Have sent the following to Richard Caborn ahead of his meeting with Mike Hancock about the EDM, also sent a colour pic of Werder Bremen's safe standing area (the one in mancred's signiture). Will let you know any reply.

---

Dear Mr Caborn,

I am writing regarding your views on standing areas in football grounds, in light of the massive support for Mike Hancock’s Early Day Motion and your forthcoming meeting with him.

I understand your concerns with regard to standing accommodation, notably the risks of crowd surges. Furthermore, I understand why you welcome the increasing number of women attending football matches and why you are unwilling to jeopardise this. That said, I challenge the conclusions you draw from these beliefs.

First of all, are you aware of the type of standing in operation at Werder Bremen’s Wesserstadion? I have enclosed a picture for your reference. As you will see, there is a crush barrier on each step, so that each spectator is protected on the front and from behind. I hope you will agree this is very different from the vast terraces of old.

Do you believe that this area is safe? If so, can you support the development of this very particular form of standing accommodation in England? If you believe it is not safe, I invite you to describe how you believe someone could be injured while
standing there.

Second, while there are many smart, modern stadia in England that have attracted new people to the game, why do you believe that the conversion of small areas to safe standing would jeopardise this? German stadia typically have just the lower tier of one end of the ground as standing space. There remain plenty of seats for those who wish to sit.

Indeed by offering separate areas, those who wish to sit do not have their views blocked by others standing. If you watched the recent FA Cup game between Liverpool and Arsenal on the BBC, it cannot have escaped your notice that thousands of supporters at both ends of the ground stood throughout the game. In England, many who wish to stand are forced to sit and many who wish to sit forced to stand. Is this really going to attract more people to the game than giving everyone a proper choice? The fact that Europe’s most popular league (the Bundesliga) retains standing accommodation at most of its grounds suggests otherwise.

Finally, one of the FLA’s arguments against safe standing areas is that the configurations of many grounds would make their introduction costly. Clearly this argument cannot apply to new build grounds. For example, Doncaster Rovers FC have recently moved into an all-seater stadium, despite the desire of their supporters for standing accommodation. At existing stadia, any costs relating to ground conversions need to be offset against extra revenues from increased capacities. Manchester United and Arsenal have recently gone to massive expense to increase their ground capacities; surely reconfiguration to include safe standing areas would have achieved the same end far more cheaply? I don’t suggest clubs are forced to offer standing accommodation, but from the German experience where clubs can most will. In the Bundesliga fifteen of the eighteen clubs provide standing spaces.

I would be interested to hear your views on the Wesserstadion and social access to English football; finally I welcome your willingness to meet with Mr Hancock and discuss the subject, and hope that this can be the start of a fruitful dialogue that can lead to supporters being given a choice of sitting or standing, in safety and comfort.




Yours Sincerely,



Christopher Nash

brilliant, well done mate

It might have been a good Idea to use Liverpool and everton needing to move grounds at great cost just to get more people in

yeah, excellent later mate. Very clearly made points.

Very good letter indeed. It will be interesting to see his response, especially if he believes that those standing areas are unsafe!

Well done - well written and thought out. It will be intresting whether he addresses all your valid points or just goes off on his safety can only be implemented by seating waffle and per usual. I await his response with anticipation.

Excellent - and as Steve says it will be interesting to see if he actually addresses the points you have raised.

I need to get a letter off in response to mine re woman and football in which the civil servant who responded ignored most of the points I raised. If necessary I'll use the complaints system until I do get a response.

Very good letter mate. Don't hold your breath waiting for a response though. Caborn is my MP in central Sheffield (I'm originally from Headingley though, hence my username and being a Leeds fan) and I sent him an email a couple of months back regarding standing. I've still not heard back. What is the complaints system Amanda? Am I any more entitled than anyone else to a response from him becuase he's my MP?

Very good letter.
You'll get a response. If its just the standard DCMS letter on standing and doesn't address the points you've made so well, you should write again or ideally get your MP to do so on your behalf.

It is very long and took me a while, but I poured my heart into it :P . I have just sent it and will post up the responce if I get any.

.................................................................................

Dear Mr. Caborn,

I am writing to you to ask whether the government could review having limited safe standing areas at football grounds. I am 15 years old and an Ipswich Town support, who fell in love with the game because of the atmosphere generated. I have noticed within the last few seasons, atmosphere at grounds has significantly slumped, most grounds now resemble libraries. I myself do sit at the football because I do not want to block the view of others if I stand, but to be honest I hate sitting. It is near impossible to generate atmosphere by sitting on a cold, boring, plastic seat. If safe standing was allowed into grounds, the advantages far out-weigh the disadvantages because those who want stand would be able to, the people who want to sit would not have their view blocked, atmosphere would improve a lot (with standing there is more of a community rather than being isolated to a seat) and ticket prices would lower and be available to those who can't afford it.

Hillsborough was a devestating tragedy, and obviously no-one wants a repeat BUT the areas of safe standing that people like me are asking for would not resemble 80's terraces. They would be like those of Germany, which are controlled easily and safe. Terracing was also not the sole cause of the Hillsborough disater, but many other factors lead to it for example poor policing and control, the dangerous fences at the front of the stands, the pens (cage like) areas where people were shoved into and the stand not having a safety certificate at the time. If safe standing is good enough for the Germans, why not us? Another point is that concerts are held at football stadiums such as at Portman Road. At the gigs, people are allowed to stand in areas of the ground that you are not allowed to at football games?! You say that football supporters have a different 'profile' to people who go to gigs, yet they stand, jump, dance and have beer in steep upper tiers of seated football stands. Then when a football game is played, it is immadately dangerous to stand up? In my opinion this is very unfair.

Also, how can Lord Taylor's report be put into the context of modern football? The report itself is over 15 years old and the world has changed significantly since that time. Lord Taylor mentioned that standing itself was not unsafe. He also said that if all-seated stadiums did come into place (which we have now) 'football fans would get used to sitting.' This is obviously not the case. The North Stand at Portman Road has always been known as the loud end. Seats were introduced in 1992 (one of the earliest ground to have an all-seater) yet 1000's still stand in the Lower Tier each saturday, and frankly if they didn't stand the ground would be even quieter than it is now. This area of the ground is for over 16's only with no concession tickets allowed so how could children, which the government has said many times, be affected by those who stand? You also use the point that women and the elderly also want to sit, is that a fair assumption? Many women stand at football week in week out because many want to, not because they are forced to. If they would prefer to sit then there is vast numbers of family enclosures and at Portman Road, The North Stand Upper, The Cobbold Stand, The Churchmans End and the Britannia Stand all sit, so surely there is plenty of room for those who prefer to sit. At the moment the deal is this: Sitters get nearly 100% of the deal, standers 0%. Surely we have freedom of choise?

At times where I have stood, for example away games, the atmosphere generated is amazing. It gives a sense of belonging and its fun. The fun in football, is nearly all but gone. Over the top stewarding and poor atmosphere make football more like a chore than leisure, and its boring. I have stood on the terraces of Colchester united's Layer Road a few times. It is excellent, the noise, fun, social atmosphere is excellent and can't be beaten, the terraces are also far more popular than the seated areas and because of forced safety regulations it will close. This brilliant ground will be lost forever as have many other brilliant grounds full of character, which have now become souless bowls and coperate arenas with no community in out of town locations. Football grounds used to be at the heart of the community and now many are not, luckily Portman Road + Layer Road is still community based, but for how long?

Over the top health and safety aswell, is just plain stupid. Every week, i'm told to take the bottle cap off my coke because it could be used as a missile?! I am never going to throw missiles anyway but to be honest what is a bottle cap going to do? It is pathetic, petty and over the top in my opinion. Stewards and police are far to over the top in many places, as I have seen people being thrown out for swearing alone and standing on the back rows (they are therefore not impeding anyones view). Obviously its not good to swear all the time but at football in the heat of the moment it can't be helped.

I am therefore asking, for the sake of football, its supporters, the community and the atmosphere, to reconsider the debate of safe standing. It is not fair in a democratic country of ours to have the views of the loyal football supporters completely ignored, with the same arguments from the government used all the time dismisevely. Please at least have a fair and open debate. If it is possible in Germany, at lower league grounds, at Rugby and at concerts, why not in football? If something is not done, football will be lost forever in my eyes to the rich, coperate men and not where it should be; with the fans.

Thankyou for reading my e-mail, and I look forward to your responce, Yours sincerly Marcus.

Excellent letter, will be interesting to see if you just get a standard response or one that actually addresses some of your points. Ultimately all we want is a proper debate on the subject, that's all the EDM asked for - hopefully it isn't too much.

If the youth keep saying stuff like this then it will help

good work, try to get your mates doing the same thing

well my Idea for a letter is to post questions on another site that I use and send the responses to him


will be putting these bits in the letter takwn from another site that i post on,

View Poll Results: what would you prefer
safe standing 38- 79.17%
sitting 5- 10.42%
not arsed 5- 10.42%
---------------------

Standing!

And i'm not even fussed whether it's safe standing or not.

Safe standing could easily be done though.
---------------------------------
Standing with mates all the way..

It was something like £8 I believe before they put seats in the East Lower.
----------------------------------
stand without my 7 year old lad,sit with so both mate
------------------------------------------
standing, always.
---------------------------------------------
Had a book in East Lower (scoreboard Paddock) when they were re-developing the Stretford End from standing to seats. I was a junior then and my book was £76.00. Double that to an Adult giving you £152.00, divide that by 19 premiership games and that would give you the £8.00. Though that was 15 Years ago so I expect if there was standing again it would be double that! £16.00 to stand is still less than half the price of my seat is now in North Stand! And I would prefer to stand then sit like lemon's in seats.

There is no reason why all the lower's could not got back to safe standing!
--------------------------------------------------------
would be more than happy even if only the stretford end was standing a rest where sitting
---------------------------------------------
both ends behind the goal would be fantastic
-----------------------------------------------------------------
My fisrt (junior) LMTB for The Stretford worked out at 1.20 per game!
---------------------------------

another Idea could be to send him a letter with replies to the standing watch threads to prove the demand for standing seations


what do you think amanda?

Thanks everyone, if Caborn just sends a plain, standard responce, then I will keep E-mailing him until he address my points :D . Even f it takes 5 E-mails to get him to listen to me then I will do it.

Great letter, you can tell it's written from the heart and let's see what answers you get!

ML-ITFC
BRILLIANT I can`t add anything to that.
If the tw*t ignores that (he will) then we are facing an uphill strugle
Noshock there then!!!

If he does ignore it, then I'm just going to send another one saying:

'Thankyou for your responce, but I'm very disappointed that you dismissed many of my points, which are:

(I will then list the points again <_< ).

'I would appreciate if you would please respond to these points... Yours Sincerly...'

I don't know if theres a law which says there is a limit to the amount of E-mails you can send, so until he responds to my points, I will keep on sending, which is only fair.

If hes says that the atmosphere is not terrible, I will say: 'Come sit at Portman Road for 90 mins' :lol:

I have just sent a similar E-mail to the FLA - few changes:

........................................

Dear FLA members, I am writing to you about Safe Standing at football grounds. I have sent a similar E-mail to Mr. Caborn.

I am 15 years old and an Ipswich Town supporter, who fell in love with the game because of the atmosphere generated. I have noticed within the last few seasons, atmosphere at grounds has significantly slumped, most grounds now resemble libraries. I myself do sit at the football because I do not want to block the view of others if I stand, but to be honest I hate sitting. It is near impossible to generate atmosphere by sitting on a cold, boring, plastic seat. If safe standing was allowed into grounds, the advantages far out-weigh the disadvantages because those who want stand would be able to, the people who want to sit would not have their view blocked, atmosphere would improve a lot (with standing there is more of a community rather than being isolated to a seat) and ticket prices would lower and be available to those who can't afford it.

Hillsborough was a devestating tragedy, and obviously no-one wants a repeat BUT the areas of safe standing that people like me are asking for would not resemble 80's terraces. They would be like those of Germany, which are controlled easily and safe. Terracing was also not the sole cause of the Hillsborough disater, but many other factors lead to it for example poor policing and control, the dangerous fences at the front of the stands, the pens (cage like) areas where people were shoved into and the stand not having a safety certificate at the time. If safe standing is good enough for the Germans, why not us? Another point is that concerts are held at football stadiums such as at Portman Road. At the gigs, people are allowed to stand in areas of the ground that you are not allowed to at football games?! You say that football supporters have a different 'profile' to people who go to gigs, yet they stand, jump, dance and have beer in steep upper tiers of seated football stands. Then when a football game is played, it is immadately dangerous to stand up? In my opinion this is very unfair.

Also, how can Lord Taylor's report be put into the context of modern football? The report itself is over 15 years old and the world has changed significantly since that time. Lord Taylor mentioned that standing itself was not unsafe. He also said that if all-seated stadiums did come into place (which we have now) 'football fans would get used to sitting.' This is obviously not the case. The North Stand at Portman Road has always been known as the loud end. Seats were introduced in 1992 (one of the earliest ground to have an all-seater) yet 1000's still stand in the Lower Tier each saturday, and frankly if they didn't stand the ground would be even quieter than it is now. This area of the ground is for over 16's only with no concession tickets allowed so how could children, which the government has said many times, be affected by those who stand? I am quite young and have always wanted to stand at the football since I was small and many people I know who are my age also want to stand (they are lucky enough to support Colchester and stand at Layer Road). You also use the point that women and the elderly also want to sit, is that a fair assumption? Many women stand at football week in week out because many want to, not because they are forced to. If they would prefer to sit then there is vast numbers of family enclosures and at Portman Road, The North Stand Upper, The Cobbold Stand, The Churchmans End and the Britannia Stand all sit, so surely there is plenty of room for those who prefer to sit. At the moment the deal is this: Sitters get nearly 100% of the deal, standers 0%. Surely we have freedom of choise?

At times where I have stood, for example away games, the atmosphere generated is amazing. It gives a sense of belonging and its fun. The fun in football, is nearly all but gone. Over the top stewarding and poor atmosphere make football more like a chore than leisure, and its boring. I have stood on the terraces of Colchester united's Layer Road a few times. It is excellent, the noise, fun, social atmosphere is excellent and can't be beaten, the terraces are also far more popular than the seated areas and because of forced safety regulations it will close. This brilliant ground will be lost forever as have many other brilliant grounds full of character, which have now become souless bowls and coperate arenas with no community in out of town locations. Football grounds used to be at the heart of the community and now many are not, luckily Portman Road + Layer Road is still community based, but for how long?

Over the top health and safety aswell, is just plain stupid. Every week, i'm told to take the bottle cap off my coke because it could be used as a missile?! I am never going to throw missiles anyway but to be honest what is a bottle cap going to do? It is pathetic, petty and over the top in my opinion. Stewards and police are far to over the top in many places, as I have seen people being thrown out for swearing alone and standing on the back rows (they are therefore not impeding anyones view). Obviously its not good to swear all the time but at football in the heat of the moment it can't be helped. I have heard many stories of how football supporters are treated with no respect at all by stewards (espicially at away games). I have seen Ipswich supporters being filmed at places like Southend, where there was no trouble or violence. I saw the police and stewards discriminate against supporters after the game. It seemed that all males between the age of 20 - 40 were pulled to one side. Obviously there had been banter during the game but about 30 men were pulled aside, some men who even had young children with them. It is totally unfair and is not an isolated occasion. I know that there needs to be a steward/police presense for games but when I see people being thrown out for such small things it is very frustrating and just increses the friction between supporters and stewards.

If safe standing were implamented then the friction between stewards and supporters would be greatly reduced as most cases where people are thrown out is because of standing. Some football supporters will never want to sit down so until safe standing comes into place there will always be conflict.

I am therefore asking, for the sake of football, its supporters, the community, the atmosphere, and the rights of supporters to reconsider safe standing. It is not fair in a democratic country of ours to have the views of the loyal football supporters completely ignored, with the same arguments from the government and yourselves used all the time dismisevely. Please at least have a fair and open debate. If it is possible in Germany, at lower league grounds, at Rugby and at concerts, why not in football? If something is not done, football will be lost forever in my eyes to the rich, coperate men and not where it should be; with the fans.

Thankyou for reading my e-mail, and I look forward to your responce, Yours sincerly Marcus.

Not sure how much of this has been said by Richard Caborn before (probably all of it!), but I've recently received a lengthy reply from him about safe standing.

He points out that, although the Taylor report acknowledged that standing was not "intrinsically unsafe", Taylor was satisfied that seating does more to achieve safety and crowd control objectives than any other measure. Caborn also refers to the "exemplary" safety record at matches in the top two divisions since the introduction of all-seater stadia, that average attendances rose between 1993 and 2004, and that football is now a "hugely successful industry" which I think someone has pointed out previously! He also cites the development of Arsenal's North Bank, which has apparently seen the number of female fans increase by 35% since 1993.

He says that the Premier League, the Football Association and the Football League have "told me in no uncertain terms that they support the all-seater policy and have no wish to see a return to standing at matches.

It is for these reasons (i.e all of the above) that we currently stand by the policy of all-seater stadia in the top two divisions and why we do not intend to review our stance at this time".

He refers to meetings with the FSF, and says that he is aware of the arguments for the re-introduction of standing areas "of which there are two models often suggested - including the introduction of the system used in Germany which provides standing and seating where appropriate, and allowing passive standing in front of seats". I thought that his use of the words "where appropriate" was interesting - so he does accept that standing areas may be appropriate, then?

He continues "The first option would require a large amount of expensive readjustments to grounds. The latter not only increases the likelihood of a serious incident occurring but would be inconsistent as such areas would not fulfil the minimum safety requirements needed for standing areas in the lower two divisions where standing is still allowed, due in the main to the lower attendances".

Having said all that, his final sentence is:

"However, as stated previously, the Government remain open to any new evidence that demonstrates that standing can be reintroduced in a safe and cost effective manner".

Fucking disastrous. To be honest. If thats a very recent reply, after all the publicity, and talking to the Portsmouth MP, and he's saying its not going to happen, then what happens now?

His letter was dated 10th February.

I'll leave it to others better qualified than myself to see if there's any noticeable change of stance/chink of light from what he may have said previously.

I think that's a standard letter, I've certainly seen that text (or very near to it) before. Taking those points in turn, if you want to respond:

1) Taylor believed that seating was a safer form of accomodation. That was in 1989. Things have moved on tremendously since. We have 125 MP's calling for a new investigation into the subject. Surely that isn't too much to ask for?

2) All-seated grounds are very safe. So are standing grounds. But no activity in life is 100% safe, and indeed standing on a terrace is far safer than scuba diving/rock climbing etc. Are the government planning to ban these? Should we all just stay at home and fritter away our lives.

3) Average gates have risen in recent years but there are any number of reasons why. Conference gates have also risen sharply in recent years yet AFAIK until Oxford this year the conference has never had an all-seater stadium.

4) The increase in the number of women in the game may also have a number of causes. In any case, why would providing a small part of each ground as standing accomodation (At Schalke, Koln, Hamburg etc this is typically half of one end and a small block for visitors) deter women? And what about women who want to stand? As a wider point the game is clearly not becoming more socially inclusive, as only 9% of people attending premiership games are under the age of 24. All-seater grounds have reduced capacities, raised prices and forced people out. Caborn will need to do more than bleat in the paper about his concerns here, when he continues to support the policies which perpetuate them.

5) The evidence from Germany is that where clubs can build standing areas, most do. In any case there are clubs who have stated that they would like to provide standing room, Oldham for one. By giving clubs a choice, no-one would be worse off and many better.

6) His point in passing about lower league grounds suggests that he considers standing safe here as crowds are 'smaller' areas. 'Small' presumably including the Kop at Wrexham (capacity 5,000), Exeter's Big Bank and both ends at Halifax (4,000 each). Plenty of Prem/Champ stands are smaller than these - so logically it is safe to allow standing in these parts. Indeed an area like the South Lower at Leeds IS a terrace, just with seats bolted on.

Apparently, in a final twist, the government are 'open to new evidence' yet they 'don't intend to review (their) stance'. Why is that? Because they know they haven't got a leg to stand on.

What's that got to do with the Government changing the rules? Surely it's upto them to change the rules if they think it can be done safely, and then it's upto the clubs to find the funds if they decide to implement a safe standing area.

It looks like they're just using a new excuse, as they've realised they can't sit there and say the German model is unsafe, as it cleary isn't so they're now saying it would be too expensive to implement.

Typical politician. Just the usual spin! How do they do it?

Blues Brother/unibee

I'm new to all this so it was interesting to read your points. Couldn't agree more about the cost effectiveness issue - what the hell has that got to do with the Government?

The German model is a great argument on our side so he's doing the usual politician's trick of simply trying to sidestep the issue and concentrate on the arguments where he feels he's on safer ground (no pun intended) - but he does refer to this system providing "standing and seating where appropriate" so this can only be an admittance that standing must be safe. Unless he's saying that it can be done safely and cost effectively in Germany but not here? Or worse, is he implying that the Government doesn't trust British fans to behave when in standing areas?

I'm tempted to reply using some of your points unibee but guess he would only do a neat sidestep again. Besides, he probably reads this site anyway, or at least gets one of his staff to do it for him! :P

No reply as yet from Richard Caborn.

Though for the record I've also sent the following off to Mike Hancock. Picture of Werder Bremen (which mancred links to) and print from LA Galaxy regading their 'supporters section' (where people can stand in front of their seats) is included.


EDM 101: SAFE STANDING IN FOOTBALL GROUNDS

Dear Mr Hancock,

I am writing to you in respect of your Early Day Motion on Safe Standing Areas in football grounds. Can I say a big thank-you for raising this issue, which has got a superb response. I understand that you are meeting the Sports Minister next month, and my purpose of writing is to offer you a few things that you might consider ahead of that meeting. I hope you find it useful:

There are basically two models for standing in football grounds, one is designated safe standing areas and the second is where people stand in front of their seats.
The former is used widely in Germany and the latter in America.

UEFA regulations state that grounds must be all-seated for European competition,
but clubs in Germany have found a number of different ways around this. Three of these are:

1) At Schalke, the seats are removed for domestic games and crush barriers installed.
2) At Hamburg, the seats fold away into the terrace.
3) At Bremen, the terrace steps are twice as wide and have seats on them, which are unbolted for European games.

It is worth mentioning this because when a team from the FLA visited Germany in 2001 they only went to Hamburg. Their study was thus incomplete. There is clearly scope for a proper (wider) re-examination of the issues, which takes into account the many design possibilities.

In terms of the safety aspects of standing, the Bremen style of standing seems the safest form and furthest away from the ‘traditional terrace’. I enclose a photo of this for your reference. The key features are:

1) Steps are twice as wide as traditional terrace steps, so can carry people two deep.
2) Each row has a crush barrier so there is no risk of crushing – this being the main reason why some believe seating is safer.
3) For European games, the seats need merely be unlocked which is very easy.

One of the FLA’s main reasons as to why they didn’t believe Hamburg style standing area could be imported, was that to convert our existing stadia would be very difficult and costly. Notwithstanding that this is just one type of standing accomodation, a change in the law need not force clubs to offering such facilities, just that they could if they so wishedCharlton and Oldham are two clubs with all-seater grounds who have expressed a clear desire to provide standing room.

There is a further twist here. My own club (Barnet) have a largely terraced ground. Should we be promoted to the Championship much of this will be condemned. The ground cannot easily be reconfigured into an all-seat arena. Hence the present laws are a barrier to success for clubs like mine.

A second model for standing is that a small suitable area of each ground is set aside for supporters to stand in front of their seats. I enclose a print from the LA Galaxy website. Although theirs is an all-seater stadium, a ‘supporters section’ is set aside where standing is permitted.

It should be noted here that thousand are standing in all-seater grounds today, Taylor’s prediction that people would become accustomed to sitting has not been borne out by reality. For example, in the Chelsea v Aston Villa game this season all 6,000 visiting supporters stood, many in the upper tier. Any arguments about the safety of this idea need to be put against this background. By allocating a standing section among this (say, the back 10 rows of the lower tier) standing would be properly managed, and indeed the numbers standing may actually be reduced as those who wish to sit could do so in peace. The FLA’s alternative, heavy handed approach is causing far more problems than the problem it seeks to solve and is clearly not achieving its aims.

Ultimately, you may not change Mr Caborn’s mind but if you could achieve a pledge for a proper independent study that re-examines all of the issues then you will have done a great service. A similar study bought Germany the fine grounds they have today. Many thanks for reading my letter.


Yours sincerely,


Christopher Nash

Top class Unibee. Good issue to raise about Barnet and the barrier to success there is under current legislation unless they re-locate.

Think of some of the new out of town bowls which if safe terracing could've been fitted in their old grounds could have had enough capacity to stay put. Then you'd have avoided the headache of having to give over land, possibly green spaces or rural/urban fringe areas which are unnecessarily built on, or could be put to better use than building a soulless ground which wasnt really needed.

Also these new grounds stuck out in nowhere encourage car use, aren't walkable distance, and take ages to get in and out of.

There, you've got unnecessary environmental and sustainable development pressures all because of this ridiculous rule!!! Could be some more useful ammo to fire in.

Excellent letters mate!

I would be gratefull for any constructive criticism including my grammar !

Dear Mr Caborn

I am writing to you regarding the issue of safe standing in our football grounds.

The recent comments by David Cameron have served to put this issue back in the spotlight and rightly so. The situation that we have at the moment is absolutely ludicrous, tens of thousands of fans standing every week in seated areas in stadia that provide no choice for the spectator who wishes to stand and on the flip side creating ever increasingly obstructed views for those that prefer to remain seated.

This leaves us in an impossible position. If you want to keep the game evolving further from the massive industry that it already is then you need to preserve the characteristics that make it so unique in England, primarily this is its rich and varied atmosphere. Anyone that tells you that you can sing when sitting down is severly deluded, it just doesnt happen.

As a result of this large sections of grounds are regulary accomodating masses of fans who stand for the duration of the whole game . The rights of those whose wish to sit and watch the game are infringed by those who persistantly stand in front in them and yet despite all of this the authorites inexplicably refuse to even discuss the situation, beating down the argument with the 'Hillsborough' stick.

It is plainly obvious for all to see that we have moved on considerably in terms of stadium safety and design since the advent of the Taylor report, indeed modern terracing is so far removed from its pre Taylor counterpart that it has in effect been completely reinvented.

Can you please explain to me with these very valid points in mind why a common sense approach to the safe standing issue is always sidestepped?

Why, when we have a situation where thousands of fans are flouting the law every week and are standing in seated areas are we not looking for a solution that is far more practical, indeed arguably safer than an enviroment where fans are now standing on seats ?

This isnt an issue that effects just a handfull of clubs. there is growing dissilussionment across the board from Chelsea down to Doncater Rovers with the way our stadiums are designed and how they are being run and the resulting tepid 'americanised' atmosphere that we are left with.

If the safe standing bone of contention is not debated in the very near future I fear we may lose a whole generation of younger fans who will find better things to do on a Saturday afternoon rather spend a small fortune sitting in a souless bowl listening to an artificial atmosphere pumped out of the PA system.

The crowds are beginning to dwindle noticeably already, at what point will it take for someone to act and ask why? When the TV companies realise they cant sell their product with too many empty seats and no atmosphere ? When consequently the money runs dry and the game as industry begins to verge on collapse?

Remember that without the fans the game is nothing. Football fans in Britain are among the worst treated customers in the world, I would go as far to say that our human rights are infringed by the meaures imposd on us in football grounds, given that people regualry stand at venues for pop concerts, Rugby games etc and in far greater numbers.

I would be interested to see how you can justify the non debate of standing in football grounds, your refusal seemingly based soley on a report (Lord justice taylor) that is nearly 20 years old and clearly now very out of date when one considers how the game and modern technology has evolved in recent years.

I look forward to your considered reply

Another very good letter IMO - it is crucial that we keep pressing the point that thousands are refusing to sit down and the current system isn't working, it's not just a matter of prinicple, it's practicality. As far as I see he's never addressed that, his replies are based on a presumption that the current regulations can be enforced.

Very good letter!

Hopefully he won't be able to sidestep it too much (he will still try :angry: ) and will be forced to give a proper response that addresses the points you raised.

Although the FLA seem to have changed stance, from saying a couple of years ago that standing was reducing (even denying that more than a handful stood at one point) and that their measures would stop it, to moaning that club chairman won't take the 'risks' seriously and having to admit that they are stuggling to get people to sit.

Good letter and good point, allof the debate around designated standing areas seems to start from the theoretical of all-seaters vs non all-seaters, whereas in reality it is often managed standing vs. unmanaged standing.

Superb letter.
Also the fact that many lower league sides have kept terracing with no problems goes to show it is manageable. We are only asking for limited standing areas so it wont be a collosal cost to any clubs and will increase capacity and reduce prices.

That really is a superb letter. Keep em coming everyone.

Another great letter, thank you.

The more letters like this sent to Richard Caborn, the better, so lets keep 'em coming please.

I received the standard reply from Mr Caborn via my MP today.

This is my response which I am asking her to forward to him:


Angela Watkinson MP
House of Commons
London
SW1A 0AA



Dear Mrs Watkinson

Thank you for forwarding the letter from Richard Caborn with regard to standing areas at football grounds.

This is the same standard letter which has been sent to more than 70 MPs and many supporters. I would suggest that this contains misleading assumptions, but fails to provide any real evidence as to why standing areas should not be permitted.

It is indeed true that the injury rate for football matches in the top two divisions is very low, with around 1000 recorded injuries in 2003/4, (virtually all of which were minor, such as scalds from hot drinks). However included in these attendance figures are the many thousands of supporters from clubs across the country, who stand each week in seated areas. If this was unsafe, surely the injury figures would reflect it. Furthermore Mr Caborn fails to mention that the injury rate in the lower two divisions, where some grounds contain standing areas, is also very low. Again if standing were dangerous one would assume the injury rate would be much higher.

The DCMS and FLA show no interest in analysis data or collecting figures in order to compare injury rates between standing and seated areas. There have been many changes within football since Hillsborough and I would suggest no evidence to connect the low injury figures with all seated grounds. Mr Caborn's letter does not tell the full story.

Average attendances have indeed risen. What Mr Caborn fails to state is that the main reason for this is that the low figure of 23,000 in 1993 was due to many grounds having reduced capacity due to re-development. Neither does he provide any historical injury statistics so that a comparison of injury rate per spectator can be made.

It is true and is to be welcomed that more families are attending football matches, but this cannot be put down to ‘the introduction of seating’ as Mr Caborn suggests. There have always been seats in grounds and there is no suggestion that they should not remain. It is only a small area of grounds that we seek to have designated for standing.

Mr Caborn’s use of the number of women supporters in Arsenal’s North Stand has caused much offence. Many women would prefer to stand at football and find it most offensive that Mr Caborn assumes they wish to sit and uses this as a justification for all seater. In any case, anyone wishing to sit would not be prevented from doing so by part of the ground being designated for standing. This would just provide choice for all. Mr Caborn talks about football’s ‘appeal to many groups in our society’, but is quite happy to fail to cater for the large group of fans of all ages, who wish to stand.

Whilst Mr Caborn has discussed these issues with the football authorities, having spoken to a number of individuals within the FA, Premier League and Football League, I would question their opposition of standing in the terms he uses. Their response (at least publicly) is generally that the Government wants all seater and unless this changes they will go along with it. The Government’s job is to set the rules, not use its claim that certain bodies may agree with them as a justification for maintaining its policy.

Furthermore, to dismiss the German model as ‘requiring a large amount of expensive readjustment to grounds’ is not relevant. Again it is the Government’s job to set the rules and the decision of football as to whether they wish to spend money altering grounds. This is not a justification for refusing to relax the regulations.

His argument that standing in front of seats increases the likelihood of a serious accident is unsubstantiated. This has occurred all over the country every week for more than ten years, with no problems. If there was evidence of safety problems occurring I am sure that Mr Caborn would have mentioned these in his letter. Standing is accepted at moments of excitement, so how can it be unsafe just to stand passively and watch the game.

All seater was brought in on safety grounds, but the Government seems to have moved away from this argument, to quoting spurious and unsubstantiated reasons why standing should not be permitted. No one has given any real reason why supporters cannot be permitted to stand in certain seated areas: that what already happens is properly managed.

I would be grateful if you could forward this letter to Mr Caborn.

Thank you.

Yours sincerely

Excellent letter Peter!

Hopefully you will get a non-standardised response the next time in which your points are actually addressed. Caborn obviously doesn't want to debate the issue and that's because he knows how weak his arguements are and that he would inevitably lose the debate.

Please post below any letters that you write to the FLA, Sports Minister, local MP's etc, along with their replies.