bcfcsouth Posted February 6, 2013 Report Share Posted February 6, 2013 I think safe standing is a bit of a mute point and one we may not take up, The FA will have to approve it first before we go ahead and install it as if they didn't it would get a safety cert and the stand would be shut, The club support it they have said so but pressure needs to be put on the FA, its an ideal oppitunity for them to trial it at ether AG or AV now the rugby is coming, If I was Jon Lansodwn I'd be contacting the FA and offer them a trial at our new/rebuilt ground Why would it not get a safety cert? It can still be build with the rails, and the seats to be useable. It would then still be an all seater ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeh Posted February 6, 2013 Report Share Posted February 6, 2013 Why would it not get a safety cert? It can still be build with the rails, and the seats to be useable. It would then still be an all seater ground. because if it doesn't conform to FA standards it won't the safe stand thing needs to be approved before it can be installed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SecretSam Posted February 6, 2013 Report Share Posted February 6, 2013 An Ashton Gate rebuild Have I missed something? AG rebuild?!?!?!?!!!! As for standing, it sucks, in winter it's cold and any other time it's knackering Mind you, much opportunity for insane jumping around goal celebrations If we do re-introduce standing, it should be CHEAP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave L Posted February 6, 2013 Report Share Posted February 6, 2013 Just to be clear about City's position on safe standing: http://www.bcfc.co.uk/news/article/311012-safestanding-455737.aspx We will certainly discuss this at tonight's Fans Parliament. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SecretSam Posted February 6, 2013 Report Share Posted February 6, 2013 OK, am up to speed on the AG plan B, makes sense If I read correctly, retain Atyeo as is, tart up the Dolman, flatten the EE and Williams and rebuild, fill in the corners, take out Hirerite and the portakabins altogether to create space - have I got the gist? Would love to look at the options appraisal, plans, etc for this (FWIW, I've many years of redevelopment experience, mind you, it's in healthcare!!!!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCFC_Dan Posted February 6, 2013 Report Share Posted February 6, 2013 The clubs details do not mention a fait accompli. There is a large article full of buzz words such as full engagement and consultation. Well I'm sure there will be full engagement and consultation but that doesn't make the impossible possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SC&T Board Members Blagdon red Posted February 6, 2013 SC&T Board Members Report Share Posted February 6, 2013 Why would it not get a safety cert? It can still be build with the rails, and the seats to be useable. It would then still be an all seater ground. Technically, with the seats unlocked, yes it would. There would be the potential to get a safety certificate if rail seats were installed and used in the locked position for standing at rugby games but with the seats unlocked for football games. Standing at those seats during football games would, however, remain contrary to ground regulations, so that area could not be advertised as a standing area for football and, while the stewards may take a tolerant view of 'persistent standing', if the council or Sports Ground Safety Authority took the view that is was being used as a de facto 'terrace', they would create problems for the club - and could ultimately have the safety certificate withdrawn. Pending any change in the rules in the interim, the best chance of getting rail seats in a redeveloped EE sooner rather than later would be for the club to join others like Peterborough and Aston Villa and offer the ground as a pilot site for any trials that may get the go-ahead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeh Posted February 6, 2013 Report Share Posted February 6, 2013 Just to be clear about City's position on safe standing: http://www.bcfc.co.uk/news/article/311012-safestanding-455737.aspx We will certainly discuss this at tonight's Fans Parliament. aye I know we are keen on it and this gives us and the FA and ideal oppirtunity to try the stuff out need to get them on board soon as possible Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cambridge Batch Red Posted February 6, 2013 Report Share Posted February 6, 2013 Even if the seats were locked for the football they could be unlocked for the rugby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SecretSam Posted February 6, 2013 Report Share Posted February 6, 2013 The clubs details do not mention a fait accompli. There is a large article full of buzz words such as full engagement and consultation. Actually, these are not 'buzz words' but absolutely crucial statements - a public statement that the club is going to make sure the fans' views are taken on board. TBH, the club would be mad not to engage with all of its stakeholders - ie including (but not just) the fans. The only way to secure an outcome that everyone supports (ie a workable stadium) is to engage with stakeholders (fans, etc) to ensure that their views and needs are taken on board. Of course, there are other things to take into account - safety, accessibility, cost, ensuring AG Mk2 / AV actually make money - but at the end of the day, fans are the 'bread and butter' so they will need to be reasonably content with the final outcome Obviously, not ALL fans can be fully involved, but there are ways of ensuring all fans get a voice, and no doubt the club has already formulated how it's going to do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fiale Posted February 6, 2013 Report Share Posted February 6, 2013 Just to be clear about City's position on safe standing: http://www.bcfc.co.uk/news/article/311012-safestanding-455737.aspx We will certainly discuss this at tonight's Fans Parliament. Dave, has anything happened since the roadshow where the stands were shown ? It just seems a simple decision to most people, most continental clubs allow standing, Rugby have standing. The legislation was introduced to solve a problem that was not really a fault of terracing / but Policing/stewarding - can the Fa not just say yes/no - as either they can see the need for change or they want to stick to the status quo with a better safe than sorry approach - whichever side the FA is on, why not just come out and say it and put the idea into practice, or a bullet in it's head so people do not get their hopes up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SC&T Board Members Blagdon red Posted February 6, 2013 SC&T Board Members Report Share Posted February 6, 2013 Dave, has anything happened since the roadshow where the stands were shown ? It just seems a simple decision to most people, most continental clubs allow standing, Rugby have standing. The legislation was introduced to solve a problem that was not really a fault of terracing / but Policing/stewarding - can the Fa not just say yes/no - as either they can see the need for change or they want to stick to the status quo with a better safe than sorry approach - whichever side the FA is on, why not just come out and say it and put the idea into practice, or a bullet in it's head so people do not get their hopes up. It's an ongoing issue. To be honest the FA don't really come into it, as they have very little power these days, having given most of it away to the EPL. It is essentially an argument that has to be won with government ... which is why a major presentation was made to MPs in Westminster in December (see here). One objection that the Sports Minister frequently raises is that "there is no appetite" for standing among the clubs. This is why we have been using the roadshow to explain to the clubs what safe standing is all about and to gain their support. 36 of the 72 Football League clubs, i.e. half, now either already have standing or publicly support safe standing trials. Depending on which clubs go up and down, half of the EPL could be openly in favour of safe standing by the summer. This clearly starts to debunk the minister's claim. Having shown support from the clubs, the next stage is to persuade the government to allow one or two of them to run trials. Aston Villa and Peterborough have openly said that they would like to do this. City's support of the safe standing campaign and help to me in setting up the roadshow at AG to show to other people has been very helpful. It would be great now if the club would extend that by formally offering a redeveloped EE or one of the ends of the new stadium as a pilot site for a trial as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chalky Posted February 6, 2013 Report Share Posted February 6, 2013 Because the board don't want it. The club announced fans will be consulted all the way with redesigning the ground. The same news release states AG will be have 26,000 seats. If by some remote chance City should be relegated this season or next, is all seated no longer a requirement. Here at P'boro' demolition work hasSTILL not started, so that terracing will be there behind both goals in 2013/14. 1 of the models of Safe standing still has seating - just a bar in between every row. So legally if city were in the top 2 divisions we could implement safe standing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fiale Posted February 6, 2013 Report Share Posted February 6, 2013 It's an ongoing issue. To be honest the FA don't really come into it, as they have very little power these days, having given most of it away to the EPL. It is essentially an argument that has to be won with government ... which is why a major presentation was made to MPs in Westminster in December (see here). One objection that the Sports Minister frequently raises is that "there is no appetite" for standing among the clubs. This is why we have been using the roadshow to explain to the clubs what safe standing is all about and to gain their support. 36 of the 72 Football League clubs, i.e. half, now either already have standing or publicly support safe standing trials. Depending on which clubs go up and down, half of the EPL could be openly in favour of safe standing by the summer. This clearly starts to debunk the minister's claim. Having shown support from the clubs, the next stage is to persuade the government to allow one or two of them to run trials. Aston Villa and Peterborough have openly said that they would like to do this. City's support of the safe standing campaign and help to me in setting up the roadshow at AG to show to other people has been very helpful. It would be great now if the club would extend that by formally offering a redeveloped EE or one of the ends of the new stadium as a pilot site for a trial as well. Thanks Blagdon - nice to see things progressing. I guess we have to accept that things take time and government usually well behind the curve on most things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipdawg Posted February 6, 2013 Report Share Posted February 6, 2013 It beggars belief that many of the same people who wanted to stay at Adhton Gate are now complaining about there not being safe standing, which unless there is a (welcome) change in the law would be a pointless waste of money from the point of view of the football club and about there being boxes in the redeveloped East End, of which it seems there would have to be some to make the redevelopment viable. So what it boils down to is that a somewhat vocal minority would like things to stay exactly as they are and in an ideal world, go back to what things were like in 1975. That strikes me as being eerily similar to the desires of the Ashton Valers who stood against the new stadium Just an observation... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chalky Posted February 6, 2013 Report Share Posted February 6, 2013 Have I missed something? AG rebuild?!?!?!?!!!! As for standing, it sucks, in winter it's cold and any other time it's knackering Mind you, much opportunity for insane jumping around goal celebrations If we do re-introduce standing, it should be CHEAP You do realise standing isn't compulsory and if you would prefer to sit there would be ample space in the ground for you to do so....? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JOSH17 Posted February 6, 2013 Report Share Posted February 6, 2013 You do realise standing isn't compulsory and if you would prefer to sit there would be ample space in the ground for you to do so....? could we not fit them seats that fold up in to a standing post thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UREDS_91 Posted February 6, 2013 Report Share Posted February 6, 2013 could we not fit them seats that fold up in to a standing post thing. I think that they're called rail seats. It's one of the main features of the safe standing stands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chalky Posted February 6, 2013 Report Share Posted February 6, 2013 It beggars belief that many of the same people who wanted to stay at Adhton Gate are now complaining about there not being safe standing, which unless there is a (welcome) change in the law would be a pointless waste of money from the point of view of the football club and about there being boxes in the redeveloped East End, of which it seems there would have to be some to make the redevelopment viable. So what it boils down to is that a somewhat vocal minority would like things to stay exactly as they are and in an ideal world, go back to what things were like in 1975. That strikes me as being eerily similar to the desires of the Ashton Valers who stood against the new stadium Just an observation... You are obviously misinformed. In 1975 there was terraces - a far cry from safe standing which still has seats. We want a section for passionate vocal types to stand and support our team. It beggars belief that you come across as against this... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Red Hat Posted February 6, 2013 Report Share Posted February 6, 2013 because if it doesn't conform to FA standards it won't the safe stand thing needs to be approved before it can be installed Surely it doesn't, as the rails can be used for the rugger buggers, and the seats for Footy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeh Posted February 6, 2013 Report Share Posted February 6, 2013 Surely it doesn't, as the rails can be used for the rugger buggers, and the seats for Footy. if it was approved reading and swansea would have it installed for their rugby teams, I've nothing against standing at the football I do it myself but the only point I'm trying to make is that we have to make sure it conforms with current regulations before we just go ahead and install it, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipdawg Posted February 6, 2013 Report Share Posted February 6, 2013 You are obviously misinformed. In 1975 there was terraces - a far cry from safe standing which still has seats. We want a section for passionate vocal types to stand and support our team. It beggars belief that you come across as against this...You could try reading my post again if you like? I specifically say "would like to go back to what it was like in 1975". As in go back to standing in the east end. Like people did in the 70s & 80s. I was assuming you didn't care for hooliganism and rolling black outs. I also say that I would welcome a change in the law regarding all dearer stadia, but as it stands complaining about the club not asking fans if they want a safe standing area is kind of like complaining to a school about your kid not getting free milk any more; it might not be right, but it ain't within the schools power to bring it back. If the law changes or a trial is offered with regards safe standing then I think City should grasp it with both hands but unless indication is given as to an upcoming change in the law, I fail to see the point or how it's the clubs responsibility to consult Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliftonville Posted February 6, 2013 Report Share Posted February 6, 2013 It beggars belief that many of the same people who wanted to stay at Adhton Gate are now complaining about there not being safe standing, which unless there is a (welcome) change in the law would be a pointless waste of money from the point of view of the football club and about there being boxes in the redeveloped East End, of which it seems there would have to be some to make the redevelopment viable. So what it boils down to is that a somewhat vocal minority would like things to stay exactly as they are and in an ideal world, go back to what things were like in 1975. That strikes me as being eerily similar to the desires of the Ashton Valers who stood against the new stadium Just an observation... A hypothetical question was posed. I feel clear and reasonable pragmatic observations have been given. This plan B is at an advanced stage, the Wedlock schemes primary focus is not re-creating traditions, it is an area to house corporate boxes. There appears to be no scope for fans input. That is no Eastend - East End or Wedlock stand fans know. Regarding safe standing. Those wanting to stand are a minority, the numbers who may want to use a safe standing area in a poorly thought out enviroment could be miniscule, it could be a huge waste of money even with a change in law. People are also agreeing with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliftonville Posted February 6, 2013 Report Share Posted February 6, 2013 Actually, these are not 'buzz words' but absolutely crucial statements - a public statement that the club is going to make sure the fans' views are taken on board. TBH, the club would be mad not to engage with all of its stakeholders - ie including (but not just) the fans. The only way to secure an outcome that everyone supports (ie a workable stadium) is to engage with stakeholders (fans, etc) to ensure that their views and needs are taken on board. Of course, there are other things to take into account - safety, accessibility, cost, ensuring AG Mk2 / AV actually make money - but at the end of the day, fans are the 'bread and butter' so they will need to be reasonably content with the final outcome Obviously, not ALL fans can be fully involved, but there are ways of ensuring all fans get a voice, and no doubt the club has already formulated how it's going to do that. The supporters trust today in the evening post raised a point about plans being in an advanced stage. The scope for fans input appears to extend to nowhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chalky Posted February 6, 2013 Report Share Posted February 6, 2013 A hypothetical question was posed. I feel clear and reasonable pragmatic observations have been given. This plan B is at an advanced stage, the Wedlock schemes primary focus is not re-creating traditions, it is an area to house corporate boxes. There appears to be no scope for fans input. That is no Eastend - East End or Wedlock stand fans know. Regarding safe standing. Those wanting to stand are a minority, the numbers who may want to use a safe standing area in a poorly thought out enviroment could be miniscule, it could be a huge waste of money even with a change in law. People are also agreeing with you. I think you'd be surprised. If the club made room for 2,600 safe standing spaces (10%) of proposed capacity. I think you'd find it sold out most games. Yes it's obviously a minority - but with average home crows of around 12k (not including away followings) that would be quite a size able minority. Besides the beauty of safe standing is in theory you could have a whole stand as safe standing and have tickets options for seating and standing - depending on the take up the stand could be adjusted to suit demand. So some games may only require 1,000 standing spots, others may require 4,000.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fiale Posted February 6, 2013 Report Share Posted February 6, 2013 Surely it doesn't, as the rails can be used for the rugger buggers, and the seats for Footy. The seats will obstruct your view - so if you cannot use them as standing (with the seats used when it's necessary) your just ruining your own experience. http://www.safestandingroadshow.co.uk/myths/obstructed-view Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliftonville Posted February 6, 2013 Report Share Posted February 6, 2013 I think you'd be surprised. If the club made room for 2,600 safe standing spaces (10%) of proposed capacity. I think you'd find it sold out most games. Yes it's obviously a minority - but with average home crows of around 12k (not including away followings) that would be quite a size able minority. Besides the beauty of safe standing is in theory you could have a whole stand as safe standing and have tickets options for seating and standing - depending on the take up the stand could be adjusted to suit demand. So some games may only require 1,000 standing spots, others may require 4,000.... Look at points raised about this possible plan B. If the area is poorly thought out the will be little appeal in being surrounded by barriers. The costs make it look poor sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mightyreds89 Posted February 6, 2013 Report Share Posted February 6, 2013 I'll sing shout and be as involved as the next guy but I am not in favour of standing at football thing of the past. A great atmosphere can be started regardless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chalky Posted February 6, 2013 Report Share Posted February 6, 2013 I'll sing shout and be as involved as the next guy but I am not in favour of standing at football thing of the past. A great atmosphere can be started regardless. How can you not be in favour of giving people the choice to stand? This will not effect your right/choice to sit! Also, be interested if you could post some youtube links of a great atmosphere with fans sitting down.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipdawg Posted February 6, 2013 Report Share Posted February 6, 2013 A hypothetical question was posed. I feel clear and reasonable pragmatic observations have been given. This plan B is at an advanced stage, the Wedlock schemes primary focus is not re-creating traditions, it is an area to house corporate boxes. There appears to be no scope for fans input. That is no Eastend - East End or Wedlock stand fans know. Regarding safe standing. Those wanting to stand are a minority, the numbers who may want to use a safe standing area in a poorly thought out enviroment could be miniscule, it could be a huge waste of money even with a change in law. People are also agreeing with you. I take your point on the changes to the Wedlock/East End; it won't be the same stand with the same traditions and same atmosphere but here in lies my issue with some; the club has come up with a viable plan to stay at Ashton Gate and yet now they seem to be in the wrong because, essentially, the current East End- a stand which is getting on for 100 years old- is being rebuilt. So shy of leaving things as they are i fail to see what the club can do to progress. I think that there are parallels to be drawn between this attitude and the 'NIMBYism' shown during the Ashton Vale debacle My feelings on 'safe standing' are that I would welcome it if the law changed. However, rail seats seem to be a solution that doesn't truly satisfy anyone so it should be an all-or-nothing terrace or seats in my humble (and not particularly learned) opinion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.