Peoples lack of consideration apparently deprived a small minority of fellow fans the chance to enjoy a match they had paid to see. On what possible basis can that be right? No matter peoples personal preference they bought a ticket to watch a football in an all seater stadium the terms & conditions of which are very clear.
Many of you will be travelling next week to the scene of the worst footballing disaster in living memory. All seater stadiums were introduced at enormous cost to the game for a purpose. Based on some of the comments on this thread it is not hard to see why. Perhaps some of you should take a little time to visit the memorial to the Liverpool 96 who simply went to watch a football match in 1989 and lost their lives.
Such scenes should never be seen at a football ground again. So excuse me if I have little time for the selfish self righteous justification of those who chose to enhance their personal gratification of Saturdays' game by standing at the expense of others.
As if one persons experience were not bad enough some rather than apologizing to the individual who has a) endured considerable discomfort b) been deprived of watching a game he has paid to see, attack him for complaining about the experience and then glory in their heightened experience.
Extraordinary
Grapevine49
Are you for real ????
Please complain to all the above people and then come back with their replys, Should be funny!
And to compare 7k Charlton fans standing up behind seats in a stand that holds 7k to the Hillsborough tragedy is just plain stupid and ignorant!
Not much 'funny' in this topic. I take it that you disagree with Grapvine's point, and that you were happy to stand on Saturday and inconvenience many of those behind you who were thus also obliged to stand (whether they wanted to or not)?
Being 6 foot 3 tall and as wide as a bus I did feel bad about standing, there were some kids behind me offered to swap places but parents said it was fine, mog left early so could move down a bit to aid there view.
We were in P6 row TT and had a couple of elderly gents behind us, everyone was standing in front of us forcing us to stand so we spoke to the gents and got that "awkward" moment out of the way, they were great about it so it was smiles all round and everyone seemed happy to stand.
Yes, outside of this argument it is surely more dangerous to stand in seated areas than standing ones. If it is accepted that you can't really stop 7k fans doing it if they so chose and some old stands which have been converted for seats have a rake that is designed for standing, a strong argument for terraced areas is there. Having said that, common sense never plays too much of a part when it comes to football and politicians.
I know one thing for sure. I feel a lot safer with my children standing in a seated are than standing ina terraced area. Im still unsure why people are saying its more dangerous. You wont get the surge like you used to on terracing. You have your own personal space . Its easy to file out if needed to an isle. You will never get too many in a stand as each has their own seat. I'm all for bringing back terracing for people who want it .( I personally prefer it ) but do i feel safer in a full stand with seats or terracing? seats everytime.
At the Valley if there was a big demand, we could consider making the North Lower a standing area where no-one would have their view obstructed, but the singing etc would possibly be more effective.
I like this idea - but trying to actually bring it in would be difficult, but would be worth investigating if Safe Standing ever got off the ground in England.
At the Valley if there was a big demand, we could consider making the North Lower a standing area where no-one would have their view obstructed, but the singing etc would possibly be more effective.
I like this idea - but trying to actually bring it in would be difficult, but would be worth investigating if Safe Standing ever got off the ground in England.
Yes, outside of this argument it is surely more dangerous to stand in seated areas than standing ones. If it is accepted that you can't really stop 7k fans doing it if they so chose and some old stands which have been converted for seats have a rake that is designed for standing, a strong argument for terraced areas is there. Having said that, common sense never plays too much of a part when it comes to football and politicians.
This argument seems to miss the point that laws were passed that banned standing as it was deemed to be unsafe. Irrespective as to whether you agree with this, the laws were passed. If you apply your logic across the board we would end up with no speed limits outside schools - after all if many are going to speed then maybe we should just change the laws to fit. Next we'll be making it legal to sell heroin to school children, after all some do and it would, probably, be safer to legalise it.
No! If it was deemed (irrespective as to the view of the 7,000 there on Saturday) dangerous to have standing on terraces, then those that stand in seated sections should be made to sit, and if not the stand should be closed.
I know this will upset many on here, but you can't just change laws because you can't get enough people to obey them.
The real problem for the safe standing debate in this country is that people think terracing would be like that of the 70's/80's where surging was possible. If you look at German terracing, you get 4 or 5 steps then a barrier to stop mass surging.
But we wouldn't admit as a country that the Germans have it right could we.
Yes, outside of this argument it is surely more dangerous to stand in seated areas than standing ones. If it is accepted that you can't really stop 7k fans doing it if they so chose and some old stands which have been converted for seats have a rake that is designed for standing, a strong argument for terraced areas is there. Having said that, common sense never plays too much of a part when it comes to football and politicians.
This argument seems to miss the point that laws were passed that banned standing as it was deemed to be unsafe. Irrespective as to whether you agree with this, the laws were passed. If you apply your logic across the board we would end up with no speed limits outside schools - after all if many are going to speed then maybe we should just change the laws to fit. Next we'll be making it legal to sell heroin to school children, after all some do and it would, probably, be safer to legalise it.
No! If it was deemed (irrespective as to the view of the 7,000 there on Saturday) dangerous to have standing on terraces, then those that stand in seated sections should be made to sit, and if not the stand should be closed.
I know this will upset many on here, but you can't just change laws because you can't get enough people to obey them.
All good points Kings Hill but then again if the law does not inforce the laws in makes they will be taken advantage off.
Most grounds up and down the country have fans standing on a match day and the police & stewards stand by looking on doing nothing.
You quote speed limits outside schools, unless there is a camera nearby who do you think will stop it happening, the police are nowhere to be seen on the roads of today.
You only have to look at one of the latest laws to be passed i.e. not allowed to use a mobile phone whilst driving to see it is flouted up and down the country, all day every day.
At the risk of sounding obstinate some people that want to sit don'twant to be forced down the front and/or off to the side. The back in the middle is probably where everyone wants to be.
We were in the second row at Fulham and our heads were below that of the players - the view of the other goal was very poor.
I accept that there is no solution, but i just can't bring myself to accept that because so many people break the rules those that dont have to just accept it.
Without getting into the legalities of this issue again, I think that we as fans just have to accept that everyone's wishes can't be met, and therefore we have to try and reach a suitable middle ground, which of course means that there has to be some sort of compromise somewhere along the way. If you're not willing to compromise, this issue will rear its head again.
Maybe not at Fulham (I was 20 rows back) but I'm sure some of the standers (me being one of them) would prefer to stand at the front, so as to get a closer view of the pitch, but are happy to go to the back in order to not block others. A simple sacrifice, but one I'm willing to make to help my other fans.
It's common sense, and not much of a sacrifice so as to avoid an issue that so many claim means so much to them but are unwilling to help rectify.
Well, if some fellow supporter 'wallops'. you from behind - and you go over the shin level seating in front of you it could (Sod's Law) start a kinda waterfall effect. That's the reason for barriers on terracing (not for leaning on) to prevent accidents.
Those who say terracing should not be allowed need to face up to the fact that it still is, in League One and League Two, and common sense suggests that is more dangerous to stand on a train than in a football ground. The only reason standing on trains is allowed is that the cost of outlawing it would be horrendous, so the authorities will take a pragmatic approach when it suits them.
Politicians will never take on the police on safety issues and the police have another agenda, in terms of identifying people in the crowd. I am sure if you ask Fulham why they did not enforce their ground regulations on Saturday, they will tell you the police were not willing to support them in doing so.
To be clear, I am not blaming the police. I think it was the right approach from a public order perspective, however unsatisfactory it was for the supporters who could not stand or couldn't see. But it's not good enough simply to assert that the rules exist and therefore should be enforced. It's a question of making a bad situation worse.
Yes, of course the numbers of people allowed into a safe standing area needs to be controlled, as it is currently for seats. That is easy enough to do and an area desinged for standing has to be safer to stand in than an area designed for sitting with the tripping risks.
The problem with enforcing regulations is, how do a handful of stewards get people who enjoy not co-operating to co-operate? It is impossible. You only have to look at the Brentford game - I commented at the time that there is no way the hard core North Upper were going to vacate the stand as politely requested and what could anybody do to make them?
the most silly thing of course is, you can build a multi million pound Rugby league stadium, as Warrington and St Helens have done, and you can put terracing in, but build the same football stadium, and you can't.
I know Wigan RL are hoping they can retrofit an end at the DW for terracing as soon as the football team starts to slide.
Football is a tribal activity. Members of this tribe demand 'atmosphere' to show that their tribe is louder (better) than the Fulham tribe. The feelings and enjoyment of weaker, older and younger members of the tribe are not important. Decent is negativity.
BTW, No law has ever been passed to make stadiums all seater, and you are not breaking the law by standing.
My mistake. I thought that Thatcher's Government passed laws that banned terracing. I can't, honestly, see why the football world would have spent millions and millions of pounds converting their grounds if it was optional and I can't see any other way that the then Government could have forced the change without passing laws, but if they didn't then I stand corrected.
It doesn't really change my logic though. If some are campaigning for 'safe standing' and the MPs are involved then it is probably something that would require a change of rules, even if it wouldn't require an act of Parliament (a law). Suggesting a change because many will not obey the rules is still not an acceptable way to make the rules, in my humble opinion.
Interestingly, I don't think there is anywhere near as much support for 'safe standing' as those that insist on standing now would have you believe. Again just my opinion.
all it would need is for Jeremy Hunt to change his orders to the Football Licensing authority that the top two leagues are required by the Secretary of State to be all seater.
The stupid thing is, if Brentford or Stevenage were to get promoted, they would be required to put seats on their terraces, and for the only reason being that they were in one of the top two leagues.
The debate is driven by Hillsborough, and a small group of very vocal families who don't want terracing to return, but stand on the all seater Kop
For those wondering about the policing of it, here you go
CRIMINAL AND CIVIL LAW- There are two types of law, criminal law and civil law. - Criminal laws are offences against the state (‘illegal acts’), such as smoking in public places. Police may become involved with enforcing criminal laws. - Civil laws are contracts between two parties, such as agreements to purchase home insurance. - The ground regulations of a club (including the ban on persistent standing) form a contract between the supporter and the club. - By standing, the supporter is in breach of that contract. This is a civil, not a criminal matter. - Therefore, a supporter cannot be arrested simply for standing. For that reason, it is not a matter that the police should be involved in, unless (for example) a supporter assaults a steward asking to get people to sit down; that would be a criminal offence.
I was located in block P2 and I hope to god i never have to witness that bouncy bouncy thing again. Whilst trying to pour a cup of tea from my flask, some wallys thought it would be fun to bounce up and down, thus making me lose my cup of hot tea over the person in front of me. Perhaps if we could all sit down, i could go back to enjoying my mid game cup of tea and not scald the person in front of me.
But it's not good enough simply to assert that the rules exist and therefore should be enforced. It's a question of making a bad situation worse.
I guess it depends on what the rules are doesn't it? There were times when it was thought that the riots in the summer were uncontrollable, yet the authorities made a decision to stop them. I know these two are not comparable, but if sufficiently harsh punishments were dished out to those that failed to obey then in the end the rules would be enforced. How many games behind closed doors do you think Fulham would have to be forced to play before making fans sit down would be important enough? Or the safety certificate reduced the capacity of a stand every time fans stand until there are few enough for the stewards to make them sit? Even if that number reduces into the tens.
I'm sorry Airman, but I just don't think "It's too difficult" is a reason to ignore rules.
Yes, of course the numbers of people allowed into a safe standing area needs to be controlled, as it is currently for seats. That is easy enough to do and an area desinged for standing has to be safer to stand in than an area designed for sitting with the tripping risks.
The problem with enforcing regulations is, how do a handful of stewards get people who enjoy not co-operating to co-operate? It is impossible. You only have to look at the Brentford game - I commented at the time that there is no way the hard core North Upper were going to vacate the stand as politely requested and what could anybody do to make them?
If they'd cancelled the game and sent everyone home then I'm sure the next time it happened they would have found the fans more corporative. Either that or they cancel the game, send everyone home and ban for life all those that refused to move.
I'm not hell bent of sitting, not am I a 'jobs worth' but I just think that when push comes to shove rules should be enforced, and if there is enough appetite to do so then there is normally a way to do so..
I am not sure if you were at the Valley last Monday but those that were saw the problem our stewards had moving a couple of blocks of fans due to the power problems.
Getting 7,000 fans to sit down would take an immense amount of labour plus with all the stewards in the crowd enforcing such a move would only hinder the veiw even more.
Lets suppose Fulham were punished, why should they have to play games behind closed doors because away fans would not sit down.
Going back to the Valley we all saw what happened when Millwall came to us last year, you could not see a stairway or concourse in the Jimmy Seed stand from where I was sitting let alone fans sitting down.
I would have been very disapointed to have had to play a game or two behind closed doors as punishment for that.
STANDING IN SEATED AREAS – CLUB APPROACHES - Since standing is an issue between clubs and supporters, it is up to individual clubs how they deal with it. - Certain clubs are very strict in attempting to tackle this practice, taking measures such as ejecting people who stand. These practices can create significant public order problems and while there is little evidence of them being effective. - Other clubs take a more relaxed approach to this, particularly where it is not causing problems. ‘We take a somewhat relaxed view on (standing) provided the individuals are not causing annoyance to other spectators or obstructing other spectators views.’ (Club Safety Officer – in correspondence with FSF member) ‘a measure of persistent standing should be tolerated” (Premier League Chief Executive – Source: FLA board minutes, May 2006) We support sensible approaches such as these as a way of improving the matchday experience for supporters and stewards alike.
Comments
I'm all for bringing back terracing for people who want it .( I personally prefer it ) but do i feel safer in a full stand with seats or terracing? seats everytime.
No! If it was deemed (irrespective as to the view of the 7,000 there on Saturday) dangerous to have standing on terraces, then those that stand in seated sections should be made to sit, and if not the stand should be closed.
I know this will upset many on here, but you can't just change laws because you can't get enough people to obey them.
But we wouldn't admit as a country that the Germans have it right could we.
a Bundersliga terrace at Borussia park
Most grounds up and down the country have fans standing on a match day and the police & stewards stand by looking on doing nothing.
You quote speed limits outside schools, unless there is a camera nearby who do you think will stop it happening, the police are nowhere to be seen on the roads of today.
You only have to look at one of the latest laws to be passed i.e. not allowed to use a mobile phone whilst driving to see it is flouted up and down the country, all day every day.
Maybe not at Fulham (I was 20 rows back) but I'm sure some of the standers (me being one of them) would prefer to stand at the front, so as to get a closer view of the pitch, but are happy to go to the back in order to not block others. A simple sacrifice, but one I'm willing to make to help my other fans.
It's common sense, and not much of a sacrifice so as to avoid an issue that so many claim means so much to them but are unwilling to help rectify.
Politicians will never take on the police on safety issues and the police have another agenda, in terms of identifying people in the crowd. I am sure if you ask Fulham why they did not enforce their ground regulations on Saturday, they will tell you the police were not willing to support them in doing so.
To be clear, I am not blaming the police. I think it was the right approach from a public order perspective, however unsatisfactory it was for the supporters who could not stand or couldn't see. But it's not good enough simply to assert that the rules exist and therefore should be enforced. It's a question of making a bad situation worse.
The problem with enforcing regulations is, how do a handful of stewards get people who enjoy not co-operating to co-operate? It is impossible. You only have to look at the Brentford game - I commented at the time that there is no way the hard core North Upper were going to vacate the stand as politely requested and what could anybody do to make them?
I know Wigan RL are hoping they can retrofit an end at the DW for terracing as soon as the football team starts to slide.
It doesn't really change my logic though. If some are campaigning for 'safe standing' and the MPs are involved then it is probably something that would require a change of rules, even if it wouldn't require an act of Parliament (a law). Suggesting a change because many will not obey the rules is still not an acceptable way to make the rules, in my humble opinion.
Interestingly, I don't think there is anywhere near as much support for 'safe standing' as those that insist on standing now would have you believe. Again just my opinion.
The stupid thing is, if Brentford or Stevenage were to get promoted, they would be required to put seats on their terraces, and for the only reason being that they were in one of the top two leagues.
The debate is driven by Hillsborough, and a small group of very vocal families who don't want terracing to return, but stand on the all seater Kop
CRIMINAL AND CIVIL LAW- There are two types of law, criminal law and civil law.
- Criminal laws are offences against the state (‘illegal acts’), such as smoking in public places.
Police may become involved with enforcing criminal laws.
- Civil laws are contracts between two parties, such as agreements to purchase home
insurance.
- The ground regulations of a club (including the ban on persistent standing) form a contract
between the supporter and the club.
- By standing, the supporter is in breach of that contract. This is a civil, not a criminal matter.
- Therefore, a supporter cannot be arrested simply for standing. For that reason, it is not a
matter that the police should be involved in, unless (for example) a supporter assaults a
steward asking to get people to sit down; that would be a criminal offence.
Whilst trying to pour a cup of tea from my flask, some wallys thought it would be fun to bounce up and down, thus making me lose my cup of hot tea over the person in front of me.
Perhaps if we could all sit down, i could go back to enjoying my mid game cup of tea and not scald the person in front of me.
I'm sorry Airman, but I just don't think "It's too difficult" is a reason to ignore rules.
If they'd cancelled the game and sent everyone home then I'm sure the next time it happened they would have found the fans more corporative. Either that or they cancel the game, send everyone home and ban for life all those that refused to move.
I'm not hell bent of sitting, not am I a 'jobs worth' but I just think that when push comes to shove rules should be enforced, and if there is enough appetite to do so then there is normally a way to do so..
I am not sure if you were at the Valley last Monday but those that were saw the problem our stewards had moving a couple of blocks of fans due to the power problems.
Getting 7,000 fans to sit down would take an immense amount of labour plus with all the stewards in the crowd enforcing such a move would only hinder the veiw even more.
Lets suppose Fulham were punished, why should they have to play games behind closed doors because away fans would not sit down.
Going back to the Valley we all saw what happened when Millwall came to us last year, you could not see a stairway or concourse in the Jimmy Seed stand from where I was sitting let alone fans sitting down.
I would have been very disapointed to have had to play a game or two behind closed doors as punishment for that.
The ref is told to stop the game, until people take their seats.
I grant you that you may end up with an abandoned game, but I think after that it may soon die out.
Worth a try, to see what happens ?
You don't play at cricket when spectators are standing behind the bowlers arm.
STANDING IN SEATED AREAS – CLUB APPROACHES
- Since standing is an issue between clubs and supporters, it is up to individual clubs how
they deal with it.
- Certain clubs are very strict in attempting to tackle this practice, taking measures such as
ejecting people who stand. These practices can create significant public order problems and
while there is little evidence of them being effective.
- Other clubs take a more relaxed approach to this, particularly where it is not causing
problems.
‘We take a somewhat relaxed view on (standing) provided the individuals are not causing
annoyance to other spectators or obstructing other spectators views.’ (Club Safety Officer –
in correspondence with FSF member)
‘a measure of persistent standing should be tolerated” (Premier League Chief Executive –
Source: FLA board minutes, May 2006)
We support sensible approaches such as these as a way of improving the matchday
experience for supporters and stewards alike.