Safe standing at Hillsborough

[dorian gray]

4 minutes ago, Watson said:

 

They are going to have to cover the cost of installing them, so an extra ten quid for the privilege seems fair enough to me.

well i was waiting for the reply from someone who thought as it was standing it ought to be cheaper than seating, and you can bet there are some. 

so does the development work for safe standing get paid by those standing, OR split between all those attending both standing and sitting?.

[Inspector Lestrade]

5 minutes ago, dnhc said:

well i was waiting for the reply from someone who thought as it was standing it ought to be cheaper than seating, and you can bet there are some. 

so does the development work for safe standing get paid by those standing, OR split between all those attending both standing and sitting?.

 

Standing was always much cheaper but in the first instance the costs need covering so can't see it being as cheap as it used to be.

 

Be interesting to  see how much Celtic charge but not interesting enough for me to google it

Edited May 24, 2018 by Watson

[Hitcat]

In safe standing, would I be allowed platform boots and a gigantic hat?

[Waddlesdiamondlights]

20 hours ago, g-owls said:

I'm all for safe standing but it'll never happen for as long as we're still playing at Hillsborough.

 

88 percent of liverpool fans who voted in a pole of their fans voted for safe standing .If other clubs wer'e allowed to have safe standing they would have to put a very strong argument towards any bias towards us.

[Mountain Owl]

Back of kop. Best place for a singing group to get together and create some atmosphere.

[Blatter]

2 hours ago, Hitcat said:

In a safe standing area, would I be allowed stilts?

Hi Barry

[Utah Owl]

Everyone seems to be forgetting that there would have to be a very good reason for DC to re-install standing (of any description) at Hillsborough and I just don't see there is one.

 

Firstly it will cost him an absolute fortune to install even in a limited area.

Secondly a large part of our capacity is unused anyway, installing safe standing is unlikely to increase attendances

Thirdly, fans will be expecting to be able to stand fro less money than they pay to sit but that just isn't going to happen. Why would DC pay a lot of money to install safe standing just to see overall revenue drop?

 

The only chance we have of getting safe standing is by getting promoted to the Premier and demand being big enough and consistent enough to warrant it as a means of increasing capacity.

[Inspector Lestrade]

21 minutes ago, Utah Owl said:

Everyone seems to be forgetting that there would have to be a very good reason for DC to re-install standing (of any description) at Hillsborough and I just don't see there is one.

 

Firstly it will cost him an absolute fortune to install even in a limited area.

Secondly a large part of our capacity is unused anyway, installing safe standing is unlikely to increase attendances

Thirdly, fans will be expecting to be able to stand fro less money than they pay to sit but that just isn't going to happen. Why would DC pay a lot of money to install safe standing just to see overall revenue drop?

 

The only chance we have of getting safe standing is by getting promoted to the Premier and demand being big enough and consistent enough to warrant it as a means of increasing capacity.

 

Stop been logical and practical

[Guest Maxine]

6 hours ago, Watson said:

 

How will you see from the back of the Kop?

 

Quite easily, I'm up there. 

[dorian gray]

6 hours ago, Maxine said:

 

Quite easily, I'm up there. 

what now?

[nethertonowl]

23 hours ago, wiggy said:

Leppings Lane lower.

Least likely option for obvious reasons, but think about it. Doesn’t disturb and season ticket holders, populated a part of the ground that is rarely used. Makes sense to me.

I agree, but the SAG committee will be reaching for the heart tables just thinking about it

[Buxtongent]

Several things come to mind when reading his.

One is the expectation that standing equals lower prices.

I think this is a fallacy because the ground, as any Premier/Championship ground is set out for a fixed maximum number of fans, and a seat for EVERYONE I cannot see any club being allowed more than the allotted crowd, hence the thinking that , for any allotted area, the maximum crowd in that part of te ground will not exceed the number that can be seated. For instance, Hillsborough has at present a maximum of around 33K. Were a section of the ground be allocated for Safe Standing, I cannot see anyone allowing more than the allotted safe seating. To illustrate, and not a suggestion, the North stand holds, I believe, 10k seated. Were this to be designated safe standing, I cannot see there being any more than 10k tickets being allowed. This is an illustration only, not a suggestion.It follows that crowds and therefore revenue,would not increase. 

The cost of installing 'ss' would include a) removal of exsisting seats, and b) replacement of barriers of some nature. The crowd would not be allowed to mass without some form of restraint. It never was.

Whilst in my youth, I was a fervent Stander Up, and I would love to be now, but unfortunately a mixture of old age and health have now made it that a seat on Row 4 at Wembley  became a chore since I had to keep standing , to the detriment of my health and comfort. It does not make me any less passionate about my beloved Wednesday, just more upset by the lack of thought  and understanding by my compatriots. I do believe that there is a place for both, and am in favour of a Safe Standing area. Unfortunately, I know that this cannot be achieved by simply tearing out seats, and people will have to pay for the priviledge of standing, in the same way I expect to pay for the priviledge of sitting. 

[sheffsteel]

21 hours ago, Buxtongent said:

The cost of installing 'ss' would include a) removal of exsisting seats, and b) replacement of barriers of some nature. The crowd would not be allowed to mass without some form of restraint. 

 

The cost is roughly £1000 per seat and that includes the barrier, as this comes as part of the back rest with the seat.

However an addition cost is that the concrete steps might need re-profiling to ensure the seats fit.

 

 

Edited May 26, 2018 by sheffsteel

[Buxtongent]

I presume that means that were 1000 seats to be installed, the cost of the seats would be £1000 each. That is an outlay for seats for an area to hold 1000 people would be £1000 x 1000 (a mere £1million). There would also be a) the cost of removing and disposal of 1000 existing seats, b) the restoration and 'making good' of the floor or concrete, and, most importantly, c) the cost of labour   

I am not trying to make a point about the pro's and cons of safe standing, of which i am in favour by the way, merely trying to point out that the actual provision of the same would certainly not be cheap, people should not expect the club to bear this cost themselves., and should not expect the cost of Safe Standing to bring an immediate lowering of prices.

By your 'handle' I presume you have some contact with the industry, and know some of the costs involved.

As for the 'joining their mates argument, I would presume that any SS area would have a fixed number of places, and that the ,club would then be able to sell only the number of places available. This would ensure that there was a place allotted for anyone, but not a designated place.

[Doghouse Daz]

I believe Celtics safe standing area for 2,600 spectators cost £500,000. Still a price to pay, but easily recoupable if permission was granted for the European model of 1.8 spectators per seated area. 

 

All pie in the sky till we get round this parliamentary debate. Again I'd love to see the Safe Standing Roadshow at OITP, may get some doubters on side and dispel a few of these myths. 

[Utah Owl]

4 hours ago, daztheowl said:

I believe Celtics safe standing area for 2,600 spectators cost £500,000. Still a price to pay, but easily recoupable if permission was granted for the European model of 1.8 spectators per seated area. 

 

All pie in the sky till we get round this parliamentary debate. Again I'd love to see the Safe Standing Roadshow at OITP, may get some doubters on side and dispel a few of these myths. 

That might be the case for Celtic given the size of their crowds, but how would we recoup the cost? We only sell out two or three times a season, the rest of the time there re 10,000+ seats empty so of what benefit is it to the club financially?

 

Without either a financial or a playing motive there is no incentive whatsoever for the club to even consider this.

[Doghouse Daz]

Why would the club, as recently as 2009, submit plans to increase capacity to close on 45,000, for probably 4 or 5 World Cup games. Not just for the world cup, but for the expected increase in gates once we reached the Premier league. 

 

Most of these unused seats are in the West Stand. 33,000 seats left for home supporters, probably 28,000 after other ground restrictions are taken into consideration. 

 

Considering the Kop used to hold close on 22,000 pre seating era, and now holds 11,210, then safe standing would be a cheaper option to increase capacity, than the £20m proposals put forward in 2009.

 

Personally, when we do reach the Premier league, I can see crowds increasing over the next decade to close on 45,000 for 60 - 70% of home games. 

[Guest Maxine]

On 25/05/2018 at 04:58, dnhc said:

what now?

 

I wish I was,  im missing it. 

[dorian gray]

15 hours ago, Maxine said:

 

I wish I was,  im missing it. 

go climb over the wall, or dress up as one of the ground staff and sneak in, or do what women do for a driving test and put a really short skirt on.

[Dick_Turpin]

17 hours ago, daztheowl said:

Why would the club, as recently as 2009, submit plans to increase capacity to close on 45,000, for probably 4 or 5 World Cup games. Not just for the world cup, but for the expected increase in gates once we reached the Premier league. 

 

Most of these unused seats are in the West Stand. 33,000 seats left for home supporters, probably 28,000 after other ground restrictions are taken into consideration. 

 

Considering the Kop used to hold close on 22,000 pre seating era, and now holds 11,210, then safe standing would be a cheaper option to increase capacity, than the £20m proposals put forward in 2009.

 

Personally, when we do reach the Premier league, I can see crowds increasing over the next decade to close on 45,000 for 60 - 70% of home games. 

Have you seen the clubs in the Premier League? Most aren’t a big draw at all.