Author Topic: Safe Standing ( split from: Liverpool confirm decision to redevelop Anfield)  (Read 493530 times)

Offline CraigDS

  • Lite. Smelt it and dealt it. Worrawhopper.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 61,462
  • YNWA
seemed odd, atleast next season we should see atleast a 10m jump there from warrior i would think, theyre paying us about double what adidas did

I seem to remember we changed accounting periods by a month or so to match the FFP dates, so not sure if its linked to that.

Offline Peter McGurk

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,820
seemed odd, atleast next season we should see atleast a 10m jump there from warrior i would think, theyre paying us about double what adidas did

There is a 'how we did it' section which no doubt explains.

Online paulrazor

  • Dreams of a handjob from Timmy Mallett. Chronicler of seasons past. Cares more than Prelude Nr 5, or does he? No chance of getting a banana at his house.
  • RAWK Scribe
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 28,613
  • Take me 2 the magic of the moment on a glory night
I seem to remember we changed accounting periods by a month or so to match the FFP dates, so not sure if its linked to that.
that could explain it alright

thanks Craig
yer ma should have called you Paolo Zico Gerry Socrates HELLRAZOR

Offline Nessy76

  • Shits alone and doesn't condone public self-molestation. Literally Goldenballs' biggest fan
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 17,993
  • We All Live In A Red And White Klopp
    • Andrew Ness Photographer
thats cool, with less games played too

what i dont understand is
"The £2.8m (4%) growth in commercial revenue to
£80.2m (€99.1m) is driven largely by the impact of the
new six-year kit sponsorship deal with Warrior Sports,
worth a reported £25m per year and among the most
lucrative in world footbal"

why is that included for last season when Warrior werent our supplier

The deal was signed last season, perhaps Warrior paid a portion of that up front?
Fuck the Daily Mail.
Abolish FIFA

Offline J-Mc-

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 28,637
Just saw on the news that the council want to use upto 1,000 houses inthe Anfield area again with the main focus being the housing around the ground.

Possible bad news for the redevelopment of Anfield?

Online paulrazor

  • Dreams of a handjob from Timmy Mallett. Chronicler of seasons past. Cares more than Prelude Nr 5, or does he? No chance of getting a banana at his house.
  • RAWK Scribe
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 28,613
  • Take me 2 the magic of the moment on a glory night
The deal was signed last season, perhaps Warrior paid a portion of that up front?
possibly included their first month?
yer ma should have called you Paolo Zico Gerry Socrates HELLRAZOR

Offline CraigDS

  • Lite. Smelt it and dealt it. Worrawhopper.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 61,462
  • YNWA
Just saw on the news that the council want to use upto 1,000 houses inthe Anfield area again with the main focus being the housing around the ground.

Possible bad news for the redevelopment of Anfield?

Not really, it's part of the wider regeneration. More than enough land around there for the houses.

Offline redknight

  • Kemlynite
  • **
  • Posts: 31
Does the redevelopement stop at the main stand and anfield road.?  Surely the kop must be increased as it will look pale and dwarfed by the rest of the stadium. after all its supposed to be the centre piece.
"A woman drove me to drink and I never even had the decency to thank her"

Offline CraigDS

  • Lite. Smelt it and dealt it. Worrawhopper.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 61,462
  • YNWA
Does the redevelopement stop at the main stand and anfield road.?  Surely the kop must be increased as it will look pale and dwarfed by the rest of the stadium. after all its supposed to be the centre piece.

I highly doubt it will be being touched for a long while to be honest.

And it won't be that dwarfed, as the others will be multi-tiered and have corp seating (possibly boxes) so break them up a bit. I wouldn't say it is dwarfed by the Centenary and I doubt the Main will be much bigger than that height wise.

Offline redknight

  • Kemlynite
  • **
  • Posts: 31
I highly doubt it will be being touched for a long while to be honest.

And it won't be that dwarfed, as the others will be multi-tiered and have corp seating (possibly boxes) so break them up a bit. I wouldn't say it is dwarfed by the Centenary and I doubt the Main will be much bigger than that height wise.

Would love to see the kop maybe one day like the one at  Dortmund.! And hopefully packed with a more vocal crowd its been terrible and getting worse.
"A woman drove me to drink and I never even had the decency to thank her"

Offline CraigDS

  • Lite. Smelt it and dealt it. Worrawhopper.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 61,462
  • YNWA
Would love to see the kop maybe one day like the one at  Dortmund.! And hopefully packed with a more vocal crowd its been terrible and getting worse.

The Kop and die Südtribüne at Dortmund are near enough the same capacity (in fact think the Kop is larger) when both seated. The issue is safe standing is allowed in Germany which pushed its capacity to 25k, it also helps at making it looked packed, intimidating and a great atmosphere.

Offline redknight

  • Kemlynite
  • **
  • Posts: 31
The Kop and die Südtribüne at Dortmund are near enough the same capacity (in fact think the Kop is larger) when both seated. The issue is safe standing is allowed in Germany which pushed its capacity to 25k, it also helps at making it looked packed, intimidating and a great atmosphere.

Exactly mate and there is the problem..I for one would be all for safe standing as we have lost one of the things we are famous for our atmosphere..I stood in the old kop during the 70s onward and nothing can compare to that. 
"A woman drove me to drink and I never even had the decency to thank her"

Offline Peter McGurk

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,820
The ‘final’ Taylor Report is about hooliganism and controlling hooliganism. Nowhere does Taylor argue that sitting people down makes them quieter (I’m sure you can find a copy of his report on the internet) His recommendation for all-seating is about control. Controlling numbers, controlling access and exit etc. I’m afraid you’ve just made that up.

And more especially, Taylor recommended knowing who people are (so they can be excluded if necessary). At the time and burning with righteous indignation after Heysel, Thatcher wanted ID cards for football fans and stamping out hooliganism. She didn’t get ID cards but she got names and addresses linked to every ticket sold.

We’ve covered this already.**[you said it had nothing to do with ID cards]

Going back to this (because it’s key to the motivation behind the introduction of all-seating)...

The Football Spectators Act 1989 (enacted under Thatcher in November 1989) was put in place to enforce a ‘National Membership Scheme’ (with ID cards) - post Heysel.

Taylor had already reported in August 1989 but only on the causes of Hillsborough (while the act was going through parliament). He didn’t finalise on his recommendation for all-seater stadiums (primarily to control hooliganism) until Jan 1990 ie. after the bill was passed.

However parliament had already included powers to require more seating in the act that was already going through parliament following Heysel and subsequently left the detail (ie how much seating) subject to Taylor’s final report (from notes in Hansard).

The ID scheme faded away (Taylor specifically said it wouldn't work) as all-seater stadiums were introduced by ‘order’ of Secretary of State as finally recommended by Taylor although the taking of names and addresses was kept. To quote the final report:

268. It would greatly help to defeat forgery and theft of tickets as well as assisting in the apprehension of those misbehaving in the ground, if clubs maintained a record on computer of ticket sales. This is done in Italy where season tickets and tickets for all-ticket matches in seated areas are numbered and a record is maintained of the names and addresses of purchasers. Such information is of great value to the police in identifying forgeries and tracing offenders. Clearly, season tickets for seats could be made attractive if favourable terms were offered (especially to young supporters). This would enable the authorities to know for a whole season who was occupying a particular seat. As seating accommodation increases this would give greater information and control.

Taylor does not mention that seating has any kind of 'calming effect' as you suggest so you really must have made that up (unless you can tell us where you got it from). Amazingly he doesn't mention seating at all in the Safety at Football Grounds section of his report. In fact his only justification for seating being safer is that fans are not jostled liked they are jostled on an old-style standing terrace (with its barriers several metres apart):

62. It is obvious [!] that sitting for the duration of the match is more comfortable than standing. It is also safer. When a spectator is seated he has his own small piece of territory in which he can feel reasonably secure. He will not be in close physical contact with those around him. He will not be jostled or moved about by swaying or surging. Small or infirm or elderly men and women as well as young children are not buffeted, smothered or unsighted by larger and more robust people as on the terraces. The seated spectator is not subject to pressure of numbers behind or around him during the match. He will not be painfully bent double over a crush barrier. Those monitoring numbers will know exactly how many are there without having to count them in or assess the density by visual impression. There will still, of course, be scope for crowd pressure on stairways whilst entering and especially when leaving, but involuntary and uncontrolled crowd movements occasioned by incidents in the game are effectively eliminated [!].

Of course he wasn't aware of safe standing as an alternative nor did he consider that the spacing between exits and all other safety measures would be as for seating.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2013, 02:18:42 am by Peter McGurk »

Offline PaulD

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Main Stander
  • ******
  • Posts: 192
  • Some things are more important .......

There isn’t anyone who visits this site that is untouched by Hillsborough.

It’s hard to say in words – but for me the grief does not diminish with Time.


I support safe standing - I hope it is part of any future stadium design.

Online TepidT2O

  • Deffo NOT 9"! MUFC bedwetter. Grass. Folically-challenged, God-piece-wearing, monkey-rubber. Jizz aroma expert. Operating at the lower end of the distribution curve...has the hots for Alan. Bastard. Fearless in transfer windows with lack of convicti
  • Lead Matchday Commentator
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 93,679
  • Dejan Lovren fan club member #1
There isn’t anyone who visits this site that is untouched by Hillsborough.

It’s hard to say in words – but for me the grief does not diminish with Time.


I support safe standing - I hope it is part of any future stadium design.

It won't be, so I'm not really sure of the point of discussing it in the thread.

I don't want safe standing at any ground we visit, let alone anfield.

This isn't because I don't think it has it's merits, it's just that the current all seated arrangement is utterly idiot proof.  Safe standing is more open to problems from people and systems who are downright incompetent in managing crowds.  If Hillsborough has shown us anything, it's that we shouldn't underestimate the utter incompetence of those in authority.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2013, 08:49:04 am by Tepid water »
“Happiness can be found in the darkest of times, if one only remembers to turn on the light.”
“Generosity always pays off. Generosity in your effort, in your work, in your kindness, in the way you look after people and take care of people. In the long run, if you are generous with a heart, and with humanity, it always pays off.”
W

Offline CraigDS

  • Lite. Smelt it and dealt it. Worrawhopper.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 61,462
  • YNWA
It won't be, so I'm not really sure of the point of discussing it in the thread.

I don't want safe standing at any ground we visit, let alone anfield.

This isn't because I don't think it has it's merits, it's just that the current all seated arrangement is utterly idiot proof.  Safe standing is more open to problems from people and systems who are downright incompetent in managing crowds.  If Hillsborough has shown us anything, it's that we shouldn't underestimate the utter incompetence of those in authority.

It's not really idiot proof currently seems everyone (particularly at away games) stands anyway. And doing so in seated areas is pretty dangerous given there are zero barriers and in fact shin high backs of seats causing a tripping hazard.

Offline redknight

  • Kemlynite
  • **
  • Posts: 31
Safe standing has been working in Germany for sometime now and if anything safer than the arrangment in place here..With barriers in front and behind every person its impossible for any crowd surge forward or backward and with flipdown seats i think it should not be dismissed and givin a chance...It would do wonders for a dying atmosphere.
"A woman drove me to drink and I never even had the decency to thank her"

Offline Peter McGurk

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,820
... it's just that the current all seated arrangement is utterly idiot proof.  Safe standing is more open to problems from people and systems who are downright incompetent in managing crowds.  If Hillsborough has shown us anything, it's that we shouldn't underestimate the utter incompetence of those in authority.

The Taylor Report hijacked or improved (depending on your point of view) The Football Spectators Act 1989 - an act designed to fight hooliganism after Heysel. In case you're in any doubt that that was what the Final Report was about, this is the contents page. Note even in the section headed 'lessons to be learned from Hillsborough', hooliganism (and poor behaviour) dominates ie., nothing to do with Hillsborough or the causes of Hillsborough (the report is in caps)

PART I - FOOTBALL: PRESENT AND FUTURE
CHAPTER 1 - THREE SOMBRE LESSONS AFTER HILLSBOROUGH
   i.   Previous Reports Unheeded
   ii.   "It Couldn't Happen Here"
   iii.   A Blight on Football

Old Grounds

Poor Facilities

Hooliganism
Segregation
 - What does Segregation Achieve?
Who are the Hooligans? 

Alcohol

Poor Leadership

CHAPTER 2 - A BETTER FUTURE FOR FOOTBALL

PART II - SAFETY AT SPORTS GROUNDS
CHAPTER 3 - THE FRAMEWORK
CHAPTER 4 - SUBSTANTIVE PROVISIONS

PART III - CROWD CONTROL AND HOOLIGANISM
CHAPTER 5 - POLICE PLANNING AND CONTROL
CHAPTER 6 - ALCOHOL
CHAPTER 7 - TICKETS AND TOUTS
CHAPTER 8 - POLICE STRATEGIES AGAINST HOOLIGANS
CHAPTER 9 - OFFENCES IN THE GROUND
CHAPTER 10 - CLUB STRATEGIES AGAINST HOOLIGANS Luton
CHAPTER 11 - OTHER POSSIBLE MEASURES AGAINST HOOLIGANS

PART IV - THE FOOTBALL SPECTATORS ACT 1989
CHAPTER 12 - OBJECT AND PROVISIONS OF THE ACT Provisions of Part I
CHAPTER 13 - THE NATIONAL MEMBERSHIP SCHEME General
CHAPTER 14 - ARGUMENTS RAISED BY CRITICS OF THE SCHEME (i)
CHAPTER 15 - DANGER OF CONGESTION OR DISORDER
CHAPTER 16 - WILL THE SCHEME WEED OUT HOOLIGANS?
CHAPTER 17 - POLICE RESOURCES
CHAPTER 18 - STRATEGIES AGAINST HOOLIGANISM - CONCLUSIONS

PART V-FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS
All-Seated Accommodation

Advisory Design Council

National Inspectorate and Review Body
Maximum Capacities for Terraces
Filling and Monitoring Terraces Gangways

Fences and Gates

Crush Barriers

Safety Certificates
Duties of Each Football Club

Police Planning
Communications
Co-ordination of Emergency Services

First Aid, Medical Facilities and Ambulances
Offences and Penalties

Green Guide


As you can see not only does the safety or otherwise of seating v standing hardly get a look in but you have to recognise that the measures put in place post the Taylor Report are the measures to try to remove the consequences of human error and/or incompetence. Everyone of them (bar seating itself) would still be in place with safe standing.

It's not the seating per se that's idiot proof (as we all know) - it's the enforcement of these procedures and rules that are making the stadiums safer.

The Green Guide itself (the building regulations effectively) even includes a section on how to design standing that's safe. It's not even as safe as the safe standing rail system but it's still in use throughout this country for any other sport and any other thing other than the top two divisions of football.

And excuse me but how to deal with hooliganism and alcohol come under lessons to be learned from Hillsborough? You have to pinch yourself to remind yourself that this is from a report on Hillsborough. This is wrong. Very wrong:

Hooliganism
34. During the 1970s, hooligan behaviour became a scourge at and around football grounds. Rival fans abused and fought with each other on the terraces. The pitch was invaded, sometimes to facilitate the fighting, sometimes in an attempt to abort a match by those whose team was losing and on occasions to display anger and seek to assault a referee or a player who had incurred displeasure. Throwing missiles, either at a player or a policeman or at rival fans, became another violent feature. When the police responded by searching fans for missiles on entry, the practice grew of throwing coins (which could not be confiscated). Sometimes the coins were sharpened in advance to make them more damaging.

35. Mass singing of traditiona lsongs, some o fnation-wide appeal, some local to the area or the club, had become a part of the terrace culture. But the repertoire became augmented and degraded by abusive and obscene chants aimed at the referee or the opposing fans. A further nasty addition was racist chanting aimed at any black player of either team.

36. Hooliganism outside the ground also became rife. Supporters of rival teams abused and attacked each other. Hooligan gangs caused damage to trains, to buses, and to property on their route. Some deliberately went out of their way to rampage through local shops, stealing, wrecking and intimidating as they went - an activity known as "steaming". After a match, rival supporters would attack each other on the way home in the street, in public transport or in public houses.


« Last Edit: January 28, 2013, 11:02:33 am by Peter McGurk »

Offline Zeb

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 18,571
  • Justice.
It's not the seating per se that's idiot proof (as we all know) - it's the enforcement of these procedures and rules that are making the stadiums safer.

True that. But I guess there is a lot of reason to be distrustful of that always remaining the case - the Panel's report makes it clear that if existing regulations had been followed many lives could have been saved, and injuries prevented, in British stadia even prior to Taylor. With Tepid on not trusting those in authority not to begin to push the boundaries. Torn on the issue  personally. Very conflicted, because there's a hell of a lot of merit for safe standing. But then I've been to games where the official capacity was out by a considerable margin. Bit of an odd turn to take for this particular thread though - is it realistic that any initial plans to redevelop would include safe standing areas? Whatever the merits versus arguments against, I can't think it would?
"And the voices of the standing Kop still whispering in the wind will salute the wee Scots redman and he will still walk on.
And your money will have bought you nothing."

Offline PaulD

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Main Stander
  • ******
  • Posts: 192
  • Some things are more important .......

It would be a truly inspiring statement to make if LFC took the lead on the introduction of safe standing.

Offline Peter McGurk

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,820
True that. But I guess there is a lot of reason to be distrustful of that always remaining the case - the Panel's report makes it clear that if existing regulations had been followed many lives could have been saved, and injuries prevented, in British stadia even prior to Taylor. With Tepid on not trusting those in authority not to begin to push the boundaries. Torn on the issue  personally. Very conflicted, because there's a hell of a lot of merit for safe standing. But then I've been to games where the official capacity was out by a considerable margin. Bit of an odd turn to take for this particular thread though - is it realistic that any initial plans to redevelop would include safe standing areas? Whatever the merits versus arguments against, I can't think it would?

So sitting or standing, authorities can still break rules - which is rather the point. Anyone who was at the Olympic Stadium in Athens in 2007 would agree.

Sitting or standing, if the authorities don't apply the rules (including staged entry, ticket checked at every stage) then yes you will get games where the official capacity is out. There's 56 people standing in a safestanding row. Everyone has a designated space. Everyone has a ticket for that space. It would be pretty easy to spot any 'extras' - just like in Athens.

It is firmly part of the redevelopment debate. I would rather see the club put their time and effort into a stadium that works for us (and future generations) than a stadium that continues to price this and the next generations out.



« Last Edit: January 27, 2013, 07:25:16 pm by Peter McGurk »

Offline CraigDS

  • Lite. Smelt it and dealt it. Worrawhopper.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 61,462
  • YNWA
So sitting or standing, authorities can still break rules - which is rather the point. Anyone who was at the Olympic Stadium in Athens in 2007 would agree.

Not that it adds to this thread really, but I've got pics from over the top of the stadium in Athens of them just opening up the gates (this is considering they were the second lot of gates inside the 'fan zone' which you needed tickets to get in to originally) and letting shit loads into the stadium. It was mental in there and at least 3 to a seat.

Same goes for Istanbul where I was too, the lt in at least 3 to a seat where I was at.

Offline Zeb

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 18,571
  • Justice.
So sitting or standing, authorities can still break rules - which is rather the point. Anyone who was at the Olympic Stadium in Athens in 2007 would agree.

That's really what I said wasn't it? I was noting that even with seats there have been occasions where there's been issues around 'one ticket, one person, one place to stand/sit'. Will that temptation to push boundaries be made greater or smaller by providing standing areas, nominally safe or otherwise? If I can't trust them with seating, why the hell should I trust them with standing again? One of them hypothetical questions which places reliance on authorities not becoming complacent or having the capability to try to push capacity. I do disagree that it would be equally visible given it's a lot easier to come closer together than it is to shrink your arse. For it to be visible would imply that people are already close enough together that the overflow would occur. I don't think that's quite the impression which safe standing advocates would want to give. Wasn't the FLA's old rule that for persistent standing capacity was to be reduced by 1/6 to cover the increased room taken by people standing over seating?

A redevelopment would be a gradual process wouldn't it? So does the debate need to be had now is really the subtext beneath my question? It's one which provokes strong opinions as we saw on every other occasion the issue was raised (eg the FSF's proposals on it - and the arguments around it a decade ago when Labour looked into it).
"And the voices of the standing Kop still whispering in the wind will salute the wee Scots redman and he will still walk on.
And your money will have bought you nothing."

Offline Peter McGurk

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,820
That's really what I said wasn't it?...If I can't trust them with seating, why the hell should I trust them with standing again?

Not really... you continue to draw a distinction between the safety of sitting and (inferior) safety of standing. I say if there is any difference at all, safe standing is safer and certainly safer than standing in seating areas.

The redevelopment over new stadium debate was dominated by money and was successful for that reason. The ‘morality’ of access for the ordinary fan and the emotion of ‘staying at home’ necessarily took second place. The morality of safety is to the forefront in the stadium debate now. This comes before getting a stadium that’s right emotionally and financially and very rightly so.

And the merit of safe standing in terms of safety has to be apparent to the satisfaction of all at the very start of that debate. All things then being equal in the safety debate, we can move on to how we enjoy the game and how our money helps the club.

Otherwise, we will lose out again - yes, a redevelopment is gradual but just like we would have blown income vital to the success of the club on a shiny gin palace in the park, we risk blowing millions building a 60,000 all-seater stadium and realising too late that it doesn’t work for you and me and everyone else that believes in the ‘spirit of the Kop’ (unity, togetherness, family) and thinks a minimum of £45 for all to go to a football match is ridiculous.

In short, it's a massive leap forward to redevelop rather than build new but do we really want Anfield to continue to go upmarket? Once that ball starts to roll, it's going to be pretty hard to stop.

***

BTW perhaps one-sixth for abusing the rules but just to be clear, standing and safe standing can accommodate about 1.8 to 1.9 times as many people as seating.

And having stood on the safe standing mockup... you are close to the next person. For some it would be too close but it’s not as close as the middle of the old kop. Each row is 28 places long and two rows high - bunching would be readily spotted (and tickets checked - and ‘extras’ thrown out). As I say, it’s all down to sticking to systems. Sitting or Standing.

I must check what the penalty for allowing too many people into the ground is... but I bet they’re pretty severe.



« Last Edit: January 28, 2013, 10:57:27 am by Peter McGurk »

Offline fatlip13

  • Anny Roader
  • ****
  • Posts: 478
i am in favour of safe standing.
conditions for this are IMO: you have a seat that you are given a ticket too.
                                           safe standing does not affect capacity, none of this 1.8-1.9 people more stuff. 1 seat/1 standing

away fans including our own generally prefer to stand. having seats at knee high is dangerous

Offline Peter McGurk

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,820
i am in favour of safe standing.
conditions for this are IMO: you have a seat that you are given a ticket too.
                                           safe standing does not affect capacity, none of this 1.8-1.9 people more stuff. 1 seat/1 standing

away fans including our own generally prefer to stand. having seats at knee high is dangerous

1 seat/ 1 standing means either paying £45 to stand which rather defeats the object of making it more accessible/ affordable or accepting that gate receipts will drop dramatically. On the kop alone - maybe £6m a season less to spend on players and the team.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2013, 12:24:17 pm by Peter McGurk »

Offline fatlip13

  • Anny Roader
  • ****
  • Posts: 478
1 seat/ 1 standing means either paying £45 to stand or accepting that gate receipts will drop dramatically. On the kop alone - maybe £6m a season less to spend on players and the team.

how does it drop if the capacity stays the same?
if you don't want to stand buy a ticket elsewhere. this would take some reorganising but this won't happen overnight if at all. if the price has to stay the same for a ticket so be it. i don't see why a standing ticket should be cheaper.

if we expand the stadium then we have more seats some of which some fans would like to be standing.

Offline Peter McGurk

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,820
how does it drop if the capacity stays the same?
if you don't want to stand buy a ticket elsewhere. this would take some reorganising but this won't happen overnight if at all. if the price has to stay the same for a ticket so be it. i don't see why a standing ticket should be cheaper.

if we expand the stadium then we have more seats some of which some fans would like to be standing.

The point of standing is to have lower prices so that more people can have access to the match, encourage younger (and noisier) fans into the ground and to have a closer crowd, greater (comm)unity and better atmosphere.

Also to get the old farts who are increasingly the only ones who can afford it out of the Kop and into the new seats in the stands where they belong. Not to pay £45 for the same deal but standing up.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2013, 04:37:29 pm by Peter McGurk »

Offline Easy

  • Sunday Mornin Tiger
  • Kopite
  • *****
  • Posts: 936
For all this talk of safe standing, is this legally an option for any Prem side? If not, why are we discussing it (or at least discussing it in this thread) interesting though it is?

Offline Peter McGurk

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,820
For all this talk of safe standing, is this legally an option for any Prem side? If not, why are we discussing it (or at least discussing it in this thread) interesting though it is?

The option is to remove the order issued by the Secretary of State that requires seating in the top two divisions. No change of law as such would be required.

The issue of safe standing is completely relevant to the success of the stadium.

Offline Nessy76

  • Shits alone and doesn't condone public self-molestation. Literally Goldenballs' biggest fan
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 17,993
  • We All Live In A Red And White Klopp
    • Andrew Ness Photographer
The option is to remove the order issued by the Secretary of State that requires seating in the top two divisions. No change of law as such would be required.

The issue of safe standing is completely relevant to the success of the stadium.

It really isn't as there is not a chance in hell the club would, could or should go for it.
Fuck the Daily Mail.
Abolish FIFA

Offline Peter McGurk

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,820
It really isn't as there is not a chance in hell the club would, could or should go for it.

If we are denied standing for the 'wrong' reasons (http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=294246.msg11315144#msg11315144) and it would improve our enjoyment and experience of supporting the club as well as make a positive contribution to restoring success and it is safer and safer than what we have now and it gets more people in at an earlier age and at prices that don't break the bank, there is every reason to go for it.

« Last Edit: January 28, 2013, 08:26:26 pm by Peter McGurk »

Offline Big Red Richie

  • Thread killer extraordinaire. For future reference the order is T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 14,535
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
I'd love LFC to even consider the option of safe standing, even if they decided not to go with it in the end.   Unfortunately they don't have an open mind on the issue, and due to the politics of it, they'd never entertain it.  Full stop.


Offline Nessy76

  • Shits alone and doesn't condone public self-molestation. Literally Goldenballs' biggest fan
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 17,993
  • We All Live In A Red And White Klopp
    • Andrew Ness Photographer
If we are denied standing for the 'wrong' reasons (http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=294246.msg11315144#msg11315144) and it would improve our enjoyment and experience of supporting the club as well as make a positive contribution to restoring success and it is safer and safer than what we have now and it gets more people in at an earlier age and at prices that don't break the bank, there is every reason to go for it.

This is all in your mind, Peter. Seriously, the club wont, for several good reasons.
Firstly, the law.
Secondly, the clearly stated wishes of the families of the 96.

You can't circumvent the first and I don't know anyone who wants to violate the second.

You can point out the flaws in the argument all you like, you aren't going to convince the people you need to and as I said before, I don't think you really should try. For which you virtually compared me to Bernard Ingham.

If the subject is emotive enough that even you can see yourself saying something that stupid to another supporter, surely you can see it's time to let it go.
Fuck the Daily Mail.
Abolish FIFA

Offline Peter McGurk

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,820
I'd love LFC to even consider the option of safe standing, even if they decided not to go with it in the end.   Unfortunately they don't have an open mind on the issue, and due to the politics of it, they'd never entertain it.  Full stop.

Just like they are going to build a new stadium in Stanley Park. Full stop?

You may say these issues are worlds apart but for the reasons stated above, there really is every reason to consider it and no good reason not to. The Taylor Report has led us all astray. It has confused Safety and Justice.

Dealing with hooliganism is very right but the inclusion of recommendations to deal with hooliganism in a report on the causes of Hillsborough is very wrong.


This is all in your mind, Peter. Seriously, the club wont, for several good reasons.
Firstly, the law.
Secondly, the clearly stated wishes of the families of the 96.

You can't circumvent the first and I don't know anyone who wants to violate the second.

You can point out the flaws in the argument all you like, you aren't going to convince the people you need to and as I said before, I don't think you really should try. For which you virtually compared me to Bernard Ingham.

If the subject is emotive enough that even you can see yourself saying something that stupid to another supporter, surely you can see it's time to let it go.

I did nothing of the sort (Ingham). Please, read it again.

Outside of football, there is a general assumption that Taylor recommended all-seater stadiums because standing caused Hillsborough, which is not true. There’s also plenty of people like Ingham out there ready and willing to blame the fans for Hillsborough.

If the second Taylor Report emphasis on hooliganism is in my mind it is also in the report.  Everyone can read it for themselves - even if it’s only the contents page (see above).

If you read the law (the Football Spectators Act 1989) - you can see that the law does not prohibit standing. It is a Taylor recommendation enacted by order of the Secretary of State. A change of law would not be required in that case.

I have already said that no-one should attempt to convince the families. There is no logical argument that would overcome their grief and no-one should try to put them in the position of ‘sanctioning’ something they disagree with so clearly.

The families believe that standing was a contributory factor at Hillsborough. But safe standing is not that standing. Safe standing is not the standing of Hillsborough or the old kop. It is not what we think of when we think of Hillsborough.

To deny us safe standing is to deny us the benefits of a safer and more accessible system for reasons which have nothing to do with Hillsborough - or with Hooliganism.
 

« Last Edit: January 29, 2013, 09:42:01 am by Peter McGurk »

Offline PaulD

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Main Stander
  • ******
  • Posts: 192
  • Some things are more important .......


I would 100% endorse Peter's comments.

Offline Peter McGurk

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,820
It's worth remembering that this... http://storyofapoorboy.wordpress.com/2013/01/28/finding-the-liverpool-way/ is where we are at and being family is what the stadium debate is about.

The club can carry on the way the EPL has carried on or it can compete AND remember who we are and why we support this club we still love.

« Last Edit: January 29, 2013, 10:10:09 am by Peter McGurk »

Online Eeyore

  • "I have no problem whatsoever stating that FSG have done a good job.".Mo Money, Mo Problems to invent. Number 1 is Carragher. Number 2 is Carragher. Number 3 is Carragher. Number 4 is Carragher. Likes to play God in his spare time.
  • Campaigns
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 31,578
  • JFT 97
It's worth remembering that this... http://storyofapoorboy.wordpress.com/2013/01/28/finding-the-liverpool-way/ is where we are at AND what the stadium debate is about.

The club can carry on the way the EPL has carried on or it can compete AND remember who we are and why we support this club we still love.



Peter your whole premise seems to be based on the idea that safe standing is safer because fans will stand in seated areas anyway which is against the rules but that if you have safe standing then everyone will behave perfectly and stand on their designated blob of paint. For me it is pretty clear that all seater stadiums are safer because they have less people in the same area so it is easier to manage the crowds and any evacuation would be quicker.

All seater Stadiums have a bigger safety margin and are easier to control.

The other premise seems to be that safe standing will massively reduce prices, which I find hard to fathom with the ability to manage capacity wouldn't the Club just use the rail seats for games where we wouldn't sell out and use the standing for games that would sell out. If you can manage the capacity and keep supply just below demand then why would you need to lower prices.

The Club are in it to maximise their revenue streams not as some socialist plan to engage with supporters without the necessary disposable income to afford a seat.
"Ohhh-kayyy"

Offline Peter McGurk

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,820
Peter your whole premise seems to be based on the idea that safe standing is safer because fans will stand in seated areas anyway which is against the rules but that if you have safe standing then everyone will behave perfectly and stand on their designated blob of paint. For me it is pretty clear that all seater stadiums are safer because they have less people in the same area so it is easier to manage the crowds and any evacuation would be quicker.

All seater Stadiums have a bigger safety margin and are easier to control.

The other premise seems to be that safe standing will massively reduce prices, which I find hard to fathom with the ability to manage capacity wouldn't the Club just use the rail seats for games where we wouldn't sell out and use the standing for games that would sell out. If you can manage the capacity and keep supply just below demand then why would you need to lower prices.

The Club are in it to maximise their revenue streams not as some socialist plan to engage with supporters without the necessary disposable income to afford a seat.

For you that may be true but for me...

The “Guide to Safety at Sports Grounds” published by the Department of Culture Media and Sport (the ‘Green Guide’) is enshrined in both the Taylor Report and the Football Spectators Act 1989. It is a summation of all the years of looking at crowd behaviour and crowd dynamics. It is reviewed and updated as required and has been to include the lessons from Hillsborough.

It says properly-managed standing is safe and sets out how to properly manage it. Note this is an assessment of 'old-style' terraces before the introduction or idea of the safer, safe standing

It does not make any reference to the size of the ground per se being a critical factor in managing safety. It puts no absolute limit on capacity size. Not only that but it is still perfectly possible to stand in a full ground with a larger capacity in a lower division and be prohibited from standing in a full or even less than full ground with lower capacity in the Premier League.

It does make sure that the more people there are, the more and bigger the exits are. The safety margins (the ‘S’ factor in the Green Guide) is a product of many things (such as exits etc) but not whether sitting or standing. A smaller stadium is no easier or less onerous to control than a large one.  Standing has no less onerous requirements than seating. The time limits on exits are the same. The time limits on entry through turnstiles are the same. They have the same obligation for safety.

Safe standing has the potential to get more people into the ground by offering lower prices at the gate. A 63,000 crowd (with a standing kop at half price) would generate as much at the gate as a 51,000 crowd all-seating but overall the income with standing would be higher because the ticket is not all everyone buys.

That’s no higher moral plan. That is maximising revenue for the benefit of the club (and the fans and future generations of the ‘business’). Just for once, it can work all ways.
« Last Edit: January 29, 2013, 11:17:12 am by Peter McGurk »

Offline Nessy76

  • Shits alone and doesn't condone public self-molestation. Literally Goldenballs' biggest fan
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 17,993
  • We All Live In A Red And White Klopp
    • Andrew Ness Photographer

I have already said that no-one should attempt to convince the families. There is no logical argument that would overcome their grief and no-one should try to put them in the position of ‘sanctioning’ something they disagree with so clearly.

Then why has it taken over this thread, which is about Liverpool's new stadium?
You don't want to convince those people, but you think the club should just ride roughshod over their feelings and do something to which they are vocally and vehemently opposed?

I think there's been rather too much of that done to them already.
Fuck the Daily Mail.
Abolish FIFA