Search results

Can you give just one possible reason why any club would want to go to the expense of locking the seats - what possible benefit is there? None!

We drove cars without seat belts for years, and most of us survived. That wasn't a reason for not improving safety by introducing seat belts. Safe standing is, would, without any reservations, be safer than standing behind a shin high 'barrier' if you get accidentally get pushed or stumble...

Why? Safe standing is what they want; they stand now, but would probably appreciate a rail to lean on! What we do know, is that they don't want (quite rightly) to be forced to pay extra to stand.

Exactly - and no reason to lock them. No reason punters can't have a rest at half time, or before the match starts - where's the problem that some people seem to think exists (although they have put forward no cogent case for one)?

If the ratio is three standing places for two seats, then the argument that there's nothing in it (financially) for the club looks a bit bollocksy.

Why? No need to remove the seat - can't they just leave it leave it folded up? Can always be used for a rest at half time! The cost would be putting in the rails - and yes, I'm sure the questionnaire was rigged to get the required answer!

No, the capacity would be exactly the same. Each standing space would replace one seat: one for one. So, no loss of match day revenue at all, and the cost of installation? Equivalent to a couple of days of player wages, maybe! People are the same width, standing or sitting!

Why the sarcasm? There is no good reason for not installing them (the club would still have change from £122M), and you haven't provided one. And, to be practical about it, the shin high 'barrier' that is the back of the seat in front is a potential hazard - I felt safer on a plain old fashioned...