Union Bears statement

[BEARGER 1,829]

9 pages in and a good discussion on what’s would be best for everyone. But no numbers of UB members and how many others they have waiting to transfer in. How can we agree what’s best without knowing what we are dealing with? I did notice last week that when there was some signing it was only front half approx in BF1 that were not singing, those behind were.

 

[BlackSocksRedTops 3,466]

3 minutes ago, BEARGER said:

9 pages in and a good discussion on what’s would be best for everyone. But no numbers of UB members and how many others they have waiting to transfer in. How can we agree what’s best without knowing what we are dealing with? I did notice last week that when there was some signing it was only front half approx in BF1 that were not singing, those behind were.

 

By all accounts there is a split. Those sitting behind are part of The People's Front of Judea and take nothing to do with those at the front, who are part of The Judean People's Front

[pete 2,494]

3 hours ago, Gonzo79 said:

Sounds like your mates are a bunch of rascals.

All law abiding citizens. It was very easy to do so many were doing it. I personally don't want to stand for 2 hours so I am happy in the sitting area. I was in the standing area at Dortmund once but due to me not being the tallest in the world and getting a sore back and legs it is not for me.

[ranger_syntax 3,748]

1 hour ago, BEARGER said:

9 pages in and a good discussion on what’s would be best for everyone. But no numbers of UB members and how many others they have waiting to transfer in. How can we agree what’s best without knowing what we are dealing with? I did notice last week that when there was some signing it was only front half approx in BF1 that were not singing, those behind were.

 

Contrary to some claims it is not, in fact,1690 but rather 1688.

[ranger_syntax 3,748]

5 hours ago, JohnMc said:

Are you confusing engaging with agreeing? 

No.

 

You are arguing against a straw man in your posts.

 

If you want to argue against safe standing then tell us about some of the problems that safe standing actually has.  It's not as if there aren't any.

[ranger_syntax 3,748]

5 hours ago, JohnMc said:

As I said above it's all safe until you cram too many people into it or you don't maintain it correctly. My experiences have led me to mistrust organisations charged with keeping football supporters safe. 

Again, this can be said about seating too.

[JohnMc 2,463]

8 hours ago, Gonzo79 said:

That can't happen with safe standing.

It wasn't supposed to happen in terraces either, but it did. I understand that the design is different and the 'barrier' for every row is meant to reduce the possibility of surges, usually the most dangerous aspect of terraces, but my concern remains not so much with the design but with the humans who'll be managing and using it. 

As Pete says I think it's inevitable at some match somewhere more people than are meant to will get access. It's simply harder to police and to manage than seating is. 

[Gonzo79 13,539]

Pete makes a very valid point.  I suppose it depends on where the standing section was and the security measures in place.  Given the current obsession with H&S, I doubt it would be as easy to gain access as it is in Dortmund.

 

The Rangers board don't seem terribly keen, so it's a bit of a pointless debate.

[JohnMc 2,463]

3 hours ago, ranger_syntax said:

No.

 

You are arguing against a straw man in your posts.

 

If you want to argue against safe standing then tell us about some of the problems that safe standing actually has.  It's not as if there aren't any.

They're hardly strawmen. The biggest problem "safe standing" has is the people who'll use it and the people charged with managing it. How's that a strawman? There are simply too many previous examples of the people in charge of football supporters not doing their jobs properly. If you've not experienced being treated like an animal by stewards, police or other clubs then you've been very fortunate. 

[Gaffer 1,665]

 

I don't actually know what safe standing means.  I understood it to be just rows of barriers but no seats, meaning that everyone would still be allocated their own standing space.  Is that correct?

 

I can understand the concerns regarding this, especially from those of us that experienced those moments of surge when we scored.  That was frightening on some occasions and it would definitely not be a situation I'd feel comfortable taking a youngster into.  Thankfully those days are in the past and I'd like to think the modern approach would prevent that.

 

If the surge is prevented by decent barriers (notwithstanding @JohnMc's understandable concerns about ongoing maintenance and stewarding), and there were allocated standing places, I'm all for this.  However, I can't understand how this can work in just part of a stand.  If you have a section of people standing, you cannot see past them and that would spoil it for those in seats.  The only way to deal with it is have standing rows at the very back, or have an entire stand (or at least and front or rear part of the stand) allocated for the safe standing areas.

 

As I started off, I don't know what is meant by safe standing, but I personally prefer to stand at matches.  If possible though, can someone suggest to Rangers that they provide a drinks and pie holder into the barrier system.  I always hated having to ask my father to hold them for me, or put them on the ground, while I read my programme.  Both of these options were filled with risk I'd rather we could avoid.

Edited March 5, 2019 by Gaffer