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

[kopdude81]

Article in today's Irish Times. Celtic looking in to the possibility of introducing safe standing.

http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/soccer/celtic-to-explore-safe-standing-areas-at-parkhead-1.1538630?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Celtic to explore safe-standing areas at Parkhead

Scottish champions keen to embrace ‘new vibrancy’ with German-style terracing


Celtic chief executive Peter Lawwell has revealed the club are keen to explore safe-standing areas at their Parkhead ground.

The Scottish Premier League relaxed its rules on all-seater stadia in December 2011 to allow clubs to experiment with the modern standing areas which have been introduced in the Bundesliga among other places.

No club has followed through on trying out the likes of rail seats, which can be converted from standing to sitting areas for European games, but Celtic are now close to becoming the first.

The club have had differences of opinion with a section of fans who stand throughout games, the Green Brigade, and Lawwell feels safe-standing areas could solve those issues.

Lawwell told Press Association Sport: “We think that some of the systems that are now deployed in Germany and other countries, it’s now time to give them a try.

“We feel there is a new vibrancy in football that has come from Europe and is now in the UK.

“It’s an energy and youthfulness and the safest way of being able to manage that is through safe standing. These are new systems that have come in place that are extremely safe and we are very keen to explore further implementing that at Celtic Park.”

Celtic quickly reversed a recent decision to close section 111, which houses the Green Brigade, after reaching an agreement with the supporters over a number of safety issues, including “lateral movement”. And Lawwell is keen to provide a different environment for the fans to continue producing the atmosphere that has lifted

Celtic Park in domestic games. “We recognise that they bring an awful lot to the game, to the event here,” he said. “But there are certain aspects of the behavior that we would deem not safe. Therefore this would be the ultimate solution for that.”

Lawwell explained the process that Celtic are set to undertake.

“I think we need to go to the safety committee at Glasgow City Council,” he said. “They consult with the police, ambulance, fire service and building control, and we need approval from them.

“It’s not legislation but I think Holyrood need a policy review, rather than legislation, with regard to allowing this to happen as well. We will apply for that.”

Scotland is not bound by the legislation on all-seater stadia which came out of the Taylor Report, which looked at the reasons for the Hillsborough disaster that claimed the lives of 96 Liverpool fans in 1989.

[CHOPPER]

An Irish paper, discussing a Scottish team that doesn't fall under the legislation of the English league. Hmmmmmmmmmm





There's an Englishman, an Irishman and a Scotsman and they all want to stand at the match............

[kopdude81]

An Irish paper, discussing a Scottish team that doesn't fall under the legislation of the English league. Hmmmmmmmmmm





There's an Englishman, an Irishman and a Scotsman and they all want to stand at the match............

Well they're direct quotes from Lawwell and from a reputable paper so it doesn't matter where the fuck the paper is based.

If it gets the backing from authorities it will be interesting to see how it operates. Just thought it merited mention here.

[Peter McGurk]

Well they're direct quotes from Lawwell and from a reputable paper so it doesn't matter where the fuck the paper is based.

If it gets the backing from authorities it will be interesting to see how it operates. Just thought it merited mention here.

It's worth noting that Celtic are considering introducing safe standing to make their stadium safer

Persistent standing in seated areas is not allowed in England or Wales. It's unsafe but everybody does it.

[kopdude81]

It's worth noting that Celtic are considering introducing safe standing to make their stadium safer

Persistent standing in seated areas is not allowed in England or Wales. It's unsafe but everybody does it.

I've followed your posts closely Peter and also your blog on your website so I understand the issues with safe standing and the ban on standing at the moment in England and Wales. I just thought this article and indeed the possibility of safe standing being introduced to a large football stadium in Britain might be interesting to the authorities, fans and law makers in England. We'll see I guess.

[LiverpoolKopKings]

Seems others are considering it as well. The below state the mancs are in it as well: -

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/manchester-united-to-consider-return-of-standing-8887626.html

In the same article it states that Aston Villa, Cardiff, Sunderland, Crystal Palace, Swansea and Hull already seem to have given the nod for it.

[Peter McGurk]

Seems others are considering it as well. The below state the mancs are in it as well: -

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/manchester-united-to-consider-return-of-standing-8887626.html

In the same article it states that Aston Villa, Cardiff, Sunderland, Crystal Palace, Swansea and Hull already seem to have given the nod for it.

'One standing for one seat' is missing at least half the point. It won't be cheaper and it won't make tickets more available. And will it improve the atmosphere? Most clubs have one standing for one seat already.

[Macedonian Red Reborn]

'One standing for one seat' is missing at least half the point. It win 't be cheaper and it won't make tickets more available. And will it improve the atmosphere? Most clubs have one standing for one seat already.

It would have to be 2 standing for 1 seat. Something like the German model of safe standing.



I can't see it ever being implemented at Anfield, for obvious reasons.

[Peter McGurk]

It would have to be 2 standing for 1 seat. Something like the German model of safe standing.


I can't see it ever being implemented at Anfield, for obvious reasons.

Yes it would have to be two for one, to make any difference. So this compromise proposed by MUST is not that useful.

Nothing is ever obvious. Everything bears closer scrutiny. All seater stadia are to control 'yobs', not save lives per se.

[LiverpoolKopKings]

'One standing for one seat' is missing at least half the point. It won't be cheaper and it won't make tickets more available. And will it improve the atmosphere? Most clubs have one standing for one seat already.

Peter I was merely pointing out that there are others considering it, not how it should be. Also to note that the same article still refers to Hillsborough and the mud still sticking because of it.

[Peter McGurk]

Peter I was merely pointing out that there are others considering it, not how it should be. Also to note that the same article still refers to Hillsborough and the mud still sticking because of it.

It's United who are missing the point and MUST in particular. It's a half-baked compromise, neither use not ornament nor even just a way of establishing standing and working to double up the numbers later.

[Alan B'Stard]

I think its safe to say that standing VS seating will always divide opinion for all the obvious reasons.
I hope to god that the thought of standing is not just someones bright idea to try and double a clubs matchday revenue over common sense and saftey.

You can look at most German clubs as a prime example of how the model works in modern football. In terms of cost, how does it compare to a seating ticket?

[Peter McGurk]

I think its safe to say that standing VS seating will always divide opinion for all the obvious reasons.
I hope to god that the thought of standing is not just someones bright idea to try and double a clubs matchday revenue over common sense and saftey.

You can look at most German clubs as a prime example of how the model works in modern football. In terms of cost, how does it compare to a seating ticket?

Borussia Dortmund:

"Tickets range in price from €29.00 for a seat in the upper corners to €50.00 for a central seat at the main stand. A ticket for the South Stand (standing) costs €15.00. Prices are increased with 20% for six top matches.

- See more at: http://www.stadiumguide.com/westfalenstadion/#sthash.UqgNHPka.dpuf"

[Alan B'Stard]

Borussia Dortmund:

"Tickets range in price from €29.00 for a seat in the upper corners to €50.00 for a central seat at the main stand. A ticket for the South Stand (standing) costs €15.00. Prices are increased with 20% for six top matches.

- See more at: http://www.stadiumguide.com/westfalenstadion/#sthash.UqgNHPka.dpuf"

That seams reasonble.
The trouble is we are now talking Premier League where ticket prices are over inflated. I would imagine going fwd a ticket for the Kop would be in the region of £40.00 for a standing space. Its critical, if this ever gets approved, that FSG understand the price difference and not just see £££ signs trying double their money.
I appreciate they will have a stadium to pay for but there are ways and means of paying that off and not just through match day revenue.

[Peter McGurk]

That seams reasonble.
The trouble is we are now talking Premier League where ticket prices are over inflated. I would imagine going fwd a ticket for the Kop would be in the region of £40.00 for a standing space. Its critical, if this ever gets approved, that FSG understand the price difference and not just see £££ signs trying double their money.
I appreciate they will have a stadium to pay for but there are ways and means of paying that off and not just through match day revenue.

The point of a bigger stadium is to generate more money to be more competitive. It is not just to 'pay it off'.

If the club manages to secure naming rights or whatever sponsorships, that's great but not for paying for the stadium. The ONLY source of income for the stadium is match day revenue, gate receipts, hospitality.

In terms of getting more money in, standing would allow more people who can afford it less - particularly the young and particularly those who can't or don't want to afford a season ticket.

The club believes it can fill 60k at seating prices. The question would be, does the club think it can fill a 70,000 capacity stadium if it offers 20,000 or so at dramatically lower prices and would the overall revenue increase or fall.

[LiverBirdKop]

The club believes it can fill 60k at seating prices. The question would be, does the club think it can fill a 70,000 capacity stadium if it offers 20,000 or so at dramatically lower prices and would the overall revenue increase or fall.

If enough people purchase those cheaper seats they could make up the difference and maybe more with sales of food, souvenirs, bevvies, match day progs,  parking etc.  (Improved access to more concession stands would help here as well).

Atmosphere would improve that's for sure.

[Peter McGurk]

If enough people purchase those cheaper seats they could make up the difference and maybe more with sales of food, souvenirs, bevvies, match day progs,  parking etc.  (Improved access to more concession stands would help here as well).

Atmosphere would improve that's for sure.

I would agree and I hope the club would too but you and I are not the ones putting the money (for the installation of rail seating) on the table to take the risk.

It could be we'll only ever fill 60k standing or sitting, in which case the revenue would fall. On the other hand... the extra capacity, standing and sitting, could work out very well all round - for the club and the fans, if the cost of transport could be handled.

[Nessy76]

I would agree and I hope the club would too but you and I are not the ones putting the money (for the installation of rail seating) on the table to take the risk.

It could be we'll only ever fill 60k standing or sitting, in which case the revenue would fall. On the other hand... the extra capacity, standing and sitting, could work out very well all round - for the club and the fans if the cost of transport could be handled.

I think it's clear that for any given game at the moment, there will be people who would like to go who don't because they can't afford a ticket. That's inevitable given the demographics of the city and the prices of tickets these days.

To take it to an extreme, if the club was giving tickets away free then more people would come.

If the club is of the opinion (and they will have done a lot of research on this) that the stadium can regularly sell 60k tickets at close to the current prices, then finding another 10k would logically be just a question of pricing.

The tricky bit would be to find the right balance, where it would make more money than just 60k sitting, but be affordable enough to be an attractive offer to those who otherwise wouldn't come to the ground.

However, standing or seated, those fans would still need to travel to the game. A lot of people who would want cheaper tickets would probably also want to use public transport to reach the ground. As I understand it, that's a problem if we want a capacity over 60k.

If we can't (for the time being) go over 60 thousand people going to the ground, and the club reckons it can sell that many seats, then any proposition for reducing the price for any of those tickets without also reducing the cost is basically the club throwing money away.

[Peter McGurk]

I think it's clear that for any given game at the moment, there will be people who would like to go who don't because they can't afford a ticket. That's inevitable given the demographics of the city and the prices of tickets these days.

To take it to an extreme, if the club was giving tickets away free then more people would come.

If the club is of the opinion (and they will have done a lot of research on this) that the stadium can regularly sell 60k tickets at close to the current prices, then finding another 10k would logically be just a question of pricing.

The tricky bit would be to find the right balance, where it would make more money than just 60k sitting, but be affordable enough to be an attractive offer to those who otherwise wouldn't come to the ground.

However, standing or seated, those fans would still need to travel to the game. A lot of people who would want cheaper tickets would probably also want to use public transport to reach the ground. As I understand it, that's a problem if we want a capacity over 60k.

If we can't (for the time being) go over 60 thousand people going to the ground, and the club reckons it can sell that many seats, then any proposition for reducing the price for any of those tickets without also reducing the cost is basically the club throwing money away.

It depends on where the club or rather the owners, draw the line of acceptable risk. Clearly a 70,000 new stadium whether all-seating or not is way over the line.

As clear, they are convinced that 60k at seating prices is acceptable. We don't know if that's baseline or already a bit of a punt.

The  owners may think going the extra (£10m? £30m?) for rail seating is an acceptable risk for immediate gain (more people in the ground, greater atmosphere, better financial return) and for the long term health of the club (younger fans, next generation secured, bigger pool of match goers).

[CraigDS]

Plus the costs of improving the transport links, which are massive, so even if standing was legal and was a possibility, the costs of improving the transport make it a no go.

[Peter McGurk]

Plus the costs of improving the transport links, which are massive, so even if standing was legal and was a possibility, the costs of improving the transport make it a no go.

That would be on the ludicrous assumption that opening a railway line would be necessary.

[CraigDS]

That would be on the ludicrous assumption that opening a railway line would be necessary.

Pretty much a requirement wasnt it for going above the 60k mark?

[Eeyore]

That would be on the ludicrous assumption that opening a railway line would be necessary.

Yes because it is perfectly reasonable for tens of thousands of people to trudge through the wind and the snow in a vain attempt to walk back to Lime Street Station after a night match. The railway line may not be the right solution but something needs to be done because the transport links away from Anfield after a night match are abysmal. Adding to that capacity without improving those links is a recipe for disaster.

[Peter McGurk]

Pretty much a requirement wasnt it for going above the 60k mark?

The traffic/public transport was addressed in going from 45k to 60k. Bearing in mind that the capacity had been at one time or another 54k, it would have been a stetch particularly with greater car ownership but nonetheless there was a traffic management plan which was approved.

The process would be pretty much the same for 70k - there's the problem, fix it.

There was a lot of talk at the time about re-opening the railway line for pedestrians and maybe it was thought a larger capacity should bear the cost. Quite impossible. Quite ludicrous.

In fact the economics of the railway line are such that it was the least preferred option even if all the areas on the line were miraculously regenerated at a stroke. In short there are better, easier and cheaper ways of solving the problem. More buses, less cars immediately at the ground, more park-and-rides.

[Eeyore]

The traffic/public transport was addressed in going from 45k to 60k. Bearing in mind that the capacity had been at one time or another 54k, it would have been a stetch particularly with greater car ownership but nonetheless there was a traffic management plan which was approved.

The process would be pretty much the same for 70k - there's the problem, fix it.

There was a lot of talk at the time about re-opening the railway line for pedestrians and maybe it was thought a larger capacity should bear the cost. Quite impossible. Quite ludicrous.

In fact the economics of the railway line are such that it was the least preferred option even if all the areas on the line were miraculously regenerated at a stroke. In short there are better, easier and cheaper ways of solving the problem. More buses, less cars immediately at the ground, more park-and-rides.

Who is going to pay for more buses Peter ?

[Garstonite]

It would have to be 2 standing for 1 seat. Something like the German model of safe standing.



I can't see it ever being implemented at Anfield, for obvious reasons.

Would the seats have to be blue, because obviously we play in Red.

[Macedonian Red Reborn]

Would the seats have to be blue, because obviously we play in Red.

[Garstonite]

Ah, OK. Cheers buddy.

[Nessy76]

It depends on where the club or rather the owners, draw the line of acceptable risk. Clearly a 70,000 new stadium whether all-seating or not is way over the line.

As clear, they are convinced that 60k at seating prices is acceptable. We don't know if that's baseline or already a bit of a punt.

The  owners may think going the extra (£10m? £30m?) for rail seating is an acceptable risk for immediate gain (more people in the ground, greater atmosphere, better financial return) and for the long term health of the club (younger fans, next generation secured, bigger pool of match goers).

I don't think they'd be looking to expand to 60k on a punt. They've done a fair bit of research on the ST waiting lists and so on, and they'll have a pretty good idea just from how tickets tend to sell at the moment. The capacity question has been gone over elsewhere at great length.

When you say an extra £10-£30m or so, does that imply that rail seats are more expensive than normal seats to install and maintain?

As for the transport thing, there are a lot of good reasons to put a passenger rail line through that part of the city, but match traffic wouldn't justify it alone and we're unlikely to see that scale of public investment on a new local service any time soon.

Even an expansion to 60k requires some means of getting an extra fifteen thousand people to the ground, another ten on top of that is potentially a very big problem. Merseyrail trains only hold about two hundred people, so even a shuttle service running from two hours before kick off wouldn't make much of a dent in that crowd.

[Peter McGurk]

I don't think they'd be looking to expand to 60k on a punt. They've done a fair bit of research on the ST waiting lists and so on, and they'll have a pretty good idea just from how tickets tend to sell at the moment. The capacity question has been gone over elsewhere at great length.

When you say an extra £10-£30m or so, does that imply that rail seats are more expensive than normal seats to install and maintain?

As for the transport thing, there are a lot of good reasons to put a passenger rail line through that part of the city, but match traffic wouldn't justify it alone and we're unlikely to see that scale of public investment on a new local service any time soon.

Even an expansion to 60k requires some means of getting an extra fifteen thousand people to the ground, another ten on top of that is potentially a very big problem. Merseyrail trains only hold about two hundred people, so even a shuttle service running from two hours before kick off wouldn't make much of a dent in that crowd.

Yes, I very much doubt it would be 60k on a punt but maybe there’s an element of acceptable risk in there. The break even with a basic return is probably about 55k.

Rail seating won’t come for free obviously and I’ve seen no published figures on cost but it would be the cost of taking the old seats out, putting the new in and upgrading exits and what other works would be required.

You could look up how many people and how many trains an hour but no-one has to bother. The out and out cost is prohibitive.

[£5m-£10m per station and just one won’t do (it couldn’t possibly sustain the other costs), electrification (although this may be on the cards for goods anyway), electronics/signaling for passenger traffic, timetabling issues with long, slow and heavy freight trains, significant engineering works at both ends of the line (unless you only want to come from Huyton/Manchester or, end up in the docks)].

Yes because it is perfectly reasonable for tens of thousands of people to trudge through the wind and the snow in a vain attempt to walk back to Lime Street Station after a night match. The railway line may not be the right solution but something needs to be done because the transport links away from Anfield after a night match are abysmal. Adding to that capacity without improving those links is a recipe for disaster.

Who is going to pay for more buses Peter ?

70% of people go to the match by car, apparently. The previous consented scheme worked on the principle of no extra private car journeys to within a control zone a certain distance from the ground. Any other scheme would no doubt work on the same principles - maybe more of it.

The scheme was to extend the control zone and to put five or six park and rides centres on the perimeter with shuttle buses to the ground with bus ticket prices included in the match ticket.

There would have been more soccer buses from Sandhills Rail Station, more coach parking, more bus stops for city buses (and hence more buses), road closures and police management.

The scheme would be paid for by the club. You would have to buy a ticket.

[Lolo]

How does a safe standing 'rail seat' compare with a current seat as regards seat spacing and incline?

It looks like when used as seats, rail-seats take up more space than a current all-seater arrangement....or is this just an optical illusion from the pictures we keep seeing?
If my assumption is correct, is it not as simple as just ripping out the current seats and replacing them with rail seats......all the inclines and concrete base would need to be re-laid.

[mactifosi]

How does a safe standing 'rail seat' compare with a current seat as regards seat spacing and incline?

It looks like when used as seats, rail-seats take up more space than a current all-seater arrangement....or is this just an optical illusion from the pictures we keep seeing?
If my assumption is correct, is it not as simple as just ripping out the current seats and replacing them with rail seats......all the inclines and concrete base would need to be re-laid.

My only experience of it was in this brand new stadium below.
I found it a little bit cramped but definitely safer than normal seating for a couple of reasons.



1. passing people with normal seating can be precarious, I often see people slipping to the row below them,
with these rails it is much safer to do this.

2. people standing in normal seating areas sometimes slip or fall.
For example, yesterday while at a match, one guy fell forward and took out several people in the rows in front until they fell on me. I think one poor guy broke his leg.


I'm not an engineer but I would imagine the concrete would have to be relaid to add the steel railings.

[Peter McGurk]

How does a safe standing 'rail seat' compare with a current seat as regards seat spacing and incline?

It looks like when used as seats, rail-seats take up more space than a current all-seater arrangement....or is this just an optical illusion from the pictures we keep seeing?
If my assumption is correct, is it not as simple as just ripping out the current seats and replacing them with rail seats......all the inclines and concrete base would need to be re-laid.

As it stands the kop is at an angle and tread spacing which would be acceptable to current UK regulations for standing areas. The introduction of rail seating might decrease the tread depth slightly.

However, the tread depth depends on distance between barriers. Clearly it doesn't consider that there would be a barrier every two steps, which would be safer than envisaged.

In Germany, the standing stands are steeper and the treads shorter to take the much greater number of barriers into account. It's easier to see when you are closer to the person in front (it's all about angles) and it could be that that standard could be adopted in the UK.

The exits are sized according to the amount of time taken to evacuate the capacity. There may be spare time in the system or not which would dictate by how much or how many the exits would need to increase to maintain the required evacuation time.

[CraigDS]

I assume, should the floor area of the Kop be kept as it is, if safe standing was installed then the seating capacity would drop a fair bit from it's current level?

[Peter McGurk]

I assume, should the floor area of the Kop be kept as it is, if safe standing was installed then the seating capacity would drop a fair bit from it's current level?

Only by the increase in numbers or widths of exits - one or two hundred perhaps.

The standing capacity would be almost double.

[CraigDS]

Only by the increase in numbers or widths of exits - one or two hundred perhaps.

The standing capacity would be almost double (1.8 times)

If the rails are only every other (current) step then wouldn't this mean that the seats would then be on every other step rather than every step as it currently is?

[Alf Garnett]

Only by the increase in numbers or widths of exits - one or two hundred perhaps.

The standing capacity would be almost double.

Have you ever been on the Kop?

[Peter McGurk]

If the rails are only every other (current) step then wouldn't this mean that the seats would then be on every other step rather than every step as it currently is?

There would either two standing per step or an intermediate step between each existing step. The Germans also have a system for this... (a steel fold-down)

[Peter McGurk]

Have you ever been on the Kop?

From about 1974. Why?

[Alf Garnett]

There would either two standing per step or an intermediate step between each existing step. The Germans also have a system for this... (a steel fold-down)

Are you saying you could get 2x people in each current space?