To begin with, just to get the idea accepted, clubs would agree to having the same capacity. Remember this would be a trial. Once the trial is completed (assuming it ever gets approval) then clubs can go for an increase in capacity slowly slowly.Not sure why anyone thinks that safe standing will mean cheaper tickets. The West Brom idea from what I have seen was to have exactly the same number of standing places as seats and at the same price. The standing places can be converted into seats as and when required.
No. The FLA at the time I was involved in the standing campaign rejected rail seating because it would purposely encourage people to stand! So such a design would be rejected when rebuilding a stand or new ground.Thats interesting. So a club could put in rail seating and not fall foul of the legislation. Just leave the seats up?
If I am correct, Fulham achieved back to back promotions under Keegan and the PL would not allow them to play at Craven Cottage with terraces and they spent 2 or 3 years at Loftus Road until seats were in place. maybe wrong if anyone can recall.The government said, in 2013, that they wouldn’t look at it unless there was a clear demand. There is.
The Lib Dem’s had it in their manifesto in 2015 but obviously got mullered. The Taylor report had 76 recommendations, one of which was that ALL sports should have all seater stadia, which was ignored.
In fact, Tom Pendry, chair of the Parliamentary all party football committee, wrote a report recommending that safe standing should be integral and the Taylor report had gone too far. That was in 1992 but rejected by David Mellor.
Given that promoted league one clubs have 3 years to convert, what if one of those secures back to back promotions?
If its currently a "she" we have little hope.The Minister can repeal the anti-standing areas ban in the top two divisions in England & Wales with a stroke of her pen. All she needs to do is sign what's known as an Order in Council repealing the ban. Job done.
If its currently a "she" we have little hope.
If its currently a "she" we have little hope.
It isn't but that is not all he got wrong. The clue is Secretary of State, who is male for this portfolio, not the junior minister in the article.
Well I have no idea who it is, and nor do I care much. I have never expected standing (safe or otherwise) to return, so this none decision hasn't come as a great surprise.It isn't but that is not all he got wrong. The clue is Secretary of State, who is male for this portfolio, not the junior minister in the article.
Well that’s not fair, he’s taller than me when he’s sat down.Matthew Hancock, minister for media, sport and culture however the woman in the article is the undersecretry for the sport remit of the department as minister of sport was dropped to minor misterial post with Hancock in charge of the department but Crouch will make the sporting choices like this.