[Albion] Safe Standing at the AMEX

[drew]

What other risk does safe standing introduce? I'm genuinely interested.

I don't understand the argument that because it doesn't recreate an old fashioned terrace that it has no value. There are a significant number of people who prefer to stand while watching football, quite apart from nostalgia for the days when you paid 2/6 to get in and had to stand in a stream of piss from the bloke behind you. If there wasn't a demand for it more widely then it wouldn't be being installed at numerous stadiums around the country and in other places. If it's successful at other clubs then I'd expect more enthusiasm for installing it in at least parts of the north stand.

I haven't said it introduces any other risk. You're the one who seems to live in fear of falling over the seat in front of you.

It seems to me that you're asking Tony Bloom to stump up several million so you can carry on doing what you currently do but with a rail in front of you. Explain to me if I've got that wrong?

 

[Wardy's twin]

Its difficult to sing or jump about if you are sitting so people stand but then you open up the issue of safety as people jumping up and down around seats is more dangerous than terracing and certainly more dangerous than terracing with nice railing to stop surges , that said in the 10 years of away fans standing at the Amex I can't recall an issue . In my going away experience the only time I have experienced anything like a surge was Palace away 3 years ago and that was because I was standing in the aisle.

Personal view is that back of the northstand would be the pace to do this and have mini corrals for 50 people , not this you have a rail and a seat idea.

Personally would not use it as my seat in WSU gives a great view , but would use it for cup games.

Not sure we should change anything in the current climate where we need to see what crowds look like.

 

[Sid in the Sharknado]

I haven't said it introduces any other risk. You're the one who seems to live in fear of falling over the seat in front of you.

It seems to me that you're asking Tony Bloom to stump up several million so you can carry on doing what you currently do but with a rail in front of you. Explain to me if I've got that wrong?

You wrote,

I'm not necessarily dismissing the risk, but you seem happy to replace one negligible risk with another.

I'm not asking for anything. From my perspective I initially replied to somebody else about whether there's an improvement in atmosphere due to standing aside from increasing numbers. You replied to me pointing out that people already stand in parts of the North Stand, and we got into a conversation that was basically about whether there's a safety concern around standing in areas not designed for that. That's a perfectly valid conversation to have from either perspective.

That I personally would prefer to stand, on the odd occasion that I go the the amex, I have acknowledged but is largely a separate issue to the actual conversation we've been having. I personally don't care if he pays for it because it doesn't affect me, but I expect there's a sizeable number of people who regularly go who would be pleased with it. From my own perspective I'd be more interested in other clubs installing it in away areas, since some stands clearly weren't designed with football fans standing in mind (the Etihad comes immediately to mind).

I don't know if I'm acting as a proxy for somebody who's previously had this argument with you in a really aggressive way, but I don't understand why you're reacting the way you are to the posts I've written. I had a less abrasive reply from another poster when I implied that they'd been lobotomised. If I've inadvertently come across as much more aggressive or unreasonable then I can only apologise for that because it's not my intention.

 

[drew]

You wrote,



I'm not asking for anything. From my perspective I initially replied to somebody else about whether there's an improvement in atmosphere due to standing aside from increasing numbers. You replied to me pointing out that people already stand in parts of the North Stand, and we got into a conversation that was basically about whether there's a safety concern around standing in areas not designed for that. That's a perfectly valid conversation to have from either perspective.

That I personally would prefer to stand, on the odd occasion that I go the the amex, I have acknowledged but is largely a separate issue to the actual conversation we've been having. I personally don't care if he pays for it because it doesn't affect me, but I expect there's a sizeable number of people who regularly go who would be pleased with it. From my own perspective I'd be more interested in other clubs installing it in away areas, since some stands clearly weren't designed with football fans standing in mind (the Etihad comes immediately to mind).

I don't know if I'm acting as a proxy for somebody who's previously had this argument with you in a really aggressive way, but I don't understand why you're reacting the way you are to the posts I've written. I had a less abrasive reply from another poster when I implied that they'd been lobotomised. If I've inadvertently come across as much more aggressive or unreasonable then I can only apologise for that because it's not my intention.

Sorry if you find it abrasive, just commenting.

The negligible risk I referred to was replacing falling over a seat with falling and hitting a rail.

You refer to a sizeable number who would be pleased. Are these the same that stand in the north stand anyway! The club survey didn't demonstrate there was a sizeable support for it anyway.

If the Amex was being built now then I'd be pretty certain the design would include rail seating in certain parts (just like the New White Hart Lane) but it isn't. The cost of making changes will, I suspect, run into several millions. Furthermore, I suspect, those with rail seats will not expect to pay the same as someone who has a seat. So, assuming the safety certificate doesn't allow for an increase in capacity in that area, Tony Bloom would be stumping up x number of millions to install rail seating for people that already stand and to rub salt into the wound, will have to charge them less for the privilege!!!

 

[Sid in the Sharknado]

Sorry if you find it abrasive, just commenting.

The negligible risk I referred to was replacing falling over a seat with falling and hitting a rail.

You refer to a sizeable number who would be pleased. Are these the same that stand in the north stand anyway! The club survey didn't demonstrate there was a sizeable support for it anyway.

If the Amex was being built now then I'd be pretty certain the design would include rail seating in certain parts (just like the New White Hart Lane) but it isn't. The cost of making changes will, I suspect, run into several millions. Furthermore, I suspect, those with rail seats will not expect to pay the same as someone who has a seat. So, assuming the safety certificate doesn't allow for an increase in capacity in that area, Tony Bloom would be stumping up x number of millions to install rail seating for people that already stand and to rub salt into the wound, will have to charge them less for the privilege!!!

There's a remarkable number of exclamation marks being used for somebody who's "just commenting", I'm just curious as to why you're quite so invigorated by this. Imagine what the atmosphere at the amex would be like if the whole crowd were that engaged with the game

I was sort of assuming that the risk of falling over and hitting the rail was something knowingly ridiculous that you'd made up to try and make a point, rather than something you were expecting me to seriously engage with. I'd like to think it's obvious that the whole point of the rail is that it hugely reduces the chance of falling over in the first place, and gives people something to hold onto if they do. Regardless of whether you consider the risk of falling over in a seated area with no rail to be not worth worrying about, it's not sensible to suggest that the rail and safe standing set-up doesn't substantially reduce it.

I would suggest, that just because a survey has shown that the majority of fans weren't particularly bothered, that doesn't invalidate the preference of people who are. If a standing section was installed then that may well lead to people moving to either take advantage of it or to sit somewhere else. As long as the club's open about it and helps to facilitate it I don't have an issue with it - as far as I recall the problem at Palace was the club arbitrarily messing people around, not that some people chose to move because they weren't happy with improvements being made lolol: improvements being made at Selhurst, what an idea )

I'm not sure why you assume people who buy tickets for a standing area would expect to pay less (other than that tickets for the north stand are typically cheaper anyway for other reasons). If you go to a gig with a standing area and a seated area you pay more to stand, partly because you're normally closer but mainly because it's normally more fun.

My concern is that as more grounds install safe seating and if they're allowed to use it, that's going to place more pressure on the slightly odd compromise we have at the moment where we're notionally required to sit down but everybody knows people in some areas don't. The Amex isn't particularly high up the list of places with an issue with this (as I alluded to previously, I have absolutely no idea how Liverpool get away with the arrangement on the Kop). There's likely to be more pressure to either provide proper facilities for standing, or to actually enforce the rules on sitting down properly.

 

[drew]

There's a remarkable number of exclamation marks being used for somebody who's "just commenting", I'm just curious as to why you're quite so invigorated by this. Imagine what the atmosphere at the amex would be like if the whole crowd were that engaged with the game

I was sort of assuming that the risk of falling over and hitting the rail was something knowingly ridiculous that you'd made up to try and make a point, rather than something you were expecting me to seriously engage with. I'd like to think it's obvious that the whole point of the rail is that it hugely reduces the chance of falling over in the first place, and gives people something to hold onto if they do. Regardless of whether you consider the risk of falling over in a seated area with no rail to be not worth worrying about, it's not sensible to suggest that the rail and safe standing set-up doesn't substantially reduce it.

I would suggest, that just because a survey has shown that the majority of fans weren't particularly bothered, that doesn't invalidate the preference of people who are. If a standing section was installed then that may well lead to people moving to either take advantage of it or to sit somewhere else. As long as the club's open about it and helps to facilitate it I don't have an issue with it - as far as I recall the problem at Palace was the club arbitrarily messing people around, not that some people chose to move because they weren't happy with improvements being made lolol: improvements being made at Selhurst, what an idea )

I'm not sure why you assume people who buy tickets for a standing area would expect to pay less (other than that tickets for the north stand are typically cheaper anyway for other reasons). If you go to a gig with a standing area and a seated area you pay more to stand, partly because you're normally closer but mainly because it's normally more fun.

My concern is that as more grounds install safe seating and if they're allowed to use it, that's going to place more pressure on the slightly odd compromise we have at the moment where we're notionally required to sit down but everybody knows people in some areas don't. The Amex isn't particularly high up the list of places with an issue with this (as I alluded to previously, I have absolutely no idea how Liverpool get away with the arrangement on the Kop). There's likely to be more pressure to either provide proper facilities for standing, or to actually enforce the rules on sitting down properly.

It's a forum and safe standing is the topic. If there is a better argument for introducing rail seating other the to try and eliminate the supposed risk of falling over the seat in front (I've yet to see statistics showing that it's a problem) you haven't told us.

Increasing capacity would be a good reason yet the info we have is that the capacity of the North Stand can't be increased due to the safety certificate (at least without other substantial changes regarding exits etc).

Does it increase revenue? Probably not because contrary to you analogy with gigs, standing at football is traditionally cheaper than sitting (I stand to be corrected if the likes of Dortmund or Celtic charge more).

Will it definitely increase the atmosphere? Well that would be a good argument if you could show that putting rails in the back four rows of the North Stand for example would do that. Those at the back already stand so is it the fear of falling forward over the seat that prevents them 'raising the roof'? In my view, what will improve the atmosphere is what happens on the pitch. We had two great years culminating in promotion and I don't remember the atmosphere being too bad then. First season in the EPL we all enjoyed the experience but the second we had to watch dire football. We saw just over half a season of Potterball and things were getting better. Who knows how much better the atmosphere would have been had we been at the Amex last season! (just so you do't get upset, only one exclamation mark)

At the end of the day, it's not me you have to convince to spend the money on the changes.

 

[Easy 10]

All this two-ing and fro-ing, I'm still non the wiser on what safe standing (in front of your own ticket-allocated fold-up seat) actually brings to the party.

Now. If you are selling a safe-standing ticket to the North Stand, and you can just rock up on matchday and go and stand wherever you want, first come first served - game on. If not, then honestly, there's absolutely ZERO point as far as I'm concerned. Put the money towards a new leftback instead.

 

[Stat Brother]