Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Viking Chat => Topic started by: GazLaz on April 09, 2018, 02:12:33 pm
-
West Brom have had a proposal to introduce safe standing rejected by the government.
-
West Brom have had a proposal to introduce safe standing rejected by the government.
The application has been sat on Tracey Crouch's desk since last November. Its now been formally rejected, despite getting support from the Police, the local SAG and the SGSA, without any apparent reason for doing so.
-
Must be safer to stand up at a game in Scotland than it is here.
-
West Brom have had a proposal to introduce safe standing rejected by the government.
The application has been sat on Tracey Crouch's desk since last November. Its now been formally rejected, despite getting support from the Police, the local SAG and the SGSA, without any apparent reason for doing so.
Martin, are you saying our government don’t listen to experts when dealing with important matters?? I can’t believe that for a minute!
-
West Brom have had a proposal to introduce safe standing rejected by the government.
The application has been sat on Tracey Crouch's desk since last November. Its now been formally rejected, despite getting support from the Police, the local SAG and the SGSA, without any apparent reason for doing so.
Martin, are you saying our government don’t listen to experts when dealing with important matters?? I can’t believe that for a minute!
Yep. She said she would look at it again once the results of the inquests were in. So everybody has sat and waited for her and she's done absolutely nothing.
-
West Brom have had a proposal to introduce safe standing rejected by the government.
The application has been sat on Tracey Crouch's desk since last November. Its now been formally rejected, despite getting support from the Police, the local SAG and the SGSA, without any apparent reason for doing so.
Martin, are you saying our government don’t listen to experts when dealing with important matters?? I can’t believe that for a minute!
Yep. She said she would look at it again once the results of the inquests were in. So everybody has sat and waited for her and she's done absolutely nothing.
The government have done the same after speaking to experts about how many police officers were needed to keep London under control. They still went ahead and cut the force and look what’s happening now!
-
Must be safer to stand up at a game in Scotland than it is here.
Until they bring in heated seating that's certainly the case :cold:
-
Another petition on this - every little helps :boxing:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/207040 (https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/207040)
-
To suggest that we 'pop up' every 5 years or so and mention Safe Standing is a nonsense. Campaigns don't work like that. 98% of this campaign has been fought behind closed doors and continues to do so.
The revamped Green Guide is due out shortly and major changes to standing accommodation and Rail seating is included in that. We're expecting 2 more EFL clubs to announce their plans for standing very shortly.
-
West Brom have had a proposal to introduce safe standing rejected by the government.
The application has been sat on Tracey Crouch's desk since last November. Its now been formally rejected, despite getting support from the Police, the local SAG and the SGSA, without any apparent reason for doing so.
You would have thought West Brom was a good club at which to bring it in. No real history of hooliganism and likely to be in the Championship next season. Seems a huge missed opportunity.
-
It also suggests that standing is fine in the lower leagues but not the top ones. Which is frankly ridiculous.
They just need to bring in safe standing.
-
It also suggests that standing is fine in the lower leagues but not the top ones. Which is frankly ridiculous.
They just need to bring in safe standing.
There is no logic to this at all Andy, which is why its been such a difficult campaign.
-
They can't keep ignoring it. Pressure will mount as evidence grows to show Safe Standing is just that and is preferable to the standing we have in seats that we see every week in the Leagues.
Quite ironic as outdated accommodation like Leppings Lane at Hillsborough is allowed to stay given the narrow walkways and concourses etc, and where it all started.
-
The recent crowd welcome by the Liverpool fans will not have helped any government thinking on football crowds.
-
They can't keep ignoring it. Pressure will mount as evidence grows to show Safe Standing is just that and is preferable to the standing we have in seats that we see every week in the Leagues.
Quite ironic as outdated accommodation like Leppings Lane at Hillsborough is allowed to stay given the narrow walkways and concourses etc, and where it all started.
Its not about safety any more though Baz, we won that argument a long time ago. Everybody accepts that there no statistics that prove the argument one way or the other, much to the governments consternation. The SGSA, the body that is charged with ensuring safety in all stadiums throughout the UK, accepts that the rail system will be of a tremendous benefit and has advised government of that. No, this is politics, pure and simple.
-
The recent crowd welcome by the Liverpool fans will not have helped any government thinking on football crowds.
Shouldn't make a difference, it was f**k all to do with the inside of the stadium.
-
No home secretary will take the plunge and allow it, they do not want to be the person tarred with the brush of being the one who let a death happen at a football game because of crowd trouble.
Its politics, nothing to do with football, and RedJ if you don't think that after all this time making a decision, the announcement just after the Liverpool trouble last week has no bearing on it, and the fact that they can say look at that, would not be used to vindicate the decision, you don't know politicians.
-
No home secretary will take the plunge and allow it, they do not want to be the person tarred with the brush of being the one who let a death happen at a football game because of crowd trouble.
Its politics, nothing to do with football, and RedJ if you don't think that after all this time making a decision, the announcement just after the Liverpool trouble last week has no bearing on it, and the fact that they can say look at that, would not be used to vindicate the decision, you don't know politicians.
You're nearly there Selby! But why connect standing and football violence? There is no connection, nor is there any evidence that suggests that increasing standing areas has anything other than a positive effect.
-
Spot on, RedJ and Martin. Violence outside the ground has f*ck all to do with safe standing.
-
The next time we have a match, and someone posts that there was trouble in town, or in Hyde Park area we can say it's nothing to do with us then.
Which it probably is not, but is always linked to our home game, if there is trouble on a match day by the press.
I have no problem with standing at football games, The English Parliament has, other sports such as rugby, horse racing, and cricket that have a drinks problem is tolerated, football is one of the few sports that is a net contributor to the exchequer, the more we pay the more VAT is collected, thousands of cheap standing spectators is not in their interests, and controlling large crowds suits their " we are strong on law and order".
And as I said, no politician wants to be the one who, if standing proves to be a problem, have the finger pointed at them at a later date for reintroducing it to football grounds.
-
Quite something that Celtic (which has one of he biggest grounds in the UK and is always full) can safely operate this, but not the much smaller English grounds?
-
Chris, the responsibility comes under a different government, who are willing to take the risk.
It was a flagship policy of Maggie, which was seen as a success, so a Conservative government will be reluctant to introduce standing areas no matter what.
I was brought up in an era when it was normal to switch ends at Belle Vue at half time, I was in a large crowd as a 11yr old against Tottenham in the cup, and have never had any problems.
But I have also been at Celtic and Rangers, Celtic and Leeds, Leeds and Liverpool, Leeds and Chelsea and they were not the greatest experience I have had watching football.
-
Chris, the responsibility comes under a different government, who are willing to take the risk.
It was a flagship policy of Maggie, which was seen as a success, so a Conservative government will be reluctant to introduce standing areas no matter what.
I was brought up in an era when it was normal to switch ends at Belle Vue at half time, I was in a large crowd as a 11yr old against Tottenham in the cup, and have never had any problems.
But I have also been at Celtic and Rangers, Celtic and Leeds, Leeds and Liverpool, Leeds and Chelsea and they were not the greatest experience I have had watching football.
Totally different thing then to what is being proposed now, Brian. In those days we regularly had crowd surges at big games, which were terrifying; with the new safe standing, there is a handrail the full length of each row, making it utterly impossible for a crowd surge to occur.
-
The next time we have a match, and someone posts that there was trouble in town, or in Hyde Park area we can say it's nothing to do with us then.
I'm struggling so go on, tell me how on earth this is anything to do with safe standing.
-
I am totally in favour of safe standing at football games for those who want to, I am pointing out the reasons why you will only bang your head against a brick wall to get it reinstated in English football.
It is probably a generation thing in government, the older M Ps will not go back on all seater, perhaps in ten years there may be a chance.
But the top six teams with their stadiums, no chance. Arsenal take £1.25 million a home game, Spurs will do the same, and Chelsea are going to follow suit.
-
I can’t under stand why .Perhaps it should be trialed in Championship.
-
I am totally in favour of safe standing at football games for those who want to, I am pointing out the reasons why you will only bang your head against a brick wall to get it reinstated in English football.
It is probably a generation thing in government, the older M Ps will not go back on all seater, perhaps in ten years there may be a chance.
But the top six teams with their stadiums, no chance. Arsenal take £1.25 million a home game, Spurs will do the same, and Chelsea are going to follow suit.
I think you'd be wrong there Selby. As one of the members of the safe standing committee I do have a better understanding than most, so, I bet it happens within the next 18 months or so. Tracey Crouch going back on her promises has galvanised the campaign and the behind the scenes stuff is red hot at the moment.
Spurs have also designed their new stadium to accept rail seating and they will be pushing very hard to see that implemented, as will the rest of the EPL. The EFL, and the FA, have already gone public on their support for SS. Quite a number of MP's have too, the Lib Dems have it in their manifesto, as do the Welsh Conservatives. It will happen a lot quicker than you think.
-
I bow to your greater Knowledge S.M. but I will not hold my breath, As you say not for the first time in government someone has gone back on promises probably says it all, who put the pressure on her and why?
-
I bow to your greater Knowledge S.M. but I will not hold my breath, As you say not for the first time in government someone has gone back on promises probably says it all, who put the pressure on her and why?
I certainly wouldn't do that Selby, I've got the timing wrong on numerous occasions!! I wouldn't have thought anybody put pressure on her, but we did have confidence when she was appointed. For the first time in years we had somebody who understood the game and was a football supporter. TC played football, is a qualified coach and supports a PL side, not sure who, it could well be Spurs. We expected big things from her, she pushed through the reforms on fan engagement etc. In meetings she has been non-committal either way, but this is a serious misjudgement on her part, all the key players had just lined up in support and she ducked out when it mattered.
-
To the above post(s) - I know the backdrop is emotional and political but while the case studies that are always brought up about Germany can easily be dismissed by those in power, it is impossible to dismiss that one part of this country permits safe standing, and another will not.
Madness!
-
I am totally in favour of safe standing at football games for those who want to, I am pointing out the reasons why you will only bang your head against a brick wall to get it reinstated in English football.
It is probably a generation thing in government, the older M Ps will not go back on all seater, perhaps in ten years there may be a chance.
But the top six teams with their stadiums, no chance. Arsenal take £1.25 million a home game, Spurs will do the same, and Chelsea are going to follow suit.
So you can't actually tell me how what you said has anything to do with safe standing? not sure any of these points certainly in terms of the football have anything to do with it either.
-
I am totally in favour of safe standing at football games for those who want to, I am pointing out the reasons why you will only bang your head against a brick wall to get it reinstated in English football.
It is probably a generation thing in government, the older M Ps will not go back on all seater, perhaps in ten years there may be a chance.
But the top six teams with their stadiums, no chance. Arsenal take £1.25 million a home game, Spurs will do the same, and Chelsea are going to follow suit.
So you can't actually tell me how what you said has anything to do with safe standing? not sure any of these points certainly in terms of the football have anything to do with it either.
Safe standing won't decrease attendances or revenue. It could be that newly built stadiums have a little less "legroom" in their standing sections, that would be sold as shorter legroom seats when used as seating, and therefore mean slightly more person positions in the same space (give me a break, I'm simply wanting this to happen :whistle: ).
And hey Donny based folk, get signing the petition - only 9 people in the 3 Donny constuencies have so far signed it. Donny is relentlessly poor at signing these things, make your voice heard even if you do sit in the East stand :clapping:
Sign here, it's so easy https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/207040 (https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/207040)
-
Signed.
-
Done
I'm personally not interested in standing at matches but I believe it's far safer with rail seating than normal seats.
-
BRR,
I'm not following your logic there to be fair. Are you saying that you would like to see more people in the same spaces or more leg room? Rail seats take up less space than a typical 'tip up' seat therefore there is automatically more room. The conversion factor, in most cases, would be 1:8 to 1. Therefore 1800 people can stand in an area that would normally seat 1000. Of course if the rail seats are locked in the down position it would still be 1000 people in the same area, therefore, logically, they would have more leg room not less.
-
I wouldn't worry too much about the petition either, there must have been dozens done over the years and all to no avail. I think we're well past the point of petitions and we've had numerous debates and private members bills at the HoP. No, the argument is quite clearly with Tracey Crouch and DCMS.
-
RJ, what's it like in your house when the wife gives you a choice for breakfast?
-
Well when she tells me about what shoes she's seen online when we're talking about breakfast I ask her what it's got to do with what we were on about.
-
signed and shared :aok:
-
I wouldn't worry too much about the petition either, there must have been dozens done over the years and all to no avail. I think we're well past the point of petitions and we've had numerous debates and private members bills at the HoP. No, the argument is quite clearly with Tracey Crouch and DCMS.
I was kinda joking re the seat room, but good to hear that it does increase capacity after all.
Petitions do work, politicians take note big time, and good to see Donny for once not entirely without a voice on the petition map. That petition is directly at Parliament too, not a to be delivered type. If there are enough people, 100k, then there is a significant debate triggered. It's grown quite quickly, currently at around 13k.
However, I do agree that the key people need to be worked on, and in most cases, to para-use a phrase, the people in the shaddows that wield the real power "need shooting".
-
Just giving the petition a bump, its just about to pass the 64,000 mark which is very good, but needs to get to 100,000 to be successful.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/207040
-
Signed.
Past the 66,000 mark now.
-
66,467 ive just signed.
-
Just signed, 67,309 now.
-
BRR,
I'm not following your logic there to be fair. Are you saying that you would like to see more people in the same spaces or more leg room? Rail seats take up less space than a typical 'tip up' seat therefore there is automatically more room. The conversion factor, in most cases, would be 1:8 to 1. Therefore 1800 people can stand in an area that would normally seat 1000. Of course if the rail seats are locked in the down position it would still be 1000 people in the same area, therefore, logically, they would have more leg room not less.
SM
We’ve been through this before. Even if you can fit 1800 people onto a terrace that has 1000 seats (and as you know, I’m sceptical on some of the numbers, not to mention the practicality[1]) there are many other issues which would be likely to limit the increase in capacity (turnstile capacity, widths of ingress/egress walkways, stairs, vomitories, toilet numbers etc. These might not come into play at smaller grounds because the stairs etc will have been designed to minimum allowable widths and may well have excess capacity in their current form. But they certainly will come into play at larger grounds where the access and facilities ways will have been designed on the stadium’s current capacity and it’s unlikely that you’d be able to get a lot more people in without a total redesign of the access routes and facilities.
I’m in favour of safe standing but realistically you’re very unlikely to get large increases in capacity this way and I don’t understand why the case for safe standing requires these unrealistic projections.
[1] Take a terrace row with ten seats. That’s about 7.5m long or so, depending on the seat spacing. You’re not going to be able to fit 18 adults in that length, shoulder to shoulder. I’m about 500mm across my shoulder, so you’d need 9m length to fit in 18 of me. Which means that you have to stagger the people - some at the front of the step, some at the back to fit in 18 people. But the ones at the back are on the same level as the ones at the front. So unless the tall people naturally gravitate to the back of a given step, there are obvious viewing difficulties for shorter people.
-
BST,
Yes we have been through this before, and my points that I mentioned then remain the same. I realise that you're sceptical on the figures, but this isn't me, or the FSF, making up something that sounds good in order to win approval.
Firstly, we have never used the increase in numbers as part of our campaign. You will struggle to find any mention of it in anything we have ever done publicly, nor will you find us talking about cheaper ticket prices because of that. They are possible of course and if asked a direct question then that's the answer that we will use, however our campaign has always been about two things, safety and choice. Most of our real world experience has been taken from the examples that exist throughout Germany and the practicalities there support the figures as previously mentioned.
Secondly, your maths does add up, but they're based on one row whereas the practical solution is to have two rows, or as the GG states 'an intermediate' step. That then gives you the front and back requirement.
Thirdly, the Green Guide has been re-written and is due for publication shortly. In there you will find that the SGSA have done their calculations and again have confirmed that using typical seat widths and step depths that 1:8 to 1:0 is achievable. If you wish I'll send you what I have of the revised section that covers standing.
Fourthly, today is a very important day in our campaign, the SGSA are having their annual conference at the Etihad and we have two representatives there. I'm hoping that a positive outcome is part of the proceedings.
-
If anybody wants to tweet the SGSA;
Hi all,
The Sports Ground Safety Authority (SGSA) are holding a conference today with some big hitters along - as well as safety officers there'll be representation I think from the PL, EFL, FA, FSF and maybe even the sports minister.
They're encouraging people to use the hastag #SaferTogether in debates and we thought it would be nice for fan groups to use that very same hashtag today to share their own support for safe standing (see our tweet).
This means anyone at the conference searching for what the SGSA or other delegates are discussing online will see fans' support for safe standing mixed in with the other debates. It'd be best to curate your own tweet rather than simply RT ours.
Many thanks,
-
Just giving the petition a bump, its just about to pass the 64,000 mark which is very good, but needs to get to 100,000 to be successful.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/207040
Signed, but SM what changed between you saying last week “I wouldn't worry too much about the petition either, there must have been dozens done over the years and all to no avail. I think we're well past the point of petitions” and giving it a bump 2 days ago?
-
Just giving the petition a bump, its just about to pass the 64,000 mark which is very good, but needs to get to 100,000 to be successful.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/207040
Signed, but SM what changed between you saying last week “I wouldn't worry too much about the petition either, there must have been dozens done over the years and all to no avail. I think we're well past the point of petitions” and giving it a bump 2 days ago?
We as a group have stayed away from petitions over the years because they have all failed. There have been numerous petitions started by individuals which usually flounder after a few weeks and we felt that they showed the governments position more than ours, i.e. that nobody wanted standing in stadiums reintroduced. Somehow this one, despite its poor wording etc, seems to have struck a chord somewhere and has gained traction, therefore we have given it a big push to get it over the line. Some petitions can be more harmful to the cause than of a benefit, this one looks like it could be positive.
We still feel we're past the point of petitions, but it won't do any harm. Days like yesterday are much more important where the whole standing debate was discussed by the industry with everybody present in one room, DCMS,SGSA, EFL,EPL, and supporters. There are outcomes from yesterday that I can't disclose, but they are positive ones. Not only that but the All Parliamentary Group at the HoP are also discussing the issue in the next few weeks so its not that standing isnt being discussed at Government level because it is, but one more shot won't do any harm.
-
Well it's over 78,000 now so if it's given a further push over the weekend through social media, primarily, it'll get over the line soon enough.
If a couple of clubs (established top two division clubs) supported it through social media, that'd have an impact as well, as it would if its kept in the spotlight and doesn't die off whilst the momentum for it is strong.
If the government take a certain stance that won't change though, there's not a lot that can be done until they've been sent packing at the elections and the opportunity is there with a new govt.
It'll happen like 3G pitches, it'll just take time.
We have all of that in hand. Kat, who runs the Spurs trust and is also a supporter rep at the FA, is confident that they will cover any shortage from their club.
Its not strictly speaking a government issue, several key conservative ministers are in favour, plus the Welsh conservatives have it in their manifesto. No, this is about one person, in a rather hackneyed version of Yes Minister.