Stadium Expansion

[Sharpy]

Football contains moments where a crowd dynamic will change without warning and this doesn't happen in concerts

And this is the worst pro-standing argument there is, even worse than "but the away fans do it"

When was the last time you saw the crowd dynamic change suddenly at a game that was likely to cause danger? If someone runs over and celebrates a goal the fans will already be standing anyway. I've never seen 1000 or even 100 people get up and surge down the seats at the Madejski out of the blue. The closest was the play off semi final with Wigan but everyone expected that and were standing in the gangways down the front of the East. No one was unjured.

Theres zero safety reasons for not introducing standing areas at games. It's even perfectly safe to stand in all seated grounds, Man Utd and Liverpool have been standing away from home at every game for over 10 years and theres no injuries. That's thousands of games and no injuries.

agreed, just the posh toffs dont want to give us what we want incase there are injuries and then they got a law suit filed against them

[West Stand Man]

agreed, just the posh toffs dont want to give us what we want incase there are injuries and then they got a law suit filed against them

It had to happen eventually. Some halfwit had to reduce this to a class war !

[Royal Monk]

agreed, just the posh toffs dont want to give us what we want incase there are injuries and then they got a law suit filed against them

LMAO probably one of the most pathetic posts ever on Hob Nob .... and there's been a few

[Sharpy]

says he with 300 posts, obviously havent been on long enough!

all im saying is, the club are reluctant to give standing rights to supporters because if there is an incident it is on their heads and supporters involved/hurt could well sue the club

[roland*]

says he with 300 posts, obviously havent been on long enough!

all im saying is, the club are reluctant to give standing rights to supporters because if there is an incident it is on their heads and supporters involved/hurt could well sue the club

Expert on the tort of negligence are we?

[West Stand Man]

says he with 300 posts, obviously havent been on long enough!

all im saying is, the club are reluctant to give standing rights to supporters because if there is an incident it is on their heads and supporters involved/hurt could well sue the club

No, what you are actually saying is that it something to do with class warfare - otherwise I must be misreading the 'rich toffs' comment?

You are also a bit off the pace with this discussion. It is not the club that is making these restrictions it is a national requirement for football stadiums to be all seater. The club has no say in it - it simply has to enforce the ruling whether it likes it or not.

Also, I suspect that the club, the FA and the government are less concerned with civil action by fans involved in an incident and much more with the risks that they perceive from criminal activity (such as that which prevailed prior to the changes in stadiums). They may or may not be unjustified in that perception but that is the way it is.

I have little doubt that they don't care if it is rich toffs or any other specific element of society who cause the friction.

[Royal Monk]

says he with 300 posts, obviously havent been on long enough

So anyone with under 1000 posts must be disregarded ? Better 300 sensible posts than nealy 4500 bollox ones

[Finchley Royal]

Also, I suspect that the club, the FA and the government are less concerned with civil action by fans involved in an incident and much more with the risks that they perceive from criminal activity (such as that which prevailed prior to the changes in stadiums). They may or may not be unjustified in that perception but that is the way it is.

The stadiums were made all seater for safety reasons, not to prevent "criminal activity". The goverment's response to criminal activity was the proposed ID card scheme. If it hadn't been for Hillsborough, then there wouldn't have been the change to all-seater grounds.

[amdocsroyal]

I thought this post concerned Stadium expansion but seems to be stand /sit history debate again .
Can we get it back on track please and talk about the future expansion plans

[Row Z Royal]

I thought this post concerned Stadium expansion but seems to be stand /sit history debate again .
Can we get it back on track please and talk about the future expansion plans

To summise - 38,000 is a waste of money.

[Winchester Royal]

14,000 more seats is something for the club to spend money on, something that the club can use to lever even more money off us by getting us to 'pay for it' in our ticket prices, despite the fact the club have made shitloads from TV money, which is going to be spent on the expansion anyway...

Call me cynical if you like, I certainly am...

[West Stand Man]

Also, I suspect that the club, the FA and the government are less concerned with civil action by fans involved in an incident and much more with the risks that they perceive from criminal activity (such as that which prevailed prior to the changes in stadiums). They may or may not be unjustified in that perception but that is the way it is.

The stadiums were made all seater for safety reasons, not to prevent "criminal activity". The goverment's response to criminal activity was the proposed ID card scheme. If it hadn't been for Hillsborough, then there wouldn't have been the change to all-seater grounds.

So football hooliganism wasn't criminal ?

On the Hillsborough bit we are agreed (to some extent) as it was the straw that broke the camel's back.

[Behindu]

14,000 more seats is something for the club to spend money on, something that the club can use to lever even more money off us by getting us to 'pay for it' in our ticket prices, despite the fact the club have made shitloads from TV money, which is going to be spent on the expansion anyway...

Call me cynical if you like, I certainly am...

That has to be one of the most bizarre theories of all time !!!!!

[royal goof]

http://planning.reading.gov.uk/publicaccess/tdc/dcapplication/application_detailview.aspx?KEYVAL=JCDA1TMSO3000&module=P3&hidereturn=true

Lots of information and plans here for anyone that wants to spend a while searching through it.

I have seen the plans today and various planning & design statements and there's lots of things of interest for us supporters.

Enjoy!

[SWLR]

http://planning.reading.gov.uk/publicaccess/tdc/dcapplication/application_detailview.aspx?KEYVAL=JCDA1TMSO3000&module=P3&hidereturn=true

Lots of information and plans here for anyone that wants to spend a while searching through it.

I have seen the plans today and various planning & design statements and there's lots of things of interest for us supporters.

Enjoy!

Thanks for that - see the Committee does not meet until 23 April. So i assume no more news until then.

If right, can I suggest this thread is locked until then so that the Standing vs Sitting brigade can bug off and bore themselves rigid with their own thread. YAWN!!!!

[premiership_bound]

http://planning.reading.gov.uk/publicaccess/tdc/dcapplication/application_detailview.aspx?KEYVAL=JCDA1TMSO3000&module=P3&hidereturn=true

Lots of information and plans here for anyone that wants to spend a while searching through it.

I have seen the plans today and various planning & design statements and there's lots of things of interest for us supporters.

Enjoy!

Can you Dodd something that's posted previously on the same thread bu 10 pages earlier.

OK I know the sit down stand up debate is in between

[Rob-Royal]

Also, I suspect that the club, the FA and the government are less concerned with civil action by fans involved in an incident and much more with the risks that they perceive from criminal activity (such as that which prevailed prior to the changes in stadiums). They may or may not be unjustified in that perception but that is the way it is.

The stadiums were made all seater for safety reasons, not to prevent "criminal activity". The goverment's response to criminal activity was the proposed ID card scheme. If it hadn't been for Hillsborough, then there wouldn't have been the change to all-seater grounds.

So football hooliganism wasn't criminal ?

On the Hillsborough bit we are agreed (to some extent) as it was the straw that broke the camel's back.

As has been said time & again, standing is not the single reason there was football hooliganism in the past and you've already had that argument thrown back at you with regard to the Luton debacle where seats were used as missiles!

Also, football hooliganism exists more outside grounds than in it. Italian stadiums are mostly all seater yet they are experiencing major crowd issues as we all know.....

You do strike me as your typical head teacher type who is experiencing a severe dose of Grumpy Old Man syndrome.....the kind of old git who complains if the music is too loud from the party next door, even though they invited you and you turned them down as you'd knew you'd look out of place with people trying to enjoy themselves.....just an observation....

[Coppelled Streets]

Can't this stand up sit down stuff be on it's own thread? I keep popping back looking for an update on planning permission for work that IS due to take place soon, rather than what we hope will take place sometime in the next 10 years!

[Behindu]

Shock horror - HNA thread goes off on a tangent !!

[West Stand Man]

Also, I suspect that the club, the FA and the government are less concerned with civil action by fans involved in an incident and much more with the risks that they perceive from criminal activity (such as that which prevailed prior to the changes in stadiums). They may or may not be unjustified in that perception but that is the way it is.

The stadiums were made all seater for safety reasons, not to prevent "criminal activity". The goverment's response to criminal activity was the proposed ID card scheme. If it hadn't been for Hillsborough, then there wouldn't have been the change to all-seater grounds.

So football hooliganism wasn't criminal ?

On the Hillsborough bit we are agreed (to some extent) as it was the straw that broke the camel's back.

As has been said time & again, standing is not the single reason there was football hooliganism in the past and you've already had that argument thrown back at you with regard to the Luton debacle where seats were used as missiles!

Also, football hooliganism exists more outside grounds than in it. Italian stadiums are mostly all seater yet they are experiencing major crowd issues as we all know.....

You do strike me as your typical head teacher type who is experiencing a severe dose of Grumpy Old Man syndrome.....the kind of old git who complains if the music is too loud from the party next door, even though they invited you and you turned them down as you'd knew you'd look out of place with people trying to enjoy themselves.....just an observation....

You really must learnt to read, and to assimilate that which you are reading.
I reitterate, I haven't told you what my opinion is yet, simply listed the facts. For all you know I might quite like the idea of standing areas for oither people (I still don't like them for me) but then again maybe I don't. You'll never know because my opinion is irrelevant - it is the government that you should be targetting. But I also reitterate that I don't think (yes, this is opinion) that they are ready yet to change the rules for football stadiums.