Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2010 23:51:03 GMT 1
For every few extra supporters gained by standing areas, there will be many more put off by being in their close proximity. Anything to back that up? I personally know quite a few people who have stopped going because of having to sit down but dont know anyone who has started going because there is not a terrace. Im not doubting that there will be people who prefer to sit down but I cant believe that being in a all seater stadium would be a main reason for starting to go to football. Take away seats completely Id fully expect some people to stop going, but having a combination of terraces and seating, I really cant understand why that would stop anyone going. It will never happen but if a terrace was ever introduced then it would have to be the South Stand. Just a single block or two, it would look very, very tinpot. Average gate increases since we moved to an all seater stadium would tend to support my argument including 2 years running as family club of League 2. Many I feel sure would be put off by the close proximity of obnoxious chanting (wishing Paul Simpson was dead is a good recent example) which emanates from people who generally stand. To use the excuse of not going because you cannot stand is extremely fickle. You supposedly support the team not the atmosphere. What next? "Stopped going to support Shrewsbury because the pies are not up to scratch"
|
|
|
Post by shrew4life on Dec 15, 2010 0:15:39 GMT 1
Great example using something sung by a few drunken idiots months a go. Get a grip!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2010 0:29:32 GMT 1
Wookeywombat - I cannot watch football in a sterile environment which is devoid of atmosphere. It's not 'fickle' at all and you're proving yourself to be little more than a boring idiot. I vowed never to return to the New Meadow in early 2009 and have been true to my word - bypassing play-off matches and local derbies in the process. Surely this demonstrates that my approach is far from 'fickle' - it would have been only too easy to make a sly return to watch an important fixture. I have done no such thing.
I can also assure you that I am not alone. There are dozens and dozens of old supporters that now seldom attend home fixtures due to the lack of atmosphere and influx of soulless clones like yourself.
Who honestly cares about winning 'family club of the year' ? It had absolutely no impact upon my matchday experience and the stadium remains a soulless shell. I'd be willing to wager that the ordinary supporter would gladly sacrifice these meaningless awards (and increased bourgeois attendances) for a homely stadium with character and atmosphere. Clearly you're not bothered, you are content to sit there in silence bemoaning 'obnoxious' chanters and all those who dare to inject some passion into the proceedings.
Please take a good hard look at yourself. Standing (even 'illegally') remains a vital matchday component for many football supporters up and down the country. Clearly it should not be done at the expense of supporters that would prefer to remain seated, however a compromise should be searched for. A mixture of terracing (or 'safe standing') and seating would cater for both types of football supporter: everybody would win.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2010 0:35:43 GMT 1
Dr Crippen - You very insulting to those that cannot stand saying " if you choose to sit there like a 'lemon'. I'm clearly not referring to the young, the elderly or the infirm. Is there any need to be so ridiculous? I'm simply talking about the selfish supporters that position themselves inappropriately and thus force others to sit down. It's really just common sense, if you want to remain seated and simply watch the game - sit towards the front. The reverse applies to those who wish to stand. The needs of both kind of football supporter need to be recognised.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2010 9:14:20 GMT 1
Wookeywombat - I cannot watch football in a sterile environment which is devoid of atmosphere. It's not 'fickle' at all and you're proving yourself to be little more than a boring idiot. I vowed never to return to the New Meadow in early 2009 and have been true to my word - bypassing play-off matches and local derbies in the process. Surely this demonstrates that my approach is far from 'fickle' - it would have been only too easy to make a sly return to watch an important fixture. I have done no such thing. I can also assure you that I am not alone. There are dozens and dozens of old supporters that now seldom attend home fixtures due to the lack of atmosphere and influx of soulless clones like yourself. Who honestly cares about winning 'family club of the year' ? It had absolutely no impact upon my matchday experience and the stadium remains a soulless shell. I'd be willing to wager that the ordinary supporter would gladly sacrifice these meaningless awards (and increased bourgeois attendances) for a homely stadium with character and atmosphere. Clearly you're not bothered, you are content to sit there in silence bemoaning 'obnoxious' chanters and all those who dare to inject some passion into the proceedings. Please take a good hard look at yourself. Standing (even 'illegally') remains a vital matchday component for many football supporters up and down the country. Clearly it should not be done at the expense of supporters that would prefer to remain seated, however a compromise should be searched for. A mixture of terracing (or 'safe standing') and seating would cater for both types of football supporter: everybody would win. So I am part of an influx of soulless clones. A bit rich coming from someone who I assume was not even born before I was watching Shrewsbury regularly. The Gay Meadow never mind the new stadium was always renowned for it's relatively quiet crowd (although obviously the new stadium is worse). As I have pointed out before, the main problem is away games where the support is confined in one seated area. What gives the standees "the royal decree" that they should be at the back directly behind the goal. Surely I have as much right to sit where I want in what is by it's very definition an "all seated area". As for who cares if we win family awards, that marks you down as a very blinkered individual. You should be proud of anything and everything that STFC wins, as I am who has supported, without reservation, the club through thick and thin (mostly thin).
|
|
|
Post by GrizzlyShrew on Dec 15, 2010 9:32:43 GMT 1
Wookeywombat - I cannot watch football in a sterile environment which is devoid of atmosphere. It's not 'fickle' at all and you're proving yourself to be little more than a boring idiot. I vowed never to return to the New Meadow in early 2009 and have been true to my word - bypassing play-off matches and local derbies in the process. Surely this demonstrates that my approach is far from 'fickle' - it would have been only too easy to make a sly return to watch an important fixture. I have done no such thing. I can also assure you that I am not alone. There are dozens and dozens of old supporters that now seldom attend home fixtures due to the lack of atmosphere and influx of soulless clones like yourself. Who honestly cares about winning 'family club of the year' ? It had absolutely no impact upon my matchday experience and the stadium remains a soulless shell. I'd be willing to wager that the ordinary supporter would gladly sacrifice these meaningless awards (and increased bourgeois attendances) for a homely stadium with character and atmosphere. Clearly you're not bothered, you are content to sit there in silence bemoaning 'obnoxious' chanters and all those who dare to inject some passion into the proceedings. Please take a good hard look at yourself. Standing (even 'illegally') remains a vital matchday component for many football supporters up and down the country. Clearly it should not be done at the expense of supporters that would prefer to remain seated, however a compromise should be searched for. A mixture of terracing (or 'safe standing') and seating would cater for both types of football supporter: everybody would win. Apart from having a go at wookiewombat or anyone else that has their own opinion I would agree very much with that post. I've only been to the new ground on one occasion, a function in one of the rooms overlooking the ground - looking out at the wonderful facilities didn't give me the slightest urge to come along and try them I'm afraid. And I used to be a pretty regular supporter at GM right till the end.
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Dec 15, 2010 9:53:33 GMT 1
Anything to back that up? I personally know quite a few people who have stopped going because of having to sit down but dont know anyone who has started going because there is not a terrace. Im not doubting that there will be people who prefer to sit down but I cant believe that being in a all seater stadium would be a main reason for starting to go to football. Take away seats completely Id fully expect some people to stop going, but having a combination of terraces and seating, I really cant understand why that would stop anyone going. It will never happen but if a terrace was ever introduced then it would have to be the South Stand. Just a single block or two, it would look very, very tinpot. Average gate increases since we moved to an all seater stadium would tend to support my argument including 2 years running as family club of League 2. Many I feel sure would be put off by the close proximity of obnoxious chanting (wishing Paul Simpson was dead is a good recent example) which emanates from people who generally stand. To use the excuse of not going because you cannot stand is extremely fickle. You supposedly support the team not the atmosphere. What next? "Stopped going to support Shrewsbury because the pies are not up to scratch" Attendances have increased because we moved to a new stadium, whether it were all seated or not is by the by. I’d say most folk turn up now who haven’t in the past because it’s not the old Meadow rather than it’s the new Meadow. Let’s be honest, only those who love the club made the effort to get down to the old stadium considering the state of the place and the facilities available. Crowds have gone up at the new stadium because it’s now a decent, clean and safe (in comparison to the old stadium) place to go watch football (without the need, for example to go p**s into the Seven). Everyone is catered for at the new stadium, everyone that is apart from those who prefers to stand to watch their football. I’d wager a fair bit that if the South Stand were a standing area we’d get even more folk down there on match day.
|
|
|
Post by GrizzlyShrew on Dec 15, 2010 19:49:26 GMT 1
Everyone is catered for at the new stadium, everyone that is apart from those who prefers to stand to watch their football. I’d wager a fair bit that if the South Stand were a standing area we’d get even more folk down there on match day. I'm sure you are right. I'm equally sure it won't ever be tried though - unfortunately
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2010 21:18:09 GMT 1
People thought the Berlin Wall would never come down, people thought man would never set foot on the moon, people thought the economy would never crash, people thought they would never be allowed to stand up at the Greenhous Meadow.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2010 23:11:31 GMT 1
Anything to back that up? I personally know quite a few people who have stopped going because of having to sit down but dont know anyone who has started going because there is not a terrace. Im not doubting that there will be people who prefer to sit down but I cant believe that being in a all seater stadium would be a main reason for starting to go to football. Take away seats completely Id fully expect some people to stop going, but having a combination of terraces and seating, I really cant understand why that would stop anyone going. It will never happen but if a terrace was ever introduced then it would have to be the South Stand. Just a single block or two, it would look very, very tinpot. Average gate increases since we moved to an all seater stadium would tend to support my argument including 2 years running as family club of League 2. Many I feel sure would be put off by the close proximity of obnoxious chanting (wishing Paul Simpson was dead is a good recent example) which emanates from people who generally stand. To use the excuse of not going because you cannot stand is extremely fickle. You supposedly support the team not the atmosphere. What next? "Stopped going to support Shrewsbury because the pies are not up to scratch" Im sorry but claimimg that our gates have gone up because its an all seater stadium is scraping the barrel. Id suggest its got more to do with the novelty of the new ground plus having been challenging for promotion mainly since we have joined. I have no doubt that there will be fans who have come because they find it a nicer, safer environment but I also know that plenty of people have stopped going because they dont it being an all seater ground. What the ratio is neither of us know. Im not sure your point regarding obnoxious chanting, is that something that is limited exclusively to people standing up? I hear plenty of obnoxious shouts and abuse from all areas of the ground, however its only a tiny proportion of people who stand. Is it ok if they should obnoxious things as long as they are sitting down? It comes across to me that you have the image of anyone daring to stand as some foul mouthed hooligan who just wants to swear for 90 minutes and comments you have made on this thread back me up. Personally I found the below comment almost laughable but it was actually insulting: I would not dream of telling people to sit down because I know that they are the kind of people who would give me a stream of invective (or, as at Chesterfield, charge to the front like headless chickens. These are the very people who should be prohibited from standing)So you have come to the conclusion that anyone daring to stand would automatically turn to violence if you asked them to sit down. Jesus, get a life man. I also find it ironic that you suggest that people who dont go because its an all seater stadium are fickle, yet earlier said: "For every few extra supporters gained by standing areas, there will be many more put off by being in their close proximity" Are those people put off because of terraces not fickle too?
|
|
|
Post by mattmw on Dec 15, 2010 23:57:05 GMT 1
I seem to recall a WSC article a few years ago that Compared attendances at old grounds v new all seated stadiums. On average I think all seaters showed a 13% increase in attendances. That was across something like 22 stadiums so there seems to me to be reasonable proof that all seater grounds attract more people
However the same article also said the new grounds attracted a wider audience including younger fans and more women which had led to suggestions the traditional atmosphere of grounds also changed and stopped some fans attending - pretty much what's happened at the new meadow
Based on the fact football is now far more driven by money than it was 20 years ago it seems unlikely any club chairman will put the traditional atmosphere over more bums on seats and the cash that brings so I can't see new grounds including standing areas in the future
as I've got older I prefer sitting but can appreciate others might want to stand and I'd personally prefer they had the option to go do that in a designated area rather than stand in the seated area blocking my view
|
|
|
Post by shrew4life on Dec 16, 2010 0:32:51 GMT 1
That article that shows the 13% increase in attendances at new ALL SEATER grounds, not new grounds with some standing areas and some seating. It would be interesting to see what the increase would be at a new stadium that was built with terracing and seating.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2010 9:27:52 GMT 1
"I would not dream of telling people to sit down because I know that they are the kind of people who would give me a stream of invective (or, as at Chesterfield, charge to the front like headless chickens. These are the very people who should be prohibited from standing)
So you have come to the conclusion that anyone daring to stand would automatically turn to violence if you asked them to sit down. Jesus, get a life man.
I also find it ironic that you suggest that people who dont go because its an all seater stadium are fickle, yet earlier said:
"For every few extra supporters gained by standing areas, there will be many more put off by being in their close proximity"
Are those people put off because of terraces not fickle too? "
Proud Salopian, 2 points immediately arise from this.
1) The level of personal abuse I have attracted from expressing a point of view largely proves my point about the first paragraph.
2) Persons who make a lame excuse about not going to STFC matches, having been long term supporters, are not the same as the newcomers who have been attracted since the move to the new ground. The latter are likely to be the future of our support and should be encouraged, not detracted by anti-social behaviour whether it be standing or seated.
ps. the word invective does not usually mean violence but if you choose to jump to that conclusion, it says more about you than myself.
|
|
|
Post by Hatfieldshrew on Dec 16, 2010 9:48:35 GMT 1
I know people are on about removing seats from the ground and were would they be removed from, but haven't we got 4 empty corners.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2010 13:26:55 GMT 1
I know people are on about removing seats from the ground and were would they be removed from, but haven't we got 4 empty corners. 1) They only get filled in if we get to division 1. 2) Under current legislation they would have to filled with seats. 3) If this bill is passed in parliment, they would be allowed to be made into "safe standing areas"
|
|
|
Post by elderstatesman on Dec 16, 2010 17:01:43 GMT 1
Ask the friends and families of the 96 who perished at Hillsborough through their deaths football stadiums became safer and the attitude towards football fans changed.The report that came out was to prevent such an incident ever happening again and having witnessed it first hand I hope the likes of this never happens again.
|
|
|
Post by bobbyc on Dec 16, 2010 17:52:45 GMT 1
Ask the friends and families of the 96 who perished at Hillsborough through their deaths football stadiums became safer and the attitude towards football fans changed.The report that came out was to prevent such an incident ever happening again and having witnessed it first hand I hope the likes of this never happens again. Sir, with the greatest respect, you haven't read the proposals have you?
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Dec 16, 2010 18:58:36 GMT 1
Ask the friends and families of the 96 who perished at Hillsborough through their deaths football stadiums became safer and the attitude towards football fans changed.The report that came out was to prevent such an incident ever happening again and having witnessed it first hand I hope the likes of this never happens again. Well I think that pretty much goes for everyone. But I have no idea what that's got to do with the safe standing bill.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2010 19:02:12 GMT 1
Ask the friends and families of the 96 who perished at Hillsborough through their deaths football stadiums became safer and the attitude towards football fans changed.The report that came out was to prevent such an incident ever happening again and having witnessed it first hand I hope the likes of this never happens again. Hence the "safe standing bill" and not the "overcrowded terrace and woefully understaffed stadium bill"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2010 21:07:18 GMT 1
Even though I do not support standing returning, the Hillsborough disaster was to do with the fencing around the pitch perimeter not really standing. The same could be said for the Bradford City fire although the fencing was in front of a seated area. These "cages" were an abomination and an accident waiting to happen.
|
|
|
Post by Dale on Dec 16, 2010 21:19:59 GMT 1
Even though I do not support standing returning, the Hillsborough disaster was to do with the fencing around the pitch perimeter not really standing. The same could be said for the Bradford City fire although the fencing was in front of a seated area. These "cages" were an abomination and an accident waiting to happen. The old main stand at Bradford that burnt down thankfully (and very fortunately) did not have a perimeter fence at the front, otherwise there would have been far, far more than the 56 fatalities that tragically occured on that day. The old main stand at Bradford comprised of a wooden seated upper tier with a small terraced paddock at the front with the bottom of the paddock sunk a few feet below pitch level, so if you ever see the horrific footage of the fire you can see fans struggling to climb over the advertising barriers to get onto the pitch, the thought of a fence being stuck on top of that doesnt even bear thinking about....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2010 21:29:33 GMT 1
I knew there was a barrier of some kind which I assume was designed to prevent pitch encroachment.
|
|
|
Post by Dale on Dec 16, 2010 21:41:41 GMT 1
I read a book about the Bradford fire written by one of the people who survived it, a very harrowing but interesting read, he described at great length what the old main stand was like, I think the other 3 sides at Valley Parade were fenced in at the time though.
Changing the subject it was a real eye opener when I went to Borussia Dortmund earlier this year I stood in a small terraced pen for away fans, all the gangways were completely blocked, the segregation was non existent in the concourses as Dortmund and Leverkusen fans exchanged 'pleasantries' in the toilets, there were a few rows of seats in front of the terraced area and there was a massive fence at the front! Oh and you had put up with Germans pushing their way through you as they made their way onto the terrace with their beers!
|
|
|
Post by Namur on Dec 16, 2010 23:53:11 GMT 1
Even though I do not support standing returning, the Hillsborough disaster was to do with the fencing around the pitch perimeter not really standing. The same could be said for the Bradford City fire although the fencing was in front of a seated area. These "cages" were an abomination and an accident waiting to happen. I think when people look back on the old stadia that have largely been replaced, this fact is often lost in the nostalgia. Most old grounds had by the end if the century reached the end of their useful lives, requiring at the least major redelopment. Many were inherently dangerous, Hillsborough being a prime example, in the rather comprehensive book about the disaster it is said that warnings of such a disaster were raised years before 1989. Nowadays, sanitised as new stadia are, fans can go to matches without the risk of not coming home again, although in the age we live in there are new threats... Having said that I think that fans should have the option to stand at matches, or at the very least have unreserved areas of the stadium (like blocks 8 and 19 at the GM), but with the option to stand if they wish
|
|
|
Post by Myddleshrew on Dec 16, 2010 23:58:08 GMT 1
Standing wont happen at Shrews it will cost way to much. They will have to get rid of seats and as I was shocked to learn it wouldn't be a case of just using the concrete to stand on when seats have gone the terrace surfacing will have to be re designed.
|
|
|
Post by Namur on Dec 17, 2010 0:07:03 GMT 1
salop80, hit the nail on the head there as to the biggest obstacle to this. Clubs have spent many millions complying with the Taylor Report and I can't see them happily ripping out their seats.
Interesting side note to this and just to show how much things have changed, the old Kop terrace at Wrexham was in it's last couple of years the largest terrace in the Football League (obviously not any more, for two reasons!)
|
|
|
Post by Pilch on Dec 17, 2010 15:22:02 GMT 1
I do slightly agree with the novelty of the new ground combined with some decent runs has brought in the fans but along the same lines the novelty of the gay meadow closing and a trip to wembley didn't pull in the fans in comparison to the new ground
|
|