EST Safe Standing Survey Results

[Brennan]

I'm a big fan of rail seating / safe standing, but there seems to be a fundamental flaw in this survey.

44% of the people surveyed say they go to all, or most, of the away matches, but the maximum allocation is 3000.

Given we have 30,000 plus season ticket holders and are selling out Goodison week in week out, I'm struggling to see how the survey was representative, because 44% implies well over 10,000 people go to all the aways, which is plainly wrong.

@SimonM - am I missing something subtle here ?

1400 people responded. A large number of our season ticket holders are children and likely wouldn't be asked to complete the survey. I think it makes sense that those willing to complete a survey like this outside the ground would be the kind of strongly committed Blues who would go to a lot of aways.

Also 'most' aways leaves it open to interpretation. Even near the end of the season when we have played 14+ away games you tend to be able to get an away ticket with 6 or more credits, so a large number of STH go to several aways but not all. I'm guessing they may consider this 'most' ?

 

[Woolly Blue]

1400 people responded. A large number of our season ticket holders are children and likely wouldn't be asked to complete the survey. I think it makes sense that those willing to complete a survey like this outside the ground would be the kind of strongly committed Blues who would go to a lot of aways.

Also 'most' aways leaves it open to interpretation. Even near the end of the season when we have played 14+ away games you tend to be able to get an away ticket with 6 or more credits, so a large number of STH go to several aways but not all. I'm guessing they may consider this 'most' ?

'Most' was my short hand for 20+/All which was what got 44% in the survey mate. Good point on the kids though.

I just wondered how many of the trust were surveyed and whether that's skewed the results. If the club take the survey results seriously they'll going to be asking the same sort of questions.

In terms of the % on favour of rail seating, I suspect the survey is actually reasonably representative, but if anyone at the club didn't like the results and thought there was a flaw in the survey then it'd be good to have an answer ready to show it wasn't flawed.

 

[Boss_Blue]

I'm a big fan of rail seating / safe standing, but there seems to be a fundamental flaw in this survey.

44% of the people surveyed say they go to all, or most, of the away matches, but the maximum allocation is 3000.

Given we have 30,000 plus season ticket holders and are selling out Goodison week in week out, I'm struggling to see how the survey was representative, because 44% implies well over 10,000 people go to all the aways, which is plainly wrong.

@SimonM - am I missing something subtle here ?

What that says to me Woolly is that fans who are more passionate about the issue than the regular match goer have completed the survey. It may well be that the fans who attend a lot of aways and prefer the standing idea for an improved atmosphere have skewed the data.

Doesn't make the findings any less valid provided it is interpreted correctly.

 

[Boss_Blue]

Bah, what Brennan said.

 

[Dymak]

You can't assure safety when humans are involved, in fact the only thing you can be sure of is that people will make mistakes and that the butterfly effect and chaos theory aren't going anywhere. It is naive bordering on ignorant to say that the Hillsborough disaster had nothing to do with standing up, but you could identify numerous 'causes' of that disaster going back months before the disaster even happened, with the experienced police commander being replaced because some PC's engaged in a prank robbery weeks before the disaster etc.

The ground, the bogs and the food forecourts are already busy enough without adding an extra 50% to the equation imo. Old grounds remain cramped in residential areas just like Hillsborough, and I dread to think what would have happened outside Anfield the other year if an extra 50% had been added to the crowd.

 

[Woolly Blue]

What that says to me Woolly is that fans who are more passionate about the issue than the regular match goer have completed the survey. It may well be that the fans who attend a lot of aways and prefer the standing idea for an improved atmosphere have skewed the data.

Doesn't make the findings any less valid provided it is interpreted correctly.

Totally agree mate, but, unless you know how many members were surveyed and how many people were surveyed outside the ground then figures like ~50% prefer standing and would buy tickets for rail seating are meaningless.

Based on that you'd be looking at building a new ground with 25 to 30,000 rail seats in it.

I applaud the initiative and the work put in, but if we don't have the full facts on who was surveyed then it potentially weakens the case.

 

[Boss_Blue]

Totally agree mate, but, unless you know how many members were surveyed and how many people were surveyed outside the ground then figures like ~50% prefer standing and would buy tickets for rail seating are meaningless.

Based on that you'd be looking at building a new ground with 25 to 30,000 rail seats in it.

I applaud the initiative and the work put in, but if we don't have the full facts on who was surveyed then it potentially weakens the case.

I just want to be able to stand without some nugget daytripper who's bought a ticket for the back row of the LG complaining that we should all sit down.

Paint my interest vested and call me superfan.

 

[Woolly Blue]

I just want to be able to stand without some nugget daytripper who's bought a ticket for the back row of the LG complaining that we should all sit down.

Paint my interest vested and call me superfan.

Sit down, shut up.


xxx

 

[joey_macmo]

You can't assure safety when humans are involved, in fact the only thing you can be sure of is that people will make mistakes and that the butterfly effect and chaos theory aren't going anywhere. It is naive bordering on ignorant to say that the Hillsborough disaster had nothing to do with standing up, but you could identify numerous 'causes' of that disaster going back months before the disaster even happened, with the experienced police commander being replaced because some PC's engaged in a prank robbery weeks before the disaster etc.

The ground, the bogs and the food forecourts are already busy enough without adding an extra 50% to the equation imo. Old grounds remain cramped in residential areas just like Hillsborough, and I dread to think what would have happened outside Anfield the other year if an extra 50% had been added to the crowd.

Why is it naive or ignorant, please tell me how standing as opposed to seating made Hillsborough worse?

Why are you talking about an extra 50%? It's quite clear that it would be a 1:1 system just like Celtic.

Why do you think that the present entrance/exit systems would just be left the same?

 

[zzr45]

The way it's presented though is pretty basic. From what I can see on the report there's nothing that really builds any coherent links between any of the questions. There's also nothing but pie charts throughout, especially when they aren't really relevant for usage.

It's a bit of a high school project that's being applauded, rightly so, for effort. But as an actual study that tries to explain a phenomenon, actual junk.

 

[Boss_Blue]

But as an actual study that tries to explain a phenomenon, actual junk.

You'd be right if that was its intent.

But it wasn't.

So you're not.

 

[zzr45]

You'd be right if that was its intent.

But it wasn't.

So you're not.

Except it is. It's trying to explore the phenomenon of people's views towards safe standing areas in football stadiums.

 

[thevorpalblade]

Totally agree. The days of terracing are gone forever.

Many sports continue to have terracing. Fortnightly I stand on an unrestricted terrace in a stadium of 15000( or at away games 20000+) : there is no surging and no crush.

The tragedy of Hillsborough was due to too many fans in too small a space. Control the numbers, control the approaches, control the egress, control the spaces and there's no reason why standing at football shouldn't be allowed.
Sit safely if you wish, stand safely if you wish.
We're all on the same side: help and support each other.

 

[Dymak]

Why is it naive or ignorant, please tell me how standing as opposed to seating made Hillsborough worse?

Why are you talking about an extra 50%? It's quite clear that it would be a 1:1 system just like Celtic.

Why do you think that the present entrance/exit systems would just be left the same?

For one, people would have searched for the location of their allocated seat rather than take the same path into an already over crowded pen, had an allocated seating arrangement been in place at Hillsborough. But it's just generally ridiculous to say standing played no role when it was a fundamental element of the disaster, hence the decision to eradicate it as a safety measure in response to the disaster.

If there's no increase in capacity then there isn't a problem, people have been standing up infront of their seats for years.

 

[Boss_Blue]

Except it is. It's trying to explore the phenomenon of people's views towards safe standing areas in football stadiums.

Your wording is peculiar.

The intent of the survey was to gauge support for safe standing - based on the relatively small sample size and the modest aims of the survey I'd say it was successful.

It wasn't intended to be a dissertation FFS.