21 out of 22 clubs voted in favour - just Middlesbrough voted against!
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/foot ... 26274.html


Exclusive: Championship clubs set to push for safe-standing trials

Football League under pressure to lobby Government to change law so that terraces can return to grounds


The Football League is facing mounting pressure to back trials for safe standing after an overwhelming majority of Championship clubs went against the League's stance and voted in favour of permitting trials at a meeting earlier this season.

Standing is banned in the top two divisions in England but a significant number of clubs in the Championship and a growing number in the Premier League support allowing a return to limited terracing if trials are successful. The Premier League and the Football League remain steadfastly opposed but the Football League's position is being potentially undermined by its own members.

A motion supporting safe-standing trials could be included on the agenda at next month's meeting of all 72 Football League club chairmen and, if it is, its supporters are increasingly confident it will be passed. In that case, member clubs would expect the League to lobby for the necessary change in the law. The Government has an "open mind" over the issue but is still a distance from being won round.

At a meeting of Championship clubs in Leicester in February, 21 of the 22 chief executives present voted in favour of a motion proposing the Football League "encourage and support the instigation of a rail seat/safe-standing trial period at any League club". Middlesbrough are understood to have been the only club to vote against.

Some clubs believed the League would then begin lobbying the Government over a change in legislation to allow standing in the second tier – as in the Premier League it is banned under a 1994 amendment to the Football Spectators Act 1989 – but the issue was instead dropped as the League remained to be convinced it was a battle worth fighting, despite what one chief executive labelled as an "overwhelming mandate from the Championship".

In a letter sent to Championship clubs in April the League's chief operating officer, Andy Williamson, wrote "it was agreed that the League should not advocate rail seating/safe standing. The matter will not be progressed by the League but if a club wishes to pursue this initiative then that is a matter for them".

It is a response described as a "complete cop-out" by a Championship chief executive who was at the meeting. There is a concern among some Championship clubs that the League does not have the appetite to push the issue, given the stance of the Premier League and the government. Without the support of the Football League there is no chance of Championship clubs being given permission to hold trials of a system based on the model successfully used in Germany, where seats can be tipped up to allow standing for designated fixtures. Club grounds have to be licensed by the Sports Ground Safety Authority, which has no plans to allow standing.

The SGSA no longer opposes the contemporary version of standing because of safety issues, but it and the Association of Chief Police Officers cite concerns over crowd management. Another executive at a Championship club suggested the authorities were too ready to use the spectre of hooliganism as a "convenient" way to reject any move towards standing.

The Government could instruct the SGSA to allow trials to take place but, without the backing of the Premier and Football Leagues, is unlikely to be convinced, as the Sports Minister, Hugh Robertson, put it late last year, of the "very clear demand" for its return.

Yet the number of clubs in favour of safe standing is growing. Both the promoted clubs, Cardiff City and Hull City, support it, as do Crystal Palace and Watford, who contest the play-off final next week. Aston Villa, Sunderland, Newcastle United and Swansea City are in favour, while senior figures at West Ham United and Arsenal have indicated a willingness to explore the issue. David Gold, West Ham's chairman, wants a rail-seat section in the Olympic Stadium.

Villa have emerged as the biggest supporters among top-flight clubs, having even earmarked an area within Villa Park where a trial would be staged. Outside the top flight support is widespread. Brentford also back safe standing – their chairman, Greg Dyke, is soon to take on the chairmanship of the Football Association.

I hope it happens ..maybe if proven successful in the championship it'll speed up safe standing in the premiership

I wonder why boro don't want it.

i wonder why the independent didn,t mention that city are open to safe-standing trials?
it was the very same paper who broke the news.....how do you forget the views of the biggest club to back the idea?

They didn't mention that Villa are in favour either. Maybe it's because this article is only about the Championship and nothing to do with the Prem? After all, if they'd tacked on the end "Manchester United are known to support safe standing" we'd all criticise them for taking any excuse to insert the scum into their article...

maybe Boror didn't want the ground to look even more empty?

There are 24 clubs in the Championship.

So was that 21 of the 24 clubs or 23 of the 24 clubs?

Who did or didnt support it is irrelevant whats important is that it is back on the agenda.

Safe standing is just that, its safe and its not Hillsborough style standng.

if its nothing to do with the prem then why does it talk about aston villa,sunderland,newcastle and swansea being in favour?

and "David Gold, West hams chairman, wants a rail seat section in the olympic stadium"

mate, i buy the independent..it had a three page spread on safe standing today, not just that little article above...in both the little article above and the rest of the three page spread it ignores citys already stated interest in safe standing.

i,ll ask again, why have they done that?

My bad, must've been distracted when I wrote that.

Meh. They can write what they want, does it really matter? It's not like the Independent not mentioning us is going to suddenly reverse the club's stance on the matter or somehow disqualify us from supporting it in future.