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

[kavah]

Great new, this is the way forward.

[CentenaryBoy]

As a short arse, I've never been that fond of standing at football matches, but I understand why others like it. But we are never going to bring back standing at Anfield. I'm not passing judgement on that decision, I'm just stating the facts. I doubt the Premier League would ever agree to it - and even if they did, we wouldn't go ahead with it, out of respect to the Hillsborough families.

[ghirl67]

Will be interesting to see what ratio of seats/standing they've gone for.

It is 1:1

[CraigDS]

It is 1:1

Pointless then.

You got a link to anything which discusses it?

[CraigDS]

As a short arse, I've never been that fond of standing at football matches, but I understand why others like it. But we are never going to bring back standing at Anfield. I'm not passing judgement on that decision, I'm just stating the facts. I doubt the Premier League would ever agree to it - and even if they did, we wouldn't go ahead with it, out of respect to the Hillsborough families.

You're probably in the minority, of all match going football fans not just Liverpool fans, who think this way.

It'll happen at some point in the next decade, I'm fairly sure of that.

[Paul]

Pointless then.

If it's safer than the current "standing in seated areas", then its by no means pointless.

[CraigDS]

If it's safer than the current "standing in seated areas", then its by no means pointless.

The problem is that I don't think there is enough of a problem of standing in seated areas, in the eyes of the powers that be, to encourage them to make the change to allow standing areas. Or to encourage clubs to spend the money to comply with safe standing when the income won't change.

There needs to be other aspects to it too, such as allowing prices to lowered, and the only way that'll happen is if there is a better ratio than 1:1 - especially given you can safely have approaching 1:2 with this system.

Pointless may have been a bit of an exaggeration, but it's not a million miles from it.

[Peter McGurk]

The problem is that I don't think there is enough of a problem of standing in seated areas, in the eyes of the powers that be, to encourage them to make the change to allow standing areas. Or to encourage clubs to spend the money to comply with safe standing when the income won't change.

There needs to be other aspects to it too, such as allowing prices to lowered, and the only way that'll happen is if there is a better ratio than 1:1 - especially given you can safely have approaching 1:2 with this system.

Pointless may have been a bit of an exaggeration, but it's not a million miles from it.

TV has changed the economics of stadium building dramatically. From the only income generator, the stadium has become less important and general admission is way behind hospitality.

Of course no-one is going to spend more on standing than the income to justify it but it's not that hard to change from seating to standing (Dortmund do it in two or three days) and technically the numbers do approach 1:2, so a reduction in price can be achieved - even if it's just for the mega games, a 70,000 capacity is both fillable and achievable.

What a fantastic experience it would be too and our manager at least knows the power of the crowd to lift the team. Nothing breeds success like success (and the money earned from it).

The outlay is probably not huge. Even so, on the face of it it might not seem worth it but in the bigger picture, it's starting to make financial as well as football sense.

[CraigDS]

TV has changed the economics of stadium building dramatically. From the only income generator, the stadium has become less important and general admission is way behind hospitality.

Of course no-one is going to spend more on standing than the income to justify it but it's not that hard to change from seating to standing (Dortmund do it in two or three days) and technically the numbers do approach 1:2, so a reduction in price can be achieved - even if it's just for the mega games, a 70,000 capacity is both fillable and achievable.

What a fantastic experience it would be too and our manager at least knows the power of the crowd to lift the team. Nothing breeds success like success (and the money earned from it). On the face of it it might not seem worth it but in the bigger picture, it's starting to make financial as well as football sense.

I'm on about if it was 1:1 though mate, which is what someone has said Celtic are doing and is what I said was pointless.

If it's anything above 1:1, even if it's 1:1.5, then there is suddenly a much bigger case for it. If it's 1:1 then the powers that be will be a lot harder to persuade I fear.

[Peter McGurk]

I'm on about if it was 1:1 though mate, which is what someone has said Celtic are doing and is what I said was pointless.

If it's anything above 1:1, even if it's 1:1.5, then there is suddenly a much bigger case for it. If it's 1:1 then the powers that be will be a lot harder to persuade I fear.

I realise that but Im saying it's not so much about the money any more. I think the FA would have a real concern about 'de-gentrification' of the game - a return as they would see it, to the days of 'thugs and louts'.

[CraigDS]

I realise that but Im saying it's not so much about the money any more. I think the FA would have a real concern about 'de-gentrification' of the game.

You honestly think any club is going to go to the expense of fitting safe standing (and whatever requirements are imposed on them for the introduction of this) when it see's no change in revenue? Or even worse see's a drop in ticket revenue from those seats?

I'm not saying it definitely wouldn't happen, but it would make 'selling' the idea a lot harder.

I totally get the 'importance' of stadium income is diminishing, but at the same time clubs aren't going to let themselves lose out on it either, the ticket prices are pretty good evidence of this.

[Eeyore]

The problem is that I don't think there is enough of a problem of standing in seated areas, in the eyes of the powers that be, to encourage them to make the change to allow standing areas. Or to encourage clubs to spend the money to comply with safe standing when the income won't change.

There needs to be other aspects to it too, such as allowing prices to lowered, and the only way that'll happen is if there is a better ratio than 1:1 - especially given you can safely have approaching 1:2 with this system.

Pointless may have been a bit of an exaggeration, but it's not a million miles from it.

When people talk about safe standing they always cite Dortmund as an example. Unfortunately when you look a bit deeper then it isn't as safe as people like to portray it. Even without the extra numbers that standing brings Dortmund have been having problems.

Friday 8 April 2016 14.20CET

Disciplinary proceedings have been opened following the UEFA Europa League first-leg quarter final between Borussia Dortmund and Liverpool FC (1-1) played on 7 April in Germany.

Charges against Borussia Dortmund:

 - Stairways blocked – Art. 38 of UEFA Safety & Security Regulations

Tuesday 15 March 2016 14.57CET

Disciplinary proceedings have been opened following the UEFA Europa League round of 16 first-leg between Borussia Dortmund and Tottenham Hotspur FC (3-0) played on 10 March in Germany.

Charges against Borussia Dortmund:

- Stairways blocked - Art. 38 of UEFA Safety and Security Regulations

The case will be dealt with by the UEFA Control, Ethics and Disciplinary Body on 19 May.

[Peter McGurk]

You honestly think any club is going to go to the expense of fitting safe standing (and whatever requirements are imposed on them for the introduction of this) when it see's no change in revenue? Or even worse see's a drop in ticket revenue from those seats?

I'm not saying it definitely wouldn't happen, but it would make 'selling' the idea a lot harder.

I totally get the 'importance' of stadium income is diminishing, but at the same time clubs aren't going to let themselves lose out on it either, the ticket prices are pretty good evidence of this.

I honestly think there is an alternative business case to standing. I don't think for one second anyone's going to think about losing money on it but it works, it's safe and it can stack up financially.

When people talk about safe standing they always cite Dortmund as an example. Unfortunately when you look a bit deeper then it isn't as safe as people like to portray it. Even without the extra numbers that standing brings Dortmund have been having problems.

Friday 8 April 2016 14.20CET

Disciplinary proceedings have been opened following the UEFA Europa League first-leg quarter final between Borussia Dortmund and Liverpool FC (1-1) played on 7 April in Germany.

Charges against Borussia Dortmund:

 - Stairways blocked – Art. 38 of UEFA Safety & Security Regulations

Tuesday 15 March 2016 14.57CET

Disciplinary proceedings have been opened following the UEFA Europa League round of 16 first-leg between Borussia Dortmund and Tottenham Hotspur FC (3-0) played on 10 March in Germany.

Charges against Borussia Dortmund:

- Stairways blocked - Art. 38 of UEFA Safety and Security Regulations

The case will be dealt with by the UEFA Control, Ethics and Disciplinary Body on 19 May.

And no-one's saying it won't be regulated. Just like sitting is regulated (talking about blocked access ways)

[CraigDS]

When people talk about safe standing they always cite Dortmund as an example. Unfortunately when you look a bit deeper then it isn't as safe as people like to portray it. Even without the extra numbers that standing brings Dortmund have been having problems.

What has standing in the stairway got to do with safe standing mate? The seats were installed for that game as the standing isn't allowed during European games.

I believe both ourselves and United got charged for it at Old Trafford in the game before, so is seating not safe either in that case?

[CraigDS]

I honestly think there is an alternative business case to standing. I don't think for one second anyone's going to think about losing money on it but it works, it's safe and it can stack up financially.

It can when it's not 1:1, totally agree mate. I'm nothing but a big big advocate of safe standing.

I just don't think it'll happen if it's 1:1. In fact it simply can't do anything but lose money at that ratio unless you charge more for standing seats as you'd have to cover the conversion cost to not lose.

[Eeyore]

What has standing in the stairway got to do with safe standing mate? The seats were installed for that game as the standing isn't allowed during European games.

I believe both ourselves and United got charged for it at Old Trafford in the game before, so is seating not safe either in that case?

Surely the more people you have in an area the more chance you have of stairways being blocked, which is a major safety issue.

[Peter McGurk]

As a short arse, I've never been that fond of standing at football matches, but I understand why others like it. But we are never going to bring back standing at Anfield. I'm not passing judgement on that decision, I'm just stating the facts. I doubt the Premier League would ever agree to it - and even if they did, we wouldn't go ahead with it, out of respect to the Hillsborough families.

It wouldn't be as if everyone would be obliged to stand. We're not talking about the whole ground.

The FA haven't exactly shone at Hillsborough. Their responses have often been shameful and I hope there's more coming too them. On that basis, I suspect the FA may be more concerned about taking the game to the middle classes to avoid the threat of a return to the 'bad old days'.

Not all of the families agree on this and I've seen nothing in the verdicts that has raised standing as a contributory factor. Even the police have said that safe standing is safe. They are concerned that it is 'less policeable' - that is, there would be more trouble.

It can when it's not 1:1, totally agree mate. I'm nothing but a big big advocate of safe standing.

I just don't think it'll happen if it's 1:1. In fact it simply can't do anything but lose money at that ratio unless you charge more for standing seats as you'd have to cover the conversion cost to not lose.

Agreed. And yes, you would have to charge more. But it could happen (after all it is happening). It would be my biggest fear. At 1:1, Iower prices would be dead in the water.

[CraigDS]

Surely the more people you have in an area the more chance you have of stairways being blocked, which is a major safety issue.

Strange logic that though given the amount of people in that space at that time were the same as the amount of seats, no more.

[CHOPPER]

Its a call that for my belief, the families should have a say in. Having said that, it was a combination of unsafe - grounds and more damming - unsafe policing that has us here where we are today.

Its an emotive subject and not everyone will agree what ever the decision is, if there is even a decision to be made at all.

[Peter McGurk]

Its a call that for my belief, the families should have a say in. Having said that, it was a combination of unsafe - grounds and more damming - unsafe policing that has us here where we are today.

Its an emotive subject and not everyone will agree what ever the decision is, if there is even a decision to be made at all.

I disagree with this. Which is not to be disrespectful but a safe standing area is a safe standing area. And bad policing is bad policing.

[Eeyore]

Strange logic that though given the amount of people in that space at that time were the same as the amount of seats, no more.

The logic is that it is incredibly difficult to control crowds of people safely. Doubling the number of fans in an area makes that harder to achieve, combine that with people not being allocated a seat and it becomes harder.

Its a call that for my belief, the families should have a say in. Having said that, it was a combination of unsafe - grounds and more damming - unsafe policing that has us here where we are today.

Its an emotive subject and not everyone will agree what ever the decision is, if there is even a decision to be made at all.

That is pretty much where I am at mate. The two things that trouble me are that I simply don't think the authorities in this country be trusted to get things right especially if you drastically increase the number of fans in an area.

[CHOPPER]

I disagree with this. Which is not to be disrespectful but a safe standing area is a safe standing area. And bad policing is bad policing.

Which adds to the crux of my point - not every one will agree.

Its a debate and decision(possibly) which should canvass as large a group of stakeholders as possible. From us low(seemingly) end fans to the top end of the PL, with each opinions carrying as much weight as the next, whether that will be the case is another matter.

[Peter McGurk]

Strange logic that though given the amount of people in that space at that time were the same as the amount of seats, no more.

Whatever the details of the staircase blockages at Dortmund but as with any stand, sitting or standing, the rules have to be followed (and there has to be contingency in place if not).

I would agree there would be more of a tendency to standing in aisles with more people but I don't see how this would affect staircases, which should be sized properly for the number concerned

[Peter McGurk]

Which adds to the crux of my point - not every one will agree.

Its a debate and decision(possibly) which should canvass as large a group of stakeholders as possible. From us low(seemingly) end fans to the top end of the PL, with each opinions carrying as much weight as the next, whether that will be the case is another matter.

I had a colleague who was an expert in crowd dynamics - how people move (or rather are moved) in crowded situations. He'd spent thirty years in the job looking at just that, nothing else. Incidentally, his truth was that people have very little control over their own movements above a certain level of 'crowd'. The aim should be to keep below that level. I trusted his opinion way over mine.

[CraigDS]

The logic is that it is incredibly difficult to control crowds of people safely. Doubling the number of fans in an area makes that harder to achieve, combine that with people not being allocated a seat and it becomes harder.

I don't know if it makes it harder or not. They seem to do OK where safe standing is implemented in Germany, but I'm not involved in the policing or stewarding there to really comment.

And no, you're not allocated a seat, you're allocated a numbered space in front of (or behind) a seat. 1 seat, 1 person. 1 space, 1 person. It's no different.

[CHOPPER]

I had a colleague who was an expert in crowd dynamics - how people move (or rather are moved) in crowded situations. He'd spent thirty years in the job looking at just that, nothing else. Incidentally, his truth was that people have very little control over their own movements above a certain level of 'crowd'. I trusted his opinion way over mine.

He'd be an ideal person to have on a working group to see if a 'safe-standing' area would be viable and above all else, safe.
Some science rather than the more obvious one of how many can we get in and how much can we charge - which may well be a sweeping generalisation of clubs and their major priority, but it will be a major factor. We may even find to stand in modern football costs more than it does to sit - how big a turnaround would that be from 70 and 80's football!

[Peter McGurk]

The logic is that it is incredibly difficult to control crowds of people safely. Doubling the number of fans in an area makes that harder to achieve, combine that with people not being allocated a seat and it becomes harder.

Not all crowds are uncontrollable or even incredibly difficult to control. If doubling a number is still a safe number it's still a safe number. The trouble comes when grossly negligent officers double the safe number.

[Peter McGurk]

He'd be an ideal person to have on a working group to see if a 'safe-standing' area would be viable and above all else, safe.
Some science rather than the more obvious one of how many can we get in and how much can we charge - which may well be a sweeping generalisation of clubs and their major priority, but it will be a major factor. We may even find to stand in modern football costs more than it does to sit - how big a turnaround would that be from 70 and 80's football!

He was consulted after Hillsborough.

[CHOPPER]

He was consulted after Hillsborough.

If the drive to safe standing did become a reality, he'd be someone(or someone with his knowledge) that should be a key player. Having said that, some people just don't want standing, some do. All very emotive, no science, just emotions. 

[Eeyore]

I don't know if it makes it harder or not. They seem to do OK where safe standing is implemented in Germany, but I'm not involved in the policing or stewarding there to really comment.

And no, you're not allocated a seat, you're allocated a numbered space in front of (or behind) a seat. 1 seat, 1 person. 1 space, 1 person. It's no different.

As Peter said once you go above a certain density of people then you stop being an individual and become part of the flow of the crowd. I think it is pretty clear that it is more likely to occur if you double the number of people in an area. Personally I think the more people in an area the more likely it is for problems to occur. You also have the double whammy of it being harder to Police.

As for a standing area being the same as a seated area I am not sure that is true. For example if you are on a bus and someone wants to get past you then you stand up allow them past and then return to your seat. If you are standing up then you tend to just shuffle up out of the way and then stay were you end up. It isn't really human nature to seek ownership of a space when you are standing.

[Eeyore]

Not all crowds are uncontrollable or even incredibly difficult to control. If doubling a number is still a safe number it's still a safe number. The trouble comes when grossly negligent officers double the safe number.

For me it is more a case that seated areas give a greater margin for error than standing. So that when people make negligent errors there is less likelihood of serious injuries or worse.

[CraigDS]

As Peter said once you go above a certain density of people then you stop being an individual and become part of the flow of the crowd. I think it is pretty clear that it is more likely to occur if you double the number of people in an area. Personally I think the more people in an area the more likely it is for problems to occur. You also have the double whammy of it being harder to Police.

As for a standing area being the same as a seated area I am not sure that is true. For example if you are on a bus and someone wants to get past you then you stand up allow them past and then return to your seat. If you are standing up then you tend to just shuffle up out of the way and then stay were you end up. It isn't really human nature to seek ownership of a space when you are standing.

A lot of assumptions there mate. It's been in use for many years in Germany, I imagine those who are working to push this, and those who are in charge of making the decision if to implement it, have spoken to those who deal with the issues you mention on a weekly basis.

I imagine they definitely have in Scotland and decided it was perfectly safe enough to trial.

[Eeyore]

A lot of assumptions there mate. It's been in use for many years in Germany, I imagine those who are working to push this, and those who are in charge of making the decision if to implement it, have spoken to those who deal with the issues you mention on a weekly basis.

In Germany they have a great public transport system, much better roads and life is generally much better organised. For me that is reflected in how their football is organised. Before the introduction of safe standing their simply didn't have the disasters that have plagued our game. So I think it is a bit of jump to assume that we could automatically replicate safe standing the way they have. How much of is it the inherent safety of safe standing and how much of it is just plain old German efficiency.

I imagine they definitely have in Scotland and decided it was perfectly safe enough to trial.

The trial isn't about doubling the number of people in an area though is it mate.

[Peter McGurk]

As Peter said once you go above a certain density of people then you stop being an individual and become part of the flow of the crowd. I think it is pretty clear that it is more likely to occur if you double the number of people in an area. Personally I think the more people in an area the more likely it is for problems to occur. You also have the double whammy of it being harder to Police.

As for a standing area being the same as a seated area I am not sure that is true. For example if you are on a bus and someone wants to get past you then you stand up allow them past and then return to your seat. If you are standing up then you tend to just shuffle up out of the way and then stay were you end up. It isn't really human nature to seek ownership of a space when you are standing.

That's only half what I said. The other half was that the standing density proposed for rail seating is safe.

As for the bus, I can remember returning to within an inch of the same spot (and week after week) on the old kop.

In Germany they have a great public transport system, much better roads and life is generally much better organised. For me that is reflected in how their football is organised. Before the introduction of safe standing their simply didn't have the disasters that have plagued our game. So I think it is a bit of jump to assume that we could automatically replicate safe standing the way they have. How much of is it the inherent safety of safe standing and how much of it is just plain old German efficiency.

And it's huge jump to say the 'regulation' standing in the UK is unsafe. Safe standing is light years ahead of even that. At the same density as the UK Green Book, German safe standing has a rail every other row. It's incredibly conservative.

[CraigDS]

In Germany they have a great public transport system, much better roads and life is generally much better organised. For me that is reflected in how their football is organised. Before the introduction of safe standing their simply didn't have the disasters that have plagued our game. So I think it is a bit of jump to assume that we could automatically replicate safe standing the way they have. How much of is it the inherent safety of safe standing and how much of it is just plain old German efficiency.

You've got a very idealised view of what you think German football fans are like mate.

The trial isn't about doubling the number of people in an area though is it mate.

Not initially no, well from what one person has said anything (I can't find anything which says it's 1:1), but let's not pretend the aim of this isn't to increase it.

[Eeyore]

That's only half what I said. The other half was that the standing density proposed for rail seating is safe.

As for the bus, I can remember returning to within an inch of the same spot (and week after week) on the old kop.

And it's huge jump to say the 'regulation' standing in the UK is unsafe. Safe standing is light years ahead of even that. At the same density as the UK Green Book, German safe standing has a rail every other row. It's incredibly conservative.

to be honest saying that the standing density for safe standing is safe is a bit like saying driving at 100mph is safe. When everything goes well they are both safe but when you have the potential for things to go wrong then surely having a healthy built in safety margin is a good thing.

You may of gone to the same spot on the kop every week but clearly not everyone did given the number of people who were crushed or feinted and had to passed down to the front at some games and not at others.

As for the green guide it sums up one of the big issues in this country it has failed time and time again and has had to be amended after it's failure. In this country we tend to like to sail close to the wind and then act only when things go horribly wrong. As you say in Germany they tend to be more cautious and as a consequence are better organised and less reliant on learning from things going wrong.

[CraigDS]

to be honest saying that the standing density for safe standing is safe is a bit like saying driving at 100mph is safe. When everything goes well they are both safe but when you have the potential for things to go wrong then surely having a healthy built in safety margin is a good thing.

How do you know the current seating density is safe?

[Eeyore]

How do you know the current seating density is safe?

The crux of the issue for me is that there is no such thing as completely safe. I think though that if you look at the number of deaths from tragedies at Football matches pre and post all seater stadia then it is pretty self evident that all seater stadiums are safer.

[CraigDS]

The crux of the issue for me is that there is no such thing as completely safe. I think though that if you look at the number of deaths from tragedies at Football matches pre and post all seater stadia then it is pretty self evident that all seater stadiums are safer.

Totally agree with the first sentence mate, think the second is a bit of an assumption again which ignores other reasons being the cause of said tragedies, and that if those things happened in a seated area then the consequences may well be the same.

[Lolo]

From what I understand, the 'normal' ratio between all-seating grandstands and 'safe-seating' grandstands (when the seat base is raised for standing) is about 1: 1.8 
Why is is not 1:2 you may ask?
This is simply because you can't just tilt-up the seat pad and stand somebody in the space with another person in front them. There simply isn't enough room front-to-back.
So a 'safe-standing' seat pitch has to be bigger than an 'all-seater' pitch to allow 2 people in the same space to stand one behind the other.

However, on European football nights, safe standing is not allowed, so a club's stadium capacity is reduced. I did read a suggestion somewhere that to offset this reduced capacity, clubs could actually market the 'safe-standing' seating as 'premium' seating because of the increased leg room at a higher cost.