Safe-Standing petition

[Will95]

I think the reason this needs to come about is it stops fans who want to SIT having their games ruined by being made to stand by those in front standing. I will stand everywhere whether this comes through or not, but if the person behind me wants to sit and I stand, they have to stand or cause a confrontation. So for the sitters, surely this is needed?

[SPARTA]

Am i alone in not really wanting to go back to standing?

It'll be mixed, but lets not forget it'll only be a section, or a section in one/two/three stands. It's great that eventually fans may have the choice, and I for one miss standing, and miss the atmosphere it creates.

The Premier League still remain against Safe Standing, which is very ironic considering they turn a blind eye to the thousands of fans who stand in front of their seats every week in the PL, and those fans are at more risk for doing so.

[ZacNaloen]

For Atmospheres sake it should be the lower half of the North Stand in my opinion.

[urz13]

I think the reason this needs to come about is it stops fans who want to SIT having their games ruined by being made to stand by those in front standing. I will stand everywhere whether this comes through or not, but if the person behind me wants to sit and I stand, they have to stand or cause a confrontation. So for the sitters, surely this is needed?

Or alternatively, you could sit down and stop being a knob to the person behind.

[Will95]

Or I could enjoy my experience at games. I'll go to the back if possible, I don't want to get in people's way, but if I'm stuck at the front, why should I not enjoy my day how I want when I've spent £25+ for the pleasure?

[SPARTA]

For Atmospheres sake it should be the lower half of the North Stand in my opinion.

Why do you say 'for atmosphere sake'? The Tilehurst End never sang (that I can ever recall), and the North Stand rarely manages more than a clap; so why would standing make a difference?

You might get a small minority, and it would be a very small minority, move from Y25/26, but not enough to make the noise carry from North to South. Also, if you lost the singers in Y25/26, you would also lose the interaction with the away fans, which Reading have always had with the South Bank and Town End - Y25/26 and South Stand. Great if it worked in addition with, but I still expect the numbers to be very marginal, and not enough of the North Stand will get involved, as they rarely do (and again, when they do it doesn't carry across the stadium)

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for it. I would love to hear a vocal North Stand as well as Y25/26, but at this club it will never happen.

[Green]

but at this club it will never happen.

Yep, this is the long and short of it really.

They've invested way too much in becoming a family club, and tbf it's worked, they are.

[Silver Fox]

What an absolute pcunt this will95 character is!

[6 Million Dollar Man]

Am i alone in not really wanting to go back to standing? - i used to feel shattered at the end of a game at Elm Park

I'd rather just sit through a game now and jump up when we score.....

No, I'm with you on this one...I don't buy the extra atmosphere arguments, and just feel it would be a backward step not just for the club but for football in general.

And let's remember why standing was abolished in the first place. There's 96 reasons why all seater stadia are the way forward

[tmesis]

Am i alone in not really wanting to go back to standing? - i used to feel shattered at the end of a game at Elm Park

I'd rather just sit through a game now and jump up when we score.....

It's not as if the whole ground would be converted to standing. Anyone who wants to sit will still be able to.

[bobby1413]

Question:

If they introduced safe standing area in some part of the stadium - would you move your ST to that area?

[72 bus]

If all we had ever had in this country was all seater stadiums and the club came out with a statement along the lines of:
"In order to increase capacity on the cheap we are going to make some of you fukkers stand"
There would be an outcry on here, just saying

[Will95]

Can I make the point of - if confronted on my standing, I will sit on the back of my chair and check if they can see behind and sit down if really necessary, but I will stand at first, because that's what I wish to do, and I'm not going to stop doing that because I'm in a seat, it'd just be better and easier for those who want to sit with safe standing. So yeah, such a pcunt.

[tmesis]

Question:

If they introduced safe standing area in some part of the stadium - would you move your ST to that area?

If it was a proper terrace then I probably would.

If it was just an area of rail seats, then no, I wouldn't bother.

[P!ssed Off]

Am i alone in not really wanting to go back to standing?

I'd rather just sit through a game now and jump up when we score.....

I'd like to experience the proper terraces a few more times but in a "safe" environment like that - don't really get it. We were stood up for most of the match at Millwall away - what's the difference really.

Plus what is the point of the "seat" behind you - if you sit down you won't see anything

You can't sit on it. The seat is only there to comply with tournaments that would not allow safe-standing.
The seat would be fixed upright for Championship games, but perhaps not for games such as the FA cup and League cup which might not allow safe standing for instance.

[P!ssed Off]

Question:

If they introduced safe standing area in some part of the stadium - would you move your ST to that area?

Yes.
At the moment I'm stuck in the oxf*rd West stand with the women and children because the family members I attend games with don't want to move to the East.
They don't want to move STs to the East because they don't want to risk having to go a whole season where the oxf*rd in front insists on standing when all the rows behind are sat down (i.e. Will95), causing oxf*rd awkwardness for all involved.

They also don't want to be getting up and down every 30 seconds either.
Obviously it's not as simple as "move your seats to the good bits of the East Stand then" because these seats are generally not the ones up for grabs on 'mover's day'.

They are happy to either stand for 90 minutes, or sit for 90 minutes though.
So this would solve the problem.

If a new safe standing area turned out not to produce a decent atmosphere then we could always move back to the West.

If the safe stand bit was in the North stand then there would be plenty of ways to get people to shift over from Y25/26. And I would expect the club to fully engage in carrot and stick tactics in order to get people to shift.
Expect much cheaper 'seats' in the safe-standing area.
Expect many more over-zealous stewards trying to enforce 'no-standing' in Y25/26.
etc.

[P!ssed Off]

Am i alone in not really wanting to go back to standing? - i used to feel shattered at the end of a game at Elm Park

I'd rather just sit through a game now and jump up when we score.....

No, I'm with you on this one...I don't buy the extra atmosphere arguments, and just feel it would be a backward step not just for the club but for football in general.

And let's remember why standing was abolished in the first place. There's 96 reasons why all seater stadia are the way forward

Nonsense argument.
The type of arrangement being proposed is safer than the current arrangement: people standing in 'all seater' areas.

Your argument suggests the actions of a few million people should be constrained by ideology and sentimentality rather than the actual logic of: what is safer?
Football fans can't do something perfectly reasonable because 25 years is "too soon". Piss off!

[Will95]

They don't want to move STs to the East because they don't want to risk having to go a whole season where the oxf*rd in front insists on standing when all the rows behind are sat down (i.e. Will95), causing oxf*rd awkwardness for all involved.

Cheers for completely ignoring my last post, ask me to sit and I'll accommodate by finding a solution, and sitting if necessary, but I'll stand until someone (politely can I add, if you're gonna call me a pcunt for standing you'll get the same politeness back) says I can't see. Generally I'll offer to swap seats if everyone behind them is stood, or try and find somewhere further back. If someone behind me is sat and not questioning me on it though, why should I not assume there's no problem? You can quite often see fine past someone stood in front.

[Will95]

I'd also like to point out I agree with all your other points.

[tmesis]

Am i alone in not really wanting to go back to standing? - i used to feel shattered at the end of a game at Elm Park

I'd rather just sit through a game now and jump up when we score.....

No, I'm with you on this one...I don't buy the extra atmosphere arguments, and just feel it would be a backward step not just for the club but for football in general.

And let's remember why standing was abolished in the first place. There's 96 reasons why all seater stadia are the way forward

I do often wonder if there's a correlation between people who are against terracing, and age.

Are they maybe people who've grown up in the all-seater era, and have never experienced what terracing was actually like, and just know all the negative stereotypes of terracing - the uncomfortable crushes, the people pissing where they stood rather than going to the toilets, the crowd violence etc.

Reading another site the other day, some young lad who was dead against terracing was using an incident at Gremio's new stadium to show how even modern terracing is unsafe. The fact that unlike terracing anywhere else, Gremio built a whole large section without a single crush barrier, and the injuries were caused by people falling into a concrete moat, didn't stop him declaring that's what would happen if we brought back terracing.


There are of course some who'd rather sit because they've aged, and standing for two hours isn't comfortable for them any more. I don't, however, get the logic some of them have, in that because they prefer to sit, others shouldn't have the right to stand.