Club1872 & UB safe standing

[forlanssister 3,050]

3 hours ago, Gonzo79 said:

Were you not proud of Ibrox Stadium when the Enclosures were terraced or Ibrox Park prior to the 1980s?

 

Most of the fantastic stadiums in Germany have safe standing areas.

 

 

The vast majority of safe standing areas were specifically built for that purpose and in the most work a two step system that's how they get a ratio greater than 1:1.

 

If you were to take out the seats in  say the Copland Front (for arguments sake) and replace the seats with the rail system that they have then you will end up with a reduction in existing capacity not an increase. 

[aweebluesoandso 290]

Not saying i'm against safe standing but it doesn't enthuse me tbh, maybe i'm getting to old? Being partially disabled myself disabled facilities and upgrading them interests me more. C1872 seems to have taken up the mantle for this, i'm curious to how that came about as i doubt there won't be many UB who are members of C1872?

 

If it's a choice between C1872 helping financially with upgrading disabled facilities and Safe Standing, i'm voting for disabled facilities upgrade. But i think it's a straight vote whether the C1872 members vote to help finance it or not, no mention of the disabled situation.

[Bluedell 5,329]

What happened if C1872 members vote against it?  C1872 are putting in a lot of work without knowing what the membership think. 

 

Then again, we have had ex-board members saying that the expenditure of £1 million is not a "major" decision (meaning no member consultation), so I guess it's not that important what us mere members think. 

[forlanssister 3,050]

2 hours ago, aweebluesoandso said:

Not saying i'm against safe standing but it doesn't enthuse me tbh, maybe i'm getting to old? Being partially disabled myself disabled facilities and upgrading them interests me more. C1872 seems to have taken up the mantle for this, i'm curious to how that came about as i doubt there won't be many UB who are members of C1872?

 

If it's a choice between C1872 helping financially with upgrading disabled facilities and Safe Standing, i'm voting for disabled facilities upgrade. But i think it's a straight vote whether the C1872 members vote to help finance it or not, no mention of the disabled situation.

They're pushing this because they think it's popular and ergo will help their recruitment drive and help full their coffers. I don't have a problem with safe standing per se but it should be done correctly and not half arsed which is what it would be if like what it appears they just want the rail seating like across the city. To do it correctly requires proper investment and structural changes to the stadium and if done properly the wheelchair facilities can be addressed at the same time.

 

I doubt Club 1872 would even have a vote on disabled facilities as they tend to swerve the issue.

 

Anyway when all said and done it is the responsibility of the Rangers Board to ensure the disabled facilities are what they should and need to be and in that respect they are failing badly.

[Bill 13,717]

I don't give a fig for Club1872 or the Union Bears. Both are fully entitled to their views and priorities but, as an ordinary Rangers fan with no affiliations, if money is spent on safe standing while our squad needs serious improvement and the fabric of Ibrox is in such poor condition then something is very very wrong.

 

If certain factions want safe standing they should raise the money pay for it all themselves. It seems to me at least that this is definitely not the business of Club1872.

[Tannochsidebear 2,306]

I am not against safe standing in principal, but I see it as so far down our list of priorities that it shouldnt even be getting discussed for at least another decade. 

 

The "consultation" C1872 say they have had 2300 names of interest for was completely one-sided and offered no chance to oppose it. Can we say then that over 40,000 ST holders are against this if only 2300 people signed up for a note of interest?

 

Lets face it, safe standing doesnt generate an atmosphere, the combination of the opponent, flow of the game, weather conditions etc determine the atmosphere. Always has done, always will do. I stood safely about 3 rows from the back at Fir Park on Saturday and it didnt do one little thing to increase the atmosphere at the ground.

 

Lets get disabled facilities, a capacity increase, stadium infrastructure, the team on the park, a proper manager FFS, all sorted out as well as about 20 other things before we even look at this. 

[plgsarmy 111]

2 hours ago, Tannochsidebear said:

I am not against safe standing in principal, but I see it as so far down our list of priorities that it shouldnt even be getting discussed for at least another decade. 

 

The "consultation" C1872 say they have had 2300 names of interest for was completely one-sided and offered no chance to oppose it. Can we say then that over 40,000 ST holders are against this if only 2300 people signed up for a note of interest?

 

Lets face it, safe standing doesnt generate an atmosphere, the combination of the opponent, flow of the game, weather conditions etc determine the atmosphere. Always has done, always will do. I stood safely about 3 rows from the back at Fir Park on Saturday and it didnt do one little thing to increase the atmosphere at the ground.

 

Lets get disabled facilities, a capacity increase, stadium infrastructure, the team on the park, a proper manager FFS, all sorted out as well as about 20 other things before we even look at this. 

I entirely agree with you. I’m not sure why this survey was even done. Stewart said at the AGM that the Club would be carrying out a consultation with supporters  and that still seems to be the case so what was the purpose of this?