| Safe standing 13:32 - Jun 9 with 3898 views | karl |
Celtic been given go ahead to have 2600 rail standing/seating section. Hopefully the start of sensible approach through UK?
Probably ready for season 16/17 |  | | |  |
| Safe standing on 12:57 - Jun 10 with 1219 views | karl |
| Safe standing on 12:47 - Jun 10 by daveB |
I think they did it but they can't use it yet |
Thanks Dave, be interesting to see how that works out | | | |
| Safe standing on 21:23 - Jun 10 with 1153 views | HollowayRanger |
| Safe standing on 00:26 - Jun 10 by Watford_Ranger |
You always post the same thing on this issue. No one is proposing getting rid of all the seats. You can be an old fud living in your own world from the comfort of a seat forever. |
always post the same thing (doh pot kettle black every season we have this same discussion about lets bring back standing!)
its my seat that's most likely to be taken off me
and if 46 is an old fud then we have all had it sooner than later
theres no way club will do this at loftus road however at the new ground IF it ever gets built thats fair game and can be built to include safe standing areas and no one loses their seat as no one to lose yet
ive had mine since it went all seater why should I give it |  |
| |
| Safe standing on 22:34 - Jun 10 with 1120 views | Watford_Ranger |
| Safe standing on 21:23 - Jun 10 by HollowayRanger |
always post the same thing (doh pot kettle black every season we have this same discussion about lets bring back standing!)
its my seat that's most likely to be taken off me
and if 46 is an old fud then we have all had it sooner than later
theres no way club will do this at loftus road however at the new ground IF it ever gets built thats fair game and can be built to include safe standing areas and no one loses their seat as no one to lose yet
ive had mine since it went all seater why should I give it |
For the same reason any of the thousands of people have had to give up their seats down the years when the ground has changed in some way?
Karl mentioned you like your seat because it allows you to stand up. Is that true? |  | | |
| Safe standing on 00:21 - Jun 11 with 1105 views | HollowayRanger |
| Safe standing on 22:34 - Jun 10 by Watford_Ranger |
For the same reason any of the thousands of people have had to give up their seats down the years when the ground has changed in some way?
Karl mentioned you like your seat because it allows you to stand up. Is that true? |
yep very true never sit that's why I love my seat
but thing is im 6ft 1 and yet never block anyones view as my seat is in the back row
so if you want to stand get a ticket for the back row | |
| |
| Safe standing on 00:37 - Jun 11 with 1100 views | karl |
| Safe standing on 00:21 - Jun 11 by HollowayRanger |
yep very true never sit that's why I love my seat
but thing is im 6ft 1 and yet never block anyones view as my seat is in the back row
so if you want to stand get a ticket for the back row |
If you're 6 feet 1 and like standing then you should be first to sign up for safe standing areas, you wouldn't lose your space rather it would enhance your match experience I would say. Bizarre position to take on this Holloway it has to be said | | | |
| Safe standing on 00:46 - Jun 11 with 1091 views | karl |
| Safe standing on 12:57 - Jun 10 by nadera78 |
Borussia Dortmund's stadium drops by over 15,000 when they have to use the seats. |
Sorry mate for some reason I never saw this post, losing 15k off capacity is a lot, I think their stadium is circa 70k but obviously not all that will be 'safe standing' so what would be the gain, in your opinion, if both ends and the paddocks were converted?
As someone said earlier adding 4-5k on the capacity would be a big help for developing the club and organically we might see a 30k stadium filled without tourists within a reasonable time frame?
Quite likely to build that support would need some seasons in the Premier league so permission to use it there would also be required of course | | | |
| Safe standing on 00:48 - Jun 11 with 1090 views | Watford_Ranger |
| Safe standing on 00:21 - Jun 11 by HollowayRanger |
yep very true never sit that's why I love my seat
but thing is im 6ft 1 and yet never block anyones view as my seat is in the back row
so if you want to stand get a ticket for the back row |
Well I'm slightly taller though my desire for safe standing has little do with comfort. Your stance seems to be very 'I'm alright Jack'.
In a ground with 16000 or so home seats, how many are in the back row? 200? 300? How many people would like to stand? Several thousand I would guess.
Safe standing allows those who want to stand to do so in a way which doesn't inhibit the view of others and avoids the potentially dangerous current situation of people falling over seats, particularly when a goal is scored, so not just people standing up throughout the game.
I'm 25 so have only known terracing on the odd away day at Brentford etc. It's a complete no brainer- a lot of people want it and it will improve the atmosphere and viewing for all fans including those who prefer to sit. Your one argument against it seems to be that just in case the Paddocks is converted to standing, you have to sit somewhere else. Tough, if so. I was in C block and that seat got taken away when the corporate areas were increased. Hundreds of season ticket holders got moved from the Lower Loft. Sht happens but it seems it only matters if it happens to you. Fck all those who want a perfectly logical improvement to the ground and club.
And if you stand throughout the game anyway, what difference will it make to you anyway? [Post edited 11 Jun 2015 0:50]
| | | |
| Safe standing on 08:24 - Jun 11 with 1058 views | BedfordR |
Dortmund loses 15000 for champions league games because not all of the standing section there is rail seats. The sudtribune is effectively split into two halves, the top half is rail seats and the bottom half is the old style of terracing that we are used to in this country. The loss of capacity comes because the old style terracing is replaced by temporary seats for champions league games.
Interestingly, they also have fences at the front of their stands, the difference being that in the event of an evacuation the fences can be completely opened in order to allow people onto the pitch if required.
Having been to Dortmund a few times I would say the standing definitely improves the atmosphere. Dortmund themselves may be something a bit special and a bit different compared to 'ordinary' football teams, but they also have a standing section for away fans which on my visits has also been a lot louder than the away seating section.
I'm all for it, let's get safe standing in, give people the option. It would also eradicate all the stupid infighting of 'everyone should stand up', 'but I want to sit down' as people would have the option of where to go. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Safe standing on 09:39 - Jun 11 with 1048 views | nadera78 |
| Safe standing on 00:46 - Jun 11 by karl |
Sorry mate for some reason I never saw this post, losing 15k off capacity is a lot, I think their stadium is circa 70k but obviously not all that will be 'safe standing' so what would be the gain, in your opinion, if both ends and the paddocks were converted?
As someone said earlier adding 4-5k on the capacity would be a big help for developing the club and organically we might see a 30k stadium filled without tourists within a reasonable time frame?
Quite likely to build that support would need some seasons in the Premier league so permission to use it there would also be required of course |
I'm sure I've read somewhere that there's a 50% difference between having the seats up and down (when I get a chance later I'll have a look for a source on that). Using the School End Lower as a guide that's 1,100 seats (currently) or 1,700 standing. The Paddocks have a similar number of seats. Lower Loft would be something like 2,000 seats or 3,000 standing.
So we'd be able to add some extra capacity if we did all three - perhaps 2,200 - but the other issue might well be access to the stadium. I'm assuming we're pretty tight against the current regulations given that they've changed several times since we last rebuilt anything and we might well have problems getting a certificate for another 2,000 people. We'd have to find more space for getting people in and out in an emergency (buying and demolishing a house on Loftus Rd for example). | | | |
| Safe standing on 11:30 - Jun 11 with 1032 views | karl |
| Safe standing on 09:39 - Jun 11 by nadera78 |
I'm sure I've read somewhere that there's a 50% difference between having the seats up and down (when I get a chance later I'll have a look for a source on that). Using the School End Lower as a guide that's 1,100 seats (currently) or 1,700 standing. The Paddocks have a similar number of seats. Lower Loft would be something like 2,000 seats or 3,000 standing.
So we'd be able to add some extra capacity if we did all three - perhaps 2,200 - but the other issue might well be access to the stadium. I'm assuming we're pretty tight against the current regulations given that they've changed several times since we last rebuilt anything and we might well have problems getting a certificate for another 2,000 people. We'd have to find more space for getting people in and out in an emergency (buying and demolishing a house on Loftus Rd for example). |
Thanks, it ain't easy!
Of course Old Oak has the football stadium within the plans but will ultimately be a real estate project for the shareholders to make an overall profit from, upgrading/increasing capacity at LR would only return a profit through long term increase in attendance and with those numbers it wouldn't be huge. | | | |
| Safe standing on 11:50 - Jun 11 with 1015 views | wombat |
| Safe standing on 09:39 - Jun 11 by nadera78 |
I'm sure I've read somewhere that there's a 50% difference between having the seats up and down (when I get a chance later I'll have a look for a source on that). Using the School End Lower as a guide that's 1,100 seats (currently) or 1,700 standing. The Paddocks have a similar number of seats. Lower Loft would be something like 2,000 seats or 3,000 standing.
So we'd be able to add some extra capacity if we did all three - perhaps 2,200 - but the other issue might well be access to the stadium. I'm assuming we're pretty tight against the current regulations given that they've changed several times since we last rebuilt anything and we might well have problems getting a certificate for another 2,000 people. We'd have to find more space for getting people in and out in an emergency (buying and demolishing a house on Loftus Rd for example). |
defo could trial the school end see if it worked at first at little cost to the club , then id like to see ellerslie changed to have standing at the front maybe but access is already crap there so not sure it could cope with more people at half time |  |
| |
| Safe standing on 13:17 - Jun 11 with 991 views | QPunkR |
Great news it's happened up in Glasgow, and Brizzle have started the conversation down here. The main problem is those bloody Scousers, but all right-thinking people can see there's not one down side to safe standing areas. |  |
| |
| Safe standing on 14:23 - Jun 11 with 964 views | loftboy |
But will they let you take in a milk crate for the kiddies to stand on. I've got knees up mother brown going on in my head now! |  |
| |
| Safe standing on 15:26 - Jun 11 with 950 views | karl |
| Safe standing on 13:17 - Jun 11 by QPunkR |
Great news it's happened up in Glasgow, and Brizzle have started the conversation down here. The main problem is those bloody Scousers, but all right-thinking people can see there's not one down side to safe standing areas. |
I stand to be corrected here but my memory is that Scotland is not covered by the Taylor report so it is the local authority who is issuing approval for the change of use within the stadium at Celtic, am I correct in that top level grounds in England (and Wales) will require an act of Parliament? | | | |
| Safe standing on 15:33 - Jun 11 with 945 views | daveB |
School end is the only place they could do this. Anywhere else and it's the same problem as the family stand having to move regulars who don't want to move. Why should anyone with a season ticket holder in the paddock with a good view be forced to fight over a decent seat somewhere else in the ground.
I think it's more likely and easier to do in a new stadium |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
