21st March 2005
By
Wullie
SO WHY CAN’T WE STAND UP? Every week across the country fans are being
ejected or even banned for simply standing up to support their team.
Away allocations have been cut, parts of grounds are under threat
of closure, and there is increasing conflict with stewards.
Stand Up Sit Down have met with clubs, local authorities, safety officers,
football authorities and the FLA, but have found very few people who
really consider this a safety issue. We are now left wondering just
why such efforts are being made to prevent supporters standing.
Safety
The FLA say that the movements that standing spectators make to follow
play could lead to them falling and causing a cascade effect, injuring
those in front. SUSD consider that whilst there may be some risk of
falls in steep upper tiers, we simply cannot envisage such an effect
in areas of relatively low gradient, which are present in virtually
every ground. This is not just the view of supporters, but also some
clubs, safety officers and local authorities.
A senior council official, who is threatening his local club with
closing part of their ground, told us that he can see no safety problems
with standing in that area. However he has to be seen to be doing
his job, and is under pressure from the FLA. At their conference last
year the gentleman charged by the Core Cities Group of Local Authorities
to deal with persistent standing, was shouted down by football club
safety officers, angry at his ridiculous arguments. He later stated
that a majority of Football Safety Officers Association members seem
not to consider persistent standing as a safety issue.
The FSOA National Administrator said that they are opposed to supporters
being permitted to stand within football stadia during passage of
play, and their policy is to support the FLA document ‘Standing in
Seated Areas at Football Grounds’. He noted however that there is
a difference of view within the FSOA, but that a number of Safety
Officers support the policy. It appears therefore that the majority
don’t.
It is accepted that the greatest danger from standing is at moments
of excitement such as goal celebrations, so why are such efforts being
made to stop passive standing during normal play – the time of least
risk? Lord Taylor predicted that supporters would stand at moments
of excitement, so knowing that this will occur, why did the FLA allow
many new steep stands to be built?
The FLA say that standing supporters take up more room so spread into
aisles, but our experience is that this is rare and easily prevented.
We believe that there is less risk of injury when a goal celebration
is started from the standing position, a view unanimously backed by
comments from numerous SUSD members, but the FLA say the opposite.
The Government’s standard reply to supporters writing in support of
SUSD’s proposals states that there are more injuries at grounds with
standing than in all seater stadia. This is misleading as the relevant
figures would be injuries from standing in seated areas compared to
sitting, but the FLA say these are not available. We know of one major
Premiership ground where the injury rate is the same whether supporters
sit for a major fixture or stand for a lesser match. Even in grounds
with terracing the average injury rate is only 1 in 20,732 and the
FLA admit that 70% of these are illness or pre-existing injures.
If safety really is a concern, why don’t clubs minimise the risk wherever
possible? Where away allocations have been cut, why are supporters
packed into a smaller section, surrounded by empty seats, rather than
taking the opportunity to reduce spectator density and hence the safety
‘risk’.
Lord Taylor said that standing accommodation is not intrinsically
unsafe. His report did not specifically cover the issue of standing
in seated areas, but said that he expected that after a period of
time supporters would get used to sitting. So how well did he understand
us?
Every year in London alone an average of 70 passengers are seriously
injured and two killed in accidents related to standing on buses.
The Health & Safety Executive says that standing on trains is not
a safety issue. Meanwhile the FLA are determined to stop standing
in even lower tiers of football grounds. Is this objective safety
assessment or convenience? It would cost billions to provide seats
for all bus and train passengers, but football clubs had to pay to
alter their grounds, and of course we know the Government don’t want
us to stand.
Inconsistencies
The most dangerous place for standing is steep upper tiers, so why
are away fans often allocated these, whilst the safer lower tier is
empty? At QPR away supporters in the upper tier have to stand in order
to see the part of the goal. SUSD suggested that the pitch is moved
forward to improve sightlines, but QPR showed little interest. We
wrote to Hammersmith & Fulham Council, who said they would ‘observe
the safety implications of standing in the School Upper’, adding that
‘any action however will need to be balanced against what is reasonably
practical to achieve, given the stand is over 25 years old.' They
didn’t explain why the age of the stand is relevant to moving the
pitch forward.
So in some grounds supporters are being ejected from gently sloping
lower tiers, which are under threat of closure. In some standing is
largely ignored, but in others the club choose not to take simple
action to prevent standing in more dangerous upper tiers. Does safety
not demand consistency?
We asked the FLA why spectators can stand at rock concerts held in
football grounds. They said firstly that the action is in one place,
so there is less chance of toppling over in straining to follow it,
and secondly that those attending music events are a different ‘profile’
from football supporters. Do they really think rock fans stand quietly
in front of their seats?
If safety is paramount, why did the FLA wait until last year to take
serious action? What has prompted the recent clamp down on standing?
We have seen no evidence to suggest that the safety risk has changed,
so is there another reason?
The FLA
The FLA was charged to monitor local authorities’ oversight of spectator
safety at English and Welsh football grounds, and ensure through a
licensing system that these grounds became all seated. In 1992 the
Government decided to allow clubs in the lower two divisions to retain
standing accommodation, however if a club is relegated back into a
lower division, or if it builds a new ground, it cannot have standing
areas. All seating by stealth?
The FLA now appears to have broadened its remit, to include comfort
and security of supporters as well as safety. It seems that they have
to resort to using every argument against standing, no matter how
weak. Is it right that a body who don’t even agree that a significant
proportion of supporters want to stand should have such influence
over the way we watch our game?
A recent report by 'The Efficiency in Government Unit' claimed that
many quangos could be merged or abolished without anyone noticing
a significant difference and included the FLA, along with such bodies
as the Potato Council, in a list of the most useless quangos. Do we
still need the FLA?
Crowd Control & Customer Care
How relevant is the argument that allowing supporters to stand will
lead to crowd trouble? Any disorder will almost certainly occur at
a time of controversy or excitement, when supporters would be expected
to be standing. A ground regulation banning standing is hardly likely
to stop anyone who is sufficiently agitated as to cause trouble from
getting out of their seat.
Those who are unable or prefer not to stand, should not have their
view blocked by others, however rather than a justification for making
all supporters sit, this is a major reason for providing separate
areas for everyone to watch the game as they wish.
Debate
There appears to be reluctance for many parties to participate in
an open debate on standing. Despite devoting considerable time to
SUSD, the FLA are clearly tired of what they consider are the same
old arguments. Few clubs have been prepared to talk openly, and whilst
several have publicly stated support for standing areas, others have
told us that they support our aims but cannot allow this to be quoted.
Premiership clubs discussed our letter at a meeting and decided not
to reply. The Premier and Football Leagues did not want us to make
public what was said when we met. One club made a public statement
in support of our proposals, but then wrote to us with a far more
guarded opinion. It is almost as if there is a conspiracy not to allow
public debate, as this would highlight the weakness of the case against
standing.
Summary
Stand Up Sit Down proposes the simple solution that in all seater
stadia, at least one area of each ground is selected where supporters
would be permitted to stand safely in front of their seats. It is
clear that supporters will continue to stand, as they have since the
Taylor Report, so by allocating only the most suitable areas, our
proposals would actually improve safety.
The deeper we dig the more it seems that a total ban on standing cannot
be justified on the grounds of safety, crowd control or customer care.
Lessons have been learned from Hillsborough, and major steps taken
to improve our safety, but a total ban on standing is simply not necessary
or indeed workable. So why is there such reluctance even for an open
debate on the issue? Is the issue safety or social engineering?
Is there a hidden agenda to move the game away from its working class
roots and fill our grounds with middle class fans who will buy the
merchandise, clap quietly in their seats, join in with the orchestrated
singing over the PA, but disappear as soon as football stops being
trendy?
Peter Caton
Stand Up Sit Down
Note – We do not wish to misrepresent the views of the FLA and full
notes of our meeting stating the views of SUSD and the FLA can be
read on our website www.standupsitdown.co.uk |
 |
Toon
Shirts |
|
Sponsors |
|
|
