SafeStanding at Carrow Road

[morty]

Are they the blocks closest to the away fans or snakepit?

Block A is closest to the snakepit. Blocks C, D and E (where I sit/stand, closest to the away fans) pretty much all stand. And the stewards let us, because no one complains.

 

[morty]

http://www.pinkun.com/more-than-50-norwich-city-fans-to-be-forced-to-move-seats-to-stop-standing-concerns-from-cutting-carrow-road-capacity-1-5326044

 

[morty]

http://www.edp24.co.uk/sport/norwic...5446199?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=dlvr.it

 

[Dubai Mark]

So frustrating this is taking so long.

Safe standing would be ideal for Carrow Road and would once and for all get things sorted for those who want to stand, as right now its ridiculous with people standing when there are seats in place. I just want this sorted so that when you buy a ticket for safe standing you stand and when you buy a seat you sit....sounds simple doesnt it.

 

[morty]

So frustrating this is taking so long.

Safe standing would be ideal for Carrow Road and would once and for all get things sorted for those who want to stand, as right now its ridiculous with people standing when there are seats in place. I just want this sorted so that when you buy a ticket for safe standing you stand and when you buy a seat you sit....sounds simple doesnt it.

It seems complicated from what I have read. There was legislation put in place, and rightly so, after Hillsborough, and its unclear as to whether or not safe standing is allowed or not! You are not only dealing with actual civil law, but also FA and Premier league rules. UEFA and FIFA too, to some extent.

There must though be a common sense way that safe standing can be implemented though, you only have to look at the German league. But that is also an example of how the rail seat developed and why, as at Dortmund you can stand to watch a league game, but as soon as they play a UEFA licensed game, the standing isn't allowed, and the seats have to be used.

 

[Canaryboy]

If safe standing was made legal, how much of Carrow Road do we think would be converted into safe standing?

Barclay Lower is the obvious area.

But I also wonder whether it would then make sense to make a 'permanent' away end (so not scalable) with a physical barrier between the away fans and home fans, and then have the front half of the away end safe standing and the back half seated?

Could increase the away end capacity whilst simultaneously stealing back a few seats for home fans.

Can't see us actually needing any more than that, it would probably take our capacity to 30,000.

Also have to consider that massively increasing the capacity of an area has other associated costs.... twice as many people going through the gates and bars at half time, we'd probably need to extend the building?

There is space on each end to stick a single story extension to create new gates:

Plus could stick small 'food only' bars inside each to alleviate the main bar (which could focus on beer?).

And its been a long time since I went in there, but pretty sure the bar area in the Barclay could be better designed to cope with more people.

Need to consider all this stuff when it comes to cost, converting from seated to safe standing is only half of it.

Although they could just sell people all beer in plastic bottles only to save a hell of a lot of time, better than pre-pouring beers and then selling them flat which I've seen before at Carrow Road (gross).

 

[Canaryboy]

So frustrating this is taking so long.

We'd need a promotion before we could afford to actually do the conversion anyway.

If the law is changed I suspect there will be a few annoyed clubs though who have spent money on new stadiums to increase capacity, borrowing money for decades to pay for it, and then the law changes so they could have stayed put and increased capacity without building a new stadium.

Also.... I wonder whether safe standing could make Old Trafford the first 100,000 capacity stadium in the UK? My friend is a Man Utd fan and went to Liverpool at the home the other day, there were 25000 people who applied for tickets but didn't get them.... so they could legit fill 100,000 for some games.

 

[Fenway Frank]

I think I’m right in saying that if they stay up Burton would have to convert a lot of their ground to seats, which for a club of their size is going to have a huge affect on their budget. They only get 4500-5000 a week, just let them stay the way they are, a lot of away support look forward to standing, and those that want seats can have them too.

 

[morty]

I have it on pretty good authority that the club are very, very keen on this. And if things work out legally, it could even be in place for next season. There is money already put aside for it, it doesn't cost as much as you think.

 

[morty]

West Brom have just had a planning application to install rail seating rejected.

Disappointing and closed minded by the government.

 

[Number 9]

West Brom have just had a planning application to install rail seating rejected.

Disappointing and closed minded by the government.

Do we know what reason was given for the refusal of permission? Was it just the rail seating or maybe there were other issues that caused the problem?

 

[Fenway Frank]

I believe the government response is that it supports all seater stadiums and sees no reason to change that

 

[Canaryboy]

I believe the government response is that it supports all seater stadiums and sees no reason to change that

They've probably all got shares in plastic stadium seat manufacturers, that's how it usually works.

 

[morty]

This annoys me that they are so utterly out of touch with the actual facts of this, and are utterly unwilling to listen to the representations of the clubs. It takes me back to the attitudes of when football fans were seen as lower than scum, and fenced in like animals. Somebody needs to get the Hillsborough groups onside, and convince them that this is a step forward in safety, not a step back.

 

[Beauseant]

There were a lot of highly respected people connected to health and safety who backed West Brom's application and it was seen as being a definite goer. I think everyone was gobsmacked by Crouch's response which basically seems to be "We don't see a need to change the all seater law" despite being told that people routinely now stand in seated areas at all grounds and that the risk of serious injury as a result is very high compared to rail seats where you can't be knocked forward into the row in front because you have a rail behind and in front. As someone who was nearly pitched head first into a deep concrete pit at Rotherham by an over enthusiastic City fan when Gary Hooper scored I can vouch for the potential risks. Steve Stone was asked about this at our AGM and, having confirmed that City are ready to run with this once they get the ok, said that their understanding was that a debate on the current legislation was stuck behind Brexit.

 

[Number 9]

On Talksport today it was suggested that the Government wants 'one voice' from football to get it sorted. ie. When FA & Premier League & EFL finish their consideration they then together apply for law change as one voice. It will probably go through then. I believe that just waiting for the PL to finish their consultation, the other two have decided in favour of safe standing.

 

[morty]

 

[Beauseant]

This sums up how clueless Crouch is. Despite all the evidence from people infinitely better qualified on football ground safety than her, she justifies opposing safe standing because " I get as many letters complaining about persistent standing as I do about safe standing" yet fails to understand that the answer to both is safe standing because then you wouldn't get people who want to sit stuck behind people who want to stand. It's not rocket science!

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/footbal...experts-west-brom-safe/?WT.mc_id=tmg_share_tw

 

[morty]

The petition is going well, I would urge anyone who hasn't signed, to do so. I fundamentally disagree with the government telling me how how I should support football.

 

[Canaryboy]

I believe that just waiting for the PL to finish their consultation, the other two have decided in favour of safe standing.

Call me cynical if you want but there may be a handful of clubs at the top of the tree who don't want to see the likes of West Brom increasing their capacities on the cheap to catch up with them? E.g. the Liverpool's and Man Utd's?

The big 4/6 have previously suggested they should get more of the Sky Money, so wouldn't put it past them to try and block clubs like Leicester and West Brom being able to go to 40,000 / 45,000 or whatever.