconceivable we will be again in future.

And for those who argue that standing attracts the "risk element" (which I don't agree with) this solution means that you've taken that "risk element" and moved them away from Y26 and close to the away support to an area away from the flashpoint where the away supporters are. Two birds with one stone!

This may not happen, but under current legislation it would be illegal for it to happen if the club was massively in favour of it. The bill is all about giving clubs an opportunity to implement changes if they want, rather than forcing them to do so.

And whilst football has argued for years, and will continue to do so for years more, that football shouldn't be regulated and government should stay out of what they do, these government regulations about standing (which is now officially NOT a safety issue) imposed on them are a massive anomaly.

[Bandini]

Massive 'greed with Svlad.

Most importantly, this is the best way of encouraging a younger and more cash-strapped supporters to come/continue to come to football. Which even if there was a slight loss in match day revenue now, would bring benefits in the future.

Presumably, if it was done, the easiest way to do it would be to convert the North Stand.

[Rex]

How far do we think this discussion is going to go. The pros for are a possible increased income and giving the supporters a choice but if this goes ahead and we have safe standing areas at all stadiums then i feel this will always give further ammunition for safety stewards to take draconian measures agains those who persistantly stand in the seating area.

Lets hope the discussions agains do not attempt a crass association with historical events. Safety at grounds is heightened as are risk assessments, and accident prevention.

IF the above scenario is agreed this will should also apply to the away end, and again the enforcement on the persistant standing ruling needs to apply and be fairly enforced.

[Svlad Cjelli]

Agreed with that - one "pro" not mentioned so far is that allowing safe-standing areas will mean that those who can't stand or who don't want to stand will no-longer not be able to see the game because of people standing where it's not allowed.

I wouldn't be surprised if there was a certain amount of self-policing in designated seating areas if safe-standing areas were available.

Just to re-emphasise for anyone clinging onto outdated arguments, the assertion that "standing is unsafe" has been thoroughly debunked, and has been officially accepted by the football authorities. If anyone tries to tell you that it's not safe to stand in a ground, they are officially and demonstrably wrong.

The argument against safe-standing areas is now about control of supporters, not about safety of supporters (which again makes you wonder why this is a matter for government).

[weybridgewanderer]

while you can get 8 more people in a row or whatever the number is, the concourses and exits at the mad stad were not designed for that volume of people therefore without major structural work this would not get a safety certificate.

i am not saying we should not put a safe standing area in, just don't assume it will mean more people in the same area so it will be cheaper

[Svlad Cjelli]

while you can get 8 more people in a row or whatever the number is, the concourses and exits at the mad stad were not designed for that volume of people therefore without major structural work this would not get a safety certificate.

Of course. Conversion work would need to take such factors into account and that would be factored into the cost.

But just because some clubs might not want safe-standing areas or might not be able to cost-justify them is surely no legitimate reason for legislation that denies them the opportunity to choose the option if they wish?

[weybridgewanderer]

please, its not that I don'tw ant a safe standing area, but so many people have the wrong idea, this is not a eturn to the terraces.

There isno guarantee of more people and no gaurantee of cheaper tickets

as I said, if 200 people want to stand, I would consider creating a space for 150 and charge a them premium

[Svlad Cjelli]

please, its not that I don'tw ant a safe standing area, but so many people have the wrong idea, this is not a eturn to the terraces.

There isno guarantee of more people and no gaurantee of cheaper tickets

as I said, if 200 people want to stand, I would consider creating a space for 150 and charge a them premium

Agree completely, it isn't a return to the terraces. The massive old terraces are dead and gone and no-one wants them back.

This is about properly-designed, safe-standing areas to give supporters choice, and to reduce conflict with stewards who currently are forced to try and implement unworkable regulations.

I agree that there's no guarantee of more tickets or of reduced prices - but I don't understand why you seem opposed to the concept of allowing clubs the legal freedom to decide for themselves what facilities they provide for their "customers".

[weybridgewanderer]

where or when have I said, or even suggested, I am opposed to it?

[Svlad Cjelli]

You seem to be finding objections at every stage.of the conversation....

[weybridgewanderer]

where in this thread have I raised an objection?

All I have continued to point out is that safe standing does not automatically mean you will get more people in the same area of the stadium.

I said that at the mad stad what it will mean is replacing existing seats with designated safe standing spaces

I am not sure how that is in any way showing i object to it

[Svlad Cjelli]

where in this thread have I raised an objection?

All I have continued to point out is that safe standing does not automatically mean you will get more people in the same area of the stadium

Has anyone ever asserted it would?

I have shown that under Green Guide regulations, you have the potential to get 80% more people into the same area of stadium. I've also stated that this cost model only works for clubs selling at capacity.

But at the moment clubs wishing to build new stands or expand existing ones (at all levels 1-5) are hindered by this legislation.

I'm not sure I've ever stated that things will change - prices, attendances, capacities - I'm arguing for a legal structure in which there is the opportunity for them to potentially change.

[weybridgewanderer]

I was respnding to this :

You could charge slightly less to attract fans who don't quite have enough for a season ticket elsewhere in the ground. You'd probably get more people applying, and as you can fit more people in a standing area compared to seated there's a chance they'd get more bang for buck from a standing area over all.

and this

A clever marketing dept would use it as an incentive to get more people into the ground, that's all I'm saying