Topic: Safe Standing ( split from: Liverpool confirm decision to redevelop Anfield)

[Eeyore]

Like a problem looking for a question...

No the problem is pretty obvious before all-seater Stadia people used to go to Football matches and not come home because of crushes. Personally I can see the positives of rail seats but I can also see the built-in safety measure that one person one seat also brings in.

I think we need better regulation from the football authorities, central and local government and the Police and stewards. We also need more of a willingness from fans to adhere to the regulations before we abandon something that has kept us safe for three decades. 

[Amatt]

Not sure if it belongs here, but United have been given approval for 1500 barrier seats at Old Trafford.

https://www.skysports.com/share/11980598

[Peter McGurk]

No the problem is pretty obvious before all-seater Stadia people used to go to Football matches and not come home because of crushes. Personally I can see the positives of rail seats but I can also see the built-in safety measure that one person one seat also brings in.

I think we need better regulation from the football authorities, central and local government and the Police and stewards. We also need more of a willingness from fans to adhere to the regulations before we abandon something that has kept us safe for three decades.

That's disgraceful. People didn't die at Hillsborough or anywhere else because of standing. We all know who and what was responsible.

[TepidT2O]

That's disgraceful. People didn't die at Hillsborough or anywhere else because of standing. We all know who and what was responsible.

I don’t think that’s what Al’s saying.

But one person one seat makes the issues that caused Hillsborough much less likely to happen.  Fans won’t always adhere to rules.  Police won’t always police with even a modicum of common sense and stewards won’t always do their jobs. You can’t make any system perfect but you can build in failsafes. One person one seat seems about as close to one as you can get (although I know no system is totally safe).

[Eeyore]

I don’t think that’s what Al’s saying.

But one person one seat makes the issues that caused Hillsborough much less likely to happen.  Fans won’t always adhere to rules.  Police won’t always police with even a modicum of common sense and stewards won’t always do their jobs. You can’t make any system perfect but you can build in failsafes. One person one seat seems about as close to one as you can get (although I know no system is totally safe).

+1

[Eeyore]

That's disgraceful. People didn't die at Hillsborough or anywhere else because of standing. We all know who and what was responsible.

If you take the view that Stadium disasters happen because of what I stated a lack of regulation and the adherence of standards by the football authorities, central and local government and the Police and stewards. Then you have two choices you can believe in a panacea in which everyone behaves perfectly or you can build in safeguards.

One fan one seat is the equivalent of a seat belt in a motor vehicle. In an ideal world in which all vehicles are perfectly maintained and there are no occurrences of individual errors then seat belts, airbags and a whole host of safety devices are rendered redundant by your line of thought because they are not the root cause.

Your problem though is that one of the prime reasons that you want barrier seating-safe standing is because the regulators and those tasked with enforcing those regulations have lost control. A blind eye is now turned to standing in seated areas.

Your response is to in effect start taking away safeguards.

That is akin to saying we cannot stop people speeding, so we will take away seat belts.

[macca007]

Except al it's not taking away safeguards. Its adding better ones in

[Eeyore]

Except al it's not taking away safeguards. Its adding better ones in

One fan one seat means fans are equally spaced vertically across the stand. It also makes it far easier to identify if there are too many people in a given area. It also makes it physically much harder for more than one person to occupy each seat. They are the safeguards you lose when you go to barrier seating/safe standing.

The only way to replace those safeguards is for the regulations to be properly enforced and for fans to co-operate. That quite simply doesn't happen at the moment as can be seen by fans persistently standing and UEFA continually fining Clubs for failing to keep passageways clear.

[Peter McGurk]

Except al it's not taking away safeguards. Its adding better ones in

Quite right. Putting a barrier in front of every seat addresses the issue that people don’t always follow the rules and staff don’t always get it right. It is safer.

[macca007]

One fan one seat means fans are equally spaced vertically across the stand. It also makes it far easier to identify if there are too many people in a given area. It also makes it physically much harder for more than one person to occupy each seat. They are the safeguards you lose when you go to barrier seating/safe standing.

The only way to replace those safeguards is for the regulations to be properly enforced and for fans to co-operate. That quite simply doesn't happen at the moment as can be seen by fans persistently standing and UEFA continually fining Clubs for failing to keep passageways clear.

How many people are you expecting to be able to squeeze in  the space with a barrier without spilling into the aisles? It's not rails every 5 or more like terracing. Its every aisle. Only so many can get in each row regardless and only so many can still get in the stand.

[Eeyore]

How many people are you expecting to be able to squeeze in  the space with a barrier without spilling into the aisles? It's not rails every 5 or more like terracing. Its every aisle. Only so many can get in each row regardless and only so many can still get in the stand.

You can quite easily squeeze in double the number of people when you remove the obstruction that a traditional seat creates. In effect you are creating two steps one replacing the space the seat took up and then the actual space you stand in.

This picture illustrates the situation.



You can have one person on what would be the first step and one on the second. Then what happens if there is a post in the way or you can't see action happening near the corner flags. Will people just put up with not seeing or will they shuffle across.

Add in the added attraction of the areas with the best view and best atmosphere and all of a sudden your organization, stewarding and fan co-operation needs to be almost perfect.

Personally I think barrier seating/safe standing properly regulated and enforced is the safest way to go. However, there are far too many variables. The local authorities enforce the regulations in different ways, Clubs steward crowds in different ways and even Police Forces basically decide upon what they want to enforce and what they don't.

I think before we take a leap in to the unknown and risk fans safety then the authorities and the clubs need to come together and co-ordinate and enforce the regulations we already have.   

[Billy Elliot]

I think the post Hillsborough terracing (1990 - 1994) was perfectly safe. It's safe at every other sport, and it's safe in Germany. We had unsafe standing and unsafe seating areas before Hillsborough.

None of the tragedies were because people were standing, that includes Hillsborough, Heysel, Ibrox 1 and Ibrox 2. Just like the Bradford fire didn't happen because it was a seated area.

I've been in terracing plenty of times with Liverpool, at lower league grounds in the last ten years - and it's nothing like terracing of old. The 1990 - 1994 Kop was perfectly safe (so was the Park End - I never felt safe in there pre-Hillsborough and used to try to get in the Bullens or Enclosure).

[Peter McGurk]

A heart of the debate is a lack of trust and a lingering prejudice that football fans' misbehave. The Taylor Report is riddled with 80s rhetoric on Hooliganism. The logic is: to stamp hooliganism out, you need control. Lack of control was the root cause of Hillsborough. More control equals safer stadiums. Safer stadiums have less Hooliganism. The underlying and barely suppressed logic... Hooliganism caused Hlllsborough. All thanks to the media, she who has no name and the likes of Jimmy Hill (and Brian Clough), who wasted no time in jumping in at the first opportunity to lambaste the fans.

The facts of stadium safety are rather different. As you say, none of those disasters were caused by fans misbehaviour.  I never felt in danger in the old kop and looking back. There was always a helping hand. Someone always had your back. I was only ever worried the one time I went out over the back and down the long stairs - another Ibrox in the making.

Nevertheless times and stadium design have moved on. Those stairs were the first to go. Then, more barriers and fewer gaps to stop the surges. While bunching actually was never much of a problem (it was actually much less comfortable when there was less of a crowd), a good standard of view (rake, step depth etc) was the best way of discouraging people moving about. Whereas sitting was seen as the panacea for all ills, it's actually ticketing (as recommended by Taylor) that has had the greater effect on safety. But where we insisted on sitting down to go with it (and then everyone breaks the rules) others have gone a different way.

There are still 'old-style' terraces in Germany. Massive crowds (not just Exeter away in the FA Cup), open standing terraces with barriers every so many steps but ticketed. And ticketed in such a way that entry is to your section only. You need to scan your ticket to get in. You cannot move about. Bunching in a block of a 1,000 is not much of a bunch. Columns or no columns, you can't go far. All perfectly safe as can be, unless you want to include falling down perfectly adequate and well-design stairs - but I could that at home.

And then there's safe standing/ rail seating (principally because UEFA insist on it in for European competitions - I would say for reasons of 'gentrification' and 'upmarketing' - safety as an excuse). You have a ticket. The club knows who you are. You are held responsible for what you do. You are 'clocked into' one section. There's a barrier for every 'seat'. It is designed for standing not standing in a stand designed for sitting.

What's more, every knows that everyone is going to stand. There is no argument. If you don't want to stand, don't be there. If (and only if) there are 'double' the numbers standing, there will be more stewards to keep aisles free but that would happen anyway - in a stand designed for standing or a stand designed for sitting. It makes no difference.

German clubs will and do say that "standing is perfectly safe" (and they have their share of policing issues as much as anyone else). UK clubs and the Sports Ground Safety Authority is moving that way https://sgsa.org.uk/safe-management-of-standing-at-football-emerging-findings/. The Police agree.

That said, there is a fundamental difference in attitude to the fans. In the UK and especially the Premier League, where money has run away with the game and in the context of income/revenue/cash being king, stadiums are a big expense for proportionately little gain. Ticket prices must be 'optimised'. Taylor made the huge mistake of underestimating the effect of all-seater stands on the pockets of the fans, whereas and for example, Schalke say "At Schalke, we have to – and want to – fulfill our social responsibility in the Ruhr region and enable people with lower incomes to attend matches as well,... Standing tickets and other offers contribute substantially to that." https://www.dw.com/en/how-does-safe-standing-work-in-germany/a-47328501

Standing is safe. Safe standing is even safer and a damn sight safer than standing in a sitting area and using safety to excuse prices is a lie.

[PaulD]

excellent post - thank you
For me the consensus is that safe standing is the way forward - like many things it needs to tried, tested and then hopefully deployed.

[Eeyore]

A heart of the debate is a lack of trust and a lingering prejudice that football fans' misbehave. The Taylor Report is riddled with 80s rhetoric on Hooliganism. The logic is: to stamp hooliganism out, you need control. Lack of control was the root cause of Hillsborough. More control equals safer stadiums. Safer stadiums have less Hooliganism. The underlying and barely suppressed logic... Hooliganism caused Hlllsborough. All thanks to the media, she who has no name and the likes of Jimmy Hill (and Brian Clough), who wasted no time in jumping in at the first opportunity to lambaste the fans.

The heart of the debate for me is not about hooliganism, it is about the continued failure of the authorities in this Country to protect fans. There is a culture in this Country of reactive legislation. Disasters are allowed to happen, people die and only THEN do the authorities react. Near misses are ignored and people die.

The facts of stadium safety are rather different. As you say, none of those disasters were caused by fans misbehaviour.  I never felt in danger in the old kop and looking back. There was always a helping hand. Someone always had your back. I was only ever worried the one time I went out over the back and down the long stairs - another Ibrox in the making.

Are you being serious here Peter, or is your memory failing you. Have you forgotten people being passed over the heads of the crowd so they could be treated at the front, people being crushed on the barriers in the centre of Kop every time there was a surge. Then there was the ability to lift your feet off the floor and be swept along as you left the ground.

Nevertheless times and stadium design have moved on. Those stairs were the first to go. Then, more barriers and fewer gaps to stop the surges. While bunching actually was never much of a problem (it was actually much less comfortable when there was less of a crowd), a good standard of view (rake, step depth etc) was the best way of discouraging people moving about. Whereas sitting was seen as the panacea for all ills, it's actually ticketing (as recommended by Taylor) that has had the greater effect on safety. But where we insisted on sitting down to go with it (and then everyone breaks the rules) others have gone a different way.

There are still 'old-style' terraces in Germany. Massive crowds (not just Exeter away in the FA Cup), open standing terraces with barriers every so many steps but ticketed. And ticketed in such a way that entry is to your section only. You need to scan your ticket to get in. You cannot move about. Bunching in a block of a 1,000 is not much of a bunch. Columns or no columns, you can't go far. All perfectly safe as can be, unless you want to include falling down perfectly adequate and well-design stairs - but I could that at home.

And then there's safe standing/ rail seating (principally because UEFA insist on it in for European competitions - I would say for reasons of 'gentrification' and 'upmarketing' - safety as an excuse). You have a ticket. The club knows who you are. You are held responsible for what you do. You are 'clocked into' one section. There's a barrier for every 'seat'. It is designed for standing not standing in a stand designed for sitting.

What's more, every knows that everyone is going to stand. There is no argument. If you don't want to stand, don't be there. If (and only if) there are 'double' the numbers standing, there will be more stewards to keep aisles free but that would happen anyway - in a stand designed for standing or a stand designed for sitting. It makes no difference.

German clubs will and do say that "standing is perfectly safe" (and they have their share of policing issues as much as anyone else). UK clubs and the Sports Ground Safety Authority is moving that way https://sgsa.org.uk/safe-management-of-standing-at-football-emerging-findings/. The Police agree.

That said, there is a fundamental difference in attitude to the fans. In the UK and especially the Premier League, where money has run away with the game and in the context of income/revenue/cash being king, stadiums are a big expense for proportionately little gain. Ticket prices must be 'optimised'. Taylor made the huge mistake of underestimating the effect of all-seater stands on the pockets of the fans, whereas and for example, Schalke say "At Schalke, we have to – and want to – fulfill our social responsibility in the Ruhr region and enable people with lower incomes to attend matches as well,... Standing tickets and other offers contribute substantially to that." https://www.dw.com/en/how-does-safe-standing-work-in-germany/a-47328501

Standing is safe. Safe standing is even safer and a damn sight safer than standing in a sitting area and using safety to excuse prices is a lie.

Continually bringing up Germany has one massive flaw Peter. They have a very different culture regarding safety. Their attitude isn't reactive but pro-active. They believe in Heinrich's triangle and that for every serious accident you get a proportion of near misses and an even greater proportion of potential near misses. Act on the lesser events and you avoid tragedies.

The biggest problem with bring up Germany though is that didn't have disasters in the first place. 

You are adamant that standing is perfectly safe, you agree that fan behaviour wasn't the cause so please enlighten me as to what you blame for Britain's appalling record of disasters. ?

[Peter McGurk]

The heart of the debate for me is not about hooliganism, it is about the continued failure of the authorities in this Country to protect fans. There is a culture in this Country of reactive legislation. Disasters are allowed to happen, people die and only THEN do the authorities react. Near misses are ignored and people die.

In lieu of a crystal ball, I'm going to go with experience. You call it reactive, everyone else calls it lessons learned - in Germany and in any other country you care to think of.

Are you being serious here Peter, or is your memory failing you. Have you forgotten people being passed over the heads of the crowd so they could be treated at the front, people being crushed on the barriers in the centre of Kop every time there was a surge. Then there was the ability to lift your feet off the floor and be swept along as you left the ground.

I remember like it was yesterday. I never felt in danger on the terraces and I spent most of the time 'on the bar', middle height, (slightly to the right of centre). But that was yesterday, today we'e taking about putting a barrier in front of every seat, not every 12 rows with gaps.

Continually bringing up Germany has one massive flaw Peter. They have a very different culture regarding safety. Their attitude isn't reactive but pro-active. They believe in Heinrich's triangle and that for every serious accident you get a proportion of near misses and an even greater proportion of potential near misses. Act on the lesser events and you avoid tragedies.

You are of course talking about stadiums that still have open terracing and still have few incidents. You are talking about stadiums with safe standing with controlled access to sections to prevent bunching. You are talking about stadiums that are better managed backed by a better ethos of care. Think about it, you are arguing against a better safety record and regime, where fans are looked after and valued in favour of all-seater stadiums where everyone stands and to heck with it. Are you completely mad or just argumentative for the sake of it?

And FYI Health and Safety regulations across every sphere of such UK legislation is based on hierarchy of risk and mitigation of risk to the lowest level. That is to say, eliminate the big risks, make your issues little ones and deal with them there. Much as the 'Heinrich Triangle'. It's a pity the deed or application did not so closely match the word.

The biggest problem with bring up Germany though is that didn't have disasters in the first place. 

You are adamant that standing is perfectly safe, you agree that fan behaviour wasn't the cause so please enlighten me as to what you blame for Britain's appalling record of disasters. ?

Mismanagement and lack of care combined with an unassailable attitude that fans are for the most part to blame or undeserving. A heady cocktail of prejudice and negligence. Not standing ever and not safe standing now.

Are you seriously prepared to ignore the issue that all seater stadiums have a marginal impact on safety - Taylor's words (but he thought fans might find them 'more comfortable") while the control offered by ticketing had the greater collateral effect on safety but the very significant effect of controlling the issue of the 80s day - Hooliganism. Have you forgotten ID cards and Margaret Thatcher's (and the popular press) reaction to Hillsborough? Do you think she cared to question the leadership offered by the police on the day or did she prefer to take the opportunity to tackle the sins of the 'masses'. Did anyone really drill into the FA as to where exactly was Hillsborough's updated safety certificate? Are we all such mugs as to miss the real purpose of the Taylor Report? Have you not noticed that almost the whole of the first half and much of the second is about Hooliganism?

Do you not think that the formation of the Premier League and the the attitude of FIFA and UEFA had in some significant part more to do with gentrification of the game and taking the game away from its historic (and less affluent and implicitly less well-behaved) fan base? Ask yourself this - how much of FIFA's guidelines to stadium design revolve around safety and how much is devoted to upmarketing of facilties and to TV?

[Eeyore]

In lieu of a crystal ball, I'm going to go with experience. You call it reactive, everyone else calls it lessons learned - in Germany and in any other country you care to think of.

I remember like it was yesterday. I never felt in danger on the terraces and I spent most of the time 'on the bar', middle height, (slightly to the right of centre). But that was yesterday, today we'e taking about putting a barrier in front of every seat, not every 12 rows with gaps.

You are of course talking about stadiums that still have open terracing and still have few incidents. You are talking about stadiums with safe standing with controlled access to sections to prevent bunching. You are talking about stadiums that are better managed backed by a better ethos of care. Think about it, you are arguing against a better safety record and regime, where fans are looked after and valued in favour of all-seater stadiums where everyone stands and to heck with it. Are you completely mad or just argumentative for the sake of it?

And FYI Health and Safety regulations across every sphere of such UK legislation is based on hierarchy of risk and mitigation of risk to the lowest level. That is to say, eliminate the big risks, make your issues little ones and deal with them there. Much as the 'Heinrich Triangle'. It's a pity the deed or application did not so closely match the word.

Mismanagement and lack of care combined with an unassailable attitude that fans are for the most part to blame or undeserving. A heady cocktail of prejudice and negligence. Not standing ever and not safe standing now.

Are you seriously prepared to ignore the issue that all seater stadiums have a marginal impact on safety - Taylor's words (but he thought fans might find them 'more comfortable") while the control offered by ticketing had the greater collateral effect on safety but the very significant effect of controlling the issue of the 80s day - Hooliganism. Have you forgotten ID cards and Margaret Thatcher's (and the popular press) reaction to Hillsborough? Do you think she cared to question the leadership offered by the police on the day or did she prefer to take the opportunity to tackle the sins of the 'masses'. Did anyone really drill into the FA as to where exactly was Hillsborough's updated safety certificate? Are we all such mugs as to miss the real purpose of the Taylor Report? Have you not noticed that almost the whole of the first half and much of the second is about Hooliganism?

Do you not think that the formation of the Premier League and the the attitude of FIFA and UEFA had in some significant part more to do with gentrification of the game and taking the game away from its historic (and less affluent and implicitly less well-behaved) fan base? Ask yourself this - how much of FIFA's guidelines to stadium design revolve around safety and how much is devoted to upmarketing of facilties and to TV?

In short Peter if you are saying that standing on terraces is safe and you agree that fan behaviour has had no significant then you are putting your faith in the very people who have let us down time and time again.

As all seater stadiums having no significant impact on safety then please explain why pre- Taylor we had

April 5, 1902 - 1902 Ibrox disaster - 25 people died
March 9, 1946 - Burnden Park disaster - 33 died
January 2, 1971 - 1971 Ibrox disaster - 66 people died
May 11, 1985 - Bradford City stadium fire - 56 people died
April 15, 1989 - Hillsborough disaster - 96 dead after police negligence led to overcrowding in standing pens.

Since Taylor and his recommendations we have had none.

All Seater Stadiums may not be perfect especially when people choose to stand but by their nature they tend to regulate how many people are in each area and make it less likely that areas become overcrowded and thereby make crushes less likely.

[Jake]

Not sure if it belongs here, but United have been given approval for 1500 barrier seats at Old Trafford.

https://www.skysports.com/share/11980598

Missed this news the other day, good on the Mancs

Al two questions if I may

1 - if they keep it at 1 to 1, do you have a problem with rail seating then?

2 - what do you do at the match at the moment? (don't know where your ticket is in the ground)

[Eeyore]

Missed this news the other day, good on the Mancs

Al two questions if I may

1 - if they keep it at 1 to 1, do you have a problem with rail seating then?

2 - what do you do at the match at the moment? (don't know where your ticket is in the ground)

1. At 1:1 if properly regulated then I think the pros outweigh the cons. The problem is can we trust the people who have previously let us down to keep things safe.

2. Probably the same as most people, most games a mixture of sitting and standing. The big games and away's more standing than sitting. 

[Billy Elliot]

Since Taylor and his recommendations we have had none.

Armand Cesari 1992 - seated area collapsed in the French Cup semi final. Similar to Ibrox 1, it was a generally unsafe area that couldn't hold the amount of people in it. But Armand Cesari was seated whilst Ibrox 1 was (wooden) terracing.

There's been other disasters and near misses post Taylor - most in seated areas. Not because they're seated areas but because it was a generally unsafe structure, or poorly managed.

[Ratboy3G]

A heart of the debate is a lack of trust and a lingering prejudice that football fans' misbehave. The Taylor Report is riddled with 80s rhetoric on Hooliganism. The logic is: to stamp hooliganism out, you need control. Lack of control was the root cause of Hillsborough. More control equals safer stadiums. Safer stadiums have less Hooliganism. The underlying and barely suppressed logic... Hooliganism caused Hlllsborough. All thanks to the media, she who has no name and the likes of Jimmy Hill (and Brian Clough), who wasted no time in jumping in at the first opportunity to lambaste the fans.

The facts of stadium safety are rather different. As you say, none of those disasters were caused by fans misbehaviour.  I never felt in danger in the old kop and looking back. There was always a helping hand. Someone always had your back. I was only ever worried the one time I went out over the back and down the long stairs - another Ibrox in the making.

Nevertheless times and stadium design have moved on. Those stairs were the first to go. Then, more barriers and fewer gaps to stop the surges. While bunching actually was never much of a problem (it was actually much less comfortable when there was less of a crowd), a good standard of view (rake, step depth etc) was the best way of discouraging people moving about. Whereas sitting was seen as the panacea for all ills, it's actually ticketing (as recommended by Taylor) that has had the greater effect on safety. But where we insisted on sitting down to go with it (and then everyone breaks the rules) others have gone a different way.

There are still 'old-style' terraces in Germany. Massive crowds (not just Exeter away in the FA Cup), open standing terraces with barriers every so many steps but ticketed. And ticketed in such a way that entry is to your section only. You need to scan your ticket to get in. You cannot move about. Bunching in a block of a 1,000 is not much of a bunch. Columns or no columns, you can't go far. All perfectly safe as can be, unless you want to include falling down perfectly adequate and well-design stairs - but I could that at home.

And then there's safe standing/ rail seating (principally because UEFA insist on it in for European competitions - I would say for reasons of 'gentrification' and 'upmarketing' - safety as an excuse). You have a ticket. The club knows who you are. You are held responsible for what you do. You are 'clocked into' one section. There's a barrier for every 'seat'. It is designed for standing not standing in a stand designed for sitting.

What's more, every knows that everyone is going to stand. There is no argument. If you don't want to stand, don't be there. If (and only if) there are 'double' the numbers standing, there will be more stewards to keep aisles free but that would happen anyway - in a stand designed for standing or a stand designed for sitting. It makes no difference.

German clubs will and do say that "standing is perfectly safe" (and they have their share of policing issues as much as anyone else). UK clubs and the Sports Ground Safety Authority is moving that way https://sgsa.org.uk/safe-management-of-standing-at-football-emerging-findings/. The Police agree.

That said, there is a fundamental difference in attitude to the fans. In the UK and especially the Premier League, where money has run away with the game and in the context of income/revenue/cash being king, stadiums are a big expense for proportionately little gain. Ticket prices must be 'optimised'. Taylor made the huge mistake of underestimating the effect of all-seater stands on the pockets of the fans, whereas and for example, Schalke say "At Schalke, we have to – and want to – fulfill our social responsibility in the Ruhr region and enable people with lower incomes to attend matches as well,... Standing tickets and other offers contribute substantially to that." https://www.dw.com/en/how-does-safe-standing-work-in-germany/a-47328501

Standing is safe. Safe standing is even safer and a damn sight safer than standing in a sitting area and using safety to excuse prices is a lie.

Great post 👍

[Red Beret]

1. At 1:1 if properly regulated then I think the pros outweigh the cons. The problem is can we trust the people who have previously let us down to keep things safe.

2. Probably the same as most people, most games a mixture of sitting and standing. The big games and away's more standing than sitting.

A very legitimate concern.  I wouldn't be worried about standing at, say, Anfield, because you can trust the club to do it right.  Basically fans are at the mercy of whichever club interprets any new rules in the most lax way possible, and I have a hard job trusting that there would be reasonable enforcement of those rules. 

I suppose it is possible to develop a mix of seated and standing, strategically positioned for crowd control.  But the UK is practically built on cutting corners and turning a blind eye, only for the situation to bite us in the arse at some point down the line.

[Billy Elliot]

It pains me to say it, but United and Everton both had the right idea. Whichever of the four sides of the ground you preferred, you also had the choice to sit or stand.

[Eeyore]

A very legitimate concern.  I wouldn't be worried about standing at, say, Anfield, because you can trust the club to do it right.  Basically fans are at the mercy of whichever club interprets any new rules in the most lax way possible, and I have a hard job trusting that there would be reasonable enforcement of those rules. 

I suppose it is possible to develop a mix of seated and standing, strategically positioned for crowd control.  But the UK is practically built on cutting corners and turning a blind eye, only for the situation to bite us in the arse at some point down the line.

Agree completely and with us leaving the EU things are likely to get worse. The Tories are practically frothing at the mouth at the prospect of axing EU Health and Safety legislation, or cutting unnecessary bureaucratic red tape as they like to call it. In that scenario will they side with businesses that want to increase their revenues and pay the government more money or will we get a properly though out and safe transition to safer standing.

[Red Beret]

Yeah. The best thing about "all seater stadium" is that it's not really open to interpretation.

[Peter McGurk]

In short Peter if you are saying that standing on terraces is safe and you agree that fan behaviour has had no significant then you are putting your faith in the very people who have let us down time and time again.

As all seater stadiums having no significant impact on safety then please explain why pre- Taylor we had

April 5, 1902 - 1902 Ibrox disaster - 25 people died
March 9, 1946 - Burnden Park disaster - 33 died
January 2, 1971 - 1971 Ibrox disaster - 66 people died
May 11, 1985 - Bradford City stadium fire - 56 people died
April 15, 1989 - Hillsborough disaster - 96 dead after police negligence led to overcrowding in standing pens.

Since Taylor and his recommendations we have had none.

All Seater Stadiums may not be perfect especially when people choose to stand but by their nature they tend to regulate how many people are in each area and make it less likely that areas become overcrowded and thereby make crushes less likely.

You are expert at making 2 apples plus 2 pears = 3 and a half oranges.

Which was caused by standing? I'll give you a clue. None:

Ibrox 1902: rotten timberwork and a collapsed stand
Burnden Park: decrepit facilities and an inability to stop people pouring into the ground
Ibrox 1966: fans turning back in on the way out on an outside stair of the stadium
Bradford City: a fire in a sitting area
Hillsborough: lack of care and control

Sitting was and is irrelevant to Taylor. Read his report instead of skimming whatever highlights of whatever document suits you. You completely ignore the central issue of his report. Why was all of the first half and a good part of the second half devoted to Hooliganism and why did Taylor say that sitting would have little or no effect on safety ? ? ?

Sitting is no safer by 'its nature' than standing. What is safer is better stadium management whether its proper maintenance, control of entry (and exit), managing numbers, restricting movement within and between sections or just picking up the rubbish to prevent a fire in a wooden stand.

Whatever Taylor gave stadiums it gave better CONTROL and at least a closer adherence to better management via ticketing . Albeit it has to be said that fans persistently standing in an area design for sitting is irresponsible. There is no case for doing nothing. If fans won't sit, then standing must be made safe.

[Eeyore]

You are expert at making 2 apples plus 2 pears = 3 and a half oranges.

Which was caused by standing? I'll give you a clue. None:

You are spectacularly missing the point. It is a bit like speeding, accidents are rarely caused by speed alone and it is usually isn't the cause of accidents. However having a speed limit slows how quickly things spiral out of control.

Ibrox 1902: rotten timberwork and a collapsed stand
Burnden Park: decrepit facilities and an inability to stop people pouring into the ground
Ibrox 1966: fans turning back in on the way out on an outside stair of the stadium
Bradford City: a fire in a sitting area
Hillsborough: lack of care and control

Let's go through them.

A contributing factor for Ibrox 1902 was the fact that a single stand held an eye watering 36,000 people. If the capacity had been lowered ie a seated area then there would have been less strain on the stand.

Burnden Park. The area became overcrowded because they had no way of measuring how crowded the terrace was. Now surely if it was a seated area then it is obvious when the number of people is nearing the number of seats.

Ibrox 1966. If it had been a seated area then there would have been fewer people on the stairwell and the stand would have emptied more slowly.

Bradford. no impact.

Hillsborough. The central pens becoming overcrowded would not of happened in a seating area. One of the major contributing factors was that the capacity had been over-estimated that doesn't happen in seated areas.

Sitting was and is irrelevant to Taylor. Read his report instead of skimming whatever highlights of whatever document suits you. You completely ignore the central issue of his report. Why was all of the first half and a good part of the second half devoted to Hooliganism and why did Taylor say that sitting would have little or no effect on safety ? ? ?

There were two Taylor reports the interim and the final.

The interim report was not all about Hooliganism. In fact, it was the exact opposite and exonerated the fans and squarely placed the blame with the authorities. Maybe you should take your own advice and actually read it Peter.

Sitting is no safer by 'its nature' than standing. What is safer is better stadium management whether its proper maintenance, control of entry (and exit), managing numbers, restricting movement within and between sections or just picking up the rubbish to prevent a fire in a wooden stand.

Whatever Taylor gave stadiums it gave better CONTROL and at least a closer adherence to better management via ticketing . Albeit it has to be said that fans persistently standing in an area design for sitting is irresponsible. There is no case for doing nothing. If fans won't sit, then standing must be made safe.

Please explain if sitting is not safer than standing why when you are on an aeroplane and you hit turbulence you are required to return to your seat ?

[Jake]

There were two Taylor reports the interim and the final.

The interim report was not all about Hooliganism. In fact, it was the exact opposite and exonerated the fans and squarely placed the blame with the authorities. Maybe you should take your own advice and actually read it Peter.

Sorry Al but in what world does an interim report take precedence over a final one. Come on man.

[Eeyore]

Sorry Al but in what world does an interim report take precedence over a final one. Come on man.

They were very different reports. The first dealt with the immediate aftermath and one of its core objectives was to make football as safe as possible as quickly as possible. The final reports latter chapters focused more on the long term future of Football and had slightly more of a focus on fighting hooliganism.

They were not a first draft and a final draft.

What Peter is doing is focussing on the later chapters of the final report and falsely claiming that the Taylor report was largely about hooliganism. He then uses the latter chapters to somehow hypothesize that Taylor got it wrong because it doesn't fit with his rationale that standing is inherently safe.

Personally for all its flaws the Taylor report hugely improved the safety at football grounds in this Country.

[18 yard line]

I hope when the Annie Road is extended it provides for Safe Standing (or at least makes provision for it in future). That would seem more straightforward and cost effective than converting the Kop.

The safety debate is of course critical but I’ll not get into that as Peter in particular has articulated the supporting argument better than I ever could.

[Eeyore]

I hope when the Annie Road is extended it provides for Safe Standing (or at least makes provision for it in future). That would seem more straightforward and cost effective than converting the Kop.

The safety debate is of course critical but I’ll not get into that as Peter in particular has articulated the supporting argument better than I ever could.

One of the big issues is that ideally safe standing would require a trial. If you are going to trial safe standing then it has to be in a smaller clearly defined area. It is pointless trialling safe standing at the very back of a stand and if you do it anywhere else then it blocks spectators views. The ideal place is to trial in a quadrant unfortunately unlike Celtic or United we don't really have them.

[Peter McGurk]

You are spectacularly missing the point. It is a bit like speeding, accidents are rarely caused by speed alone and it is usually isn't the cause of accidents. However having a speed limit slows how quickly things spiral out of control.

Let's go through them.

A contributing factor for Ibrox 1902 was the fact that a single stand held an eye watering 36,000 people. If the capacity had been lowered ie a seated area then there would have been less strain on the stand.

Burnden Park. The area became overcrowded because they had no way of measuring how crowded the terrace was. Now surely if it was a seated area then it is obvious when the number of people is nearing the number of seats.

Ibrox 1966. If it had been a seated area then there would have been fewer people on the stairwell and the stand would have emptied more slowly.

Bradford. no impact.

Hillsborough. The central pens becoming overcrowded would not of happened in a seating area. One of the major contributing factors was that the capacity had been over-estimated that doesn't happen in seated areas.

There were two Taylor reports the interim and the final.

The interim report was not all about Hooliganism. In fact, it was the exact opposite and exonerated the fans and squarely placed the blame with the authorities. Maybe you should take your own advice and actually read it Peter.

Please explain if sitting is not safer than standing why when you are on an aeroplane and you hit turbulence you are required to return to your seat ?

I could replicate the contents of the Taylor Report and its belabouring of identity cards and hooliganism and the effect of alcohol and ticket touts or even just the contents pages to demonstrate the point but I've done that before. I could replicate where Taylor says the effect of sitting on safety is marginal or where he says the real remedy is control but I've done that too. You probably ignored it then as you ignore it now. Much as most of your skim-reading of anything you pick up ignores most of anything relevant.

I've been through your failure 'examples'. The connection to standing demonstrably tenuous. I'm not going to go through them again.

I imagine you are of a certain age as you seem to recall some some things but you actually talk like a six-year old with his dad's internet account and more time on his hands than is healthy. You really need to look at the events. Draw rational conclusions, not jump from A to Z =Y. Comparing sitting in football stadiums to sitting in planes is a cracker. I hope you are well as otherwise I might find myself mocking the afflicted.

No, what's worse is I suspect that you actually don't care. You like to make your 'points', spurious and messed up as they are but it actually doesn't bother you one way or another. You would rather moan about what others might have done than change what is done. You would rather be right than others be safe.

Which is a shame. Because this is important. Sanctimonious as it might sound and after all it is only watching a game but it's an important part of who we are and we ought to be safe doing it.

Bye now. Now is not the time to spending so much time in such negative ways.

[Eeyore]

I could replicate the contents of the Taylor Report and its belabouring of identity cards and hooliganism and the effect of alcohol and ticket touts or even just the contents pages to demonstrate the point but I've done that before. I could replicate where Taylor says the effect of sitting on safety is marginal or where he says the real remedy is control but I've done that too. You probably ignored it then as you ignore it now. Much as most of your skim-reading of anything you pick up ignores most of anything relevant.

I've been through your failure 'examples'. The connection to standing demonstrably tenuous. I'm not going to go through them again.

I imagine you are of a certain age as you seem to recall some some things but you actually talk like a six-year old with his dad's internet account and more time on his hands than is healthy. You really need to look at the events. Draw rational conclusions, not jump from A to Z =Y. Comparing sitting in football stadiums to sitting in planes is a cracker. I hope you are well as otherwise I might find myself mocking the afflicted.

No, what's worse is I suspect that you actually don't care. You like to make your 'points', spurious and messed up as they are but it actually doesn't bother you one way or another. You would rather moan about what others might have done than change what is done. You would rather be right than others be safe.

Which is a shame. Because this is important. Sanctimonious as it might sound and after all it is only watching a game but it's an important part of who we are and we ought to be safe doing it.

Bye now. Now is not the time to spending so much time in such negative ways.

Peter why are you still purporting the lie that the Taylor report was all about tackling Hooliganism.

Taylor made 4 suggestions to tackle hooliganism.

Suggested Strategy
425. As has been said many times, there is no single measure which will defeat football hooliganism and
even a package of measures will take time to have effect.

426. That said, the strategy I would suggest is to consider relying upon a combination of all or some of the
following measures:-

(i) Developing the detection and evidential potential of CCTV and the new National Football
Intelligence Unit;

(ii) Prohibiting, by creating criminal offences, three specific activities in the ground:
(a) throwing a missile;
(b) chanting obscene or racialist abuse;
(c) going on the pitch without reasonable excuse;

(iii) Extending the courts' power to make attendance centre orders, in conjunction with exclusion orders,
for football related offences on occasions of specified matches so as to keep hooligans away from
football grounds;

(iv) Using electronic monitoring (tagging) for the same purpose.

427. These four measures are all aimed solely at the hooligans and will impinge only on them. Moreover,
(iii) and (iv) are the only measures, other than imprisonment, aimed not only at banning hooligans from the
ground but also at preventing them from getting into it or near it during matches. Put together with progress
towards all-seating, improved accommodation, better facilities, improved arrangements for crowd control
and better training of police and stewards to achieve it, I believe these measures would give the best chance of
eliminating or minimising football hooliganism.

That amounted to less than 1 page.

Regarding safety, he made 76 recommendations amounting to 7 pages.

Those included.

PARTY-FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS 76
All-Seated Accommodation 1
Advisory Design Council 5
National Inspectorate and Review Body 6
Maximum Capacities for Terraces 7
Filling and Monitoring Terraces 11
Gangways 13
Fences and Gates 14
Crush Barriers 22
Safety Certificates 24
Duties of Each Football Club 32
Police Planning 44
Communications 54
Co-ordination of Emergency Services 59
First Aid, Medical Facilities and Ambulances 64
Offences and Penalties 70
Green Guide 74


You asked for Taylor, you have got it. Unfortunately it demolishes your argument. Whilst the Taylor report was not perfect it has probably done more to keep fans safe than anything else in the history of the game for me.

[Macred]

Good grief. Keep going Peter and he might actually get the point. Apparently in a seated stadium fans magically arrive pre-seated in their seats, so nobody walks on the stairwells where massing and crushing is most likely to occur. And seating magically controls numbers where as if you had rail seats or similar, you just open the floodgates and allow everyone in. My guess is that before electronic/digital access to stadium they had no real clue as to how many people they were letting in from one turn stile to the next and certainly not from on end of the stand to the other. Times have changes, technology allows for it. Standing is safe, numbers in controlled and monitored in real time. No fences at the front which prevent the obvious way of alleviating any problem that did occur. Better H and S at grounds (no crumbling walls or fire risks as of old). Rails for every 2 rows of fans mean no forward crush - sideways crushing within each row minimal, get pushed out of the side into a stairway.. would that happen on every row, at the same time, no and definitely not with numbers controlled. Better CCTV. Just everything is improved.

[Indomitable_Carp]

One of the big issues is that ideally safe standing would require a trial. If you are going to trial safe standing then it has to be in a smaller clearly defined area. It is pointless trialling safe standing at the very back of a stand and if you do it anywhere else then it blocks spectators views. The ideal place is to trial in a quadrant unfortunately unlike Celtic or United we don't really have them.

If it was trialled on the lower tier of the new Annie Road then I don't see that this would be an issue. That might depend on gradient and spacing etc of course, but it would seem the perfect place to trial it in Anfield.

[Eeyore]

Good grief. Keep going Peter and he might actually get the point. Apparently in a seated stadium fans magically arrive pre-seated in their seats, so nobody walks on the stairwells where massing and crushing is most likely to occur. And seating magically controls numbers where as if you had rail seats or similar, you just open the floodgates and allow everyone in. My guess is that before electronic/digital access to stadium they had no real clue as to how many people they were letting in from one turn stile to the next and certainly not from on end of the stand to the other. Times have changes, technology allows for it. Standing is safe, numbers in controlled and monitored in real time. No fences at the front which prevent the obvious way of alleviating any problem that did occur. Better H and S at grounds (no crumbling walls or fire risks as of old). Rails for every 2 rows of fans mean no forward crush - sideways crushing within each row minimal, get pushed out of the side into a stairway.. would that happen on every row, at the same time, no and definitely not with numbers controlled. Better CCTV. Just everything is improved.

The biggest issue is not arriving at your seat that tends to be more spread out. The issue is when people want to leave especially in an emergency. With one fan one seat it is virtually impossible for an area to become overcrowded. That means you have controlled numbers of fans in each area.

With standing, it is much easier even inadvertently to overcrowd the most popular areas. Then if you have to evacuate a stand then stairwells and gangways can become overwhelmed.

Regarding turnstiles controlling access that only works if you start fencing off blocks of the terrace and then provide separate toilet and refreshment facilities for each block.

If standing is so easy to control by way of CCTV then why are fans continually breaking the regulations now ? 

[Eeyore]

If it was trialled on the lower tier of the new Annie Road then I don't see that this would be an issue. That might depend on gradient and spacing etc of course, but it would seem the perfect place to trial it in Anfield.

I think it is likely that you would have to use the whole of the lower tier though. Trials tend to be done in smaller areas than that.

[Jake]

Al does kind of have a point with the overcrowding in specific areas thing, but I don't think it's the game breaker you're making it out to be. There's been times when I've been stuck down in the 100s and I've squeezed in with my mates in the 300s.

More stewards would help, maybe sell tickets in blocks rather than designated seats so the earlier you get in the more chance you get the best spec. Once a row is full stewards gotta say "sorry mate down ye go"

[Eeyore]

Al does kind of have a point with the overcrowding in specific areas thing, but I don't think it's the game breaker you're making it out to be. There's been times when I've been stuck down in the 100s and I've squeezed in with my mates in the 300s.

More stewards would help, maybe sell tickets in blocks rather than designated seats so the earlier you get in the more chance you get the best spec. Once a row is full stewards gotta say "sorry mate down ye go"

I think we have to look at things realistically though. Unless it is a new stand then clubs are going to have to fund rail seats, will more than likely need more stewards and to increase the size of the gangways and stairwells which will reduce capacity. Add in that you are likely to need to lower the prices of safe standing because it would be unfair to charge the same for standing as sitting. Then what exactly is in it for the clubs if you keep it at 1:1.

As for getting stewards to try to regulate the density of supporters on a terrace for me that is a recipe for disaster.

[ToneLa]

So City are installing 5.6k rail seats to enable safe standing

They're, not unreasonably, hedging on the legislation to enable this being brought forward.

Would love to see this at Anfield.