| 17.9% against safe standing at Portman Road. 16:49 - Jun 8 with 7111 views | Jon_456 |
Why?
They would clearly only make SBR lower a safe standing area and I guess potentially one other part if successful and demand was there.
Can’t understand why anyone would be against an area which always stands anyway, to be made safer for them to do so. |  | | |  |
| 17.9% against safe standing at Portman Road. on 16:53 - Jun 8 with 5334 views | Slambo |
Yeah, that is pretty baffling. Still, that is 83% in favour - quite a clear mandate, i'd say... |  |
| |
| 17.9% against safe standing at Portman Road. on 16:56 - Jun 8 with 5321 views | Jon_456 |
| 17.9% against safe standing at Portman Road. on 16:53 - Jun 8 by Slambo |
Yeah, that is pretty baffling. Still, that is 83% in favour - quite a clear mandate, i'd say... |
Agree, very positive.
I just can’t believe there’s nearly 1 in 5 people that don’t want to make it safer for supports to stand. | | | |
| 17.9% against safe standing at Portman Road. on 16:58 - Jun 8 with 5315 views | Coco |
Maybe it’s the safe bit they don’t want. |  |
| |
| 17.9% against safe standing at Portman Road. on 17:18 - Jun 8 with 5287 views | Slambo |
| 17.9% against safe standing at Portman Road. on 16:58 - Jun 8 by Coco |
Maybe it’s the safe bit they don’t want. |
Maybe. I would certainly rather a return to the old style terracing - I think those rail seats are considerably sh*tter than people realise. There was nothing wrong with old style terracing in principle, it just needed to be modified... | |
| |
| 17.9% against safe standing at Portman Road. on 18:24 - Jun 8 with 5204 views | bournemouthblue |
| 17.9% against safe standing at Portman Road. on 17:18 - Jun 8 by Slambo |
Maybe. I would certainly rather a return to the old style terracing - I think those rail seats are considerably sh*tter than people realise. There was nothing wrong with old style terracing in principle, it just needed to be modified... |
To have extra rails in, things like that? |  |
| |
| 17.9% against safe standing at Portman Road. on 18:56 - Jun 8 with 5157 views | BOjK |
Maybe they currently sit in the SBR lower, with a group of people around them they’ve got to know and don’t want to either move or stand. |  |
| |
| 17.9% against safe standing at Portman Road. on 19:03 - Jun 8 with 5142 views | Jon_456 |
| 17.9% against safe standing at Portman Road. on 18:56 - Jun 8 by BOjK |
Maybe they currently sit in the SBR lower, with a group of people around them they’ve got to know and don’t want to either move or stand. |
Correct me if I'm wrong but i don't think there is anyone in the SBR lower who sit on their seat, so safe standing wouldn't change anything. | | | |
| 17.9% against safe standing at Portman Road. on 19:51 - Jun 8 with 5092 views | Basuco |
My big fear is that a safe standing area would be quite small and would result in all other areas of SBR lower being a strictly enforced seated area. There is no way the entire SBR lower would be allowed to stand as they do now, if they wish. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| 17.9% against safe standing at Portman Road. on 19:53 - Jun 8 with 5088 views | MattinLondon |
| 17.9% against safe standing at Portman Road. on 19:51 - Jun 8 by Basuco |
My big fear is that a safe standing area would be quite small and would result in all other areas of SBR lower being a strictly enforced seated area. There is no way the entire SBR lower would be allowed to stand as they do now, if they wish. |
Why not? |  | | |
| 17.9% against safe standing at Portman Road. on 20:07 - Jun 8 with 5062 views | Swansea_Blue |
| 17.9% against safe standing at Portman Road. on 17:18 - Jun 8 by Slambo |
Maybe. I would certainly rather a return to the old style terracing - I think those rail seats are considerably sh*tter than people realise. There was nothing wrong with old style terracing in principle, it just needed to be modified... |
Nothing wrong with simple terracing at all. It would be impossible for a Hillsborough style event today as there are no pens. The recommendations and subsequent rules/laws coming out of the Taylor report are long overdue a complete overhaul. |  |
| |
| 17.9% against safe standing at Portman Road. on 20:13 - Jun 8 with 5049 views | ronnyd |
I much preferred going to games when the North Stand was all terracing. When we went to all seating football lost it,s soul. | | | |
| 17.9% against safe standing at Portman Road. on 20:27 - Jun 8 with 5040 views | ITFC_Forever |
I fully want safe-standing to be introduced at PR.... but it’s far from a foregone conclusion that it would be the SBRL that is converted.
The SBRL was specifically designed for seats, where as the Sir Alf Lower and Co-op Lower were parts of the stadium where seats we installed on top of the previously existing terracing.
And I can’t see ME going for something that will cost money, not until if / when we are promoted. |  |
| |
| 17.9% against safe standing at Portman Road. on 20:40 - Jun 8 with 5019 views | Kievthegreat |
Because they want money spent on the team as opposed to railings? |  | | |
| 17.9% against safe standing at Portman Road. on 20:43 - Jun 8 with 5012 views | floridablue |
I gave my vote a couple of weeks ago to MP Rosena Khans petition for safe standing areas in British stadiums and actually received a thank you email today saying its going to be debated in Parliament later this month. Explained to her that the safe standing end works well in Orlando Citys stadium Florida. Also said to her that i'm a guy now in my sixties that was raised on the old style standing terraces of English stadiums. Haven't watched an Orlando game and probably never will from that end but more or less every game i go to i end up leaving my seat and standing and watching from the concourse, where the bars are that circles the stadium with hundreds of others that don't go to their seats. | | | |
| 17.9% against safe standing at Portman Road. on 20:46 - Jun 8 with 5011 views | Burwell_Blue |
Things I want in Football.
A) Standing
B) £1k a week maximum wage
Football is fooked |  | | |
| 17.9% against safe standing at Portman Road. on 21:17 - Jun 8 with 4966 views | sparks |
Suspect most of the 17 percent were around during the 80s and have a reasonable concern as a result |  |
| The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they've found it.
(Sir Terry Pratchett) | | Poll: | Is Fred drunk this morning? |
| |
| 17.9% against safe standing at Portman Road. on 21:18 - Jun 8 with 4962 views | SpruceMoose |
| 17.9% against safe standing at Portman Road. on 20:46 - Jun 8 by Burwell_Blue |
Things I want in Football.
A) Standing
B) £1k a week maximum wage
Football is fooked |
C) Multi-ball |  |
| Pronouns: He/Him/His.
"Imagine being a heterosexual white male in Britain at this moment. How bad is that. Everything you say is racist, everything you say is homophobic. The Woke community have really f****d this country." | | Poll: | Selectamod |
| |
| 17.9% against safe standing at Portman Road. on 21:23 - Jun 8 with 4954 views | ITFC_Forever |
| 17.9% against safe standing at Portman Road. on 21:17 - Jun 8 by sparks |
Suspect most of the 17 percent were around during the 80s and have a reasonable concern as a result |
What would that have to do with safe standing?
The rail seat style safe standing idea is nothing like the sprawling terraces of yesteryear. | |
| |
| 17.9% against safe standing at Portman Road. on 21:38 - Jun 8 with 4919 views | Jon_456 |
| 17.9% against safe standing at Portman Road. on 20:27 - Jun 8 by ITFC_Forever |
I fully want safe-standing to be introduced at PR.... but it’s far from a foregone conclusion that it would be the SBRL that is converted.
The SBRL was specifically designed for seats, where as the Sir Alf Lower and Co-op Lower were parts of the stadium where seats we installed on top of the previously existing terracing.
And I can’t see ME going for something that will cost money, not until if / when we are promoted. |
I don’t know the specifics of installation but I’m sure they’re installed exactly the same way as seats, so there would not need to be any additional work to be carried out. Simple case of remove seats and installing rail seats. | | | |
| 17.9% against safe standing at Portman Road. on 21:47 - Jun 8 with 4913 views | jas0999 |
I agree with you, but surely folk are entitled to their opinion, even if they disagree with us? | | | |
| 17.9% against safe standing at Portman Road. on 21:50 - Jun 8 with 4903 views | wkj |
| 17.9% against safe standing at Portman Road. on 21:47 - Jun 8 by jas0999 |
I agree with you, but surely folk are entitled to their opinion, even if they disagree with us? |
entitled and opinions; dangerous words on this forum |  |
| |
| 17.9% against safe standing at Portman Road. on 21:57 - Jun 8 with 4885 views | tcblue |
| 17.9% against safe standing at Portman Road. on 20:46 - Jun 8 by Burwell_Blue |
Things I want in Football.
A) Standing
B) £1k a week maximum wage
Football is fooked |
Why does how much other people earn bother you? | | | |
| 17.9% against safe standing at Portman Road. on 22:22 - Jun 8 with 4845 views | Burwell_Blue |
| 17.9% against safe standing at Portman Road. on 21:57 - Jun 8 by tcblue |
Why does how much other people earn bother you? |
It doesn’t. Want it does do is impact on ticket prices for the man on the street. | | | |
| 17.9% against safe standing at Portman Road. on 22:46 - Jun 8 with 4821 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| 17.9% against safe standing at Portman Road. on 21:23 - Jun 8 by ITFC_Forever |
What would that have to do with safe standing?
The rail seat style safe standing idea is nothing like the sprawling terraces of yesteryear. |
I can see both sides of this argument.
I suspect "safe standing" is significantly safer than the old terracing so I would not number myself among the 18%. However, I can understand anyone who saw what happened having reservations. Perhaps the 18% do not understand what "safe standing" actually is. Perhaps they cannot accept that it truly would be safe? Perhaps they have reservations over the likelihood for it to evolve into something else? Perhaps they have concerns over the future pricing that would result (terracing was always significantly cheaper than seating - will this become an excuse to increase the seating prices while keeping the small safe standing area at a lower price?). Without hearing what their actual concerns are it is difficult to be sure but I can see that a significant minority could easily have some grounds for concern. |  |
| |
| 17.9% against safe standing at Portman Road. on 22:50 - Jun 8 with 4812 views | textbackup |
| 17.9% against safe standing at Portman Road. on 21:17 - Jun 8 by sparks |
Suspect most of the 17 percent were around during the 80s and have a reasonable concern as a result |
in which case they'll be old and sat in the other areas, so no concern to them |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
