Safe Standing.

[an tha]

It is of course a hugely emotive and delicate issue - I have sat and thought carefully about even posting this...but here goes...

 

The discussion in my view should happen and hopefully it will happen with the balance and respect it demands given the terrible tragedies at Hillsborough and Heysel.

 

The facts are that people do stand and stand regularly now in grounds - at away games it is nigh on all the support...it is happening whether it is allowed or whether it should be stopped or not - it happens, and it isn't safe. I was at the Dortmund game last season for example in block 305 of The Kop and it was of course bedlam when we came back and won but I ended up with heavily bruised shins as an effect of falling forward in the mayhem and we had people all around us falling forward/over etc....when all you have in fron of you is the back of a plastic seat at shin height then that isn't 'safe'

 

Of course it is thankfully never going to lead to the kind of horrific events of the past and my old bruised/cut legs really don't matter but if there is a better and safer way for people who want to stand to watch footy then personally I welcome discussion and if people want it and it is safe and safer than what happens now then maybe it should be brought in.

[Paulie Dangerously]

Deffo. Standing had nothing to do with Hillsborough. Gross negligence from the police, ambulance service and the FA in combination with Thatcher's view of football fans caused it.

 

This for me.

 

It can be done, and done safely now.  There won't be a repeat of that dark day. No cages.  No open terraces.  No shambolic policing. 

 

Some fans want to stand and standing with the seats the way they are is dangerous.  A united fan broke his leg only the other week at Hull with a crowd surge after their late winner.  

[scudger99]

It is of course a hugely emotive and delicate issue - I have sat and thought carefully about even posting this...but here goes...

 

The discussion in my view should happen and hopefully it will happen with the balance and respect it demands given the terrible tragedies at Hillsborough and Heysel.

 

The facts are that people do stand and stand regularly now in grounds - at away games it is nigh on all the support...it is happening whether it is allowed or whether it should be stopped or not - it happens, and it isn't safe. I was at the Dortmund game last season for example in block 305 of The Kop and it was of course bedlam when we came back and won but I ended up with heavily bruised shins as an effect of falling forward in the mayhem and we had people all around us falling forward/over etc....when all you have in fron of you is the back of a plastic seat at shin height then that isn't 'safe'

 

Of course it is thankfully never going to lead to the kind of horrific events of the past and my old bruised/cut legs really don't matter but if there is a better and safer way for people who want to stand to watch footy then personally I welcome discussion and if people want it and it is safe and safer than what happens now then maybe it should be brought in.

This.  In a nutshell.

I can see the pros and cons from both sides, and am frankly quite glad that I'm not involved in the decision making process.  There's a lot of slowly healing wounds that could be re-opened with this.  That needs to be remembered above all else. 

We could do with some good solid and honest information as to how fans at Celtic and other clubs are finding it.  Especially the Celtic fans, due to the affinity between the two clubs.

[Jose Jones]

While I agree that it has obviously been proven that shoddy policing and organisation was the main cause of Hillsborough, it is also a bit simplistic to say that standing on the terraces wasn't a factor that made it possible.

 

Anyone who's stood on the Kop during a surge would know that a lot of times it's fine and exciting but there were definite occasions where you'd be off your feet and shitting it a bit.

 

Hillsborough definitely wouldn't have been the tragedy it was in an all seater stadium even with the disastrous policing.

 

However safe standing removes the chance of overcrowding or crowd surges and as has been pointed out actually makes the stadium safer. So I am all for it.

The families should be consulted and presented with the evidence that it is safe though for sure.

 

Redevelop the Annie Road end and have a safe standing Kop.

[VladimirIlyich]

Standing didnt have 'nothing' to do with Hillsborough but the act of standing on terraces with unsupervised numbers of people entering is obviously much less safer than seating as there are physical restrictions on both numbers and movement. The big problem with standing is that you would have to severely limit numbers(the clubs wont do this because 'space is money' in this case) and you would have to allot people a space in the way you do with a seat. This would then raise the question of 'what's the point?' as going through all this expense is basically the same thing. Factor in the general knobheadedness of people in general congregating in an area where they shouldnt and the same safety and supervisory issues are again raised.

I'm not against 'safe standing' but it needs testing severely.

Is anybody able to post photos of these safe standing areas? And are there different types or just one design?

[Trumo]

In Germany, they use rail seating like this. In standing mode, the seat is locked in place in the upright position so spectators can't sit on it.

 

 

The rail itself is fixed and because there is one on each row, you don't get crowd surges. For internationals and European fixtures, the stadiums must be all-seater so the seats are unlocked and used as per normal. For domestic fixtures, safe standing is permitted.

 

If safe standing were to be trialled here, it would be best to do so on a 1:1 basis, at least to begin with. Current all-seater stands are designed to cater for a certain number of spectators. If it turns out to be successful (genuinely safe), then maybe you can go for a 1:1.5 ratio, therefore allowing 50% more people in the same space. This is what they do in Germany, but stand structures and facilities would have to be capable of dealing with the additional numbers (emergency exits, exit times, catering facilities, toilets etc).

 

If Anfield were ever to have safe standing, I would suggest that only the Kop be converted. I wouldn't want standing areas anywhere near any away fans, and the Kop is already a seperate stand so you wouldn't have to create a separation point between standing and seating areas.

[Lee909]

Safe standing is safer than standing at all seater grounds thefore im in

[JustTosh]

 

Hillsborough definitely wouldn't have been the tragedy it was in an all seater stadium even with the disastrous policing.

 

 

 

You could also argue Hillsborough definitely wouldn't have been the tragedy it was in a safe standing stadium even with the disastrous policing.

 

IMO standing or seating is taking the focus away from real errors made at Hillsborough. In a way it could be used to justify the crimes made by police officers and others. "They were standing. A tragedy was bound to happen sometime. NJothing we could do about that"  If you see what I mean.

 

75% of all traffic casualties drink coffee. Ban coffee!

[JustTosh]

Just some basic facts:

 

The owners are in doubt about building a new Anfield Road end. What if they keep it, but remove all seats at the lower section, introducing safe standing. Do the same on the Kop.

 

From those who sell Safe Standing solutions safe standing increases capacity. You could have 72 people standing in the same space as 40 people sitting down. Simple maths tell us Anfield capacity would increase to somewhere between 69000-70000 even without building new stands.

 

From a safety point of view more people increases the risk, Standing or sitting isn't the issue The fact that you'd have a huge increase of people with the same number of exits is.

[Rick Sanchez C-137]

In Germany, they use rail seating like this. In standing mode, the seat is locked in place in the upright position so spectators can't sit on it.

 

 

The rail itself is fixed and because there is one on each row, you don't get crowd surges. For internationals and European fixtures, the stadiums must be all-seater so the seats are unlocked and used as per normal. For domestic fixtures, safe standing is permitted.

 

If safe standing were to be trialled here, it would be best to do so on a 1:1 basis, at least to begin with. Current all-seater stands are designed to cater for a certain number of spectators. If it turns out to be successful (genuinely safe), then maybe you can go for a 1:1.5 ratio, therefore allowing 50% more people in the same space. This is what they do in Germany, but stand structures and facilities would have to be capable of dealing with the additional numbers (emergency exits, exit times, catering facilities, toilets etc).

 

If Anfield were ever to have safe standing, I would suggest that only the Kop be converted. I wouldn't want standing areas anywhere near any away fans, and the Kop is already a seperate stand so you wouldn't have to create a separation point between standing and seating areas.

 

 

Just some basic facts:

 

The owners are in doubt about building a new Anfield Road end. What if they keep it, but remove all seats at the lower section, introducing safe standing. Do the same on the Kop.

 

From those who sell Safe Standing solutions safe standing increases capacity. You could have 72 people standing in the same space as 40 people sitting down. Simple maths tell us Anfield capacity would increase to somewhere between 69000-70000 even without building new stands.

 

From a safety point of view more people increases the risk, Standing or sitting isn't the issue The fact that you'd have a huge increase of people with the same number of exits is.

 

Would we not need the option of seats to comply with other rules and regulations, as trumo has posted? 

[chrisbonnie]

In Germany, they use rail seating like this. In standing mode, the seat is locked in place in the upright position so spectators can't sit on it.

 

 

The rail itself is fixed and because there is one on each row, you don't get crowd surges. For internationals and European fixtures, the stadiums must be all-seater so the seats are unlocked and used as per normal. For domestic fixtures, safe standing is permitted.

 

If safe standing were to be trialled here, it would be best to do so on a 1:1 basis, at least to begin with. Current all-seater stands are designed to cater for a certain number of spectators. If it turns out to be successful (genuinely safe), then maybe you can go for a 1:1.5 ratio, therefore allowing 50% more people in the same space. This is what they do in Germany, but stand structures and facilities would have to be capable of dealing with the additional numbers (emergency exits, exit times, catering facilities, toilets etc).

 

If Anfield were ever to have safe standing, I would suggest that only the Kop be converted. I wouldn't want standing areas anywhere near any away fans, and the Kop is already a seperate stand so you wouldn't have to create a separation point between standing and seating areas.

Would I be right in thinking that with a safe standing ticket you would stand at a particular spot. So like the seat location (row Z, seat 12), but you'd just stand Instead?

 

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

[Preston Red]

I'm all for it. Whenever I get the opportunity to get tickets I always aim for the 300 blocks in the Kop so I can stand up. But, as mentioned previously, standing in an all seater stand is dangerous. I nearly broke my leg in the madness of Bellamy's winner against City in the League Cup in 2012.

[Trumo]

Would I be right in thinking that with a safe standing ticket you would stand at a particular spot. So like the seat location (row Z, seat 12), but you'd just stand Instead?

 

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

If they stuck to the 1:1 ratio, then yes, the only difference to now would be that the fan stands instead of sits in a particular spot as per their ticket. If it is decided to allow a higher ratio (such as 1:1.5) then I'm guessing the ticket would merely specify the block and row. I've not been to watch a game in Germany so I don't know how the ticketing works, so that's just a guess.

[chrisbonnie]

If they stuck to the 1:1 ratio, then yes, the only difference to now would be that the fan stands instead of sits in a particular spot as per their ticket. If it is decided to allow a higher ratio (such as 1:1.5) then I'm guessing the ticket would merely specify the block and row. I've not been to watch a game in Germany so I don't know how the ticketing works, so that's just a guess.

I know technically it's safe, but it will never be in anfield. Morally, I just don't think it should be in our ground.

 

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

[Trumo]

I know technically it's safe, but it will never be in anfield. Morally, I just don't think it should be in our ground.

 

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

It's always going to divide opinion amongst the Liverpool supporters in particular, but I'm of the opinion that as long as it is genuinely safe in all the relevant aspects such as safety, security and the adequate provision of facilities, I don't see why the club can't tailor one stand for safe rail seating. The Kop is the best bet for it because it is already separate from the other stands. I definitely would not consider it for the ARE because the away supporters are housed there.

 

I would never say never when it comes to safe standing at Anfield because the ultimate driver will be the financial viability. I know that might sound a bit callous but it's in no way intended to. At a 1:1 ratio it's pointless because you won't be generating any additional revenue to offset the outlay of converting the stand to rail seating, so it needs a bigger ratio before it can be considered worthwhile.

[Jose Jones]

You could also argue Hillsborough definitely wouldn't have been the tragedy it was in a safe standing stadium even with the disastrous policing.

 

IMO standing or seating is taking the focus away from real errors made at Hillsborough. In a way it could be used to justify the crimes made by police officers and others. "They were standing. A tragedy was bound to happen sometime. NJothing we could do about that" If you see what I mean.

 

75% of all traffic casualties drink coffee. Ban coffee!

Yeah I agree.

[jimmycase]

It's always going to divide opinion amongst the Liverpool supporters in particular, but I'm of the opinion that as long as it is genuinely safe in all the relevant aspects such as safety, security and the adequate provision of facilities, I don't see why the club can't tailor one stand for safe rail seating. The Kop is the best bet for it because it is already separate from the other stands. I definitely would not consider it for the ARE because the away supporters are housed there.

 

I would never say never when it comes to safe standing at Anfield because the ultimate driver will be the financial viability. I know that might sound a bit callous but it's in no way intended to. At a 1:1 ratio it's pointless because you won't be generating any additional revenue to offset the outlay of converting the stand to rail seating, so it needs a bigger ratio before it can be considered worthwhile.

 

So you're saying the driver for safe standing is extra revenue? If the owners had come out with something like that, this place would be in meltdown against them raking in extra money.

[stringvest]

Safe standing in a 1:1 ratio to begin with would work for me.  People sing more standing up.  

[Trumo]

So you're saying the driver for safe standing is extra revenue? If the owners had come out with something like that, this place would be in meltdown against them raking in extra money.

 

The driver for just about every FSG decision is finance related so I don't think this would be any different, is all I'm saying. Me pointing that out doesn't automatically mean I agree with it.

 

IF the club was to go ahead and implement safe standing in the Kop for example, it would only be done if it made financial sense. If it was going to be a 1:1 ratio, that would mean the same number of fans most likely paying what they currently do, but the club would have to foot the cost of replacing the existing seats with rail seats.

[Pidge]

Hmmm.... i still have mixed feelings on this.  They aren't a matter of emotions (I was three when Hillsborough happened and I'm not from Liverpool, my emotions around that time are sympathetic, not associative in that way), it's just a matter of trust.

 

Every time this comes up and someone in a position of should be responsibility is asked the question they turn it right around on the fans.  They want it to be a matter of demand and seek to brush the lessons of these tragedies under the carpet, just like they swept the lessons of near-tragedies under the carpet before 1989.  It's not good enough.  These people don't accept any responsibility, they aren't administrators concerned about controls and standards - they're amateur politicians: deal makers, hand shakers and cock suckers...

 

So you ask a fan whether they want to stand at the game and they say yes... no fucking shit.  Hiillsborough was not the fault of fans, it wasn't the fault of standing, it was the result of negligence and mismanagement.  Of the police, the FA and the host club.  Who's to say another game won't see away fans of the big sides being crammed in for a quick money-grab (after being held up by onerous security checks)?  What measures will be in place to prevent people squeezing their way into the best positions?  What will the stewarding standards be?  What are the max safe ratios? What forms of governance are possible? Will they even vocally accept that they need a plan before voting on the subject (contrary to the usual cycles of British politics...)?

 

I don't trust them because I know they don't trust us, if standards are set without real scrutiny they will very quickly slip further.  If they deliver a clear plan, I'm all for it (even as stringy states, it's a fixed 1:1, home fans only to start), but I'm not comfortable with how I'd expect it to come about.

[Strontium]

If it turns out to be successful (genuinely safe), then maybe you can go for a 1:1.5 ratio, therefore allowing 50% more people in the same space.

 

Somewhere in Boston, a lightbulb turns on in someone's head.

[ZonkoVille77]

Done properly, it works. I've been to a match in Germany and it never felt cramped or crowded. Plenty of space for everyone to move around. And as has been said before, I've also nearly injured myself cheering goals in all seater stadiums.

[stringvest]

Somewhere in Boston, a lightbulb turns on in someone's head.

 

 

the 1:1.5 ratio is too much.  It wouldn't work from a H&S perspective, or from a practical perspective.  Maybe a 5th person every 4 seats, or 1:1.25 is a more realistic future target.  

[VladimirIlyich]

the 1:1.5 ratio is too much. It wouldn't work from a H&S perspective, or from a practical perspective. Maybe a 5th person every 4 seats, or 1:1.25 is a more realistic future target.

Might as well put benches in,like the old wembley for instance. That was sarcasm by the way.

As Pidge alluded to,the people who make these decisions simply cannot be trusted to make decisions based on safety,money is always the bottom line. If seats were, once again,phased out then in another 20 or 30 or 50 years there would be another disaster,or more. The x factor in all this is the people who govern football simply cannot be trusted.

[moof]

It's called safe standing for a reason. How could you possibly predict a disaster in 20+ years time?