Safe Standing

[Phoenix]

It's not

 

I imagine the only way it will come back in like that as per the German system mentioned by Kal-el.

 

If any other way I wouldnt want it back.

[Spy Bee]

I imagine the only way it will come back in like that as per the German system mentioned by Kal-el.

 

If any other way I wouldnt want it back.

 

Had a quick look and it's not easy to find info on the difference, but I am sure I have heard that it significantly increases capacities. Obviously not as much as old fashioned standing terraces, but still more than standard seating.

[xerxes]

It might make going to the game more affordable and help clubs re-engage with a number of fans that they have lost or are losing!

 

 

If it is possible to replace seats for standing, on a one for one basis, erect leaning rails, and still have acceptable sightlines without re-profiling the terrace the conversion cost could be modest. But clubs would be gaining no capacity. If it is simply an equation of lower prices attracting more fans they could lower the cost of the existing seats at no cost.

 

As soon as capacity in existing terraces is considered, then you also have to consider profiling, exits, entrances and toilet and refreshment facilities- all are costly. A conversion would cost much offering no opportunity to discount.

 

Clearly new build safe standing/rail seating is where the opportunity lies, but that is for new stands/stadia.

 

Clubs who are consistently near seating capacity at the moment have no incentive to change. Those grounds with ongoing surplus capacity, Villa Park, SOL, JJB might be able to get away with a refurbishment because they are losing no seat revenue from unused space.

 

The terracing to seating conversion was cheaper at most ground because reduction in capacity puts no demands on existing facilities/ exits entrances.

[Sugar Ape]

Explained: How safe standing would work in Scotland | Celtic | Sport | STV

 

Scottish Premier League clubs have been given the green light to introduce safe standing sections at their stadiums.

Teams can now ask the SPL board to sanction a standing area at their ground, subject to further approval from the police and local authorities.

 

But just how different would the new areas be compared to the terracing of yesteryear?

Does this mean a return to old-style terracing?

 

No. The league’s chief executive, Neil Doncaster, says a particular form of safe standing currently used by eight top flight teams in Germany, known as rail seats, will be the permitted form of new-style terracing.

 

How do rail seats work?

 

Rail seats replace the current plastic seating in stadiums, with each chair having a high back which serves as a rail. Each seat folds up and is locked, with clubs able to unlock each chair when an all-seater arena is required, for example in European matches.

 

Rail seats in standing mode at Hoffenheim using a two step system

 

How much does it cost?

 

At present, one rail seat costs 100 euros (£84), compared to around £30 for each plastic seat currently used at grounds.

 

One argument made in favour of rail seats is the long-term cost benefit. Current plastic seating is prone to damage and may need replaced over time, whereas rail seating is seen as more durable.

 

Will it increase capacity?

 

Although there is provision in some German grounds for two fans to stand for each rail seat, owing to there being two steps between each seat, the SPL’s chief executive says the pilot scheme will see one supporter occupy each rail seat space.

 

Are rail seats already used?

 

To comply with UEFA regulations in 2000, German clubs had to find an option to both satisfy the requirements of the governing body but also continue to meet their own supporters’ desire to stand at games.

 

Hannover 96, Werder Bremen, Stuttgart, Hoffenheim, Wolfsburg, Bayer Leverkusen and Hamburg all subsequently installed rail seats installed in their grounds.

 

At Hoffenheim’s Rhein-Neckar-Arena, which opened in 2009, 9,150 places in the 30,150 capacity stadium are reserved for standing.

 

“The Germans believe standing is the natural way to watch football,” Jon Darch of the Safe Standing Roadshow told STV.

 

“Going forward, for a modern solution for appropriate accommodation for fans, rail seats are, in my mind, the only solution, certainly at least for clubs with aspirations to play in UEFA competitions.”

 

Are they safe?

Although argument rages over whether any form of standing can be completely safe as opposed to seating, those in favour of the technology insist there is no evidence to argue the use of rail seats is more dangerous or safer than seating.

 

What if my team plays in European competition?

 

To comply with UEFA guidelines on all-seater grounds in the Champions League and Europa League, each rail seat can be unlocked by stadium staff prior to games to create a folding chair, removing the standing section without affecting the overall capacity.

 

Seats fold down for games where an all-seater stadium is required.

 

Can they be installed in every stadium?

 

Cost aside, the installation of rail seats largely depends on the gradient of the stand in which they are being installed. In German grounds, some clubs use two step rail seats on lower tiers but, due to a steeper gradient, upper tiers are normally resticted to one occupant.

Are there any clubs interested?

 

Celtic themselves have viewed the option, having been visited by the Safe Standing Roadshow as part of the club’s own feasibility study.

Are there Scottish clubs opposed to the plans?

 

St Mirren chairman Stewart Gilmour doesn't believe his own team's ground, opened in 2009, is built for safe standing. "Our ground is specifically designed for seating and the actual heights of the councourses are for seats," he told STV.

 

"They are not for standing. If you stand they will catch you on the knees and it is dangerous."

 

When might it be in operation?

 

"Potentially we can receive applications from the word go so in theory it could start as early as next season," SPL chief executive Doncaster said.

 

"But it's really up to the clubs. Our rules currently say that no safe-standing is allowed in SPL stadia, so that is at least one hurdle removed.

 

"There are several stadia where it just can't be done because of the architecture of the stadium but where clubs can look at and wish to do it, this is a step forward."

 

Would the SPL’s promotion criteria over capacity change?

 

No. Every member club of the SPL would still require to have 6,000 seats to participate in the competition. The introduction of a safe standing section would be in addition to the capacity.

 

Rail seats at Hamburg folded back for standing use.

[VladimirIlyich]

 

A nice sentiment' date=' but in practise it is as logical as offering the families of air crash a veto on the CAA Board or the families of car crashes a veto on DOT decisions.

 

Hillsborough is not a disaster defined by standing, but by an unique combination of things going wrong- the very stuff of disaster.

 

I am in favour of choice. I also acknowledge that no-one was ever killed or injured in a terraced main stand paddock. I do not think the present ad hoc standing at football matches is desirable, nor do I think that standing can return without significant building work, making it unlikely in all but new stands.[/quote']

 

So if the 96 families objected to Liverpool reintroducing standing areas you would just disregard their opinions?

 

What goes on at other clubs is out of our hands but considering what happened at our club we have to take these opinions into account.

[KopOut]

One thing's for certain - clubs wont drop ticket prices for safe standing, whether there's a capacity increase or not.

[TheBitch]

I realise this a sensitive subject for us as a fanbase. I am in favour of safe standing. But...

 

the back of the kop stand more often than not' date=' quite right too. the whole kop should stand but there's too many pricks who would rather sit and talk about work than get behind the team. i wonder why they bother keeping their season tickets on? there was a lad by us aganst newcastle who was on a normal ticket and the lads who are there every week took the piss because he was getting in on the torres song/dance/jumpy thing. infront of us there are 3 fellas and a kid, all the fellas just play stupid games with the kid all through the game.[b']the kid doesn't even smile when they 'rob his nose' any more.[/b] bastardisation os the kop i tell thee!

 

The kid doesn't smile!!!!!

 

Won't somebody please think of the children!!!!!

 

 

Can we bring back robbief.

[xerxes]

So if the 96 families objected to Liverpool reintroducing standing areas you would just disregard their opinions?

 

What goes on at other clubs is out of our hands but considering what happened at our club we have to take these opinions into account.

 

It all depends upon how you ask that question.

 

I cannot see anyone objecting to the provision of one for one raiil seating/standing anyway. So the assumption that there would be an objection is hypothetical anyway.

[lifetime fan]

It all depends upon how you ask that question.

 

I cannot see anyone objecting to the provision of one for one raiil seating/standing anyway. So the assumption that there would be an objection is hypothetical anyway.

 

 

Trevor Hicks has already said those families in HFSG are against safe standing.

[VladimirIlyich]

 

Trevor Hicks has already said those families in HFSG are against safe standing.

 

I rest my case.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Personally, I think there's a middle ground to tread. You can consult with the support group and justice campaign, but you can also look at research, economics, safety reports, etc. It doesn't have to be a all or nothing.

 

However, if the safety reports, and studies say it's safe, the economics is sound, the fans want it, there's nothing to say those groups should trump those other things. If safe standing (or standing in general) were solely responsible for Hillsborough, you'd just have to go with what they said. That's not the case, though.

[xerxes]

Trevor Hicks has already said those families in HFSG are against safe standing.

In which case you then ask the question why?

 

You either overcome that objection, or if you feel that objection lacks substance, decide whether that is sufficient not to proceed.

 

It is uncertain territory. There are two organisations, 96 families and several hundreds of friends, probably several thousands of people who were associated directly with the tragedy. I am in the latter, I was there.

 

Are you suggesting that one person has a veto? Or that some sort of ballot should be taken? If so, who votes? How do you ensure that each person who votes has suficient information upon which to make a decision? How many people objecting is enough? One? Ten? One hundred?

 

The view that standing "caused" Hillsborough is illogical and self defeating . At QPR, everyone stood up (without rail seating)- should our away support be banned from travelling?

 

The emotional response is understandable. But air travel does and did not stop after one crash, road travel does not stop after one pile up.

 

 

This issue is more current than some might imagine. Rail seating/standing is most practically introduced in purpose built new stands/stadia, that debate may be had by us soon.

[lifetime fan]

I'm in favour of safe standing myself. My point was some families are not.

[xerxes]

I'm in favour of safe standing myself. My point was some families are not.

 

There are several issues here, aren’t there?

 

The emotional context of Hillsborough is a given, as is consulting the opinion of those involved should standing in some form return. Does that extend to a veto? No.

 

A further question is what safe standing “is”. Rail standing/seating, one seat one place is fine by me. I would have reservations about increasing density beyond that. I was in Athens for the CL final, significant jibbing resulted in dangerous overcrowding in the stands.

 

At QPR our support stood throughout in a lower terrace that was designed as a terrace and has just had seats bolted on. So standing on the lower was the equivalent of a terrace with no crush barriers- which was not allowed in the Hillsborough era. The upper tier was designed as a seated stand, the risk factor being significantly greater there.

 

Sometimes I Iike to stand, sometimes I prefer to sit. I would like a choice. The status quo is unsatisfactory, that is where the pressure is coming from.

[Guest San Don]

Its an emotive subject amongst us. Not in favour of this ('safe' standing) at all. Got my reasons but Im not going to say them here.

 

It will be the thin end of the wedge. Whatever capacity for 'safe' standing is allowed, the pressure (forgive the pun, not intended) to increase it bit by bit will grow every season.

 

Its not a question of individula choice. No individual decides to act aggressively or with little regard for the person next to them in a crowd. Its when you get a number of people together who then start pushing and shoving.

[xerxes]

Its an emotive subject amongst us. Not in favour of this ('safe' standing) at all. Got my reasons but Im not going to say them here.

 

It will be the thin end of the wedge. Whatever capacity for 'safe' standing is allowed, the pressure (forgive the pun, not intended) to increase it bit by bit will grow every season.

 

Its not a question of individula choice. No individual decides to act aggressively or with little regard for the person next to them in a crowd. Its when you get a number of people together who then start pushing and shoving.

 

 

 

I’d be interested to know your objection to safe standing, one seat, one rail seat.

 

I share your reservations about a density higher than that, but don’ think that the above represents the thin end of the wedge.

 

The current situation is the worse of all worlds, rail seating and absolutely no standing in seated areas a significant improvement.

 

Standing upper and lower at QPR, the current situation, is far more dangerous than rail seating, and what happened in the Hillsborough era.

[VladimirIlyich]

Wherever humans are allowed to move without restriction or control there will always be a problem.On that score seats could also be a problem but it would appear that crowds are easier to control when seats control numbers and restrict their movement a bit.

 

The reason this has come about,as I said earlier,is purely because the average supporter is being priced out of football and has less to do with safety than finance.

[xerxes]

Wherever humans are allowed to move without restriction or control there will always be a problem.On that score seats could also be a problem but it would appear that crowds are easier to control when seats control numbers and restrict their movement a bit.

 

I agree that all-seating has been a significant factor in the improvement of crowd behaviour post Hillsborough. And if the Leppings lower tier had been numbered seats like the upper tier was, the diaster would never have occurred.

 

The new problem is significant standing in seated areas, rare in the days of terracing. (Leeds South Stand and Wembley benches excepted).There appears to be no appetite to address this by forcing everyone to sit- therefore some form of practical alternative/ choice is the logical conclusion.

[lfclad_4eva]

The atmosphere is always better when standing, e.g. City League cup last year, Kop was amazing. It's all about weighing up the positives and negatives though. If this is done by the right people and it is seen that there are no issues, and maybe even safer that people standing in seated areas then why shouldn't it be done? As said before it wasn't all about the fact people were standing at Hillsborough it was all the other factors/incompetence of individuals, the forces, the stadium etc. as proven. Also I do think it is very important to involve the families of the victims, and hear their views/listen to any arguments against should this idea materialise any time soon.

[longtimered]

A nice sentiment, but in practise it is as logical as offering the families of air crash a veto on the CAA Board or the families of car crashes a veto on DOT decisions.

 

Hillsborough is not a disaster defined by standing, but by an unique combination of things going wrong- the very stuff of disaster.

 

QUOTE]

 

The fact is the disaster would not have occurred in an all seated stadium.Heysel would not have occurred in an all seater stadium.Having attended both I think safety is the overriding consideration so that structurally the chances of people dying are as near to nil as possible.

[xerxes]

The fact is the disaster would not have occurred in an all seated stadium.Heysel would not have occurred in an all seater stadium.Having attended both I think safety is the overriding consideration so that structurally the chances of people dying are as near to nil as possible.

 

There is no question that all seater stadia have played a considerable part in modern football stdium safety.

 

Currently small, but significant, numbers stand in all seater stadia. The question is whther ths phenomena may be safer still with one for one rail seating/standing.

 

I am not in favour of higher density standing than existing seating provides for.

[FanchesterCity]

I disagree that it's for the families of the 96 to decide.

That's no slight on the families, or the disaster, it's simply that the disaster could have happened to ANY fans. It was a disaster for all football supporters. The 96 paid the ultimate price for ALL fans, and if we ALL don't learn from the disaster and make sensible choices then that's a travesty in itself.

 

 

Again, I reiterate, it's no slight on the victims or their families, it's a matter of us all putting our own preferences to one side and making the right choices for fans as a whole.

 

If my sitting results in another fan not dying, I'll sit.

If my standing would save lives, I'll gladly stand.

 

I have no objection to safe standing that's effectively the same density as current seating, and offers the same levels of viewing (able to see!). I want to see kids able to go to the match with their dads and get the REAL feel for the terraces, but without the previous dangers.

 

My worry is that money (as ever) will eventually start to affect safety, and that standing density will be increased, and maintenance of protection measure will be compromised etc etc, and slowly but surely, the dangers will creep back in.

 

The emotive side of my brain says "if standing results in one single life lost, it's just not worth it", but the rational side says "who says seating is fool proof?".

 

One day (heaven forbid) we might see an incident where seating hindered safety - God only knows what will happen then, but for the moment, many people (including myself) tend to 'perceive' it's safer.

 

The 'surge' fear, in theory, is countered by crush barriers, but that only works if people distribute themselves in a 'self levelling' manner (something that Taylor criticised... he thought it better to make SURE distribution was even rather than leave it up to people to self regulate). That means you're back to pens, or you use the same system as seating (with row and position numbers), just without the seats. I personally believe that to be the best standing option, but it still needs to be heavily monitored to make sure people stick to their allocated positions.

[xerxes]

I The emotive side of my brain says "if standing results in one single life lost, it's just not worth it", but the rational side says "who says seating is fool proof?".

 

The biggest obstacle to safe standing is that all seaters have worked, not a single stadium related death in this country since.

 

The argument will always be- why change?

[FanchesterCity]

A nice sentiment, but in practise it is as logical as offering the families of air crash a veto on the CAA Board or the families of car crashes a veto on DOT decisions.

 

Hillsborough is not a disaster defined by standing, but by an unique combination of things going wrong- the very stuff of disaster.

 

QUOTE]

 

The fact is the disaster would not have occurred in an all seated stadium.Heysel would not have occurred in an all seater stadium.Having attended both I think safety is the overriding consideration so that structurally the chances of people dying are as near to nil as possible.

 

 

I agree that Hillsborough wouldn't have happened in all seater (assuming the seating was allocated by ticket).

 

Not so sure about Heysel. Of course, the specific events would have been different, but the poor maintenance / structural safety was already there. It's not known if 15,000 fans doing the Poznan or similar would have eventually resulted in structural collapse anyway. I'm speculating, of course, just commenting that the structural inadequacy might have eventually been found out even with seating. The rush/crush against the stadium wall wouldn't have happened, but we'll never know how long that wall would have lasted.

[A_S]

Going by that rail seating picture at Hoffenheim (above), there is no chance of a crush occurring because any area of the standing part is only two-deep.

 

Why couldn't it simply be that each 'seat' still has its own number, but then allocate an 'a' spot (top step) and 'b' spot (bottom step) for each seat, so that people still have a very specific place to stand, much like what occurs with seats now.

 

Prices could be 2/3's or 3/4's the price of a regular seat, so that the club has incentive to encourage standing areas, plus it makes it easier on the regular fan to afford going to the footy.