Safe standing - Herald article

[Mike Greening]

Please will someone explain the difference safety-wise of standing in the Lindy and standing in the Devonport and Barn Park ends. I realise that regarding the Devonport end that the sun shines out of their rear end. The rule should be applied to everyone. :furious:

 

[Kevin Dacombe]

I relocated from the Mayflower into Block 14. I was fully aware there were supporters who like to stand at the back of that block so opted for a seat nearer the front. Plain common sense really, besides why should I expect long term occcupants of Block 14 to change their habits just cause I move in for one season.
The thing that's really baffling me with all this is those whinging about the standing who actually chose to relocated to the back of Block 15, did you never study the crowd behaviour at all when you were over the Grandstand side? My advice would be to relocated again to Block 18, sat there myself last Saturday, great view. Move on and we can all get on with moaning about the football instead.
I would add that I think the club could have gone along way to avoiding this situation by advising people when they chose their seats that the view from the back of Block 15 isn't what it could be. Just my opinion.

The bit in bold is a good point! Surely you must have known the parts of the ground where this happens? If you've been an Argyle fan for however many years you must know those bits of the ground that are a bit more lively? In fact I'm sure when some of them were younger they may very well have stood on the Lyndhurst even when the seats were put in in the late 80's people still stood at that end.

I do wonder about the back row ejections though? That to me seems to be a little harsh.

 

[Lundan Cabbie]

It will be interesting what the club do, if and when legislation allows safe standing and they can find the money to install it.

The Premier League are asking for up to 10% of capacity being allowed for conversion. Should that be the case, where would Argyle situate their safe standing section(s)? I would assume behind the goal at the Devonport end but what then of the long term standers in the Lyndhurst. Will they be told to sit down or move to safe standing areas?

 

[SWTT]

I relocated from the Mayflower into Block 14. I was fully aware there were supporters who like to stand at the back of that block so opted for a seat nearer the front. Plain common sense really, besides why should I expect long term occcupants of Block 14 to change their habits just cause I move in for one season.
The thing that's really baffling me with all this is those whinging about the standing who actually chose to relocated to the back of Block 15, did you never study the crowd behaviour at all when you were over the Grandstand side? My advice would be to relocated again to Block 18, sat there myself last Saturday, great view. Move on and we can all get on with moaning about the football instead.
I would add that I think the club could have gone along way to avoiding this situation by advising people when they chose their seats that the view from the back of Block 15 isn't what it could be. Just my opinion.

:clap: Well said.

Yep, this is spot on.

 

[SWTT]

It will be interesting what the club do, if and when legislation allows safe standing and they can find the money to install it.

The Premier League are asking for up to 10% of capacity being allowed for conversion. Should that be the case, where would Argyle situate their safe standing section(s)? I would assume behind the goal at the Devonport end but what then of the long term standers in the Lyndhurst. Will they be told to sit down or move to safe standing areas?

Argyle have already said it'll be built into the new corners adjoining the BPE/Grandstand & Devonport/Grandstand. Which won't please anyone as it all-but-confirms that it'll never be at Home Park.

 

[Lancastergreen]

Everything points towards safe standing.

The law is ridiculous.

To a point I understand your view and agree. However, it is in place because of terrible things that could have been avoided. Safe standing will happen again but it won't be yet.

 

[Lancastergreen]

Everything points towards safe standing.

The law is ridiculous.

To a point I understand your view and agree. However, it is in place because of terrible things that could have been avoided. Safe standing will happen again but it won't be yet.

 

[Jimmytheoneo]

Get the stewards to do their Job!
No standing! It's the law for us
No excuses get the security firm to do what they are paid for

 

[Biggs]

Everything points towards safe standing.

The law is ridiculous.

To a point I understand your view and agree. However, it is in place because of terrible things that could have been avoided. Safe standing will happen again but it won't be yet.

It will happen very soon. The tide has turned, I think.

Those terrible things have now been proved to have been preventable and not solely caused by the terraces, AND the new safe standing proposed is completely different to the old terracing anyway.

 

[Shankster]

Get the stewards to do their Job!
No standing! It's the law for us
No excuses get the security firm to do what they are paid for

It’s not a law

 

[GreenThing]

Everything points towards safe standing.

The law is ridiculous.

To a point I understand your view and agree. However, it is in place because of terrible things that could have been avoided. Safe standing will happen again but it won't be yet.

The terrible things that happened could have been avoided if people without tickets stayed at home. It would have been avoided if the police didn’t open the gates to let those people in. It would also have been avoided if there wasn’t barbed wire fencing keeping people in. What happened that day was the culmination of many factors, but removing terracing was the knee jerk reaction to it.

 

[Shankster]

Ticketless fans had nothing to do with it, that’s a slanderous comment disproved by a public enquiry

The rest of your statement is entirely accurate

 

[GreenThing]

If everyone in the ground had a ticket, they must have oversold the allocation. In that case, it was one of the factors, not that actual terracing.

 

[Shankster]

No, the lower leppings lane terrace had three pens, the fans where filtered into the central pen, three into one doesn’t work

Ticketless fans was entirely disproved by a public enquiry

 

[IJN]

Whatever.

The thrust behind GT's point was that various sliding door moments led to the terrible waste of life.

It certain wasn't 'only' the lack of seats.

The people taking decision that day and since, have no idea of football and its fans.