Topic: Safe Standing ( split from: Liverpool confirm decision to redevelop Anfield)

[Adamski LFC]

Maggie

That is the whole point of dogma, their brain is so hell bent on this point it can't behave rationally, and either overwhelming evidence or growing suspicion overpowering the dogma is the only way this type of belief could come round to be rational again.

The fact that HFSG have such sway with LFC is down to a seemingly decent cause and practiced rhetorick, said loudly.  I wonder if something non-inflammatory might give LFC and HFSG a way out?  I don't know, but something like a petition signed by fans numbering in the tens of thousands asking for safe standing to be trialled at LFC presented to LFC and HFSG, offering both of them a way out, might work?  LFC could accept this was a way forward and HFSG would have to prove over say the course of the next two seasons that it was unsafe.  The trial could start in say X number of rows then be widened the next season to double or triple X, and then, if HFSG can prove no increase in risk or harm as a result of safe standing, it could be installed back say onto the Kop.  That way,HFSG would be considered, and defeated in a step by step manner, leaving its most vocal members being irrelevant if they cannot reform. LFC would be able to get more people in the ground with safe standing and offer better pricing.

Just a thought but for a better atmosphere, what about installing it in the lower end of the Anfield Road End for the away contingents?

[Liamski-la]

There is no way that irrational thinking will continue to dictate what the club do over this issue. No way at all. Common sense will have to come through in the end. I just can't see how it could happen.

[Adamski LFC]

There is no way that irrational thinking will continue to dictate what the club do over this issue. No way at all. Common sense will have to come through in the end. I just can't see how it could happen.

I think the only way is to sideline them and hence reduce their influence, I'm not saying I want a petition, but it would be an appropriate means to deliver a blow in this regard.

[Liamski-la]

I think the only way is to sideline them and hence reduce their influence, I'm not saying I want a petition, but it would be an appropriate means to deliver a blow in this regard.

A lot of people would be uncomfortable with this type of action. But that's why it is unfair that the hfsg aren't apparently even willing to enter into dialogue. It's basically emotional blackmail, So yes, you're probably correct.

[Adamski LFC]

Another way would be to get Margaret Aspinall to repeat to herself more than 5 times a day "Safe Standing is safe" for a period of several years, this would change her belief eventually. 

[Liamski-la]

For that to work, you'd have to stop her saying "safe standing is dangerous" 50 times a day over the same period. 

[Big Red Richie]

With all due respect to Margaret Aspinall, she is just the figurehead, and spokesperson of the group.

You'd have to convince dozens, ney, hundreds for any chance to change their stance.


Thats never going to happen.  They are too set in their ways to even consider another option, regardless of what that option is.

As long as the word 'standing' is in there, then they collate standing with unsafe, regarless of the  situation.


You'd be better calling it 'safe not sitting', than safe standing, as the word standing is met with fingers in their ears and going lah, lah, lah, lah, lah, so they don't have to give an answer that they don't like.

[Maggie May]

Maggie

That is the whole point of dogma, their brain is so hell bent on this point it can't behave rationally, and either overwhelming evidence or growing suspicion overpowering the dogma is the only way this type of belief could come round to be rational again.

The fact that HFSG have such sway with LFC is down to a seemingly decent cause and practiced rhetorick, said loudly.  I wonder if something non-inflammatory might give LFC and HFSG a way out?  I don't know, but something like a petition signed by fans numbering in the tens of thousands asking for safe standing to be trialled at LFC presented to LFC and HFSG, offering both of them a way out, might work?  LFC could accept this was a way forward and HFSG would have to prove over say the course of the next two seasons that it was unsafe.  The trial could start in say X number of rows then be widened the next season to double or triple X, and then, if HFSG can prove no increase in risk or harm as a result of safe standing, it could be installed back say onto the Kop.  That way,HFSG would be considered, and defeated in a step by step manner, leaving its most vocal members being irrelevant if they cannot reform. LFC would be able to get more people in the ground with safe standing and offer better pricing.

Just a thought but for a better atmosphere, what about installing it in the lower end of the Anfield Road End for the away contingents?

Sounds an excellent idea.  But I'm afraid that waving a red rag at a maddened bull would be mild compared with the reaction you'd get from the Blessed Margaret.  Back in the days of RTK, one of their lads did attempt to have a sensible and calm discussion with her.  He told me she literally went berserk.  He was quite shaken at the reaction, and he's no milksop.  I think it will happen, because more and more actual matchgoers are getting fed up at being dictated to and accused of disrespect, dishonouring the dead and anything else the HFSG can think of. 

[Adamski LFC]

It would happen, but it is simple, and as long as it is presented to her as you sign or don't sign, you can rail and persuade other people to not sign as much as you like, but accept that we will get tens of thousand of signatures to trial this.  That is all it is, a trial.  Standing has moved on and we need to test it to see whether what we have been told about it is true.

It could be framed as follows, i guess?

MA: You are disrespecting the memory of the ones who died! (Did consider capitals )

Other: This is accepting that the world has moved on, modern standing is related to the Hillborough stadium in 1989 in the same way that you are to Saturn, ie not at all.  We are testing this to see and learn from it.  Would you like to be on the committee reviewing the results?

What do you think?

[Adamski LFC]

With all due respect to Margaret Aspinall, she is just the figurehead, and spokesperson of the group.

You'd have to convince dozens, ney, hundreds for any chance to change their stance.


Thats never going to happen.  They are too set in their ways to even consider another option, regardless of what that option is.

As long as the word 'standing' is in there, then they collate standing with unsafe, regarless of the  situation.


You'd be better calling it 'safe not sitting', than safe standing, as the word standing is met with fingers in their ears and going lah, lah, lah, lah, lah, so they don't have to give an answer that they don't like.

What about safer supporting?

[Maggie May]

It would happen, but it is simple, and as long as it is presented to her as you sign or don't sign, you can rail and persuade other people to not sign as much as you like, but accept that we will get tens of thousand of signatures to trial this.  That is all it is, a trial.  Standing has moved on and we need to test it to see whether what we have been told about it is true.

It could be framed as follows, i guess?

MA: You are disrespecting the memory of the ones who died! (Did consider capitals )

Other: This is accepting that the world has moved on, modern standing is related to the Hillborough stadium in 1989 in the same way that you are to Saturn, ie not at all.  We are testing this to see and learn from it.  Would you like to be on the committee reviewing the results?

What do you think?

I think she'll go utterly fucking mental and scream herself into a blue fit. 

But I despise emotional blackmail, and I fail to see why a handful of people who don't go to games should have more say than a much larger number of people who actually do, who want to watch the match in conditions which suit them, and are becoming increasingly irritated and frustrated and sick and tired of being dictated to.   

[fatlip13]

I don't think our owners will be blackmailed emotionally. if enough supporters say they would like to stand or atleast trial it.

Margaret Aspinall is entitled to be against standing. if that means HSFG turns against the club then that would be unfortunate.

Hillsborough and football today are vastly different in stadiums and policing. Man Utd would not fly again going by this logic. some may choose not to, Dennis Bergkamp, for personal reasons.

when it comes in to other grounds, which I think it will, we may have to wait until it is shown to be as safe as seats

[LiverpoolKopKings]

I have been on the kop and every one is standing anyway, and in a scenario that is deffo dangerous considering that one push could result in an avalanche sliding down with many people tripping in the seat in front and ending up being trampled upon.

But as said in an earlier post, LFC has to sadly trail on this one. We need to see what happens in other clubs first. If this takes off, at least in the championship, there might be a chance.

We could then adopt the not wanting to be left behind stance.

[Peter McGurk]

I have been on the kop and every one is standing anyway, and in a scenario that is deffo dangerous considering that one push could result in an avalanche sliding down with many people tripping in the seat in front and ending up being trampled upon.

But as said in an earlier post, LFC has to sadly trail on this one. We need to see what happens in other clubs first. If this takes off, at least in the championship, there might be a chance.

We could then adopt the not wanting to be left behind stance.

And if people are hurt or killed in the meantime?

[Adamski LFC]

I have been on the kop and every one is standing anyway, and in a scenario that is deffo dangerous considering that one push could result in an avalanche sliding down with many people tripping in the seat in front and ending up being trampled upon.

But as said in an earlier post, LFC has to sadly trail on this one. We need to see what happens in other clubs first. If this takes off, at least in the championship, there might be a chance.

We could then adopt the not wanting to be left behind stance.

Although I said it is likely the case we will be at the tail end of the safe standing developments wouldn't it be incredible if we were in the vanguard on this issue.

Can anyone think of a better approach than a petition to try and distance the safe standing issue from the stance of the HFSG?

[Adamski LFC]

On a separate note, I think a standing KOP and say a standing lower tier of the Anfield Rd end, and going by a previous post suggesting a 1 to 2 conversion rate between seating and safer standing would increase the ground. Hence, putting the KOP up to say 24,000 and Anfield Rd up to approx 15,000, with simple maths that would take the overall to over 62,000 even without developing the Centenary or Main stands.  Admittedly, 70,000 seats my arse, but 40,000 standing and 30,000 seats could do it 

[Ruthless]

The Main reason for the expansion is increasing revenue though through corporate seating etc, and the reason we want safe standing is because there may be a possibility of us getting cheaper tickets. We can't do both due to the 60k-ish cap on the stadium size due to poor infrastructure. If we could do both it would be BOSS imagine having a 75000 seater anfield 

[CraigDS]

On a separate note, I think a standing KOP and say a standing lower tier of the Anfield Rd end, and going by a previous post suggesting a 1 to 2 conversion rate between seating and safer standing would increase the ground. Hence, putting the KOP up to say 24,000 and Anfield Rd up to approx 15,000, with simple maths that would take the overall to over 62,000 even without developing the Centenary or Main stands.  Admittedly, 70,000 seats my arse, but 40,000 standing and 30,000 seats could do it 

It's about 1.8 I think, so would put the Kop to about 22k, and Lower (at current size) to about 11,500 and that's if they did and, it all or just the away bit of that stand.

Put's it up to about 60k from where it currently is.

[Nessy76]

The Main reason for the expansion is increasing revenue though through corporate seating etc, and the reason we want safe standing is because there may be a possibility of us getting cheaper tickets. We can't do both due to the 60k-ish cap on the stadium size due to poor infrastructure. If we could do both it would be BOSS imagine having a 75000 seater anfield 

The transport issue is a big hurdle, but the club would make more money out of selling two tickets for £25 than one for £50 once you factor in the programmes, drinks, pies and whatever.

[Ruthless]

The transport issue is a big hurdle, but the club would make more money out of selling two tickets for £25 than one for £50 once you factor in the programmes, drinks, pies and whatever.

of course they would, not enough money to justify spending £100 million quid on infrastructure though

[CraigDS]

If, and it is a big if, safe standing makes an appearance in the PL I am sure the club and LCC will find some way around the transport issues which is acceptable to both club and council.

After all, they managed to work together to sort expanding Anfield so if that is possible then anything is!

[Adamski LFC]

It's about 1.8 I think, so would put the Kop to about 22k, and Lower (at current size) to about 11,500 and that's if they did and, it all or just the away bit of that stand.

Put's it up to about 60k from where it currently is.

Even with that 60k, aren't the current plans to add enough seating to up from 45k to 60k against the main and centenary stands?

That would make nearly 39K seated and 36.5K standing, even if they only half converted the Anny rd end that would make 34K standing plus 39K standing giving 73k.

[CraigDS]

Even with that 60k, aren't the current plans to add enough seating to up from 45k to 60k against the main and centenary stands?

That would make nearly 39K seated and 36.5K standing, even if they only half converted the Anny rd end that would make 34K standing plus 39K standing giving 73k.

Yeah with extending + safe standing it would be huge.

[Adamski LFC]

If, and it is a big if, safe standing makes an appearance in the PL I am sure the club and LCC will find some way around the transport issues which is acceptable to both club and council.

After all, they managed to work together to sort expanding Anfield so if that is possible then anything is!

Too true, as much as the Council lead wants a shared ground, it is in their interestets to facilitate better travel to Anfield to have the dual benefit of getting people into the ground and enabling the redeveloped Anfield area having ready access to the city for jobs, shopping etc.

[Adamski LFC]

If this were to be implemented, could ST ticket holders in the stands being converted be offered to swap were anyone willing from say the Main stand or Centenary stand who wanted seats?

[Peter McGurk]

Yeah with extending + safe standing it would be huge.

Possibly getting carried away here... a partially standing Anfield has more or less the same potential income as an all-seater Anfield but with greater costs (rail seating and infrastructure).

On the upside, a partially standing Anfield might fill more often than an all-seater Anfield, maybe.

[CraigDS]

Possibly getting carried away here... a partially standing Anfield has more or less the same potential income as an all-seater Anfield but with greater costs (rail seating and infrastructure).

On the upside, a partially standing Anfield might fill more often than an all-seater Anfield.

It's definitely getting carried away, as safe standing is a long way away from the PL, let alone us getting past the transport issues, etc.

Out of interest Peter, do you have any figures on average spend at the ground? As although tickets may be reduced at the same ratio as the capacity increases so no extra is made there, surely a further (approx) 10k in the ground would have some impact.

[Ruthless]

Possibly getting carried away here... a partially standing Anfield has more or less the same potential income as an all-seater Anfield but with greater costs (rail seating and infrastructure).

On the upside, a partially standing Anfield might fill more often than an all-seater Anfield, maybe.

Do you think we will have trouble filling Anfield Peter? Always seems to be a mental rush for tickets especially during the bulk sales

[Peter McGurk]

It's definitely getting carried away, as safe standing is a long way away from the PL, let alone us getting past the transport issues, etc.

Out of interest Peter, do you have any figures on average spend at the ground? As although tickets may be reduced at the same ratio as the capacity increases so no extra is made there, surely a further (approx) 10k in the ground would have some impact.

The only available figures are revenue per seat (about £940 - £1000 per seat per season) but that depends on price, standard/premium mix, packages, numbers of games per season, price of a pie... so it's all a bit hard to work out. I would suggest though, that those who want cheaper tickets (to stand) would tend to be those who spend less at the ground, possibly.

So safe standing is not a huge financial benefit. Financially, the club would be better off spending money to bring the before and after pub trade into the ground (or very close to it in a fan zone/village).

Do you think we will have trouble filling Anfield Peter? Always seems to be a mental rush for tickets especially during the bulk sales

I've always said 60,000 at £1200 average revenue per seat is a decent target. I've never been absolutely sure it can be done.

Season tickets are too expensive. There has to be more general sales. More people going to at least a few games.

[Ruthless]

I've always said 60,000 at £1200 average revenue per seat is a decent target. I've never been absolutely sure it can be done. Season tickets are too expensive. There has to be more general sales. More people going to at least a few games.

what about the possibility of a half season ticket? guaranteed sale and makes it more accessible

[Peter McGurk]

what about the possibility of a half season ticket? guaranteed sale and makes it more accessible

Absolutely. A quarter even. It's good to share.

[Jonny5]

why not just give you the option when you get your ST renewel, send out a list of games with a price next to each, tick the ones you want which in turn releases seats for other people.

how many people buy ST`s with no intention of going all the games.

or do they already have a scheme in place for ST holders to return tickets.

[Ruthless]

why not just give you the option when you get your ST renewel, send out a list of games with a price next to each, tick the ones you want which in turn releases seats for other people.

how many people buy ST`s with no intention of going all the games.

or do they already have a scheme in place for ST holders to return tickets.

already in place, you get £39 odd quid of credit for every game you return. i think it is discounted of next years season ticket

[CraigDS]

why not just give you the option when you get your ST renewel, send out a list of games with a price next to each, tick the ones you want which in turn releases seats for other people.

how many people buy ST`s with no intention of going all the games.

or do they already have a scheme in place for ST holders to return tickets.

They do have a scheme for that. The club want guaranteed income from renewals at end of May/June time, they don't want a load of renewals coming back with the 'lesser' games unticked by large proportions of ST holders bringing that income down.

The have a big ST waiting list so increase the % of the ground with them in, offer the 1/2 ST type things they already sell to more people, sell 1/4 packages as Peter said.

[Nessy76]

It's not unheard of for people to share season tickets, I know a few people who had one between them and a brother for a long time, for instance. But yes, it makes more sense for the club to just offer partial season tickets.

On filling the ground, the club currently does nothing to try and sell more tickets, they don't need to.

Think about how many adverts you see for the new kit every year, or for the club stores, or even for those wanky polo shirts with a liver bird on the front. But never tickets. There's no point advertising something that already sells out. And it is far from simple for new fans to get them. Go on the website any time you like and it's the same: sold out, sale ended. Whatever the match.

No-one knows how many tickets the club could sell if it was in a position where it might actually put some effort into doing so, but at the moment there's no need.

[Ruthless]

No-one knows how many tickets the club could sell if it was in a position where it might actually put some effort into doing so, but at the moment there's no need.

I'm fairly certain we would be able to sell out 100,000 seats against the mancs; though we would struggle for 65000 against the likes of Norwich on a Tuesday night. If safe standing was introduced and put in place i reckon we could easily do around 70K, even against the lesser known teams due to the cheaper tickets available to people.

[Peter McGurk]

They do have a scheme for that. The club want guaranteed income from renewals at end of May/June time, they don't want a load of renewals coming back with the 'lesser' games unticked by large proportions of ST holders bringing that income down.

The have a big ST waiting list so increase the % of the ground with them in, offer the 1/2 ST type things they already sell to more people, sell 1/4 packages as Peter said.

To an extent it's formalising what happens informally anyway but to give everyone the choice of games won't work.

I'm fairly certain we would be able to sell out 100,000 seats against the mancs; though we would struggle for 65000 against the likes of Norwich on a Tuesday night. If safe standing was introduced and put in place i reckon we could easily do around 70K, even against the lesser known teams due to the cheaper tickets available to people.

There's another thread been running many years on that subject.

Safe standing may mean more people can see at least a few games, particularly if prices are lower. There may already be 100,000 or 200,000 or half a million who go at least once a year but for any given game, there's only so many people who can or want to get to the match.

Cheaper tickets for standing or shared tickets generally might improve that number but nobody who hasn't had the benefit of the market research knows what those numbers might be.

[hitman89762000]

Wish youse would shut the fuck up about safe standing it wont happen at anfield.

[Tonyh]

And this is in "The Stadium Debate" folder.......

[Peter McGurk]

Wish youse would shut the fuck up about safe standing it wont happen at anfield.

It's a thread about safe standing.