Stewards

[Jerry St Clair]

[
I don't think it quite got that far at either - ISTR that there was horse-trading and reductions in allocation as a compromise.

I thought the Man Utd situation was resolved as soon as it became clear that IMUSA were so powerful that the council would be stupid to start closing parts of Old Trafford? Likewise Leeds. Both sets of fans are well organised and politically active.

[Dirk Gently]

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/foot ... 50535.html

And the only argument Gerry Sutcliffe, the current plank of a Sports Minister, puts forward is that it would cost too much. That's irrelevant Gerry - make it an legal option and then clubs will decide if they want to do it or not!!!!

[ZacNaloen]

Can you imagine everything up to Row Z in the mad stad east stand being a standing area? Would be fantastic, even if I wouldn't be able to use it.

[Sun Tzu]

Can you imagine everything up to Row Z in the mad stad east stand being a standing area? Would be fantastic, even if I wouldn't be able to use it.

How would that work if say 50% of the people who sit in the East Stand want to sit, and don;t want to be high up in the stand ?

I'm not at all opposed to the option of standing but have never quite sussed the practicalities of going from all seater to part standing stadia without remooving choice from as many people as you offer it to !

I can also see the police been absolutley opposed to having standing fans immediately next to away fans.

[ZacNaloen]

They can go sit somewhere else, duh

[Dirk Gently]

I'm not at all opposed to the option of standing but have never quite sussed the practicalities of going from all seater to part standing stadia without remooving choice from as many people as you offer it to !

Not if you do it right. According to the Green Guide you can increase capacity in a standing area by 80%, so if you had a 25,000 all-seater stadium and converted 15% of the seats to be a safe-standing area you'd end up with a stadium with 21,250 seats and 6,750 standing capacity - i.e. an increase in capacity to 28,000.

The economics add up very nicely to cost-justify conversion, and unless you happen to a stadium that sells out every week to people who prefer to sit (unlikely) you're then you're increasing choice and not taking it away from anyone.

[STAR Liaison]

I'm not at all opposed to the option of standing but have never quite sussed the practicalities of going from all seater to part standing stadia without remooving choice from as many people as you offer it to !

Not if you do it right. According to the Green Guide you can increase capacity in a standing area by 80%, so if you had a 25,000 all-seater stadium and converted 15% of the seats to be a safe-standing area you'd end up with a stadium with 21,250 seats and 6,750 standing capacity - i.e. an increase in capacity to 28,000.

The economics add up very nicely to cost-justify conversion, and unless you happen to a stadium that sells out every week to people who prefer to sit (unlikely) you're then you're increasing choice and not taking it away from anyone.

There would still be some opposition as whichever area you choose you will force people to move if they want/have to sit. Soluble but needs a lot of thought.

[Harpers So Solid Crew]

So what if a few ST holders have to move? seriously for the Madstad the answer would, or could be behind the goals. Firstly close the first 2 rows, this would make it possible to stop surges towards the pitch, then make it standing for the next 10 or so, move the disabled areas for the home to the East, and yes I do mean make more and move any ST holders again. Standing area would also have to have a separate entrance, and would be ticket holders only, always a way to manage, of course the standers would get wet when it rained, but surely a small price to pay to enjoy standing again , without getting in the way of seated fans.

[Dirk Gently]

I'm not at all opposed to the option of standing but have never quite sussed the practicalities of going from all seater to part standing stadia without remooving choice from as many people as you offer it to !

Not if you do it right. According to the Green Guide you can increase capacity in a standing area by 80%, so if you had a 25,000 all-seater stadium and converted 15% of the seats to be a safe-standing area you'd end up with a stadium with 21,250 seats and 6,750 standing capacity - i.e. an increase in capacity to 28,000.

The economics add up very nicely to cost-justify conversion, and unless you happen to a stadium that sells out every week to people who prefer to sit (unlikely) you're then you're increasing choice and not taking it away from anyone.

There would still be some opposition as whichever area you choose you will force people to move if they want/have to sit. Soluble but needs a lot of thought.

Indeed - but no different to any change in the ground. If it's done with proper thought, notice and the right incentives then it ought to be doable.

[Compo's Hat]

[
I don't think it quite got that far at either - ISTR that there was horse-trading and reductions in allocation as a compromise.

I thought the Man Utd situation was resolved as soon as it became clear that IMUSA were so powerful that the council would be stupid to start closing parts of Old Trafford? Likewise Leeds. Both sets of fans are well organised and politically active.

Wouldn't the clubs just sue councils for loss of earnings?

[Compo's Hat]

[
I don't think it quite got that far at either - ISTR that there was horse-trading and reductions in allocation as a compromise.

I thought the Man Utd situation was resolved as soon as it became clear that IMUSA were so powerful that the council would be stupid to start closing parts of Old Trafford? Likewise Leeds. Both sets of fans are well organised and politically active.

Wouldn't the clubs just sue councils for loss of earnings?

Would like to sue him for lack of enjoyment of a game

[Dirk Gently]

[
I don't think it quite got that far at either - ISTR that there was horse-trading and reductions in allocation as a compromise.

I thought the Man Utd situation was resolved as soon as it became clear that IMUSA were so powerful that the council would be stupid to start closing parts of Old Trafford? Likewise Leeds. Both sets of fans are well organised and politically active.

Wouldn't the clubs just sue councils for loss of earnings?

They'd have no legal grounds for a case like that.

[Royal Lady]

The section under the scoreboard would be the ideal place to have a safe standing area, to begin with. All the yoofs who "sit" there wouldn't mind standing and as far as I am aware, there are no family types/older people sitting there currently.

[Dirk Gently]

Just on this topic, there's a poll here.

Don Foster, the liberal democrat spokesperson for Culture, Media and Sport, has suggested providing safe standing areas in football stadiums. Is this a sensible proposal?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... 0/apr/22/1

[Sun Tzu]

The section under the scoreboard would be the ideal place to have a safe standing area, to begin with. All the yoofs who "sit" there wouldn't mind standing and as far as I am aware, there are no family types/older people sitting there currently.

No way would there be standing areas immediately next to away fans.

It would get (rightly IMHO) thrown out straight away by the licensing authority and the police.

I suspect we'd find that if the standing area was in the North Stand many of those who currently stand wouldn;t use it as the distance from the away fans would be a much bigger negative than the ability to stand legally.

Good point by 2-0 about the need for seperate entrances for sitters and standers, probably would need to have extra gates inside the ground controlling access to the standing areas so everyone comes in the some turnstile but then standers pass through a second gate to gain access to the terraces.

Either that or you simply make life easy and make the whole North Stand into a terrace and make the majority who sit there shift to the East Stand. Can't see that being popular !

Would be good to have a proper study done that really gets into the nitty gritty of how and if it would work. I think it's over simplistic to think it could be done cheaply and without upsetting a lot of people and I'm still not convinced the demand is there (but willing to find it is !!)

[Jerry St Clair]

Would be good to have a proper study done that really gets into the nitty gritty of how and if it would work. I think it's over simplistic to think it could be done cheaply and without upsetting a lot of people and I'm still not convinced the demand is there (but willing to find it is !!)

Which is pretty astonishing given that only a decade ago the majority of our supporters chose to watch games from terracing rather than seating.

This is a completely different club to the one I grew up with.

[Dirk Gently]

Would be good to have a proper study done that really gets into the nitty gritty of how and if it would work. I think it's over simplistic to think it could be done cheaply and without upsetting a lot of people and I'm still not convinced the demand is there (but willing to find it is !!)

All the surveys show that approximately 30-40% of all supporters would chose to stand and that approx 70-80% of all supporters favour the introduction of safe standing areas.

And don't forget that the increase in capacity gives scope to reduce ticket prices for those in standing accommodation. That assumes enlightened clubs, of course.....

[URZZ]

Post from Watford message board yesterday.

Originally Posted by mean
One Watford supporter ran on the pitch at the end and was very heavily manhandled off by about 4 stewards.
The stewards showered themselves with glory yet again

guy runs on the pitch and does a little dance, gets some cheers, thug stewards decide he needs to have his arm pulled put of his socket and his head knocked all over the place

w&nkers!

[Compo's Hat]

Talking of terrible stewarding...

http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/ne ... _stewards/

[3 veesinarow]

Yet another example of "safety" stewards causing more problems than they prevent...would it not be common sense for the FA/Premier League to issue a diktat that says any player/official of any away team must be allowed by the home club to walk to their fans unhindered as long as they remain within the markings of the pitch? If they do cross the white line, then a fine or some sort of sanction could be imposed.

Seems fair to me and would prevent tango-Hitlers from confronting and harassing people unnecessarily.