nice position for Pompey to be in. Others can trial it. Pompey are not allowed. So we can sit back, see how it goes. Have a think about where would be best and would be possible.
Finally do the costing.
(04-10-2021, 06:59 PM)Hammie Wrote: [ -> ]nice position for Pompey to be in. Others can trial it. Pompey are not allowed. So we can sit back, see how it goes. Have a think about where would be best and would be possible.
Finally do the costing.
Hammie,
Still cannot get excited over this, and I do not believe it would fit the 'Pompey model / support.
There is a lot of pain ( akin to pig pen rails in a cattle auction ) against no viable gain, and not worth the outlay.
I cannot believe it would increase capacity - possibly the contrary; and - if seriously under consideration, then PFC should commission a surveyor/architect to give a full report on capacity gain/loss against potential costs etc.
For me the Fratton end works perfectly ok as it is. I have enjoyed many games from the upper reaches of the FE - all "
safe standing" and, you will be aware, never any problems.
The proposed trials may produce better stats for debate.
(06-10-2021, 06:17 PM)firqdays Wrote: [ -> ] (04-10-2021, 06:59 PM)Hammie Wrote: [ -> ]nice position for Pompey to be in. Others can trial it. Pompey are not allowed. So we can sit back, see how it goes. Have a think about where would be best and would be possible.
Finally do the costing.
Hammie,
Still cannot get excited over this, and I do not believe it would fit the 'Pompey model / support.
There is a lot of pain ( akin to pig pen rails in a cattle auction ) against no viable gain, and not worth the outlay.
I cannot believe it would increase capacity - possibly the contrary; and - if seriously under consideration, then PFC should commission a surveyor/architect to give a full report on capacity gain/loss against potential costs etc.
For me the Fratton end works perfectly ok as it is. I have enjoyed many games from the upper reaches of the FE - all "safe standing" and, you will be aware, never any problems.
The proposed trials may produce better stats for debate.
Why can’t you believe there would be an increase in capacity and how could safe standing possibly reduce it?
If it reduced capacity nobody would be looking at it would they? What would be the point.
I have read reports that ‘rail seats’ can increase capacity of an area by up to 80% and there are a number of ‘safe standing’ methods used on the continent.
Obviously I await the outcome of the trials but I’d be interested in hearing where you are getting these ideas from.
Or is it just that you don’t like the look of it and/or prefer to sit down?
From what I have seen of safe standing in a European stadium capacity is 'governed' by the 'size/width' of the rail seat allocated.
I am not aware if similar 'helfandsafety' regs will apply in UK (and, as you mention, which method is used) but, as I stressed, only expert reports will provide answers and it looks as if the trial may provide this.
As for sitting or standing I find that the state of play determines that - last Saturday being a case in point1
There was nothing like standing on an open terrace like Oakwell watching big Noel Blake nod in the winner .....
(07-10-2021, 07:58 AM)firqdays Wrote: [ -> ]From what I have seen of safe standing in a European stadium capacity is 'governed' by the 'size/width' of the rail seat allocated.
I am not aware if similar 'helfandsafety' regs will apply in UK (and, as you mention, which method is used) but, as I stressed, only expert reports will provide answers and it looks as if the trial may provide this.
As for sitting or standing I find that the state of play determines that - last Saturday being a case in point1
There was nothing like standing on an open terrace like Oakwell watching big Noel Blake nod in the winner .....
I really miss the terraces, they were never really unsafe.
There were a number of unfortunate incidents but they weren’t caused by the terraces per se, rather by shortcomings in the terracing, inadequate maintenance etc. The closure of the terraces was more an act of political control over the masses than anything to do with safety anyway.
Statistically, standing on a terrace was very safe indeed, certainly safer than driving to the match
.
Anyway, we shall see what the outcome if the trials is. If safe standing is good enough for the super efficient and safety conscious Germans, it is surely good enough for us.
Back in those far off days of Trust ownership there was an example of rail-seat safe-standing shown at the Park. If memory serves, and it is possible it doesn't, the view was that for Fratton, safe standing might see in some of the stands we could get 1.4 people in for every 1 person currently seated. In others it might be closer to a 1:1. The width & depth of the terracing was, I think, key. So, for us it might mean an increase in total capacity, but not by much.
(07-10-2021, 09:46 AM)SW4Blue Wrote: [ -> ]Back in those far off days of Trust ownership there was an example of rail-seat safe-standing shown at the Park. If memory serves, and it is possible it doesn't, the view was that for Fratton, safe standing might see in some of the stands we could get 1.4 people in for every 1 person currently seated. In others it might be closer to a 1:1. The width & depth of the terracing was, I think, key. So, for us it might mean an increase in total capacity, but not by much.
Yes that’s right SW4, I think it’s all down to the profiling of the terracing, much of which was very old and had the wrong rake at FP. Bearing in mind that we intend to completely redo the Lower North, Milton End and South Stand, that would be the ideal time to incorporate ‘safe’ (as if the old standing wasn’t) standing.
We can but hope
.
I'd love to see safe standing back at Fratton, in fact just standing would be good. The only reason it was banned was because of the police and some Liverpool fans fucking up at Hillsborough.
Never has a problem at Fratton even with 30k plus crowds.
I think that the earlier behaviour of some Liverpool fans on the terraces at Heysel might also have had an influence on that decision.
I miss the terraces ("Here we go, here we go, here we go" anyone?) but I have to say that I never viewed the standing ban as "an act of political control over the masses" but it was certainly an act of political punishment for football and its fans, who all got tarred with pretty much the same brush.
(07-10-2021, 01:28 PM)SW4Blue Wrote: [ -> ]I think that the earlier behaviour of some Liverpool fans on the terraces at Heysel might also have had an influence on that decision.
I miss the terraces ("Here we go, here we go, here we go" anyone?) but I have to say that I never viewed the standing ban as "an act of political control over the masses" but it was certainly an act of political punishment for football and its fans, who all got tarred with pretty much the same brush.
Surely it's a very fine line between political control and polictical punishment. Either way it was purely because Thatcher hated football fans.
(07-10-2021, 02:03 PM)DeepBlue Wrote: [ -> ] (07-10-2021, 01:28 PM)SW4Blue Wrote: [ -> ]I think that the earlier behaviour of some Liverpool fans on the terraces at Heysel might also have had an influence on that decision.
I miss the terraces ("Here we go, here we go, here we go" anyone?) but I have to say that I never viewed the standing ban as "an act of political control over the masses" but it was certainly an act of political punishment for football and its fans, who all got tarred with pretty much the same brush.
Surely it's a very fine line between political control and polictical punishment. Either way it was purely because Thatcher hated football fans.
Yes that’s about the size of it Deep.
(07-10-2021, 02:03 PM)DeepBlue Wrote: [ -> ] (07-10-2021, 01:28 PM)SW4Blue Wrote: [ -> ]I think that the earlier behaviour of some Liverpool fans on the terraces at Heysel might also have had an influence on that decision.
I miss the terraces ("Here we go, here we go, here we go" anyone?) but I have to say that I never viewed the standing ban as "an act of political control over the masses" but it was certainly an act of political punishment for football and its fans, who all got tarred with pretty much the same brush.
Surely it's a very fine line between political control and polictical punishment. Either way it was purely because Thatcher hated football fans.
Yes, she probably did, but she was presented with three open goals. However, football ended up benefiting.
(07-10-2021, 06:07 PM)TBP Wrote: [ -> ] (07-10-2021, 02:03 PM)DeepBlue Wrote: [ -> ] (07-10-2021, 01:28 PM)SW4Blue Wrote: [ -> ]I think that the earlier behaviour of some Liverpool fans on the terraces at Heysel might also have had an influence on that decision.
I miss the terraces ("Here we go, here we go, here we go" anyone?) but I have to say that I never viewed the standing ban as "an act of political control over the masses" but it was certainly an act of political punishment for football and its fans, who all got tarred with pretty much the same brush.
Surely it's a very fine line between political control and polictical punishment. Either way it was purely because Thatcher hated football fans.
Yes, she probably did, but she was presented with three open goals. However, football ended up benefiting.
Did it though?
Upgrading of stadiums was one thing, banning of terraces quite another. Prices of entry increased, life was made more difficult for young fans.
(07-10-2021, 07:58 AM)firqdays Wrote: [ -> ]From what I have seen of safe standing in a European stadium capacity is 'governed' by the 'size/width' of the rail seat allocated.
I am not aware if similar 'helfandsafety' regs will apply in UK (and, as you mention, which method is used) but, as I stressed, only expert reports will provide answers and it looks as if the trial may provide this.
As for sitting or standing I find that the state of play determines that - last Saturday being a case in point1
There was nothing like standing on an open terrace like Oakwell watching big Noel Blake nod in the winner .....
(07-10-2021, 07:03 PM)Lawrence Wrote: [ -> ] (07-10-2021, 07:58 AM)firqdays Wrote: [ -> ]From what I have seen of safe standing in a European stadium capacity is 'governed' by the 'size/width' of the rail seat allocated.
I am not aware if similar 'helfandsafety' regs will apply in UK (and, as you mention, which method is used) but, as I stressed, only expert reports will provide answers and it looks as if the trial may provide this.
As for sitting or standing I find that the state of play determines that - last Saturday being a case in point1
There was nothing like standing on an open terrace like Oakwell watching big Noel Blake nod in the winner .....
Nothing to add then?
(06-10-2021, 09:20 PM)exgaffer Wrote: [ -> ] (06-10-2021, 06:17 PM)firqdays Wrote: [ -> ] (04-10-2021, 06:59 PM)Hammie Wrote: [ -> ]nice position for Pompey to be in. Others can trial it. Pompey are not allowed. So we can sit back, see how it goes. Have a think about where would be best and would be possible.
Finally do the costing.
Hammie,
Still cannot get excited over this, and I do not believe it would fit the 'Pompey model / support.
There is a lot of pain ( akin to pig pen rails in a cattle auction ) against no viable gain, and not worth the outlay.
I cannot believe it would increase capacity - possibly the contrary; and - if seriously under consideration, then PFC should commission a surveyor/architect to give a full report on capacity gain/loss against potential costs etc.
For me the Fratton end works perfectly ok as it is. I have enjoyed many games from the upper reaches of the FE - all "safe standing" and, you will be aware, never any problems.
The proposed trials may produce better stats for debate.
Why can’t you believe there would be an increase in capacity and how could safe standing possibly reduce it?
If it reduced capacity nobody would be looking at it would they? What would be the point.
I have read reports that ‘rail seats’ can increase capacity of an area by up to 80% and there are a number of ‘safe standing’ methods used on the continent.
Obviously I await the outcome of the trials but I’d be interested in hearing where you are getting these ideas from.
Or is it just that you don’t like the look of it and/or prefer to sit down?
Not sure about that for rail seating. In fact I think when in use it reduces the capacity. Iirc Dortmund are a case in point, they have to use rail seating for Europa/Champs league & it reduces capacity by quite a bit.
The reduction in capacity at Dortmund for European games is because they use rail seating for some areas that for Bundesliga games are standing terraces. Hence 81k for Bundesliga & 68k for euros.
They had similar rail seating at Wolfsburg which was used when we were there. This meant that their capacity is now 26k for euros but 30k for the Bundesliga with standing terraces allowed.
So rail-seating reduces capacity from terraces but might (and with Fratton this was covered earlier) increase capacity from seating.
(07-10-2021, 02:03 PM)DeepBlue Wrote: [ -> ] (07-10-2021, 01:28 PM)SW4Blue Wrote: [ -> ]I think that the earlier behaviour of some Liverpool fans on the terraces at Heysel might also have had an influence on that decision.
I miss the terraces ("Here we go, here we go, here we go" anyone?) but I have to say that I never viewed the standing ban as "an act of political control over the masses" but it was certainly an act of political punishment for football and its fans, who all got tarred with pretty much the same brush.
Surely it's a very fine line between political control and polictical punishment. Either way it was purely because Thatcher hated football fans.
Fair point & definitely.
Was it political though - (or) was there pressure from the high business end of the football pyramid, to upgrade stadia to seating - and, as per the Old Trafford library - play to the prawn sandwich brigade?
(08-10-2021, 08:44 AM)firqdays Wrote: [ -> ]Was it political though - (or) was there pressure from the high business end of the football pyramid, to upgrade stadia to seating - and, as per the Old Trafford library - play to the prawn sandwich brigade?
There wasn't a high business end of the football pyramid then and there was no prawn sandwich brigade at football grounds. This was before the game got polluted by the premier league millions.
It was defintiely political .... clamping down on football hooligans (i.e. all football fans) went down well with Thatcher's targetted voters.
if your club is unlikely to play in Europe. Is there any actual justification for installing seats that will never be used? Just left folded away for ever. Without those folded seats, then the rails as in the old covered fratton End would seem perfectly safe.
(08-10-2021, 12:37 PM)Hammie Wrote: [ -> ]if your club is unlikely to play in Europe. Is there any actual justification for installing seats that will never be used? Just left folded away for ever. Without those folded seats, then the rails as in the old covered fratton End would seem perfectly safe.
Hammie ... I don't think playing in Europe is relevant to this. If we go for it we will have to conform to whatever regulatons for safe standing are agreed on for this country after the trials, and this is likely to be something like the 'railed seating' option. It most certainly will not be a return to the old days of occasional barriers, that is not anywhere on the 'safe-standing' agenda ... all options will include a designated space for each individual. That is why the benefits to capacity will not be as great as many people assume, and also why the cost of implementation may be difficult to justify.
Never mind a safe standing area, bring back the singing / puppet stall for the Pompey ‘choir and band’.
Punch and Judy pavilion !
(08-10-2021, 04:28 PM)bluetagagain Wrote: [ -> ]Never mind a safe standing area, bring back the singing / puppet stall for the Pompey ‘choir and band’.
Yeah and locate it on one of the forts out in the Solent.