Safe Standing at the AMEX: Yes or No?

[The Large One]

You seem to be a bit over-sensitive. Of course standing up doesn't make someone a hooligan. It's just that, as the club pointed out, it's harder to stop trouble on terraces than in seats. Which anyone who's been on a terrace will know is true. It doesn't mean safe standing would lead to hooliganism necessarily - just that it's easier to prevent it from returning when there are seats.

Not over-sensitive at all. The club didn't say it was harder to stop trouble, it said it would be harder to identify trouble-makers.

I'm sorry to say I'm having trouble getting to the bottom of your argument. If someone wants to cause trouble, seats won't make a blind bit of difference. If anything, higher barriers in a 'safe-standing' environment would make getting around to cause trouble more difficult.

But then one would have to ask - what trouble? Trouble with whom?

 

[Superphil]

So it's official, we're no longer a Club that listens to the fans.

90% of you want change?? Haha, forget it.

Safe Standing at the AMEX: Yes or No? - Page 11

300 people voted for something in a poll, about a hypothetical suggestion, for something that is not allowed, by law. Hardly the club not listening to fans. The clubs response was quite clear, the key parts for me being:

"We have just spent over £100 million developing a state of the art all-seated football stadium, recently named best new venue in the world. One of our main aims was to make the stadium fully inclusive for anyone who wishes to watch and enjoy football, regardless of their age, sex, height, or physical condition, and for them to do so in an atmosphere that is conducive to comfort, great views, and good behaviour. "

That's £100M FFS, on a stadium that had to comply, by law, to the all seater requirment.

If, and it is still a massive If, the FA/Law changes, to allow safe standing, then that would be the time to ask the Albion if it will alter parts of its £100M stadium, right now, it's hardly a suprise that they responded as they did.

Then again, they've not listened about anything else have they? :sarcasticsmilie:

 

[Easy 10]

To be honest I can see both sides of the argument. We've been in this fabulous new stadium 5 minutes, and already there are calls for major restructuring works to be considered in order to accomodate fans wishes. On the other hand, without the fans, as glorious as it is, that stadium would be nothing and the club should definitely listen more carefully to what its paying customers want.

Being as any change in legislation (if any) is realistically likely to be a long, long way off, rather than just closing the door on it, perhaps the smart thing the club could have done would have been to issue a more non-commital statement. Something along the lines of "we will continue to comply with current legislation. If the laws change in the future then we will give it our due consideration at that time". Could still lead to a big fat NO obviously, but at least they've swerved an unnecessary argument with (some) fans which they may never even have needed to have, and not trotted out the completely ABSURD reasons they've given to try and justify their stance.

 

[Ⓩ-Ⓐ-Ⓜ-Ⓞ-Ⓡ-Ⓐ]

This is such a shit thread

 

[Easy 10]

This is such a shit thread

Its a shit thread TITLE, I agree.

 

[corkster]

This is why the club is moving away from its core supporters, we all know Standing safe or not is what we all loved about the game. I kinda got the same response when i asked about smoking areas outside the ground as other clubs have. There response was basically we hate smoking so you cant.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Its a shit thread TITLE, I agree.

This. Sensationalist.

Rather than asking for honest debate, it smacks of the OP being a drama Queen because his nose is put out of joint, by the club's refusal to play ball with the campaign he'd put his name to.

Sorry IBF - that's how it reads.

 

[Frutos]

Re: The day we lost our Brighton & Hove Albion

So 300 people vote in an unofficial online poll for something that is not currently allowed by law, the club said no and we have somehow "lost our Brighton & Hove Albion" as a direct result.

Bollocks.

 

[Simster]

Its a shit thread TITLE, I agree.

This. Sensationalist.

Rather than asking for honest debate, it smacks of the OP being a drama Queen because his nose is put out of joint, by the club's refusal to play ball with the campaign he'd put his name to.

Sorry IBF - that's how it reads.

These. What a non-story. Standing is not even legal FFS.

 

[trueblue]

The day we lost our Brighton & Hove Albion

Not over-sensitive at all. The club didn't say it was harder to stop trouble, it said it would be harder to identify trouble-makers.

I'm sorry to say I'm having trouble getting to the bottom of your argument. If someone wants to cause trouble, seats won't make a blind bit of difference. If anything, higher barriers in a 'safe-standing' environment would make getting around to cause trouble more difficult.

But then one would have to ask - what trouble? Trouble with whom?

Well, I'd say identifying trouble-makers stops trouble. Seems pretty obvious.

 

[Bozza]

Standing is not even legal FFS.

As has been said many times today already - yes, yes it [standing] in a football ground IS LEGAL.

 

[Easy 10]

The choice would be nice, but its not like we have a vast kop which could be converted anyway. The north stand is only piddly. Yes, it would be great to at least have the choice, but frankly its a bit of a "1st World Problem" in the great scheme of things isn't it ? When you consider exactly what it is we have there nowadays, compared with....well, ever.

Its a bit like upgrading from a knackered, rusty old Morris Marina to an Aston Martin DB7, then feeling a bit disappointed because you miss the sunroof.

 

[yxee]

The club does not support any move for "safe standing" in football stadia and is not considering such a move for the American Express Community Stadium. We have just spent over £100 million developing a state of the art all-seated football stadium, recently named best new venue in the world. One of our main aims was to make the stadium fully inclusive for anyone who wishes to watch and enjoy football, regardless of their age, sex, height, or physical condition, and for them to do so in an atmosphere that is conducive to comfort, great views, and good behaviour. This is in stark contrast to standing areas where a large percentage of the general football watching population are excluded because they would be unable to actually see the pitch. In turn, standing areas create the potential for poor behaviour to go undetected and unresolved. As a club that is doing all it can to promote a family event atmosphere within the stadium and on its approaches, this would be a backward step.

By "fully inclusive" I suppose they mean "caters to the wishes of as much as 10.68% of our online fanbase".

Pathetic

 

[Papa Lazarou]

It's a pretty lazy generalisation - completely unsupported by any statistics - that standing areas attract trouble-makers, which is what the last part is saying.

It also completely ignores that fact that safe-standing would not be compulsory for all - it would be available for those who do want to stand, and for those who didn't/couldn't they'd be freed of the problem they have now of people standing in front of them.

All in all, this statement was clearly put-together by someone who doesn't actually understand what safe-standing is or what the issues surrounding it actually are.

It's also a shame that (although via this board, and not 'officially') the club have been the first to come out in firm opposition to the trial.

 

[Papa Lazarou]

I feel there may be an Argus Exclusive on the way on this subject.

 

[Bozza]

As an aside, those who dismiss 302/338 as being a very small number of Albion fans, really do need to take some time out to understand statistical significance.

 

[supaseagull]

My wife saw a thread I was looking at the other day about standing. Then, whilst watching the footie this weekend, she commented about both ends of Upton Park and a small stand opposite the cameras being all standing. I didn't get into any conversation that I would have lost but, how do I explain that the 5000 (estimated) fans at each end were breaking the law but no one does anything about it from the stewards, police, club, FA, UEFA or FIFA.
Personally, I'm happy at my age to sit and stand when something exciting happens. But as a younger lad I enjoyed the East at the Goldstone with no cover and freezing cold.

See in bold...It's a complete myth...It's NOT illegal to stand at a football match and it's down to individual clubs to decide on their philosophy on standing.

There's alot of confusion over standing and all-seater stadia...The Taylor report recommended that all top tier clubs have seating as a result of the Hillsborough Disaster. However, only Premier league clubs state that it's a pre-requisite of being a Premier League member that clubs must have all seater stadia with a capacity of over 10k.

If it was illegal to stand at a football match, then most lower-league supporters would be arrested as many still have terracing!!

Full details can be found at the Football Supporters Foundation website...Football Supporters Federation

 

[Charlies Shinpad]

The day we lost our Brighton & Hove Albion

Maybe have a poll on here of people who actually sit/ stand in The North Stand, And also ask them to quote where they sit in the North as well.
I know it won't make any difference but it is this Stand only that us asking the question

 

[sully]

As this has now turned into the same debate on the sticky thread with similar responses from those not understanding the concept of safe standing (i.e. responses that assume that we are talking about a return to open terraces), surely it is time to close the thread and leave all discussion on the subject to the thread that has been running for some days already.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Maybe have a poll on here of people who actually sit/ stand in The North Stand, And also ask them to quote where they sit in the North as well.

Good idea - identify the troublemakers.