Page 1 of 1

Sunderlan Allocation Reduced Because Of Standing.....

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 2:30 pm
by pepsi_dave
From the OS:
http://mcfc.co.uk/News/Club-news/2010/M ... Sunderland

Really pisses me off this..... why is it all of a sudden so dangerous to stand during the match, but before the match, during half time, and after the match it's perfectly acceptable and "safe" to stand up with the added hazard of thousands of people moving at the same time....

I'd really like to see any conclusive evidence that supports that standing at football matches is dangerous, especially since the introduction of all seater stadiums. The very fact that there are rows and rows of seats prevents any events such as hillsborough ever happening again because people simply cant bunch that tightly, if anything the seats themselves pose the hazard!!!

I personally say take out the seats, as they pose a health and safety hazard to any fans who wish to stand up.

Re: Sunderlan Allocation Reduced Because Of Standing.....

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 2:56 pm
by Fidel Castro
Standing is not dangerous, just look at German stadiums. Letting too many people into one stand, causing a crush, is where the danger lies. Seats wouldn't prevent a crush if too many people were let into one stand, in fact the seats would become a hazard then.

Re: Sunderlan Allocation Reduced Because Of Standing.....

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 3:47 pm
by john@staustell
Hmm lets think this one through a minute:

City fans keep standing up, so Sunderland are punished in the pocket. Nice one.

Re: Sunderlan Allocation Reduced Because Of Standing.....

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 4:35 pm
by john68
The league chairmen only used safety as an excuse to accept compulsory seating at grounds.
Initially it was only one of many recommendations in the report and it was one that the Chairman readily accepted without a fuss.
IT WAS ABOUT FINANCE
It coincided with the time that Sky were showing an interest and for the first time clubs had got a way of charging a fee for those not attending games. The loss of gate revenue could be more than offset by the increased price of a seat (as opposed to standing) and the fees paid by the TV companies.

If we want standing terraces to return, we would have to address the INCOME criteria. Until we do, we have no chance. Seats = MONEY

Re: Sunderlan Allocation Reduced Because Of Standing.....

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 4:37 pm
by Fish111
I long for the days when standing will be the norm again. The kippax in full flow backwards & forwards, side to side & up and down was awesome. Sure, something had to be done after Hillsborough but the all-seater was a knee-jerk reaction and as usual was ill thought out for the benefit of football. Politicians fucking with football always ends in disaster.

Re: Sunderlan Allocation Reduced Because Of Standing.....

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 5:04 pm
by halfpenny
Getting a petition going on the No 10 website on this issue, please sign and spread the word.
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/footballstanding/

Re: Sunderlan Allocation Reduced Because Of Standing.....

PostPosted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 5:04 pm
by john68
Fish111 wrote:I long for the days when standing will be the norm again. The kippax in full flow backwards & forwards, side to side & up and down was awesome. Sure, something had to be done after Hillsborough but the all-seater was a knee-jerk reaction and as usual was ill thought out for the benefit of football. Politicians fucking with football always ends in disaster.


Sadly after Hillsbrough, it was well thought out...by the accountants.
Since when were fans ever considered?

Re: Sunderlan Allocation Reduced Because Of Standing.....

PostPosted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 11:01 am
by King Kev
I am yet to see any evidence that there is legislation against standing at a football ground.

The ruling was that every fan should be allocated a seat, there is nothing to say that they have to sit in it.