# Terraces vs. All-seaters



## eddyk (Mar 26, 2005)

All Seater ^^









Mainly Seated, Some Terracing ^^


----------



## Jack Rabbit Slim (Oct 29, 2005)

Deffinitely all seater imo. It's how world class stadiums are meant to be. Terracing just looks kinda crummy to me.

:cheers:


----------



## The_Hoops (Jan 26, 2006)

Unless UK fans are old enough to have grown up with the terracing culture, then they will never understand why it is so good. A lot of younger UK fans will vote 'all-seater' because they have never been in a packed terrace and don't understand why it is so great.


----------



## andysimo123 (Jul 29, 2004)

I use to go in the terracing every week at Sale Sharks when they where round the corner, it was alright but its a different game to football. Now I go Old Trafford every week and I prefer seating. When Liverpool came to Old Trafford I was glad of my seat at half time because my legs were killing me. Everyone in the scoreboard end was stood up for the whole match.


----------



## Isaac Newell (May 17, 2004)

I saw United beat Barcelona 3-0 from the United road. That result would never have happened in an all seat Old Trafford. The only time the crowd went quiet was when Diego got the ball.


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 29, 2004)

i prefer the first stadium, yes the first...i choose the 2nd option of your poll


----------



## MoreOrLess (Feb 17, 2005)

Having only started to support Palace in 1990 I'v only been to a handful of standing games (Mostly grounds like Reading in the mid 90's) but having the ends standing works pretty well IMHO. Your not going to have a great view from the ends anyway so you might aswell have a better atmosphere, even those who preffer sitting would benefit as high capacities would mean their more likely to get tickets.

The poll is a bit misleading aswell since standing room takes up less space per person than seats so a stadium could have only a third of its space as terraces yet have them make up half of the capacity.


----------



## brummad (Nov 20, 2002)

fond memories of the brummie road end down the baggies when i was a nipper. i even have a lump of it on my bedroom windowsill. i remember when i was really young and we used to all run down the front and stand behind the fence . good memories...now i am gettin on i do like a nice chair tho lol


----------



## WeasteDevil (Nov 6, 2004)

Looking at the votes, we can easily see who the real football fans are eh?


----------



## Sparks (Jan 14, 2004)

Some Terracing, Mainly Seated

You can have a kop type section behind each goal for the hardcore support.


----------



## Socrates (Oct 20, 2005)

All seaters look better but from what Ive heard terraces have much better atmosphere. I like being in the back row at games so I can stand up so I'd have to say A mix between seats and terraces. Prob bottom tier of 3 all the way round being terraces, the rest being seats.


----------



## reyrey (Jul 28, 2005)

Invesco looks absolutely gorgeous!
ummmmm, the lack of terracing for the past 15 yrs or so had had a severe affect on the atmosphere in the games so some terracing (behind the goals maybe) is a must. The rest of the stadium can be for the prawn sandwich brigade who keep the £££'s flowing in.


----------



## vivayo (May 6, 2003)

sure we need at least some terracing, is a must for the atmosphere, with some 5 - 10 k terrazing places, depending on the size of the stadium,

once you have 10,000 fans non-stop jumping and singing, they can pass the vibe to the rest of the stadium


----------



## Brent H. (Feb 7, 2006)

The student sections in many college football and basketball stadiums have the same effect that the standing room only sections do at football matches. However we usually only have benches here in the states. Personally I always like when there is a special section for the hardcore fans, its irritating to have people behind you complain about standing up at a football (american) game. I get up and cheer as much as possible.


----------



## Martuh (Nov 12, 2005)

Some Terracing, Mainly Seated

Terracing for the real fans and seating for the not so real fans.


----------



## BaronVonChickenpants (Oct 4, 2005)

*Terraces....*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0tkwqhXTc4


check out the link at youtube........the truth or sentimental claptrap?


----------



## Benjuk (Aug 12, 2006)

Seems about right to me.

I love the new stadiums, but at the end of the day you can't generate an atmosphere in an all seater stadium. The rest of the stuff - ticket prices, media saturation, etc. - has changed the game a lot.


----------



## NeilF (Apr 22, 2006)

I see no reason why a new build stadium can't have terracing. The terrace at Dortmund is phenonenal, but also, so, so easy to convert into seats, AND meets health and safety legislation, all at the same time.

Especially with modern improvements in ticketing and whatnot, and with modern terrances like the one in Dortmund, I see no reason why we shouldn't see terraces in some stadia.

I remember a while back, Man Utd wanted to restore some of the atmosphere to Old Trafford by terracing the Stretford End. I see no reason why they should have been prevented from putting a modern terrace with easy conversion there.

It seems that the laws regarding terraces are over-zealous. Some of the best atmosphere in the world is in the terraces at Lansdowne Road. Why that can't be replicated for football, I don't know.


----------



## Calvin W (Nov 5, 2005)

How soon one forgets all the tragic deaths from the not so distant past.


----------



## LandOfGreenGinger (Apr 30, 2006)

Calvin W said:


> How soon one forgets all the tragic deaths from the not so distant past.


Nobody has forgotten. Nobody has forgotten that deaths were caused by badly designed, poorly maintained and badly policed stadia NOT people standing while watching sport. Standing areas are not intrinsically less safe than sitting ones.


----------



## Verbal Kint (Aug 15, 2006)

Lord Taylor stated specifically in his 1990 report on football grounds that "standing accomodation is not instrinsically unsafe". 

www.standupsitdown.co.uk/


----------



## Alle (Sep 23, 2005)

We have that problem in Sweden now. First they have forbidden pyrotechnics (is that the corrrect english word for bengalic fires, smoke etc?), now they want to build all seaters. First of all it aint gonna change nothing people have still used pyrotechnical products it just becomes more dangerous when they dissallowed it.

Anyhow... when u look at Italian games u get yellous, they can use their flags all the game, have whatever tifo they like and support there club throughout the game without anyone saying take that flag down i cant see. Becouse people know that if ur on the terrace thats the atmosphere there.

And now lastly, the swedish footballfederation, following the practices of UEFA and FIFA, havve set the rules that u can get fined for miscrediting UEFA, FIFA or the swedish ff. How about free speech eh? They should work for making games a better experience not destroying it. They dont even have a definition for "miscrediting" its purely arbitrary.


----------



## 2005 (Jul 17, 2005)

I'm doing a documentary looking at the arguement of whether terracing should come back into the game, at top flight level. I've had a few conversations with Amanda Matthews, writer for StandUpSitDown, and she really likes what I've said so far. Filming should start next month and if you're interested, and live in London, then PM me and I shall give you more details.


----------



## Calvin W (Nov 5, 2005)

LandOfGreenGinger said:


> Nobody has forgotten. Nobody has forgotten that deaths were caused by badly designed, poorly maintained and badly policed stadia NOT people standing while watching sport. Standing areas are not intrinsically less safe than sitting ones.


I have to disagree. With permanent seating it is more difficult for the crowd to push forward towards the front. With open terraces what stops a crowd from the back to push straight to the front. If memory serves this was a main cause of the tragedies in the past.


----------



## johnz88 (Feb 19, 2005)

If a stadium today is built right there is no problems with people standing, it isnt any more dangerous than people sitting. To make it better for you they caan even strengthem the front of the stands since you say people push forward. If you look for football with the best atmosphere, what football is known for and is what people love about you have to look at the places where there is standing room where the fans get more invloved. Argentina, Brazil - where fans actually dont want to renovate their stadiums with more seats, and then in europe Germany especially Dortmund.


----------



## Benjuk (Aug 12, 2006)

Calvin W said:


> I have to disagree. With permanent seating it is more difficult for the crowd to push forward towards the front. With open terraces what stops a crowd from the back to push straight to the front. If memory serves this was a main cause of the tragedies in the past.


Crush barriers were installed in all stadiums in England - these barriers had to meet safety standards in terms of the load they could take, and they effectively compartmentalised areas of the terrace. When Sunderland scored, the furthest I could 'surge forward' was about five meters.

The Hillsborough crush was caused through bad design, bad ticketting and bad policing.

Like others here I see no reason why 'safe' terracing can't be re-introduced to stadiums. Safety regulations toward the end of terracing were getting almost comical - for example, my old home ground Roker Park, had a 35000 capacity in 1988, with exactly the same seating and standing areas the capacity had been reduced to less than 23000 by 1996 when Roker closed. This was purely down to the legal limit for the number of supporters standing in any given area being reduced.


----------



## hngcm (Sep 17, 2002)

i dont see why you couldnt have terraces at the ends of the fields, usually where the most diehard supporters are


----------



## BaronVonChickenpants (Oct 4, 2005)

hngcm said:


> i dont see why you couldnt have terraces at the ends of the fields, usually where the most diehard supporters are



i think standing area can be safe,as long as the numbers of people entering these areas are controlled....have a strict limit/capacity set and stick to it
the main reason why we haven't had a repeat of Hillsborough is the ticketing policy that accompanies all seater grounds,esoecially at the big clubs and/or the big games...gone are the days when you could just stroll up on the day to the likes of Arsenal/Man Utd/Spurs etc and pay on the door


----------



## skaP187 (Jan 10, 2006)

Very nice video, in germany there doesn't seem to be a problem with terracing?


----------



## victory (Mar 4, 2006)

Benjuk said:


> Seems about right to me.
> 
> I love the new stadiums, but at the end of the day you can't generate an atmosphere in an all seater stadium. The rest of the stuff - ticket prices, media saturation, etc. - has changed the game a lot.


You can still generate an atmosphere in an all-seater.

It is harder, but it ain't impossible. 

The Melbourne Victory fans have done it at the Telstra Dome this season, nobody from the main supporter groups sits down in thier seats mind you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3K1_PYhvhME - gets good after 15ish secs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--edk5CZBBU - the north end was going nuts hours before the game started

If that can sort of atmosphere/support can be produced in an all-seater, in just a clubs 2nd year of existence, in Australia non-the-less (a country not famous for it's coordinated support), then I can't imagine all-seaters could be that detrimental to European atmospheres.


----------



## nyrmetros (Aug 15, 2006)

I don't htink we ever had terraces in pro sports here in AMerika. The closest we have are bleachers....


----------



## 2020 (Jun 14, 2005)

Calvin W said:


> I have to disagree. With permanent seating it is more difficult for the crowd to push forward towards the front. With open terraces what stops a crowd from the back to push straight to the front. If memory serves this was a main cause of the tragedies in the past.


If terracing is so unsafe then why have I been allowed to stand at every Colchester home game I have been to for the last 15 years? Is my life worth less than that of a Premiership fan? 

It has nothing to do with safety, it is all about money!


----------



## KiwiBrit (Feb 7, 2006)

2020 said:


> If terracing is so unsafe then why have I been allowed to stand at every Colchester home game I have been to for the last 15 years? Is my life worth less than that of a Premiership fan?
> 
> It has nothing to do with safety, it is all about money!


...you've got a point.


----------



## Benjuk (Aug 12, 2006)

*"Safe" standing areas...*

Oh great and all knowing stadium gurus... Can anyone advise me of the specifications for 'safe' standing areas at new stadia in Europe?

Specifically, does anyone know:
(a) the maximum 'safe' rake of a standing area?
(b) the difference in capacity between a 'safe' standing area and an identically sized seated area?

Any information most welcome.


----------



## www.sercan.de (Aug 10, 2003)

In some german stadiums you have got varioseats and i think it is 
1 seat : 2 persons


----------



## Chimaera (Mar 14, 2007)

basically one seating row is minimum 80cm deep, 45cm for the seat and 35 for legs/passage. Steps for standing only need to be around 40cm deep. It's a simple calculation: x2

But what does "rake" mean in this context? English is not my mother tongue.


----------



## CorliCorso (May 4, 2005)

Chimaera said:


> But what does "rake" mean in this context? English is not my mother tongue.


Angle of the stand.

The tribune at the Westfalenstadion looks pretty steep to me, for a terrace.


----------



## Chimaera (Mar 14, 2007)

CorliCorso said:


> Angle of the stand.
> 
> The tribune at the Westfalenstadion looks pretty steep to me, for a terrace.


Angle, I thought so, but wasn't sure. Well, I guess if you want to have a very steep standing area, you need those supports every one or few rows...


----------



## www.sercan.de (Aug 10, 2003)

the 3rd tier at Boca stadium is 45° and the 3rd tier at the endzone is terrace


----------



## Quintana (Dec 27, 2005)

Calling Argentinian stadiums safe is pushing it though


----------



## bigbossman (Jun 25, 2007)

...


----------



## Tom Hughes (May 14, 2007)

At Goodison Park, the old capacity of the standing Terrace (Lower Gwladys Street was 14,200) in the mid 80's. After Hilsborough this was reduced to approx 10,000 I believe. When it was originally seated I believe its capacity reduced to 7,000. ie approx half that of the 80's. The paddock had a capacity of approx 6,000 standing places, this reduced to approx 2,200 when it was seated. A ratio of 2:1 probably goes on the side of safety. Perhaps if you look at the terrace capacity of the recently built Warrington RLFC which has terracing you may get a more accurate relationship.


----------



## the wembley wizard (Dec 21, 2006)

am I correct in saying that you coulnt create a terrace by simply removing the seats, say to recreate a paddock in the stretford end/kop
I was told you couldnt due to height of steps etc? can anybody clear this up pls cheers


----------



## Chimaera (Mar 14, 2007)

the wembley wizard said:


> am I correct in saying that you coulnt create a terrace by simply removing the seats, say to recreate a paddock in the stretford end/kop
> I was told you couldnt due to height of steps etc? can anybody clear this up pls cheers


Well, you could put an extra step on every row, thus doubling the number of rows and reducing them from lets say 80x40 to 40x20 in depth and height. But I don't know whether the structure could hold the extra weight.

Simply removing the seats would create an unsafe situation. The other way round is possible though: that's what was done in my club's stadium around 15 years ago, they transformed standing to seating, just by installing seats every two rows.


----------



## CorliCorso (May 4, 2005)

bigbossman said:


> it can't be 1 seat, to 2 people standing, because you have things like taking gangways into account, and the fact you take up more than 2 peoples room when sitting, i reckon it's closer to 1 seat to 2.5 to 3 people!


Yes, it can, because a) gangways are the same whether there's seats or terracing and b) modern regulations are for 2 standing places where 1 seat would normally be. Look at German stadia, the standing areas are usually double the capacity of those areas when they're seated.


----------



## the wembley wizard (Dec 21, 2006)

Chimaera said:


> Well, you could put an extra step on every row, thus doubling the number of rows and reducing them from lets say 80x40 to 40x20 in depth and height. But I don't know whether the structure could hold the extra weight.
> 
> Simply removing the seats would create an unsafe situation. The other way round is possible though: that's what was done in my club's stadium around 15 years ago, they transformed standing to seating, just by installing seats every two rows.


Cheers Pal, good info


----------



## FlyingDutchman (Sep 6, 2006)

Since 2 months my club got the standing areas back 
We have two fanatic sides, and now one has 500 standing places, were 250 people could sit.
In the summer stop, on the other fanatic end 1000 standing places (were 500 people could sit) are coming.
Eventough those 1500 standing places won't be enough, so a lot of people still have to stand on sitting areas, but this is a nice start!

We have a very steap stadium, so on every row there has to be a fence, or we wouldn't be aloud to have standing areas.


----------



## the wembley wizard (Dec 21, 2006)

Quality glad to see clubs are taking a responsible route back to terraced areas


----------



## spud (Mar 2, 2006)

the only thing dangerous about terracing is poor stewarding & policing..


----------



## lpioe (May 6, 2006)

Yeah great to see terraces coming back. They did the same in Gijon a few month ago.

Where is the stadium FlyingDutchman?


----------



## Quintana (Dec 27, 2005)

Breda


----------



## FlyingDutchman (Sep 6, 2006)

lpioe said:


> Yeah great to see terraces coming back. They did the same in Gijon a few month ago.
> 
> Where is the stadium FlyingDutchman?


It's in Breda, and the club NAC Breda plays there


----------



## Patrick (Sep 11, 2002)

Essen plans to get a new stadium for the Women Football World Cup in 2011.










On league games of the local football team Rot-Weiss Essen, the capacity will be 18000 (all standings) in the lower tier and 14000 (all seated) on the upper tier (=32000). the capacity for international games (women football world cup e.g.) will be around 25000. that makes 11000 seats in the lower tier then. so here, it is less than 2 standing places for 1 seat.


----------



## Benjuk (Aug 12, 2006)

Cheers for all the information, lads. There's some talk of a petition/action group being set up to try and bring in a large 'safe' standing area at the Sunderland Stadium of Light, but no one seems to know whether it's possible or not.


----------



## GNU (Nov 26, 2004)

Vote!


----------



## Quintana (Dec 27, 2005)

Terraces


----------



## theespecialone (Jun 3, 2008)

corporate boxes


----------



## Basel_CH (Jan 7, 2006)

Terraces, nice and better view!


----------



## Delmat (May 2, 2007)

Seats for the fans and terraces for the ultras


----------



## Patrick (Sep 11, 2002)

terraces. you just can pack more people on the same space. and 20000 usually make more noise than 15000.
of course, terraces AND seats. so have your choice as a spectator.


----------



## michał_ (Mar 8, 2007)

Republica said:


> Theres a reason for the over zealous stewards - nearly 100 people were killed at Hillsbrough.
> 
> I do think its gone a bit too far though now. Afterall, it has become clear that while standing back then was dangerous, it was in fact the police's fault.
> 
> So bring back standing in the German style.


Claiming Hillsbrough was the fault of terracing is so untrue. It was, as you said yopurself, a combination of factors with prime role of match policing. Similar things may happen, as bigbossman mentioned, in seated stadiums. Do you think all African stadiums where stampedes occured had terraces? Not at all. And let's not forget - it was still an incident. Huge tragedy in terms of scale, but incidental in terms of frequency.

I actually feel that current situation in England has very little to do with those times, it's about forcing/imposing comfort. And comfort equals richer customers - you all know the story of ticket prices differing between year to year.


----------



## Sagaris (Nov 28, 2006)

Sitting at football matches? :lol:

This isnt the opera. Both terraces and seats can do the job, as long as nobody is actually sitting.


----------



## scukaf (May 3, 2007)

my butt likes seats


----------



## vernon (Mar 21, 2007)

The reason why terracing isn't allowed in England is because of money and money only. They just use safety concerns as an excuse, because in Germany, terracing has not caused any problems. Who is going to pay more for tickets? Those who want to stand and create atmosphere or the corporate/family types who want to have a nice day out peacefully watching sport? The latter of course.


----------



## JimB (Apr 7, 2005)

It's so sad to see how the atmosphere at games in England has deteriorated so dramatically.

English grounds used to be among the most intimidating in European football (if not THE most intimidating). After Spurs had beaten Slovan Bratislava 6-0 in the second leg of a European Cup Winners' Cup tie in 1963, Slovan's manager said, "I envy Spurs their supporters. We have never played before such a crowd. It affected our players".

And that sentiment was echoed by all clubs who played against Spurs back in those days. They all wilted in the face of the ferocity and noise generated by the Spurs crowd and they were almost all heavily beaten as a result.

This 2008-09 season, Spurs have played at home against two more eastern European teams - Wisla Kracow and Dinamo Zagreb. And how things have changed. On both occasions, Spurs fans were totally put to shame by the passion and non stop singing of the away teams' fans.

We have forgotten, in England, what it is to support your team. Such a shame.

And all seater stadia are to blame.


----------



## michał_ (Mar 8, 2007)

JimB said:


> This 2008-09 season, Spurs have played at home against two more eastern European teams - Wisla Kracow and Dinamo Zagreb. And how things have changed. On both occasions, Spurs fans were totally put to shame by the passion and non stop singing of the away teams' fans.
> 
> [...]
> 
> And all seater stadia are to blame.


To be frank, Wisla also has an all-seater  So does Dinamo, as far as I know. So it's the scope of application then, not the sole fact. And I'm afraid both teams in mention will go the English way with new Henryk Reyman Stadium and Stadion Kajzerica, sadly. I think that, as much as we're simply unable to fight economy and most probably the mainstream media pushing to "go English", we should look for a safe compromise for Central and Southern/Eastern Europe, like Germany. I think that's the best we can get in the long run... though it pains me too.

PS: I must say I was pretty surprised with the chants by Tottenham in London, in the negative way. But my biggest surprise was the fact that after the game, in Poland some media were talking about... horrible behaviour of Polish supporters in England, opposing our "violent and hostile" chanting to the Yid Army's class (I guess a journalist won't hear and see all the "w#nkers" sitting in front of his tv). That makes me feel with morons like these setting the level of public debate, we're just bound to go the English way.


----------



## Republica (Jun 30, 2005)

What happened at Tottenham?

Yeh I know that standing wasnt responsible for Hillsbrough, but seating was introduced for safety, theres no doubt about that. However now it has become apparent that it wasnt the tarracing that couased the problem, we need to move back to standing like Germany. I'm not sure how money is responsible - safe standing in areas of the pitch would increase capacity in stadiums and people could then choose between standing, seating and the corporate boxes/ridiculous corporate tiers. That way they can maximise the profits from all comers through price differentiation.

Incidentally, there are areas in most grounds where people stand a lot of the time and arent told to sit. Some grounds are more heavy handed than others.


----------



## michał_ (Mar 8, 2007)

Republica said:


> What happened at Tottenham?
> 
> I'm not sure how money is responsible - safe standing in areas of the pitch would increase capacity in stadiums and people could then choose between standing, seating and the corporate boxes/ridiculous corporate tiers. That way they can maximise the profits from all comers through price differentiation.
> 
> Incidentally, there are areas in most grounds where people stand a lot of the time and arent told to sit. Some grounds are more heavy handed than others.


1. If the Tottn'am question is for me: I'm not a common away game follower, but I have been to a few games and must say I've nver seen that much hostility towards our crowd, neither from away fans in Krakow. I guess it was nothing special in terms of lengauge, but surely I didn't expect the massive exposition of "[email protected]" gestures and a few others. And it surely isn't how Polish press picture English fans 

2. I guess what you say sounds sensible for us but then again "sfae standing standards" don't earn stadiums as much capacity as the "old-days" terraces. Plus, clubs would still have to make some stratification and price these tickets relatively lower if not significantly lower than others. After all football in Britain is really expensive right now (some clubs at least)


----------



## FlyingDutchman (Sep 6, 2006)

In the Netherlands seating area's are coming back. Heerenveen was first a couple of years ago and last year my favourite team NAC Breda had got 500 standing places at one of the sides behind the goal (Vak G). This year the other stand behind the goal (B-Side) also got standing places (we were already standing but on or before the seats.) Also some clubs are investigating it, or have the away end is terraces.

After a couple of games in the new season, I now know again what the big difference is with seaters. Standing is so much better!


----------



## bigbossman (Jun 25, 2007)

...


----------



## Republica (Jun 30, 2005)

michał_;28517328 said:


> 1. If the Tottn'am question is for me: I'm not a common away game follower, but I have been to a few games and must say I've nver seen that much hostility towards our crowd, neither from away fans in Krakow. I guess it was nothing special in terms of lengauge, but surely I didn't expect the massive exposition of "[email protected]" gestures and a few others. And it surely isn't how Polish press picture English fans
> 
> 2. I guess what you say sounds sensible for us but then again "sfae standing standards" don't earn stadiums as much capacity as the "old-days" terraces. Plus, clubs would still have to make some stratification and price these tickets relatively lower if not significantly lower than others. After all football in Britain is really expensive right now (some clubs at least)


The wanker gesture means nothing... You'll get that at every game if you look for the people doing it. usually after a goal.


----------



## 2005 (Jul 17, 2005)

^^

As me and my mate's at University always used to say whilst in Warrington "You get dickheads anywhere you"


----------



## spud (Mar 2, 2006)

speaking of warrington...warrington RLFC have a new stadium that has both seating and terreraces...

terracing was'nt the problem,poor stewarding & policing was.


----------



## Huskies (Apr 15, 2009)

Chimaera said:


> Well, you could put an extra step on every row, thus doubling the number of rows and reducing them from lets say 80x40 to 40x20 in depth and height. But I don't know whether the structure could hold the extra weight.
> 
> Simply removing the seats would create an unsafe situation. The other way round is possible though: that's what was done in my club's stadium around 15 years ago, they transformed standing to seating, just by installing seats every two rows.



why would it be unsafe ? if each row is 40 cm high and 80 deep , if you remove the seats and put in some of those terrace support bows ( the small fences scatterd around you can lean on , dont know what to cal lthem) you have a perfectly fine temporary terrace right ? 

im designing an indoor arena as a school project and im making it an all seater - but alot of people want to stand at hockey games in sweden , so i thought this would be an easy way of converting between seating and terracing...


----------



## Patrick (Sep 11, 2002)

just to show that terracing is still modern:

this is the newly renovated stadium (Stadion an der Alten Försterei) of FC Union Berlin (2. Bundesliga), which will be opened tomorrow with a friendly against Hertha BSC Berlin. The small main stand will be rebuilt next summer break, in 2010.


















This is how it looked before renovation


----------



## bigbossman (Jun 25, 2007)

...


----------



## nyrmetros (Aug 15, 2006)

Terracing for the USA!


----------



## Luke80 (Jul 1, 2009)

All-seater but still being allowed the opportunity to stand in certain places. It stays safe.


----------



## HendrX (Oct 26, 2008)

In modern oval stadiums it doesn't look good. In some older type stadiums with seperate stands (north east south west) it looks really good!


----------



## Alix_D (Apr 7, 2008)

I stand on a terrace every week. People should get the choice.



Calvin W said:


> How soon one forgets all the tragic deaths from the not so distant past.


Tragic deaths which were caused by a combination of factors, of which terracing was a minor one.


----------



## SSE (Jul 28, 2009)

Jim856796 said:


> Well, why don't you just get up out of your seat and stand in order to chant just like you stand up if a country's national anthem is playing? And And did I mention that terrace seating can result in capacity overflows?


If you are standing and your team scores, there is an inevitable surge forward. On a properly constructed modern terrace, that is no problem because the steps are small and there are barriers spaced to stop people moving too far (also to stop big, dangerous, crushes happening). In a seating area, if you are standing and jumping up and down, you can still get a surge, but it's much more dangerous because of the seats. I've taken a few nasty tumbles myself (the away section at Vicarage Road will break my leg one day) and I've seen a fair few people get hurt. 

Capacity overflows? That's nothing to do with terracing. That's to do with ticketing and stewarding. There may not be designated spots, but if you restrict how many people are allowed into the stand in the first place it's not a problem.

The tragedy in the Ivory Coast earlier this year where 20 people died occured in an all seater stadium. It's stewarding and policing that cause those problems not terracing.


----------



## Alx-D (Oct 21, 2008)

*Terracing*

What's the difference between modern "safe" terraces that are being used in Germany and the old style English terraces that were deemed death traps? I don't want a philosophical debate, just the actual differences. How did the Germans tame the terraces?


----------



## bigbossman (Jun 25, 2007)

...


----------



## matthemod (Apr 8, 2008)

Main differences I can find are

Old "English" terraces were generally quite shallow, with sporadic crush barriers. This meant that a lot of people could get into them, with very little room in instances to move. Crowd "Swaying" and surges weren't exactly uncommon and they were deemed unsafe, particularly after the Hillsborough disaster. Some still present in the lower leagues have been maintained and changed subtly.

German terraces from what I have gathered are a combination of 2 varieties. First you have "Safe standing" which is effectively a seat with a personal crush barrier. Designed so that you can simply clip the seat up and stand up, meaning everyone has their own personal space and are able to stand. The other style is more similar to "English" style but are generally, in more modern stadiums, deeper in their rake. This means that surges and movements are far less dangerous, if at all. in terms of crush barriers I believe the more modern German style have many more spread out which also dimish the effect. A lot of the time though it's dependent on each German stadium.


----------



## bigbossman (Jun 25, 2007)

...


----------



## bigbossman (Jun 25, 2007)

...


----------



## bigbossman (Jun 25, 2007)

...


----------



## Marin Mostar (Jan 3, 2009)

Is this Celtic park?


----------



## bigbossman (Jun 25, 2007)

...


----------



## matthemod (Apr 8, 2008)

I didn't say the rake could fit more people in, atleast I didn't intend for it to come off like that, what I was getting at was having a more steeper rake would generally limit fans to the row they were standing on, they could move around but not exactly fast. But then I was going completely on what I had seen in pictures, so it may not be like that at all.


----------



## matthemod (Apr 8, 2008)

Oh and thought I would mention, I am so against the all-seater policy of English football. Especially as a lower league fan.


----------



## LS Design (Nov 23, 2009)

there is a downside to having terracing. a crowd avalanche


----------



## r0w84 (Nov 24, 2009)

jesus.....if u think that videos bad check this one out totally insane! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKnu...5BB8FB9F&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=56


----------



## Alemanniafan (Dec 15, 2008)

Avalanches don't occur in terracing in modern german stadia anymore.
The barriers prevent that from happening very effectively.
And íf you search youtube just a little you'll find Disasters in all seaters or seated sections just as well... 
And by the way, one major advantage of terracing for example is that there are no seats available which raging people can rip out and throw around with.


----------



## Luke80 (Jul 1, 2009)

matthemod said:


> Oh and thought I would mention, I am so against the all-seater policy of English football. Especially as a lower league fan.


I have no problem with it, if like I experienced in your clubs case, the stewards let you stand up if you want (providing you're not blocking anyone else's view).


----------



## bigbossman (Jun 25, 2007)

...


----------



## bigbossman (Jun 25, 2007)

...


----------



## Luke80 (Jul 1, 2009)

bigbossman said:


> ^^ yeah but going wild in the seats is bad for your legs! Terracing is also freer!


True - though that's part of the fun! When you cut your leg open celebrating a goal it's pretty epic because you just don't care! (had quite a bit to drink by that point though!)

I just like knowing that I have my own space to be in when I have a seat - only use it at halftime though if at all.


----------



## AcesHigh (Feb 20, 2003)

r0w84 said:


> jesus.....if u think that videos bad check this one out totally insane! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKnu...5BB8FB9F&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=56


haha, my team! Grêmio!


----------



## spud (Mar 2, 2006)

terraces never killed people...bad policing and stewarding did


----------



## bigbossman (Jun 25, 2007)

...


----------



## GEwinnen (Mar 3, 2006)

pro terracing:

Dortmund vs. Schalke - North stand:


----------



## Alx-D (Oct 21, 2008)

deleted


----------



## kerouac1848 (Jun 9, 2009)

If I remember, Martin Edwards called for a return to terracing at goal ends back in the late 90s (probably saw it as a cheaper way to boost OT's capacity). Interestingly, most pundits like Gray and Hansen were against it iirc. I think it is because they were all players in the 80s so had a built in negative perception of terracing which they linked to the crowd and stadium troubles of their playing era (plus the fact that a lot of pundits are ex-Liverpool players).

My concern now is that with the ever increasing corporatisation of football, no one wants to let in crowds of under-25 males. If demand shrinks it might be different though (i.e. can’t be fussy about demographics).


----------



## el_tucumano (Sep 19, 2009)

LS Design said:


> there is a downside to having terracing. a crowd avalanche


You should take into account than the "avalanches" are started on porpuse by some morons in Argentine stands. I think that wouldn't happen in England. Also in the video you can see the fans in the first row standing onto the fences, that's why they fell down. 

I watched some videos of all English terraces and there seems to be also "perpendicular" crash barrier that limited sections of the stand. I supose that wasn't safe either since people couldn't move to the sides.



> Terraces never killed people...bad policing and stewarding did


:cheers:kay:


----------



## nachop666 (Dec 21, 2008)

Terraces/Populares toda la vida


----------



## bigbossman (Jun 25, 2007)

el_tucumano said:


> You should take into account than the "avalanches" are started on porpuse by some morons in Argentine stands. *I think that wouldn't happen in England*. Also in the video you can see the fans in the first row standing onto the fences, that's why they fell down.


haha what? One of the reasons the government banned terraces is to prevent "avalanches" or surges/cascades as we call them!













> I watched some videos of all English terraces and there seems to be also "perpendicular" crash barrier that limited sections of the stand. I supose that wasn't safe either since people couldn't move to the sides.


That's how it was in the 1980s (before then they were open), and they were "safe", it's just the rules weren't followed, there were fences, they were crumbling apoart, they put too many people on the terraces and didn't give pens separate entrances like they do in Germany.

For instance in the hillsboro disaster the pens should've held around 2,000? people each, but there was no mechanism to say when a pen was full so the police just kept directing people into full pens and people at the front got crushed obviously. Without the fences they would've spilled onto the pitch. 

Pens are the best way to sort out terracing, they are basically mini terraces next to each other each with their own entrance.

The tottenham-wolves cup semi in 1981 they had a warning (a near disaster) but didn't heed it, Hillsborough stadium didn't even have a valid safety certificate in 1989, so how it staged matches I don't know!


----------



## bigbossman (Jun 25, 2007)

here is a video from West ham v Manchester United in 1975. When the red army (man u hooligans) tried to invade the west ham north bank. If there were fences 1,000s would've died, but nobody did. 






two comments below tell their own story

_*"This﻿ was nothing to do with violence as such, just overcrowding because the recognised gate was about 5,000 less than it actually was; a common problem with the old style turnstiles and the blokes' on the gate organising their own little payday. Miss those days though - when you actually had an atmosphere in the ground. "*_

_*"I was there
500 Manu got run out of the west side
onto the pitch
3 seperate large scale fights were going on at the same time in the south bank
West ham manouvered around the back of man u -they ran and the crush caused the pitch invasion
"Nothing to do﻿ with violence"?that made me roll up "*_


----------



## el_tucumano (Sep 19, 2009)

I misspelled this:



> I watched some videos of *old* English terraces and there seems to be also "perpendicular" crash barrier that limited sections of the stand. I supose that wasn't safe either since people couldn't move to the sides.


Thanks for the explanations bigbossman. From what I see in the videos clearly seems to be a problem of overcrowded stands. The German model is very successful and to me is the way to follow. I support terraces at the ends and seating areas on the sides and on upper tiers.

What I was trying to say in the post below is that i don't think you will have these problems because the public is not the same as 20/25 years ago. And with all the CCTV cameras if someone causes troubles he will be banned from the stadium, something that doesn't happen here in Argentina.


----------



## bigbossman (Jun 25, 2007)

^^ Yes the german model is totally sensible. I also agree that it should be terracing beind the goals and seating on the sides!

I'd say the public are the same, they are just the ones that aren't in the stadiums at the moment. It's full of middle aged men (the fighters of yore, who've grown up). The average age of a premier league ticket holder is 46, there are no kids, and they are basically the ones who used to fight and cause all the trouble. Violence has no doubt got worse in England since the 1980s, towns and cities are drunken "warzones" on Friday/Saturday nights, but as you say CCTV would prevent people causing trouble. Most of that goes on outside the ground with groups of men who should've grown out of it long ago!


----------



## romanito (May 30, 2006)

All-seaters...


----------



## narflc (Nov 8, 2006)

Terraces.

You can have both in a stadium. Terraces (Populares, here in Argentina) are the escense of the football.

All seater is for those who said soccer (a.k. they don't know what footbal is)

Look this picture









THAT IS FOOTBALL


----------



## Alemanniafan (Dec 15, 2008)

In these two pictures you can easily see what the main advantage of terracing to all seaters is.

All seater:








(picture from: www.neuepresse.de)

Terracing:








(picture from: www.sportschau.de)


----------



## limerickguy (Mar 1, 2009)

Terracing all the way!

Lads what happened back in the 60s-80s in england and ireland in terracing is terrifying compared to what happens now. stadiums with terraces today are designed with the highest health and safety policy, they know the capacity of the terracing so they dont sell more tickets then that..simple!

examples in Ireland where terracing is preferred as its better for atmosphere














































This is the biggest terrace in Ireland (14,000), and there has never been an accident on it because when the tickets are fully allocated for it they dont sell anymore


----------



## Ecological (Mar 19, 2009)

*Safe Standing Bill Proposed for British Stadiums*

The Safe Standing Bill 



Don Foster MP for Bath introduced the Safe Standing Bill to the Commons on the 7th December 2010. This bill would allow standing at football grounds and the new South Bank to be built as a Safe Standing Stand. Here is a copy of his speech to the Commons:

"Mr Speaker, I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to give all football clubs the freedom to build, or maintain existing, safe standing sections in their stadia if they choose;
to establish minimum safety criteria that must be met for standing sections in football stadia;
and for connected purposes."
Mr Speaker, any debate on football stadia will inevitably - and rightly - raise the spectre of the tragic events at Hillsborough in 1989 and those, such as that at the Heysel stadium in 1985, that preceded it.
No debate about this topic can avoid addressing these tragedies and their repercussions, which are still resonating with us even now.
The events of 15 April 1989, which saw the deaths of 96 people and the injury of hundreds more, were uniquely horrific. An entire city has struggled with that day's trauma ever since.
The annual memorial services held at Anfield and elsewhere show that that day is still keenly felt and will never be forgotten. Nor should it be.
Nor should anyone believe that, in raising the possibility of introducing safe standing in football grounds now, I am critical of the actions that were taken 20 years ago to outlaw standing at matches in the top two football leagues.
I am in certainly not calling for a return to the old style terraces. They were poorly designed, overcrowded, poorly monitored, and entirely unsuitable for the purposes for which they were used.
A return to that world would be a retrograde, and wholly unacceptable, step.
Rather, today I am proposing something very different - another step forward, to more modern, safe football stands; stands that provide what fans want but do so with maximum safety.
After all standing is not inherently unsafe.
Lord Taylor's report into Hillsborough cited many reasons why the disaster occurred.
The fact the crowd was standing was not one of those reasons.
Rather, it happened as a result of:
 Gross overcrowding
 A lack of concern for the safety and comfort of spectators,
 A lack of awareness of existing safety regulation, and
 The poor design of the old style terraces
The disaster happened because of a culture of negligence, not because standing is inherently unsafe.
Lord Taylor recommended all-seater stadia because, he argued;
a) seats establish individual areas for individual fans and give them more space and comfort
b) seats prevent crowd surging, and
c) seats make it easier to identify troublemakers in the crowds
I will come onto how modern safe standing preserves these features in a moment.
But it is worth noting that, in making his recommendations, Lord Taylor believed that fans would become accustomed to sitting and come to prefer it.
20 years later, thousands of fans in the Premiership and the Championship demonstrate that this is not the case.
And when fans stand in all-seater stadia today, it causes problems:
It ruins the experience for those who want to sit.
But equally, for many fans who prefer to stand, sitting ruins their experience.
And when they do stand - as many do - it is particularly unsafe.
Yet, as we know, preventing large numbers from standing in all-seater stadia is extremely difficult for stewards and the police.
If it can be done safely - and it can be - I believe it would be far better to have a mix of safe seating and safe standing areas in stadia where clubs chose to offer such options.
That way, children, families, and those who want a more peaceful experience could have it, while those who want to stand could exercise that right.
And it can be done.
Countries like the United States, Canada, and Germany are certainly not negligent towards their citizens' safety. Yet these countries have harnessed technological developments to create standing areas that are safe.
They are a popular choice with supporters.
In such areas, as with seated areas, there are designated spaces for each fan.
There are barriers between rows, preventing surging, pushing or jostling.
Individual fans can be easily identified if they are causing trouble, since they are limited to their own individual spaces.
Thus the key reasons why Lord Taylor recommended seating can also all be met with safe standing.
Indeed, in many cases, each individual standing area comes with its own flip down seat. This corresponds with UEFA and FIFA rules that require international and European matches to be seating only.
There is absolutely no evidence that such standing areas, where properly designed, managed and maintained, are unsafe for domestic matches.
As numerous polls have shown, they are overwhelmingly backed by supporters.
And by creating more space for fans, clubs could reduce the price of tickets offering another benefit for fans.
The question of standing is even more pressing for fans of Scunthorpe FC. For them, promotion has come at a very high price. After their third season in the top two tiers, they will have to have converted their ground into an all-seating venue.
This will reduce the ground's capacity - already the lowest in the Championship - from 9000 to 8000. Neither the club nor its supporters want this.
More seats means less space and so fewer supporters will get to see their team.
And if Scunthorpe is demoted in future, they will not be able to convert some of their seats back to standing areas. The conversion will have come at tremendous expense - Scunthorpe FC will have paid for the privilege of ruining their own ground.
I am grateful to the Hon Members for Scunthorpe and for Brigg and Goole, whose constituents are impacted by this change, for their support for this Bill.
I am also grateful to the Minister for Sport for agreeing to, at least, consult with relevant bodies about the issue.
Sadly, I suspect he will hear - as I continue to - some out-dated criticisms.
Some will raise the issue of cost. But that, as my Bill proposes, should be a matter for individual clubs to decide.
Some will suggest that spectators have become used to sitting and like it. But this is patently untrue as the long running campaigns by football fans' organisations show.
Some will argue that "statistics prove that seated stadia are safer than standing ones"
For some years the Football Licensing Authority (FLA) did claim this.
However, when these statistics were challenged as inaccurate, the FLA subsequently withdrew them.
As my Bill makes clear, minimum safety standards would be nationally established before any new safe standing areas are permitted.
Some might claim that seating has reduced hooliganism. But even before Hillsborough, hooliganism was declining.
Inside grounds and outside, in clubs that are all seated and in clubs that are terraced, hooliganism has receded. The character of this country's fans has changed for the better. For example, no England fans were arrested at the World Cup in South Africa with the exception of the practical joker who sneaked into the England team's dressing room.
The decline in football hooliganism is not directly because of a move to all seated stadia. Last week's Home Office arrest figures show no evidence of any link between grounds where standing is still allowed and the number of arrests. There is no reason to believe that a move introduce safe standing areas would mean an increase in hooliganism.
Finally, I have no doubt some will raise the issue of the UEFA and FIFA rules that I mentioned earlier; that games under their jurisdiction must be played in all-seater stadia.
But with the inclusion of flip down seats in each standing area, these regulations present no problem as was demonstrated in the Veltins Arena in Germany - used for the 2006 World Cup - and the Tivoli Stadium in Innsbruck, Austria, which was used during Euro 2008.
I defy opponents of safe standing to demonstrate that these stadia are unsafe, and that these countries are neglecting the safety of their fans by allowing standing.
Following the Hillsborough disaster it was right to take action against the old-style standing terraces. But modern developments mean that, as other countries have shown, it is perfectly possible to introduce safe standing into the stadia of Premiership and Championship Clubs - if the clubs want to and when stringent safety standards are met.
I hope the House will support moves to allow clubs to consider such options.

-------------

2nd reading is pencilled in for June 2011 :banana:


----------



## canarywondergod (Apr 24, 2006)

It's definitely a good thing, the Germans have done this for years, and its a way to make football more affordable for everyone. When I go to matches you spend a lot of time on your feet anyway so as long as it is safe, why not increase capacities, lower prices and provide a platform for more people to enjoy the sport of football. Hillsborough was a horrible disaster, something we should never forget, but we should use it as a platform to ensure those disastrous mistakes are never made again. Football and standing areas can co-exist with each other.


----------



## bigbossman (Jun 25, 2007)

Hillsborough and Heysel didn't happen because of standing/terracing. 

I doubt even if they brought it back they would lower prices (especially not at the big clubs with huge demand), there are 1,000s of people at each club who would no doubt pay the same price as they are now just to stand. If it wasn't affordable it would defeat half the point.

Anyway haven't we heard this before, I remember Kate Hoey screaming about it when she was minister for sport and what did she get done... nada



> But with the inclusion of flip down seats in each standing area, these regulations present no problem as was demonstrated in the Veltins Arena in Germany -


does this guy even know what he is talking about... there are no "flip down seats" at the veltins arena

The basic point is standing _isn't_ unsafe, only a clueless moron would think that. A stadium is unsafe if you overcrowd it whether it is all seated or not.


----------



## canarywondergod (Apr 24, 2006)

bigbossman said:


> Hillsborough and Heysel didn't happen because of standing/terracing.


Well yes and no, agreed it wasnt directly a fault of terracing, in the case of Hillsborough it was more the police allowing more people than was safe into one area and a very poorly designed stand. If people had a specified ticket for a specified seat, it wouldn't have happened. Still, standing is perfectly safe when conducted properly, that is proven.


----------



## JYDA (Jul 14, 2008)

Ecological said:


> Countries like the United States, *Canada*, and Germany are certainly not negligent towards their citizens' safety. Yet these countries have harnessed technological developments to create standing areas that are safe.
> They are a popular choice with supporters.


Huh?? I wish we had standing areas


----------



## Tom Hughes (May 14, 2007)

I find the real irony with the standing debate is that while there are people opposed to it for genuine reasons, I see no real protest outside the numerous venues that still have standing (and there are many)..... including the newer Rugby League stadia. If the argument against standing sections is so conclusive, then how are these new venues getting planning permission (St Helens/Warrington etc)? It really makes no sense to have a dual ruling on safety critical issues. Similarly, the increasingly evident habit of fans standing in seated areas should also be cause for concern, especially in the quite steeply raked tiers.


----------



## Rev Stickleback (Jun 23, 2009)

Suburbanist said:


> ^^ When I said football got wealthy was in a sense of dealing with far more money, higher salaries, lavish stadia, £ 30.000.000 transfer fees, all of which requires increased revenues.


Higher fees/wages have on the whole been driven by tv revenue, not ticket prices. It's this extra cash that's created the "arms race", as you called it. Clubs are living in a dreamworld, where their current debts will be paid off by the next tv revenue rise.

If the higher revenues weren't there then wages and fees would be lower. Even in irresponsible times, money that can be paid out is limited by what can come in.



> Some people on this thread and others similar appear to feel "nostalgic" of times in which players rarely ventured abroad and were mostly from withing the region the club is located. A rather backward vision.


How would having all the best Dutch stars playing in Holland, rather than abroad, be a backward step for the Dutch league?


----------



## Luigi742 (Apr 13, 2012)

Terraces work if you have crush barriers to stop people from surging foward.

See nib Stadium in perth, I go there all the time for rugby and football games, and I usually stand in the terraces for the football. Never once have I felt like I was going to get trapped in a surge.


----------



## Nikola10 (Oct 3, 2011)

off topic- how do Brossia get over 95% every game


----------



## LucianPopa1000 (Jul 5, 2011)

Nikola10 said:


> off topic- how do Brossia get over 95% every game


cheap ass tickets,cheap ass beer,sausages;great stadium design and great footie on pitch.:lol:


----------



## Nikola10 (Oct 3, 2011)

hahahahhahahahaha thanks LucianPopa1000..............but how cheap? 10 euros?


----------



## LucianPopa1000 (Jul 5, 2011)

Nikola10 said:


> hahahahhahahahaha thanks LucianPopa1000..............but how cheap? 10 euros?


Yes the standing tickets are cheap,I think less than 15 euros.
Everybody knows Bundesliga tickets are somewhat cheap,cheap i'd say looking at their very modern and well designed capacious stadiums, the fact that wages in Germany are ,well we know here
PL prices are high,all people complain ,especialy the fans of the big clubs.Chelsea ,Arsenal are uber expensive hno:,let us not forget wembley


----------



## GreenHornet553 (Jan 6, 2013)

LucianPopa1000 said:


> Yes the standing tickets are cheap,I think less than 15 euros.
> Everybody knows Bundesliga tickets are somewhat cheap,cheap i'd say looking at their very modern and well designed capacious stadiums, the fact that wages in Germany are ,well we know here
> PL prices are high,all people complain ,especialy the fans of the big clubs.Chelsea ,Arsenal are uber expensive hno:,let us not forget wembley


Wait how much is the average yearly wage in Germany in terms of USD?


----------



## Nikola10 (Oct 3, 2011)

LucianPopa1000 said:


> Yes the standing tickets are cheap,I think less than 15 euros.
> Everybody knows Bundesliga tickets are somewhat cheap,cheap i'd say looking at their very modern and well designed capacious stadiums, the fact that wages in Germany are ,well we know here
> PL prices are high,all people complain ,especialy the fans of the big clubs.Chelsea ,Arsenal are uber expensive hno:,let us not forget wembley



My Main Man is SMARTTTT


----------



## The Sloth (Nov 4, 2011)

LucianPopa1000 said:


> cheap ass tickets,cheap ass beer,sausages;great stadium design and great footie on pitch.:lol:


There's a big thing about Germany having higher attendances than in England. But that's mainly for their top Bundesliga clubs, English clubs have some staggering attendances for lower clubs, even more so when you see the prices of tickets.

I really would love to see what attendances we could achieve in England, if tickets were as cheap as the Bundesliga, with free local transport, cheap refreshments and give-away price safe standing tickets. Rip-off Britain.


----------



## alwn (Jan 24, 2010)

The Sloth said:


> There's a big thing about Germany having higher attendances than in England. But that's mainly for their top Bundesliga clubs, English clubs have some staggering attendances for lower clubs, even more so when you see the prices of tickets.
> 
> I really would love to see what attendances we could achieve in England, if tickets were as cheap as the Bundesliga, with free local transport, cheap refreshments and give-away price safe standing tickets. Rip-off Britain.


2011/2012
1. Bundesliga vs Premiere League *45,116* vs 34,600
2. Bundesliga vs Championship *17,729* vs 17,233
3. Liga vs League1 4,568 vs *7,375*

So the english superiority show up only on the third level where in Germany also the second teams are allowed to participate.
As for the Premiere league, to be fair they are bounded by the stadiums capacities. They could easily reach the German figures if Arsenal would have a stadium with 80 k instead of 60 k, Liverpool 70 k instead of 45k, Chelsea 60 k instead of 42k, Tottenham 65k instead of 36k and so on..


----------



## LucianPopa1000 (Jul 5, 2011)

^^ In all fairness german league has a substantially larger attendance because they have terracing.In the terracing sections there are 2 standing fans occuping the place normally taken by one seat.In all-seater configuration i dont know if german stadiums are bigger,and if they are,its a small difference.


----------



## matthemod (Apr 8, 2008)

The argument here in regards to re-introducing terraced areas, is that even though theoretically it should make sense to offer cheaper tickets for standing areas, it's unlikely clubs will be willing to take the financial risk, or if so won't be offering tickets at vastly cheaper rate than normal seated areas (maybe £2-3), which are already ridiculously high.

In addition to this, you then have the cost of re-designing and building terraced areas which the average cash strapped club won't exactly be happy to fork out for, especially for those who have just spent millions of building a new all-seated stadium. Unfortunately "it works in Germany", isn't a good enough reason for clubs here, even if there wasn't already existing legislation banning terraces.

Edit: Post no. 500!


----------



## Werkself (Jan 7, 2011)

LucianPopa1000 said:


> ^^ In all fairness german league has a substantially larger attendance because they have terracing.In the terracing sections there are 2 standing fans occuping the place normally taken by one seat.In all-seater configuration i dont know if german stadiums are bigger,and if they are,its a small difference.


Well, Bundesliga offers more modern and bigger stadiums. In my opinion in regard to the high incomes of the PL, England should have better stadiums. But, we should not complain, the real disgrace is Italy.


----------



## Werkself (Jan 7, 2011)

GreenHornet553 said:


> Wait how much is the average yearly wage in Germany in terms of USD?


About 24.000 EUR after taxes.

In case of being a Leverkusen fan:

Terracing: 160 EUR Season plus 10-20 EUR per national or international cup
Seater: 300 EUR Season plus 20-40 EUR per national or international cup
Seasonticket can be borrowed to others!
Awaygametickets are ofter accompanied by free organized trainconnections
Clubmembership is free for season ticket owners
Gameday magazin: free
Nearby transit by train, bus, metro: free
Beer 0,5 Liters: 3.50 EUR
Sausage: 3.50 EUR

So even with low income its really a gift beeing german footy fan. Of course, even in Germany there are some club that are ripping their fans of, but if you choose a good club your football life is luxourious and enjoyable.
:banana:


----------



## Leedsrule (Apr 6, 2010)

matthemod said:


> In addition to this, you then have the cost of re-designing and building terraced areas which the average cash strapped club won't exactly be happy to fork out for, especially for those who have just spent millions of building a new all-seated stadium. Unfortunately "it works in Germany", isn't a good enough reason for clubs here, even if there wasn't already existing legislation banning terraces.


I agree mostly with what you're saying, but for a club like Man City or Arsenal to convert seating to standing it's not that difficult. In fact, if they use Railseats (Which look worse but make it much easier to switch between standing and seating) all they have to do is take out all the seats in one end or whatever and replace them with railseats. If you want to make it a proper terrace then take out all the seats, put a concrete step between each row to double the number of rows (So you'd have 20cmx40cm going up rather than 40 and 80) and then put barriers in.


----------



## LucianPopa1000 (Jul 5, 2011)

All-seater all the way.Much safer,more comfort(i couldn't possible stand for 2 hours :nuts),and very importantly,it looks so much better .A stadium without seating in one of the ends looks bad.If its a world class stadium like veltins arena looks ridiculous.JMHO


----------



## 0657 (Jul 15, 2011)

Supporters prefeer a stand without seats, the rest of the match going audience probably prefeer seats. As a supporter i`m glad that my local club listen to the supporters and let us remove the seats in our stand before each match we play at home, only condition is that we put them back up again after, as we share a ground with the national team. My self, i could never sit and watch a game when my team plays, just something fundamentaly wrong about it, it jsut brings you to silence, you cant sint, cant get involved, you just feel restrained. People didnt die because of terracing, people (in the 80s) died because of stadiums in a terrible condition. With the comfort and safety of the modern day stadiums, i think its safe to bring back terracing for small parts or sections of stadiums in the UK, and also in the european competitions. I mean, the supporters are standing anyways, the seats makes it more dangerous imo.


----------



## HaifaB (May 21, 2012)

I Do not know how this is going in all the other leagues but here in Israel even though we only have all seated stadiums 80% of the people do not realy sit , they remaind standing for the whole match ..


----------



## Nikola10 (Oct 3, 2011)

LucianPopa1000 said:


> All-seater all the way.Much safer,more comfort(i couldn't possible stand for 2 hours :nuts),and very importantly,it looks so much better .A stadium without seating in one of the ends looks bad.If its a world class stadium like veltins arena looks ridiculous.JMHO




i can stand all day long.... in turkey,greece,serbia,croatia,russia and other countries they mostly stand all game


----------



## LucianPopa1000 (Jul 5, 2011)

Nikola10 said:


> i can stand all day long.... in turkey,greece,serbia,croatia,russia and other countries they mostly stand all game


I cant stand standing:lol:,actually i have to buy VIP seats when i go to games,i cant fit at all in a normal seat,not on typical narrowish seats at least.
Uusually ppl stand here in Romania when its very cold (to protect their asses :lol,and in the ends.I think the people used to the sides prefer to sit,and those who usually see the game from the ends prefer standing,terracing.And since the majority of ppl would prefer to sit on the sides,very probably there are more in favour of seating than terracing,standing.


----------



## C F Looprevil (Jul 14, 2012)

Give me a good terrace every day of every week!

Every club should have at least one stand as a terrace.......

If the premier league ever go back on stadiums being all seater's, they would be giving the clubs back to the true supporters! :cheers:

I mean, it's £45 for the cheapest seat in Anfield now for fucks sake £45!!! .............

When I started going in the 1980's, it was £5 for a junior including the coach there and back! 18,000 people standing on the Kop enjoying every minute and getting involved so much more because standing was infinitely better than sitting down and having some fuckin knob behind you telling you to stop moving/singing/standing!

Give the young lads of today affordable tickets to watch their hero's like I had the pleasure of!


----------



## Leedsrule (Apr 6, 2010)

Edited.


----------



## rammie1884 (Apr 5, 2012)

I stand (along with everyone else in the back 5 rows of the area of the ground) in front of my seat all game at Derby. At away games though you do get problems when people wanting to sit are behind those wanting to stand and the stewards insist you stay at your designated seat.

Safe standing areas give fans a choice to sit or stand. Those that want to stand are then also out of the way of those that want to sit. I cannot see why it shouldn't be trialled at a club like Peterborough, if they stay up.


----------



## LucianPopa1000 (Jul 5, 2011)

^^ What do u mean terraces wouldnt change anything?A bigger (rougly double) number of fans will make more noise,thats a fact.I do think that just by forcing ppl to stand on a terrace wont't make them sing like 30 years ago.Football fans simply dont sing that much anymore.We've gotten lazier.The ticket prices have driven the hardcore average joe out of the stands,or if he hasn't left the stadium he is proly in the upper tiers.
Lower tier tickets are too expensive,now its almost a privillege to be on the lower tier of a large stadium.This affects the atmosphere.
Imagine how "quiet" would most stadiums be if they hadnt put roofs on top.


----------



## C F Looprevil (Jul 14, 2012)

Leedsrule said:


> I don't even think most Pl grounds would be improved with terracing. One argument for standing areas is that they generate a better atmosphere, but the sort of fans who visit PL games (Except the few die-hard) don't sing at the moment and wouldn't sing standing up. If you want to go to a proper match with proper fans and a decent atmosphere, for less money, watch non-league or leagues 1&2 where, I would argue, there is a lot more passion and a better atmosphere. People think that building terraces in PL grounds will create an atmosphere like the lower leagues, it won't! In fact, in the few all-seater grounds in non-league the atmosphere is almost as good, everyone just stands up anyway.
> 
> I mean, im talking most grounds here. If you made the Kop all standing and found a way to stop dads with kids or grumbling OAP's from standing there, I think the atmosphere at anfield would vastly improve. But look at the emirates for example, rarely an atmosphere there, or Manchester United, who are calling in acoustic experts this week to try and improve the atmosphere at OT. Terraces wouldn't change anything.


I think it's certainly all linked. I go and watch Chorley now and again and that's a proper day out, pie and a pint and watch the match stood up and in an atmosphere of like minded people who remember how football is meant to be! 

Anfield is good during the big matches against Everton, man u etc as everyone gets there early, is up for it and more importantly, 99% of the Kop is stood up.

In the PL/ championship, Until they introduce a pay on the gate youth section aimed specifically at allowing for 13-21 yr old local lads at any ground, unfortunately it's not going to change!


----------



## C F Looprevil (Jul 14, 2012)

rammie1884 said:


> I stand (along with everyone else in the back 5 rows of the area of the ground) in front of my seat all game at Derby. At away games though you do get problems when people wanting to sit are behind those wanting to stand and the stewards insist you stay at your designated seat.
> 
> Safe standing areas give fans a choice to sit or stand. Those that want to stand are then also out of the way of those that want to sit. I cannot see why it shouldn't be trialled at a club like Peterborough, if they stay up.


I've been a few aways with Liverpool in the last couple of years and the atmosphere by 2-3000 away fans in better than most homes I've been to in that time.

If you're lucky at anfield, (for most matches) you'll get a ticket in the back 10 rows of the Kop where everyone stands up. That certainly creates a better atmosphere but unfortunately, it's hard to get the day trippers involved as they're usually to busy taking photo's!!


----------



## C F Looprevil (Jul 14, 2012)

LucianPopa1000 said:


> ^^ What do u mean terraces wouldnt change anything?A bigger (rougly double) number of fans will make more noise,thats a fact.I do think that just by forcing ppl to stand on a terrace wont't make them sing like 30 years ago.Football fans simply dont sing that much anymore.We've gotten lazier.The ticket prices have driven the hardcore average joe out of the stands,or if he hasn't left the stadium he is proly in the upper tiers.
> Lower tier tickets are too expensive,now its almost a privillege to be on the lower tier of a large stadium.This affects the atmosphere.
> Imagine how "quiet" would most stadiums be if they hadnt put roofs on top.


If the Kop was ever allowed to be a terrace again by the authorities (and I know I'm standing on shaky ground here with peoples thoughts about Hillsborough and am sorry if I offend) the atmosphere would indeed get a lot better immediately.

Unfortunately, most premier league clubs are pricing out the bread and butter support by charging prices that are too high for a young lad to pay. Therefore, you end up with an ageing and more than likely quieter crowd.

We all need to find a way of getting the local young lads back into the grounds who would up the crowds energy.

Liverpool used to have the boys pen years ago which was a youth section at the side of the Kop. It had long gone before I started to go, but apparently was great for atmosphere! Why can't clubs start something similar?


----------



## C F Looprevil (Jul 14, 2012)

rammie1884 said:


> I stand (along with everyone else in the back 5 rows of the area of the ground) in front of my seat all game at Derby. At away games though you do get problems when people wanting to sit are behind those wanting to stand and the stewards insist you stay at your designated seat.
> 
> Safe standing areas give fans a choice to sit or stand. Those that want to stand are then also out of the way of those that want to sit. I cannot see why it shouldn't be trialled at a club like Peterborough, if they stay up.


Totally agree with you Rammie.


----------



## narflc (Nov 8, 2006)

Typical Terrace tribune of Argentina (Racing Club)










Way better than all seaters I think.


----------



## The Sloth (Nov 4, 2011)

The atmosphere at Premier League grounds would improve immensely if they re-introduced terracing. It's not unsafe and doesn't make the ground look ugly.

You'd bundle together like minded, passionate fans who'd be more inclined to sing and get behind the team.

Mixing people up, and having would be singers sat between dreary middle class couples is an atmospheric disaster. Scared to stand, sing or even breathe too heavily as to not offend Margaret & Reuben is absolutely awful, and not my idea of fun. 

I want to be stood amongst like minded fans who are up for singing all the way through the match. You see the away fans are more passionate, they're the type of fans who'd use the terracing. It'd be fantastic!

Another thing that bugs me, we're always being programmed to believe that more children are now attending Premier League matches, than what did back in the day. I'm sorry, but that's absolute codswallop! I remember stands packed with younger fans, and the whole perimeter of the stadiums had kids with scarves and smiling faces. Now look on any Premier League footage, it's middle aged fans or day trippers, sat silent. Very depressing to see.

It's the equivalent of filling the grounds with Phil Collins fans, what do you expect the atmosphere to be like?

There's all this fuss about making sure women, the disabled, ethnic minorities (etc) are 'over-represented' in English football and that's all very well; but how about a quota for teenagers and youngsters, the kind of people who actually put these teams on a pedestal in the first place? This category has been totally abandoned due to our unwanted PC culture.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

^^ Children DO NOT BELONG in a terrace in the middle of hooligans. Women are surely to be harassed on standings. Taking children to stadia back in the 1980s was aking to training them to be gang thugs. 

If anything ,stadia need to become MORE (not less) family and senior friendly. A place where you go to WATCH an experience, not to blast your lungs out. 

Teenagers have few income to spend on merchandise, they can like buy one jersey per year, and don't spend much on hospitality/food (they will likely drink before or after at a cheaper place), unless they are going with parents or relatives.

You don't have terraces in volleyball venues, tennis courts, and these sports do just fine.


----------



## GreenHornet553 (Jan 6, 2013)

narflc said:


> Typical Terrace tribune of Argentina (Racing Club)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Pardon my language, but holy shit! How many people can they pack into the top terrace?


----------



## www.sercan.de (Aug 10, 2003)

Weired "seats" or "terraces"


Look at the empty area at the 1st tier.
What is it?










All-seater, but majority is standing


----------



## rammie1884 (Apr 5, 2012)

Suburbanist said:


> If anything ,stadia need to become MORE (not less) family and senior friendly. A place where you go to WATCH an experience, not to blast your lungs out.
> 
> ...
> 
> You don't have terraces in volleyball venues, tennis courts, and these sports do just fine.


And the atmosphere at volleyball and tennis is akin to that of a big football match? If people want to WATCH an experience, then it's much cheaper to subscribe to Sky Sports and ESPN/BT Sport and watch from home. If you want to be a part of it then you go to the games.

I found some of the Olympic football hard to watch because people went to watch, supporting neither team meaning a lack of atmosphere and a dull spectacle. A local derby game will always be more watch-able, even if the standard of play is dreadful, because of the atmosphere.

Besides, having one area of safe standing wouldn't stop the prawn sandwich brigade from seeing the game and the "hooligans" would be kept out of harms way. Everyone wins


----------



## Rev Stickleback (Jun 23, 2009)

Suburbanist said:


> ^^ Children DO NOT BELONG in a terrace in the middle of hooligans. Women are surely to be harassed on standings. Taking children to stadia back in the 1980s was aking to training them to be gang thugs.


And you experience of terracing is where exactly, as that's just ridiculous.



> If anything ,stadia need to become MORE (not less) family and senior friendly. A place where you go to WATCH an experience, not to blast your lungs out.


The atmosphere is part of the experience.


----------



## LucianPopa1000 (Jul 5, 2011)

Suburbanist said:


> ^^ Children DO NOT BELONG in a terrace in the middle of hooligans. Women are surely to be harassed on standings. Taking children to stadia back in the 1980s was aking to training them to be gang thugs.
> 
> If anything ,stadia need to become MORE (not less) family and senior friendly. A place where you go to WATCH an experience, not to blast your lungs out.
> 
> ...


The terraces are filled with hooligans,not nowadays.The terrace is indeed a place for more hardcore fans,children/women shouldnt be there because theres alot of swearing and everyone should be singing their ass off there,and those 2 categ dont sing as much and as hard.
The families can easily be house in the other end of the stadium,or on the sides.
And u cannot compare large stadiums with arenas,not to mention tennis courts:nuts:


----------



## Matheus Oliveira (Nov 6, 2011)

People just need to respect the way of support of the others. If some fans like to seat, drink a beer and watch the game, put seats for them. if others fans like to sing and jump with their flags and all that stuff, let it be, just then support in the terrace.

Terraces remember many deaths and injuries for the fans who support their teams in this kind of stadium, but we need to realize that those experiencie made the police more prepared, the architets who built the stadiums etc and etc ...


----------



## Alemanniafan (Dec 15, 2008)

Besides the fact Alemannia Aachen is now bankrupt because of the financial difficults that arose with the new stadium, there's somehow increasingly an interesting phenomenon in the guest section to see.

The terracing section in the new Tivoli is in a corner and elevated:








source:http://www.rainersche-post.de/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/tivoli_gaesteblock_gross.jpg

Now in some matches the guestfans from Eintracht Frankfurt, Fortuna Düsseldorf and Hansa Rostock entered the seating section to stand and watch the game from there and then more or less sucessfully tried to enter the pitch after the game or ripped out seats and threw them down at the security personell and the police.
Here a picture that shows Hansa Rostock fans standing and singing in the seated section during the game.








source:http://static.alemannia-aachen.de/cache/c75c570dced58d33ec71e13968801b24-2659.jpeg

This sort of invasion of the seated sections never happened in the previous totally outdated over 80 years old stadium.
I find it an interesting phenomenon, for several reasons. Modern terracing sections in Germany have very high safety standards and fences or glass to prevent pitch invasions. Seating sections have much less strict regulations and no fences. 
So here in Germany, especially here in Aachen there currently seems to be a trend evolving, where Guestfans looking to cause trouble and to get down onto the pitch and players now increasingly move over into - or even more or less violently enter- seating sections, to take advantage of the much less restrictive security standards and measures there.

A real challenge to deal with and currently I still have no really good idea how that phenomenon could effectively be dealt with, besides fencing in the guests seated section also.


----------



## RMB2007 (Apr 1, 2007)

Alemanniafan said:


> *Now in some matches the guestfans from Eintracht Frankfurt, Fortuna Düsseldorf and Hansa Rostock entered the seating section to stand and watch the game from there and then more or less sucessfully tried to enter the pitch after the game or ripped out seats and threw them down at the security personell and the police.*


People who do that should be given lifetime bans and made to pay for any damage they've caused to the stadium. At the end of the day, there's no excuse for that behaviour.


----------



## West12Rangers (Feb 3, 2011)

there are far more children at Prem league games now.I started going in the 80's,and there just is no comparison to now.This is one of the reasons that league attendances have gone up.But this should be a pretty easy thing to sort out.You have two standing area's(lower tier)for the hardcore,there would still be plenty of seated area's for families.If you end up increasing capacity,in theory,it free's up seats for those who do not wish to stand.Surely the two can both be accomodated


----------



## Rev Stickleback (Jun 23, 2009)

Leedsrule said:


> ...there were perhaps 400 people in that end of the terrace. Nothing like the amount that would be at a premier league ground, which would be full to capacity every week.


You wouldn't have that amount stood in a flat "no standing" area.




> No it wasn't, you think it would fall over every time anyone leaned over it to pick up a ball or something?


You would if you had a dozen people leaning to pick up the ball in the same spot, where there is an inherent weakness in the fence.



> You seem to think the fence was made of cardboard, it may not be a crush barrier but its a decent strength fence. No stronger than you get in the front of all seater stadiums and you don't see stuff like this happening in those (or it would be widely reported).


A front wall made out of concrete might just be a little stronger.



> Clearly if the force is strong enough to break the fence then it would hurt to be stuck between a stronger barrier and the rest of the crowd. The fence may have been relatively weak but it still took a decent force to break it.


It really doesn't take much force to break a weak fence. That's why terrace crush barriers are far more substantial.

Non league grounds, because they don't deal with large crowds, tend to suffer from poor design and safety levels.

Here's another example of a wall collapsing at a non-league game, at Leatherhead. Exactly the same scenario, but with fewer fans, and a wall falls over.










I remember exactly the same also happening a [Redacted]ham in the 80s when Cardiff came down for a cup tie.


----------



## Leedsrule (Apr 6, 2010)

Edited.


----------



## Immunda Leodis (Aug 10, 2008)

Should standing at concerts be banned?


----------



## Leedsrule (Apr 6, 2010)

I dont know and dont care.


----------



## Immunda Leodis (Aug 10, 2008)

Leedsrule said:


> I dont know and dont care.


You seem very concerned about safety so I'm surprised at your response...


----------



## Kerrybai (Apr 29, 2013)

@Leedsrule

Why does the speed of the avalanche now suddenly matter? Speed makes no difference, once enough people crush against a weak point it will give way. You can't deny that crushes happen at seated stadiums when there are countless example. Sure the woking terrace is more dangerous than seats but both are still suspect to avalanches. We don't need to argue on this as I agree with you that the woking terrace is dangerous.

However the [Redacted] incident is irrelevant to safe standing. I don't thinkt his is something you will admit but it is the stone cold truth. Safe standing is not traditional terracing, it's basically several rows of mine horizontal terraces that are too small very any crush or avalanche to occur. You can't have an avalanche with 2 people, there is just no where for the people to surge forward. 

*Safe standing is not traditional terracing*

We can stop this discussion now as we have both concluded that the [Redacted] terracing is dangerous and should not return to football. This has turned from a safe standing discussion to an old terracing debate which is a topic we agree on.

P.S. the point about stadium expansion at somewhere like City is relevant. You are aware that not all stadium seats are the same size? Anfields KOP holds 12k, at Arsnenal it would probably only hold 10k due to bigger seats and leg room. Should to police force Liveerpool to change the Kop as it's harder to police?

You keep on changing the subject to policing which shows, we are talking about whether safe standing is safe, not policing, surely you can see the difference. If you want to talk about policing then that's another topic.

*Lord Justice Taylor*
In his report on the Hillsbrough Disaster, Lord Justice Taylor cited the summary of recommendations from his Technical Working Party that stated that “standing accommodation is not intrinsically unsafe”.


----------



## Leedsrule (Apr 6, 2010)

Immunda Leodis said:


> You seem very concerned about safety so I'm surprised at your response...


I have no interest in concerts or festivals. I do, however, go to like 50 football games a year. 



Kerrybai said:


> Why does the speed of the avalanche now suddenly matter? Speed makes no difference, once enough people crush against a weak point it will give way. You can't deny that crushes happen at seated stadiums when there are countless example. Sure the woking terrace is more dangerous than seats but both are still suspect to avalanches. We don't need to argue on this as I agree with you that the woking terrace is dangerous.


Because if its going to take you 3 minutes to climb from the top of a seated stand to the bottom you wont bother, which is why you rarely see people climbing over seats to get to the front in premier league stadiums. If its just a short 10 second walk down you might. The point is wokings terrace does meet all the standards so if this is dangerous will it have to be changed to railseats in the future too?



> *Safe standing is not traditional terracing*


I understand this point, but traditional terracing meets all the relevant standards so how can those standards be different in the premier league? I do not want railseats at woking. It seems odd how only a certain type of terracing is allowed in one league and a completely different type is allowed in other leagues. 





> P.S. the point about stadium expansion at somewhere like City is relevant. You are aware that not all stadium seats are the same size? Anfields KOP holds 12k, at Arsnenal it would probably only hold 10k due to bigger seats and leg room. Should to police force Liveerpool to change the Kop as it's harder to police?


But regardless of where the stand is there are still only 2 people per square meter. Its the density which metters, not just more fans, more fans in a smaller space. If you expand so there are more fans in a bigger space that's not going to be an issue...



> You keep on changing the subject to policing which shows, we are talking about whether safe standing is safe, not policing, surely you can see the difference. If you want to talk about policing then that's another topic.


Because you should cover all the concerns of people like me in your argument, you cant just focus on one thing. The rule is terraces aren't allowed at the moment and the all seater system is working fine here so to convince people to introduce it you need to make sure that every topic is covered, which you haven't done and don't seem to be able to do. If terracing isn't as safe as all seaters why change? And *even if* my only argument was that the increased number of people makes it much harder to police- that is enough for the government to say no to safe standing.


----------



## matthemod (Apr 8, 2008)

Immunda Leodis said:


> You seem very concerned about safety so I'm surprised at your response...


That would be the assumption that Leedsrule has a degree of logic and reasoning, and not just baiting for a response. If it's standing at football, he cares, if it's rugby, or concerts, or anything else, he doesn't give a damn. 

Oh and also, only football that concerns him, so don't worry about providing evidence that crushes and disasters can and have happened in all seated stadiums. He only wants to debate about very specific criteria, and then generalise it across the entire English pyramid.


----------



## Leedsrule (Apr 6, 2010)

Why should I give a damn if I have no interest in concerts?? We could make this a debate about lots of things that may or may not be safe but were talking about football stadiums. Besides, I don't know much about concerts or festivals so it wouldn't be appropriate for me to comment. I do go to a lot of football games, premier league and non league, and have experience in stadium design so I feel like im in a position to comment. I dont know why I have to justify that to you lot :L


----------



## Immunda Leodis (Aug 10, 2008)

Leedsrule said:


> Why should I give a damn if I have no interest in concerts?? We could make this a debate about lots of things that may or may not be safe but were talking about football stadiums. Besides, I don't know much about concerts or festivals so it wouldn't be appropriate for me to comment. I do go to a lot of football games, premier league and non league, and have experience in stadium design so I feel like im in a position to comment. I dont know why I have to justify that to you lot :L


Because extending your 'logic' concerts are probably the single biggest threat to people engaging in collective leisure activities. 

At festivals tens of thousands of people are piling forward, downhill on muddy slopes with only one long crush barrier at the front. A terrace does not allow such freedom to travel forward towards the front of the crowd. So surely it should be banned?????? 

I've been to lots of festivals, arena gigs, 100s of football games and rugby games at Headingley on an old style terrace that's packed to the rafters and I think you're talking nonsense. 

You resurrected the debate, got completely owned and have failed to address all the reasoned argument put before you.


----------



## Leedsrule (Apr 6, 2010)

Youre just being pathetic. Number one, slopes like they have at festivals wouldn't be allowed at football stadiums so its not my place to comment on them. Kerrybai said that the terrace at woking was unsafe too so why don't you ask him, hopefully he knows more about festivals than me. But do so on another thread.

How have I got completely owned? My view is the same as the governments so I cant be completely wrong. I don't need to address every single point. Think about it, if you can think of points that I have no response to* then it means nothing. If I can make just one point that you cant respond to, then it means that all seaters are safer and therefore should be kept. yes, I know crushes like at woking would be very difficult to cause in railseats, and I know that the police say its safe, but they also say that it is much harder for them to do their job compared to all seaters, which are safe and easy to manage. Face it, if your arguments were so strong we would have safe standing by now.

*some of which I didn't respond to because im bored of this argument.


----------



## matthemod (Apr 8, 2008)

Leedsrule said:


> Face it, if your arguments were so strong we would have safe standing by now.
> 
> *some of which I didn't respond to because im bored of this argument.


This kind of sums you right up. Clubs in the bottom two divisions of the football league could easily install safe standing into their grounds, legally, it's only once they play a certain amount of years in the Championship and upwards that the ban on standing areas is implemented. Besides, more and more clubs are opening up to the debate, with Bristol City and Aston Villa amongst them supporting a trial area.

Votes for women was also illegal at one point. By your logic, if their arguments were so strong they would have had voting rights earlier.


----------



## spud (Mar 2, 2006)

Kerrybai said:


> Ok the video shows a game at Celtic park between Celtic and Ac Milan. Celtic score and the fans rush forward to celebrate with the players. Its a carbon copy of what happened at the game you attended. The fans push up against the advertising and it falls over. Avalanches happen because there is no barrier to stop the fans, it can happen in both seated and terraced stadiums. The solution is railings. :banana:


the fact that the fans can rush forward and push against the advertising boards is purely down to bad policing/stewarding....`

i keep referring back to rugby league grounds because i believe we have sorted out the "issues" of bad fan managment..










theres a 3m-4m space between the terrace and side of the pitch...you are not allowed to loiter in that area,you will be moved...trusted me ive been moved while simply waiting for the missus


----------



## Rev Stickleback (Jun 23, 2009)

Leedsrule said:


> Why is that relevant? There will still be a barrier in front and a significant force pushing against it. Even if it doesn't fall it will be 'uncomfortable' to say the least for the people at the front.


It's relevant because people who are behind a front row barrier are far less likely to lean over a barrier than people already there. Rowdier elements are also rarely found at the front of decent sized terrace.



> And you think the fence would have fallen over if a dozen people were leaning on it? Its still a decent fence, and if you see a video you will see it didn't fall immediately showing that it was the force of all the spectators rather than just the dozen at the front that caused it to fall.


I agree. It's just that "all the spectators" amounted to about a dozen or so. The rest were just jumping about. There wasn't a dangerous crush that people couldn't avoid.



> I don't know how many stadiums you have been to but at most premier league grounds now the concrete wall at the front is only 0.6m or so high and in Europe they have fences in front of terraces, not concrete walls.


I've been to nearly 300 grounds in over 20 countries on three continents over a period of nearly 30 years, experiencing proper terracing (old and new style) at first hand. 

How about you?



> That wall clearly isn't as strong as the fence at [Redacted] that took well over 100 fans to break it. Its not the same scenario at all because the force required to break that wall was clearly minimal meaning the people pushing against it didn't really have any force behind them. You seem to think that if someone pushed really hard then they could break the fence at woking, which simply isn't the case at all. And even if the barrier didn't break; like I said in my initial paragraph, it would have meant that the fans at the front were crushed (not fatally but its hardly going to be safe). Lucky the barrier wasn't concrete...


I can pretty much count the number of people (2-4 are maybe obscured by stewards).

16 people, I'd guess, were putting weight on the fence. 

If there was a proper crush then all the people behind them would also be having trouble staying on their feet. They didn't have that problem, because they weren't part of a crush.



> I thought I said we were stopping this, but as you two keep ignoring me, ill pick up a point that I dropped earlier about increased crowds making it much harder to police and therefore more unsafe. introducing a terrace is like expanding within the stands so you get more people in a smaller area. This is the main reason the police are against it as far as I know and I think its a very important point.


that's a potential crowd trouble issue. That possibility of crowd trouble does not make terracing _unsafe_. It would be quite simple to keep away fans - the only ones really likely to cause trouble - in seated areas.


----------



## Leedsrule (Apr 6, 2010)

Rev Stickleback said:


> It's just that "all the spectators" amounted to about a dozen or so. The rest were just jumping about. There wasn't a dangerous crush that people couldn't avoid.
> 
> ....
> 
> ...


And you can tell that from one picture can you? The majority of fans were clearly moving towards the players at the fence, not just 16 out of 100 or so. And what would you expect if everyone had been pushing, for everyone to fall over?? Bollocks, the front people fell over but the people behind wouldn't. 



> I've been to nearly 300 grounds in over 20 countries on three continents over a period of nearly 30 years, experiencing proper terracing (old and new style) at first hand.


Good for you. How many of them had concrete walls in front?



> that's a potential crowd trouble issue. That possibility of crowd trouble does not make terracing _unsafe_. It would be quite simple to keep away fans - the only ones really likely to cause trouble - in seated areas.


So youre now saying that the away sections of stadiums would stay all seater? I doubt that would be a popular decision. As its usually the away fans who sing and create an atmosphere what would be the point of introducing terracing and not allowing away fans into them?


----------



## Kerrybai (Apr 29, 2013)

@Leedsrule Come to think of it the pictures you posted from that game have no relevance to safe standing, they are nothing alike. It's like comparing oranges with apples.


----------



## Leedsrule (Apr 6, 2010)

Kerrybai said:


> @Leedsrule Come to think of it the pictures you posted from that game have no relevance to safe standing, they are nothing alike. It's like comparing oranges with apples.


I didn't post the pictures but fair enough; that terrace does meet modern safety standards though even if it isn't rail seats so should be considered 'safe' standing.


----------



## Rev Stickleback (Jun 23, 2009)

Leedsrule said:


> And you can tell that from one picture can you?


pretty much



> The majority of fans were clearly moving towards the players at the fence, not just 16 out of 100 or so. And what would you expect if everyone had been pushing, for everyone to fall over?? Bollocks, the front people fell over but the people behind wouldn't.


You wouldn't expect all to fall. Just those with enough pressure from behind (or already leaning on the fence) to be unable to stop themselves from toppling over. You are suggesting the fence broke because of huge pressure from 100 fans or more pushing forward. I'd suggest if the pressure was that great, rather more than 16 would have fallen.



> Good for you. How many of them had concrete walls in front?


Pretty much all of them, barring some small non-league venues, had either concrete walls or sturdy metal barriers.

So what is your experience of real terracing, beyond non-league games. I mean, if considerable first-hand experience of such conditions over nearly 30 years seems lacking to you, I'm just interested in what you are basing you insight and expertise on.



> So youre now saying that the away sections of stadiums would stay all seater? I doubt that would be a popular decision. As its usually the away fans who sing and create an atmosphere what would be the point of introducing terracing and not allowing away fans into them?


...to improve the atmosphere and experience for home fans.

Again, if you weren't 16 and knowing no different, you'd know that in the past, when there was terracing, the home atmosphere used to be better and more noisy than away support.


----------



## Leedsrule (Apr 6, 2010)

Rev Stickleback said:


> You wouldn't expect all to fall. Just those with enough pressure from behind (or already leaning on the fence) to be unable to stop themselves from toppling over. You are suggesting the fence broke because of huge pressure from 100 fans or more pushing forward. I'd suggest if the pressure was that great, rather more than 16 would have fallen.


But as you are basing that on a picture, how do you know more didn't fall afterwards? If only a piece of fence a few meters wide fell youre hardly going to get 100 people falling over, where would they fall to?



> Pretty much all of them, barring some small non-league venues, had either concrete walls or sturdy metal barriers.


By concrete walls I mean proper walls, not tiny ones which you can step over like you get at stadiums like the emirates or COM. They don't have to have proper fences there because you don't get people rushing to the front because the stand is all seated. In front of terraces, there is a fence (or crush barrier) 90% of the time, not a concrete wall. If you had a concrete wall in front of a terrace then when people pushed against it the people at the front would be crushed. You don't get big concrete walls in front of terraces so I don't know which stadiums you've been visiting.



> So what is your experience of real terracing, beyond non-league games. I mean, if considerable first-hand experience of such conditions over nearly 30 years seems lacking to you, I'm just interested in what you are basing you insight and expertise on.


Ive been to hundreds of non league games standing in terraces. Ive been to league 1, 2 and championship games, and ive been to plenty of premier league games too. Ive also watched games in Germany standing in a terrace and rail seats. Ive also designed stadiums for the past 5 years or so and i'm working towards becoming a stadium architect (and believe me im not that far away). Maybe I haven't been to as many games as you might like but ive only been alive 17 years, theres only so much I can do. I still think that experience is enough to make my opinions at least as valid as yours. 



> Again, if you weren't 16 and knowing no different, you'd know that in the past, when there was terracing, the home atmosphere used to be better and more noisy than away support.


Why has my age got anything to do with it? You clearly know nothing as in conference games where both or just one of the teams stand it is usually the away fans who are loudest. Its the same in the prem when both teams sit down so im struggling to think of a scenario where the home fans would always be better than the away fans. Face it, people would complain if they agreed to introduce safe standing for home fans only, and that's not what the protest groups are proposing.


----------



## Alemanniafan (Dec 15, 2008)

Leedsrule said:


> But as you are basing that on a picture, how do you know more didn't fall afterwards? If only a piece of fence a few meters wide fell youre hardly going to get 100 people falling over, where would they fall to?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Leedsrule your entire argumentation is way off the facts and complete nonsense. Not just in this posting here but in all of them on this topic.
You have plenty of personal misconceptions and claim them to be facts while at the same time ignoring factual arguments of others.

If terracing were as unsafe as you claim it to be I'm sure you should have no problem at all in listing disasters that happened in modern terracing sections of German stadia over the last 25 Years.
It should definetely be no problem, should it? 
Well give it a try I'm anxious to see how big your list will end up being...


Now because this discussion is basically over anyways I won't pick up on every single absurd argument you came up with but I can'T resist in commenting at least two of them.

You were talkiing about how easier it is to walk up and down terracing sections than seating sections. Well you're right, it is easier to walk around in a terracing section. But you know what that doesn't matter the tiniest bid, because the whole argument has nothing to do with the mater of human avanlanches in terracing sections at all. In fact it is eaven easier to be walking around on the concrete of a highway, than it is in a terracing section, still we won't ever see traffic jams in terracing sections of staida and we won't ever see human avanlanches on highways. The reason is just as simple... One thing just doesnt have to do anything with the other at all. 

And by the way just to give you a counterargument. Your argument is an argument based on completely wrong circumstances. You're comparing trhe speed ofwalking around in an empty seated section with walking around in an empty terracing section. well, have you ever had a human avalanche in an emty terracing section? So let me compare the conditions in full sections for you instead:
Have you ever tried walking through a fully occupied terracing section and throug a fully occupied seated section, like you have to when buying something to drink or going to the restrooms? 
Wel i can assure you it is much easier to walk around between the sitting people in a seated section than it is walking around in a full terracing section. Now how does the faster travelling through a seated section under these conditions make it any unsafer than terracing? Which it should by the logic of your own argument. You see your whole argument is bloke.

Now let me get to the fences and concrete walls you mentioned:



Leedsrule said:


> By concrete walls I mean proper walls, not tiny ones which you can step over like you get at stadiums like the emirates or COM. They don't have to have proper fences there because you don't get people rushing to the front because the stand is all seated. In front of terraces, there is a fence (or crush barrier) 90% of the time, not a concrete wall. If you had a concrete wall in front of a terrace then when people pushed against it the people at the front would be crushed. You don't get big concrete walls in front of terraces so I don't know which stadiums you've been visiting.
> 
> 
> 
> Ive been to hundreds of non league games standing in terraces. Ive been to league 1, 2 and championship games, and ive been to plenty of premier league games too. Ive also watched games in Germany standing in a terrace and rail seats. Ive also designed stadiums for the past 5 years or so and i'm working towards becoming a stadium architect (and believe me im not that far away). Maybe I haven't been to as many games as you might like but ive only been alive 17 years, theres only so much I can do. I still think that experience is enough to make my opinions at least as valid as yours.


Well you're plain wrong nearly all modern terracing sections in Germany have solid concrete walls and sturdy fences people can't break and people would get crushed to death should an avalanche occur! (The only exceptions to that rule are elevated terracing sections in the back or on lower tiers) 
There is no modern stadium in Germany that has fences which would give into pushing before people got crushed to death. - Not a single one!!! 
The reason why that is so, is that Human avalanches simply *can't occur* in modern terracing because of crush barriers in the stand. That's physically simply not possible due to the barriers, which prevent crowd movements necessary for crushing people to death. 

It doesn't mean people can't get injured anyways despite of that, but as allready discussed people tend to fall over seats when stading in seated sections and can get injured there just as well.

Your whole argumentation is way off the real factual background. And if you're really planing to become a stadium architect, you better get your facts straightened out and start developing your peronal opinions based on rules and regulations instead of personal misconceptions and unfactual misbeliefs.

You simply won't be able find the statistic evidence to undermine your assumption that modern terracing is unsafe. Because if it were you'd have to be able to list actual disasters which occured in modern terracing sections in countries like Germany. 

Your misconception that terracing is unsafe is of a simmilar nature as the common belief that flying in a modern plane were relatively unsafe because of terrorists and hijacker and accidents, while in reality it is much "unsafer" to drive to the airport in a Taxi, because the chances of getting into a dedly accident are statistically much much higher on the road to the airport than dying on the flight in a plane. 

German engineers and architects and regulation authorities know very well what they're doing when allowing terracing in stadia and the british authorities will just as well, should they allow terracing again. 
And unless someone here manages to come up with a solid statistic comparison of injuries and fatalities in modern all seater stadia in the UK and stadia with modern terracing as in Germany, France or The Netherlands etc, the whole discussion wether terracing is unsafer than seated section is basically utterly pointless. But you allready noticed that for yourself pretty much, that it won't lead anywhere without solid statistical evidence, which I'm absolutely sure it certainly won't be in favor of your mostly ignorant and unfactual argumentation.


----------



## matthemod (Apr 8, 2008)

From that link MarkJF Posted:



> It is widely believed that this practice is illegal. This is not the case, even within Premier League and Championship grounds. The law only provides that these clubs should provide seats for all supporters, not that supporters must sit on them.


It is however contradicted by:



> Standing in seated areas, is, however, contrary to ground regulations. For example, the Football League’s model set of ground regulations states: ‘Nobody may stand in any seating area whilst play is in progress. Persistent standing in seated areas whilst play is in progress is strictly forbidden and may result in ejection from the ground’.


So is terracing illegal....kind of? It certainly isn't illegal as in you will be arrested for it, especially when you take into account all but two leagues of the footballing pyramid allow it, and all rugby (both league and union), concerts and events which take place in stadiums allow standing. It's ridiculous that there are two tiers of legality based upon which sport you're watching.

The ban on terracing was a knee jerk reaction to Hillsborough and the prejudice associated with perceived hooliganism, fortunately most sound and logical people understand this and are open to the concept of a return of terracing, be it in the form of safe standing, and welcome the debate. 

Then you have Leedsrule...


----------



## Leedsrule (Apr 6, 2010)

There is a big difference betweenj Terracing and Standing in seated areas. The former, which we are talking about, is illegal in top tier football.

_"The Secretary of State may, by order, direct the licensing authority to include in any licence to admit spectators to any specified premises a condition imposing requirements as respects the seating of spectators at designated football matches at the premises; and it shall be the duty of the authority to comply with the direction."_

This is the bit that is relevant, we aren't talking about standing in seated area. 

Of course somehow I am still wrong even though I am stating clear facts and you and Alemanniafan made a point that was clearly incorrect. I don't know how you can argue that. The quotes ^^ are both from the section about standing in all seated stands which is a doifferent matter. Somehow im still wrong...



> Its like playing chess with a pigeon. You can say anything but at the end of the day the pigeon will still knock over all the pieces, shit on the board and strut around victorious.


 :lol:


----------



## matthemod (Apr 8, 2008)

Pot calling the kettle black much? Terracing isn't illegal either, if it was it wouldn't be allowed in any sport, or at any level of the football pyramid.

And if your main argument is "it's illegal, therefore it must have a valid point", I refer you a point I made a few pages back that votes for women was also illegal at one point, and it was rightfully changed. The status of legality fluctuates with time, dependent on public opinion, and the ban on terracing was as I've mentioned before was a knee jerk reaction to perceived hooliganism and the Hillsborough disaster. The Taylor report itself said that terracing isn't intrinsically dangerous, and the recent Hillsborough report agrees that the cause of the disaster was not caused by terracing, but by poor crowd management and huge metal cages preventing escape.

The simple matter of fact Leedsrule is that I among many other posters on here have tried to provide you information about how modern terracing, as seen in swathes of stadiums in Germany, with crowd control and effective policing are perfectly safe. We've provided you with evidence, you on the other hand seem steadfast in believing a prejudiced belief that somehow, people who stand on terraces are seemingly animals who cannot control themselves, and that terraces themselves play a part in this. We've even told you of facts that stadium disasters can and have happened in all-seated stadiums, yet you seem happy to ignore these and instead perpetuate this prejudice.

If anyone is the pigeon, I would suggest looking in the mirror.


----------



## Leedsrule (Apr 6, 2010)

matthemod said:


> Terracing isn't illegal either, if it was it wouldn't be allowed in any sport, or at any level of the football pyramid.


Oh my god is everyone on this thread actually retarded?

Yes, there is a law that prevents terracing in the top tiers in England. It doesn't apply for the lower tiers or Scotland, but *it is a law*, so it would be illegal to build and use a terrace in the premier league.

Bloody Hell.



> And if your main argument is "it's illegal, therefore it must have a valid point", I refer you a point I made a few pages back that votes for women was also illegal at one point, and it was rightfully changed.


I am using this not as an argument as to why it should be kept as it is but to prove that my points cant be completely ridiculous if the government are saying the same thing! They argue that stadiums are safer and more comfortable than 20 years ago and that is a valid point! 

I know there are terraces in Germany and the lower leagues which are safe, but if all seaters are safe and this system is working fine then why take a risk; *even if *the only single downside of terracing is that its harder to control people, then that's enough to stop it changing because youre still going backwards. 

And if i'm the pigeon then can you give me a point I have made that is factually 100% incorrect (like I have just shown your point about law to be)?


----------



## 1887 Tyke (Nov 24, 2011)

It is illegal.

Not really illegal like doing drugs but still would be illegal in the eyes of a court. But it shouldn't be illegal.


----------



## matthemod (Apr 8, 2008)

Leedsrule said:


> I know there are terraces in Germany and the lower leagues which are safe, but if all seaters are safe and this system is working fine then why take a risk


So why take a risk on giving votes to women? So it seems your argument is based around "it works now and is safe now, lets keep it like this" is incredibly conservative and founded in prejudice. 

The reason that terracing and safe standing remains banned in the top two divisions is based on nothing but prejudice, that's all it comes down to, that's the argument I'm providing. 

If it wasn't prejudice, then why on earth is it okay for a football team in League 1 to have a terrace but not a team one division higher? Why if it isn't prejudice can 20,000 Rugby League fans at Bradford Bull's Odsal stadium stand perfectly safely (and drink beer!) but my football team had to remove our 1500 capacity terrace because we had spent too long in the Championship? Why are music fans allowed to stand up at an Oasis Concert in Man City's Etihad stadium, whereas fans of the football team are not if it isn't based in prejudice?

As if I've said, so many times before, the current regulations are based upon a knee jerk reaction to hooliganism and the Hillsborough disaster. With modern terracing with effective crowd control and policing as we have seen in Germany, there is no reason why they are any less unsafe than an all-seated stand. 

There will always be people standing at football matches, even in all-seated grounds, why not provide an area for accommodate them that is safe and modern? A terrace/safe standing area is infinitely better for fans than standing in a seated area is, and your argument denies the opportunity for these fans to have their voices heard.

Oh, and calling someone retarded is incredibly offensive.


----------



## Alemanniafan (Dec 15, 2008)

Leedsrule said:


> Oh my god is everyone on this thread actually retarded?
> 
> Yes, there is a law that prevents terracing in the top tiers in England. It doesn't apply for the lower tiers or Scotland, but *it is a law*, so it would be illegal to build and use a terrace in the premier league.
> 
> Bloody Hell.


Okay I admit I was wrong in the point that there actually really is a law in the UK. 
As ridiculous as it may be that this law only applies to the upper two soccer - or as you say football - leagues in Wales and England and somehow not Scotland (possibly not in northern Ireland either) and not for any other sport than soccer/ football. 

Now okay despite the fact that the legislation in the UK actually really did come up with this law my points are still all fully valid in respect to terracing being considered perfectly safe basically all over the world and in the UK in the lower leagues and in other sports like Rugby.



Leedsrule said:


> I know there are terraces in Germany and the lower leagues which are safe, but if all seaters are safe and this system is working fine then why take a risk; even if the only single downside of terracing is that its harder to control people, then that's enough to stop it changing because youre still going backwards.


What does re-introducing terracing or allowing terracing like Germany allways has have anything to do with going backwards? And based on what facts do you claim modern terracing in general to have the disadvantage of "people being harder to control" than seated sections? 

There simply are no safety issues with terracing, if it were considered unsafe it wouldn't and couldn't be perfectly legal and established all over the world, especially european countries like Germany and also even including the lower leagues in the UK and other sports in the UK besides soccer/football. 

So as a conclusion: 
Terracing is in fact considered safe and legal by legislative authorities all over the world including the UK! And the 1989 Football Spectators Act still doesn't change the fact that other laws even within the UK don't generally deem terracing unsafe or illegal at all. It only shows that the legislation in the UK obviously has come to some contradictory conclusions. 

q.e.d.


----------



## Kerrybai (Apr 29, 2013)

@Leedrule There is no risk with terracing if it is done in a safe manner. We should take the 'risk' as you put it because people want it. Lots of clubs have fans who want to stand and lots of clubs want to increase capacity which is difficult due to cramped stadium space etc.

We should let the people have what they want and thankfully seveal premier league clubs have gotten behind the safe standing campaign.

Under the Green Guide the current Kop at Anfield is safe for standing, even the Taylor report distanced itself from saying that standing was unsafe. Honestly why is that you are so against letting fans stand? If it is safe then why make all this fuss?


----------



## Rev Stickleback (Jun 23, 2009)

Leedsrule said:


> Well they cant all congregate towards the front because the terrace will be packed, but a lot will


No they won't. It doesn't happen. That's not how crowds behave on bigger terraces. You don't get 100s of fans right down the front.

This is something I, and many others, have observed first hand - on proper terraces, not places like [Redacted] where the view is rubbish even from the back of the terrace.

If anything, the rowdier fans congregate towards the back of the terrace.




> and the ones at the back generally move forward after scoring.


No they don't. The barriers would stop you from moving more than a few steps forwards.

I don't know why you are obsessed with this idea of terrace "avalanches" after goals. Again, years of actual first hand experience shows this idea to be nonsense.



> This is the first time this has happened since the fence was put up, god knows how long ago. People lean on it and it dosent fall down. Hundreds of fans lean on it and it does.


there were not hundreds of fans leaning on it. It's pretty obvious there was a weak joint where the fence joined the gate. Had that not snapped, the fence would not have broken.



> I don't know what you mean exactly, but generally if there are rowdy fans and a terrace they will usually be together :lol: They wouldn't never go in the seated stand and sing.


That's the point. The rowdy fans prefer to stand. That doesn't mean they'd stop being rowdy if they were seated. It's not the seats preventing them from being rowdy.



> Name these things that im saying which are wrong??


You insistence that goals result in avalanches on terraces, for one.

Your belief that big terraces would see a mass of fans at the front of the terrace by the fence, for another.

that's just from this one reply.



> Because no-one is making a relevant point.


They are. You are just choosing to ignore them, as you won't accept that the extensive personal experience of people who've seen things first hand has any weight.


----------



## Immunda Leodis (Aug 10, 2008)

^^ It's a lost cause. The kid clearly knows everything and we're all completely wrong!


----------



## Leedsrule (Apr 6, 2010)

When people are still trying to argue that terracing is legal even after I have posted proof, THATS a lost cause. At least Alemannia could admit he was wrong when he saw proof unlike some of you, which makes me wonder who I really should be talking to here.




Rev Stickleback said:


> No they won't. It doesn't happen. That's not how crowds behave on bigger terraces. You don't get 100s of fans right down the front.


You get 100s of fans everywhere (including the front) because the terraces will be full to capacity...



> No they don't. The barriers would stop you from moving more than a few steps forwards.


They do with railseats, but some of you are still saying regular terracing does the same, and I know from being in packed terraces here and in other countries that people do generally push forward after scoring, especially after important goals, and it is possible with spaced crush barriers.



> there were not hundreds of fans leaning on it. It's pretty obvious there was a weak joint where the fence joined the gate. Had that not snapped, the fence would not have broken.


Why is it relevant where the weak joint was? People have still leant on it in the past, in numbers too, and nothing like this has ever happened before. Don't you see it as a coincidence that the fence collapsed whilst there were hundreds of fans behind it moving forward, or do you think these are completely unrelated?



> That's the point. The rowdy fans prefer to stand. That doesn't mean they'd stop being rowdy if they were seated. It's not the seats preventing them from being rowdy.


But theyre not rowdy at the moment (In the sense that it really isn't a problem these days) so why take a risk when the current system is working? I think we would see more pyro/ pitch invasions/ fighting in a terrace if we reintroduced them. Obviously I cant prove that and you cant prove the other way, we'll just have to wait ands see.



> You insistence that goals result in avalanches on terraces, for one.


From my experience, avalanches can happen after goals- not every goal but it dosent need to be every goal to be dangerous. Fans moving forward in a packed terrace which isn't railseats does happen, can happen and can be dangerous.



> Your belief that big terraces would see a mass of fans at the front of the terrace by the fence, for another.


You don't understand there would be masses of fans everywhere! So there would be a mass of fans congregating at the front, and more congregating behind!

Still no proof to show i'm wrong from those two then, next?




> They are. You are just choosing to ignore them, as you won't accept that the extensive personal experience of people who've seen things first hand has any weight.


I have replied to every one of your points here. You seem to think that as youre older than me that automatically means you know a load more and you know what happenens in terraces, which isn't true at all. Just because you haven't experienced an 'avalanche', that dosent mean they don't happen, and they most certainly do happen!

Kerrybai ands Alemanniafan, theres more to it than just whether or not the railseats themselves are safe. There are also crowd control issues to consider, stewarding issues, the behaviour of fans, ect. If all people wanted was for railseats to be installed but have one person per seat: so basically put a barrier in front of each seat and let people stand, that would be fine. But they don't, and the increase in the number of fans is a concern, when you look at the behaviour of some fans already (eg Leeds away because I can use them because I have first hand experience so don't say im lying), I think it could be genuinely scary for stewards and police having twice that number in the same area, and there is no way they would stick to any assigned rows meaning you would undoubtedly get areas which are over the 4.7 per meter safe limit. Plus, in my opinion, you would see more stuff like flares and smoke bombs because its harder to catch people. Theres more to it than whether or not they can surge forward. And you might argue the current system isn't safe with them standing at their seats but I don't know of anyone who has died recently at a leeds away game


----------



## Hereford Duncan (Sep 6, 2012)

I actually agree with one of you but...


----------



## Immunda Leodis (Aug 10, 2008)

Hiding behind the cloak of whether or not it is legal or not is a good ploy if you don't want to address the idiocy of the situation....

Why is it safe to stand at festivals, when you have tens of thousands of people on a steep muddy hill, with little control over their underfoot grip, with only one crush barrier at the front? 

Why is it safe to stand on old style terraces for Rugby at Headingley and Odsall? Are the lives of Rugby fans worth less? 

Why is it deemed safe for a club with terracing to play in the top 2 leagues for three years before they're not allowed to use terracing anymore? 

Why have the Germans managed to consistently get the highest crowds in Europe, without any major incidents of disorder or serious injuries, despite the extensive use of terracing? 

It may be currently illegal but that does not mean it is right. There are numerous laws, which are nonsensical and do not keep pace with the times, which is why new precedents can be set and new legislation created.


----------



## Alemanniafan (Dec 15, 2008)

Leedsrule said:


> When people are still trying to argue that terracing is legal even after I have posted proof, THATS a lost cause. At least Alemannia could admit he was wrong when he saw proof unlike some of you, which makes me wonder who I really should be talking to here.


Well, as i allready said, the people happen to be right, terracing is legal! And the only reason that there actually is a law that orders stadia in the upper two leagues of Wales and Englans to be all seaters is the silliest and most ridiculous law ever in the history of mankind! 
A law which probably makes various people all over the world wonder if Monty Python happens to be the name of a legislative authority in the UK.




Leedsrule said:


> You get 100s of fans everywhere (including the front) because the terraces will be full to capacity...


 Exactly the same as with seatings sections, no difference.





Leedsrule said:


> They do with railseats, but some of you are still saying regular terracing does the same, and I know from being in packed terraces here and in other countries that people do generally push forward after scoring, especially after important goals, and it is possible with spaced crush barriers.


NO! NO! NO! NO! People do not generally rush forward in terracing after a goal. I myself happen to visit matches nearly every week for years and years in various terracing sections all over Germany and I have NEVER seen it happen that people rushed forward after a scored goal! Not even once! I have seen ultras of my team beat up and chase other ultra Fans of the same team, I have seen pitch invasions with vandalism ruining the pitch and goal, I have seen pyrotechnics I have see a drunk fan climb fall off the front of a stairway straight into a coma landing on the concrete with his head. I have seen police forces invade a fan block and spray pepperspray into the eyes of dozens of kids only because fans hung up a little banner on a "wavebreaker barrier" inside the block and police feared they could be hiding pyro behind it. I have seen rampaging guest fans invade business seats vandalising there until the stewards and cops came. I have seen fans throw objects at players or officials. I have even seen vandalizing fans rip out rows of chairs throwing them down at stewards and police. I have seen violent fans climb over fences onto the pitch to pick fights with stewards and police. But I have NEVER EVER (!!!) seen crowds of fans rush forward after a goal was scored, neither in terracing sections nor in seated sections. What you describe is a totally unrealistic scenario which hardly ever happens in stadia at all. At least not in Germany. 




Leedsrule said:


> Why is it relevant where the weak joint was? People have still leant on it in the past, in numbers too, and nothing like this has ever happened before. Don't you see it as a coincidence that the fence collapsed whilst there were hundreds of fans behind it moving forward, or do you think these are completely unrelated?


It is relevant, because it was obviously not in a propper state. If it would have been it wouldn't have collapsed. Crowds of people can not exert unlimited forces on objects, no matter how big the crows may be, that is physically simply not possible, because crwods of people can only produce forces up to the point where they get crushed to death, trampled and grinded to bits and end up becoming saussage.



Leedsrule said:


> But theyre not rowdy at the moment (In the sense that it really isn't a problem these days) so why take a risk when the current system is working? I think we would see more pyro/ pitch invasions/ fighting in a terrace if we reintroduced them. Obviously I cant prove that and you cant prove the other way, we'll just have to wait ands see.


 There simply is no taking a risk involved, because terracing in numerous other countries and other sports in the UK has proven it to be perfectly safe for decades! So for what reason should it not be allowed if people want it? People should only be forbidden to do things that are dangerous or bad and wrong, but forbidding things which are perfectly safe and unharmful is a perfectly unnecessary limitation of peoples freedoms. And a perfect argument has allready been brought up more than once: 
Why did they allow women vote in the past? - After all, everything was all perfectly safe before they did. You see it's the same kind of argumentation and just as flawed as yours.





Leedsrule said:


> From my experience, avalanches can happen after goals- not every goal but it dosent need to be every goal to be dangerous. Fans moving forward in a packed terrace which isn't railseats does happen, can happen and can be dangerous.


As I already told you, from my experiences they don't happen in modern terracing. Not here in Germany. So when have you personally ever whitnessed an avalanche after a goal? 

It simply doesn't happen in modern terracing. And I'm sure you can't provide any evidence of it happening in modern terracing that fully complies with the newest standards. 
What can and very rarely does occur though are out of control panic situations, but that happens in seated sections just as often and just as dangerously as in terracing sections.





Leedsrule said:


> You don't understand there would be masses of fans everywhere! So there would be a mass of fans congregating at the front, and more congregating behind!


So what's the point you'e making here? That a sold out stadium is sold out? That a full stadium is full of people? 

A sold out teracing section is of course naturally full of people. But the key is, that modern terracing only allows a certain amount of people into certain areas, so that terracing sections aren't overcrowded as the section in Hillsborough was. And large terracing areas are allways divided up into separate sections or "blocks" and the crowd is being stewarded so that people are relatively evenly distributed and do not locally cramp up dangerously and they also make sure exit routes and stairways are being kep clear. And then there are barriers distributed all over which prevent wavemotion like crowdmovements and avalanches and Security also search people for weapons and pyrotechnics to prevent people from taking machineguns or handgranades or flamethrowers or stinger-missiles into terracing sections so that people don't massacre each other.... You see, there really isn't much to worry about at all when visiting a match in a terracing section. Modern terracing is perfectly safe in countries like Germany or the UK.




Leedsrule said:


> Still no proof to show i'm wrong from those two then, next?


 Still no proof that you aren't wrong either, next...






Leedsrule said:


> I have replied to every one of your points here. You seem to think that as youre older than me that automatically means you know a load more and you know what happenens in terraces, which isn't true at all. Just because you haven't experienced an 'avalanche', that dosent mean they don't happen, and they most certainly do happen!


As long as you can't come up with evidence that it does happen in modern terracing complying with all modern stadards your whole argument is bloke. It's of the same nature as telling littlekids to thoroughly look left and right when crossing a street isn't enough, because they should never forget to also look up additionally. After all An elephant could fall out of an open aicraft hatch anytime and kill you.
You see, not that it doesn't happen very often but it CAN HAPPEN, so one should NEVER take that risk! 
- This is exactly the same nature of your own arguments by the way. Making up a scenario that simply doesn't happen to argue something is unsafe and risky.



Leedsrule said:


> Kerrybai ands Alemanniafan, theres more to it than just whether or not the railseats themselves are safe. There are also crowd control issues to consider, stewarding issues, the behaviour of fans, ect. If all people wanted was for railseats to be installed but have one person per seat: so basically put a barrier in front of each seat and let people stand, that would be fine. But they don't, and the increase in the number of fans is a concern, when you look at the behaviour of some fans already (eg Leeds away because I can use them because I have first hand experience so don't say im lying), I think it could be genuinely scary for stewards and police having twice that number in the same area, and there is no way they would stick to any assigned rows meaning you would undoubtedly get areas which are over the 4.7 per meter safe limit. Plus, in my opinion, you would see more stuff like flares and smoke bombs because its harder to catch people. Theres more to it than whether or not they can surge forward. And you might argue the current system isn't safe with them standing at their seats but I don't know of anyone who has died recently at a leeds away game


Well your arguments are all solved in modern terracing and have proven to be no unsolved problems at all or even no more a problem than in seated sections. Sometimes they have even proven to be less of a problem than in seated sections, as for example concerning the issue of pitch evasions and throwing seats.

Your entire line of argumentation is based on twisted reality and prejudices instead of facts and actual situations. 
Now for me to come to an end in this endless and perfectly useless debate with you (because you certainly won't stop twisting reality and arguments in your favor) theres a wisdom from my deceased grandfather I'd like to share with you:
The most dangerous place to be in the world, is a bed! 
(You see surprisingly a bed is actually even a much more dangerous place to be than a terracing section in stadium.) 
Statistically over 2/3rds of all people happen to die in a bed!

You see the point why I'm bringing up this wisdom is because the conclusion in that wisdom (unlike all of your arguments here) is in fact even actually based on rock solid facts and incontestable statistic evidence. And (just like most of your own arguments) still it's conclusion turns out being obviously logically flawed somehow. (So it actually happens to be much better and more substantiated than most arguments you have come up with in this thread)


----------



## Immunda Leodis (Aug 10, 2008)

In the UK it is currently illegal to serve somebody, in a pub, if they are drunk but it's the law so it must be right, yeah?!


----------



## Leedsrule (Apr 6, 2010)

That is loooong and I cba to reply to all of it from my phone, just look at what I wrote last time you said that and theres your reply.

That incident at woking proves that fans move forward in a terrace, whether it was 20 or 100 of them, their movements forward is what caused the fence to break. 

Its not about the fact the stand will be full, its about the fact that the stand will be more than twice as full as it is at the moment.

And stop using the womens votes argument because giving women the vote never killed anyone. 

Out.


----------



## hhappy1990 (Jan 25, 2014)

Sorry why do you lot keep talking about pubs and festivals and votes for women? These are not important or relevant! You cant say the government is wrong about one thing so it's wrong about everything.


----------



## Immunda Leodis (Aug 10, 2008)

Leedsrule said:


> That is loooong and I cba to reply to all of it from my phone, just look at what I wrote last time you said that and theres your reply.
> 
> That incident at woking proves that fans move forward in a terrace, whether it was 20 or 100 of them, their movements forward is what caused the fence to break.
> 
> ...


Standing at football, in itself hasn't killed anybody either. As concluded by the Taylor Report "Standing is not intrinsically unsafe".


----------



## Immunda Leodis (Aug 10, 2008)

hhappy1990 said:


> Sorry why do you lot keep talking about pubs and festivals and votes for women? These are not important or relevant! You cant say the government is wrong about one thing so it's wrong about everything.


They point about stupid legislation is entirely relevant when someone is trying to claim they are right based on the fact that something is law. 

The point about festivals is relevant to the point about crush barriers not being safe as crush barriers at festivals are capable of preventing crushes massively in excess of anything you would see on a football terrace.


----------



## Kerrybai (Apr 29, 2013)

@Leedsrule... another fence collapse caused by an avalanche due to terraces... oh wait those are seats 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDE-TV7Ep6E#t=39

This happened last night in La Liga with Bilbao fans at Rayo. One man injured his foot.


----------



## Alemanniafan (Dec 15, 2008)

Leedsrule said:


> That is loooong and I cba to reply to all of it from my phone, just look at what I wrote last time you said that and theres your reply.
> 
> That incident at woking proves that fans move forward in a terrace, whether it was 20 or 100 of them, their movements forward is what caused the fence to break.


What caused the fence to break was not the movement of the fans, but simply the fact that the fence was obviously not in a propper condition. The fence simply did not withstand the forces it was required to withstand. That's the reason why it broke! It shouldn't have broken and it wouldn't have broken had it been in propper condition! That's how simple it is and it has absolutely nothing to do with the number of fans or the size of terracing at all, only with the intolerable condition of the fence itself.



Leedsrule said:


> Its not about the fact the stand will be full, its about the fact that the stand will be more than twice as full as it is at the moment.


So what? A fence in propper condition and designed according to modern standards and regulations still doesn't brake even if the stand is twice as full. So we see and learn, that the incident at [Redacted] happened due to modern requirements and regulations concerning terracing not being fully met. The incident does not have anything to do with terracing and fences that are in propper condition and comply with all the modern rules and regulations of modern terracing. 
The incident only shows us what can happen under certain circumstances IF the regulations ARE NOT FULLY MET as it obviously has been the case in [Redacted]. 
*Had regulations of modern terracing been fully met this incident in [Redacted] wouldn't and couldn't have happened in the way it did* - period!



Leedsrule said:


> And stop using the womens votes argument because giving women the vote never killed anyone.


Well stop using the argument that modern terracing was supposedly unsafe then, because just like womens votes, modern terracing also never killed anyone either.



Leedsrule said:


> Out.


Yeah I should really try harder not answer your nonsense anymore, but you really do make it difficult not to with your twisting realities. Geez.


----------



## Immunda Leodis (Aug 10, 2008)

Kerrybai said:


> @Leedsrule... another fence collapse caused by an avalanche due to terraces... oh wait those are seats
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDE-TV7Ep6E#t=39
> 
> This happened last night in La Liga with Bilbao fans at Rayo. One man injured his foot.


The only way to ensure safety at football is to play it behind closed doors. We should also ban tackling, cover the goalposts in lagging and put gym mats down for the keepers.


----------



## Leedsrule (Apr 6, 2010)

The woking terrace does meet regulations otherwise it would be shut down. 



Alemanniafan said:


> Yeah I should really try harder not answer your nonsense anymore, but you really do make it difficult not to with your twisting realities. Geez.


I feel the same way, its hard to argue with people who ignore facts and keep bringing up irrelevant points. You know what my answers to your points will be so id rather not reply because im bored now.


----------



## matthemod (Apr 8, 2008)

I notice you didn't respond to my post about how the ban on terracing in the top two divisions is based entirely on prejudice.


----------



## Leedsrule (Apr 6, 2010)

matthemod said:


> I notice you didn't respond to my post about how the ban on terracing in the top two divisions is based entirely on prejudice.


Or maybe its based on the fact they get much higher crowds than in the lower leagues.


----------



## Immunda Leodis (Aug 10, 2008)

Leedsrule said:


> Or maybe its based on the fact they get much higher crowds than in the lower leagues.


You seem to be hung up over your incorrect assumption that larger crowds mean more danger. 

Can you provide any statistical evidence or formula that shows the relationship / trend of number of injuries verses number of spectators, both in standing and seating sections of stadiums? 

You're keen to accuse others of ignoring facts without providing any that will stand up to challenge so I look forward to your response.


----------



## Leedsrule (Apr 6, 2010)

Immunda Leodis said:


> You seem to be hung up over your incorrect assumption that larger crowds mean more danger.
> 
> Can you provide any statistical evidence or formula that shows the relationship / trend of number of injuries verses number of spectators, both in standing and seating sections of stadiums?
> 
> You're keen to accuse others of ignoring facts without providing any that will stand up to challenge so I look forward to your response.


Well that's impossible! You cant challenge me to provide statistics that simply do not exist. Do you know exactly how many people were injured in all seater stadiums last year? Of course you don't, so how can I?

What I can say is that it is common sense really. If 1 in 100 fans brings in a flarte, then in a terrace of 100 people 1 person will have a flare, and in a terrace of 1000 10 will have flares so there is more danger. There will always be more people in a terracve than a seated section in the premier league because all the teams sell out on average to over 98% of their capacity proving there is demand for more capacity. If that was to come through terracing then you would have more people in the same space, are you with me? Therefore you now have 4000 people in an area that previously held 1800 or so. Therefore statistically you would expect more flares and pitch invaders and drunk people. 

Are you telling me that you think 1800 people sitting down are in more danger than 4000 standing up?! Just...Wow.


----------



## matthemod (Apr 8, 2008)

Leedsrule said:


> Or maybe its based on the fact they get much higher crowds than in the lower leagues.


So it' perfectly fine for 20'000 people to stand at the Odsal stadium in Rugby League, but not for 1'500 fans to stand on the old terrace at Priestfield in football?


----------



## Immunda Leodis (Aug 10, 2008)

Leedsrule said:


> Well that's impossible! You cant challenge me to provide statistics that simply do not exist. Do you know exactly how many people were injured in all seater stadiums last year? Of course you don't, so how can I?
> 
> What I can say is that it is common sense really. If 1 in 100 fans brings in a flarte, then in a terrace of 100 people 1 person will have a flare, and in a terrace of 1000 10 will have flares so there is more danger. There will always be more people in a terracve than a seated section in the premier league because all the teams sell out on average to over 98% of their capacity proving there is demand for more capacity. If that was to come through terracing then you would have more people in the same space, are you with me? Therefore you now have 4000 people in an area that previously held 1800 or so. Therefore statistically you would expect more flares and pitch invaders and drunk people.
> 
> Are you telling me that you think 1800 people sitting down are in more danger than 4000 standing up?! Just...Wow.


How is it common sense? You simply can not extrapolate on that basis with any degree of certainty. 

Using the example of Millwall they get tiny crowds but have a deserved reputation for crowd disorder. Arsenal get 60k every game but there is rarely trouble. You are being far too simplistic and seem to have very little appreciation of context.


----------



## Leedsrule (Apr 6, 2010)

matthemod said:


> So it' perfectly fine for 20'000 people to stand at the Odsal stadium in Rugby League, but not for 1'500 fans to stand on the old terrace at Priestfield in football?


Apparently. 



Immunda Leodis said:


> How is it common sense? You simply can not extrapolate on that basis with any degree of certainty.
> 
> Using the example of Millwall they get tiny crowds but have a deserved reputation for crowd disorder. Arsenal get 60k every game but there is rarely trouble. You are being far too simplistic and seem to have very little appreciation of context.


So by your logic you could have twice as many milwall fans in the den and there would be...*less* crowd trouble??? 

Like I said if 1 in 100 dans, regardless of which team they supported, caused trouble, then putting more of them in the same space (this is the important bit) means you would expect more trouble. How can the opposite possibly be true?? Its painful that you seem to think that less fans = more trouble which is just ridiculous.


----------



## Immunda Leodis (Aug 10, 2008)

Leedsrule said:


> Apparently.
> 
> So by your logic you could have twice as many milwall fans in the den and there would be...less crowd trouble???
> 
> Like I said if 1 in 100 dans, regardless of which team they supported, caused trouble, then putting more of them in the same space (this is the important bit) means you would expect more trouble. How can the opposite possibly be true?? Its painful that you seem to think that less fans = more trouble which is just ridiculous.


What's painful is your lack of ability to think of the context surrounding your siloed viewpoint. 

It is entirely possible that more fans at Millwall would equal much less trouble but it would be entirely dependent on the demographic make up of the crowd. 

The point you appear to be struggling with is that there is no accurate way to just use raw numbers to extrapolate. Human beings are not robots and will not always act the same when placed in the same context. 

If you read up on ethnographic studies of football crowds there is a lot of evidence that more women and children, going to games has a civilising effect on the crowds at football so more women and children would likely lead to a reduction. If the crowd was made up solely of knuckle daggers then there would be a greater likely hood of more trouble. More trouble may logically lead to more stringent Policing, leading to more sanctions against these supporters, which in turn will lead to less trouble. 

Any football fan over the age of 30 will probably recognise this pattern from the hooliganism of the 80s, the dawn raids of hooligans and the reduction in disorders at football. 

None of this behaviour shift can be explained purely and simply by using extrapolation from attendance figures.


----------



## Leedsrule (Apr 6, 2010)

And the women and children are likely to stand in the terraces at milwall are they? Right...

How about the statistic that hooliganism was a big problem 30 years ago when you had terracing and more people in smaller areas, and now there are less people in a set area and less trouble?

Do you think leeds away games would have less 'bad behaviour' if there were more of us in that space???

Anyway, think what you like, but you really are deluded if you think that more people means less trouble...


----------



## Alemanniafan (Dec 15, 2008)

Leedsrule said:


> The woking terrace does meet regulations otherwise it would be shut down.
> 
> 
> 
> I feel the same way, its hard to argue with people who ignore facts and keep bringing up irrelevant points. You know what my answers to your points will be so id rather not reply because im bored now.


The regulations have obviously not been met because the fence broke. And this outdated low league stand certainly does not meed the regulations of modern terracing in Germany at all! Terracing sections in Germany look completely different and are much better developed than the stand in [Redacted]!

And to add one more thing. The incident in [Redacted] does NOT involve a crowd rushing forward! All that happened there, was a relatively small number of fans, no more than 5 rows in a small section in one end of the stand leaning forward celebrating with players, causing a totally weak and by all modern standards completely unapropriate and insufficient separation (which happens to be nothing more than a simple handrail) to collapse. 

Here's a picture of the terracing section in the Tivoli here in Aachen that meets all modern up to date regulations and requirements for terracing in Germany for you to compare with the completely outdated and by modern standards clearly insufficient stand in [Redacted] (which in fact would unquestionably have to be modernized or shut down if German regulations were applied):








source: http://bultras.net/wp-content/gallery/12-03-30-aachen/_MG_9245.jpg

And here another link to a larger picture:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-wzNbwke9LbY/TqPjWW8nTHI/AAAAAAAAGoc/FwxQXOGjg7w/s1600/DSC_0005.JPG 

Those two are not the best pictures to demonstrate the measures on the stand, but I didn't find better ones of an empty modern terracing stand meeting all modern regulations in Germany quickly. And if you look at the pictures you can easily see the solid wall with the white brown "Tabac Original" advertisement and the extremely sturdy fence (the fans hang their banners on) in the front of the stand. 

Now if you would be so kind and explain me and the others here how you believe an incident like the one in [Redacted] should occur in a modern stand fully meeting the exact same regulations as the one in Aachen shown in these pictures does.

Well I'm certain that even you can see, the stand in Aachen is "lightyears" ahead of the one in [Redacted]. And I'm sure even you will understand that the wall and fence at the front of the stand here - a wall which wouldn't even move an inch if someone drove a 12.5 ton truck into it with 20 miles an hour - would easily resist five rows of fans leaning and pushing against unlike the handrail in [Redacted] which collapsed. 

So if you would please stop comparing outdated aged and rotten stands that clearly do not meet any of the modern regulations the brand new stadia meet. Because that comparison is just as complete nonsense and just as useless as comparing safety features of a rusty old run down badly maintained 50 year old oldtimer to a brandnew sportscar coming straight off the manufacturing line and saying in conclusion that all modern sportscars were unsafe because they drive even faster than the rusty old unsafe oldtimer does. :bash:


----------



## Leedsrule (Apr 6, 2010)

*[Redacted] does meet the relevant regulations in the UK* I don't want to have another argument over this but if it didn't it would be shut down!!!!

Yes, the fans were in an area they shouldn't be and you could say that's down to poor policing but had that stand been all seater this wouldn't have been a problem. Im pretty sure Kerrybai acknowledged this. Obviously if terraces were allowed in the prem then the regulations would be different to what they are at woking but don't tell me that the terrace was illegal when it was perfectly legal!

The thing which collapsed was not a crush barrier but it wasn't a piece of cardboard either. What good would a fence be if it couldn't even support the weight of one person leaning on it. Of course it took lots of people to break it. You can see that the fans were rushing forward to the players which is what caused the fence to collapsed. How can you see it any other way??? The fence just happened to collapse at the moment the players were in front of it but they were completely unrelated???

My initial point was if 4exactly the same thing that happened at woking happened at a bigger terrace (which could and has happened), it could be very dangerous for the ones at the front, even if the fence didn't collapse they would be crushed between it and the people behind. The fence collapsing is not the important bit, the people's ability to rush forward after a goal in a terrace is the issue. Of course this is not an issue with railseats which is why they will be introduced well before a terrace like that ^ will. 

Also please not that at the front of the Tivoli terrace there is a fence, which is unusual because im sure I remember someone claiming that 90% of terraces have walls at the front. A fence is safer than a concrete wall.


----------



## Alemanniafan (Dec 15, 2008)

Leedsrule said:


> Also please not that at the front of the Tivoli terrace there is a fence, which is unusual because im sure I remember someone claiming that 90% of terraces have walls at the front. A fence is safer than a concrete wall.


And wrong again, fences in the front of teracing stands are the common rule not an exception at all, simply because one can not look through walls.
What some stadia have are transparent glass elements, but those are very uncommon for stands at the side of the pitch because they do not allow any contact between fans and players celebrating after a match.

The teracing stand here in the Tivoli is in nearly all aspects a perfectly common example of a modern stand here in Germany, the only uncommon things about it are, that it is closer to the outline of the pitch than in any other German stadium besides the one in Mainz which has the same distance. it is also steeper than most other stands and just like the stands in Mainz the first row is not quite elevated as high above the pitch as in most other stadia, which tend to be elevated 10 to 50 cm higher and in rare cases as in Schalke or Rostock or Paderborn even over 1 or two meters higher. Oh and the amount of terracing is bigger than in most other german stadia also.

But the safety features on the stand in Aachen ar all in fact a perfecly common example for terracing stands in Germany and are in most aspects of the regulations just barely met, because the Fans and architect wanted the stand to be as close and steep and intimate as possible under the regulations. Most other stands in Germany are not constructed in a way that allowances in the regulations such as minimum distance and maximum steepnes are fully maxed out to the limit.


----------



## Leedsrule (Apr 6, 2010)

Alemanniafan said:


> And wrong again, fences in the front of teracing stands are the common rule not an exception at all, simply because one can not look through walls.


I know I was being sarcastic...


----------



## Alemanniafan (Dec 15, 2008)

Leedsrule said:


> I know I was being sarcastic...



So to come to the point, once again:


Alemanniafan said:


> Now if you would be so kind and explain me and the others here how you believe an incident like the one in [Redacted] should occur in a modern stand fully meeting the exact same regulations as the one in Aachen shown in these pictures does.


And secondly:
In what way is the stand in Aachen, that I have shown you in the pictures, supposed to be unsafe or unsafer than any comparably modern seated section? - And I mean under conditions where all relevant laws and regulations according crowd management policing, evacuation routes etc are fully complied. 

And if you have managed to reasonably answer these two questions, most likely having to come to the inavoidable conclusion that modern terracing according to the standards here in Germany is safe and that there are no risks involved in such terracing. Could you then go ahead and tell me on what rational base of facts regarding safety issues modern terracing should not be allowed in the upper soccer/ football leagues the UK?


----------



## Leedsrule (Apr 6, 2010)

You could just read my answers throughout this thread to get the answers to those questions.

There is much higher density of people at Aachen than in an all seated stand. As a result there is a higher chance of crowd trouble because you can expect that more people = more trouble. This may not be the case in Germany but it was true in England in the past and to an extent it is true in the UK lower leagues. 

Also in a terrace like at Aachen or [Redacted], people can rush forward much more easily than in all seated stands. Maybe they don't in Germany, but they do in the lower leagues. I don't know what suggests that the behaviour of Britons will mimic Germans because in other things (eg Drinking) it doesn't. In all seated stands in England you just don't see people moving from their seat or row, other than in exceptional circumstances. In terraces people do move when they score, and with more people in a smaller area the effect is exaggerated.

All seaters are more easy to manage and police which is a key issue. Hillsborough may have been down to poor stewarding not the terrace itself but it would have been easier to manage in a seated section because you can easily tell when its fill or if there is still space. Not saying it wouldn't have happened in a seated stand, we will never know, but we haven't had a similar issue in the 20 years since in all seated stadiums. So my overall argument is basically if All Seaters are working fine for us, instances of crowd disturbances are rare and usually happen outside the stadium, Pyro isn't used much in the premier league, fans are generally well behaved and even if they stand up in front of their seat they are comfortable because they have their own personal 50x80cm box. 

Please don't reply to each of these points because we have been going around in circles for pages so it will be a complete waste of time. I know what your reply will be and you know what my reply to that will be. So can we (finally) just agree to disagree, and let people in charge make the decision.


----------



## Alemanniafan (Dec 15, 2008)

Leedsrule said:


> You could just read my answers throughout this thread to get the answers to those questions.
> 
> There is much higher density of people at Aachen than in an all seated stand. As a result there is a higher chance of crowd trouble because you can expect that more people = more trouble. This may not be the case in Germany but it was true in England in the past and to an extent it is true in the UK lower leagues.


As you say for yourself, thats an assumption you're making and you personal opinion but not a fact. Certainly not an unreasonable assumption but it still remains not to be a proven fact.




Leedsrule said:


> Also in a terrace like at Aachen or [Redacted], people can rush forward much more easily than in all seated stands.


Again not a fact but merely just an assumtion of yours.



Leedsrule said:


> Maybe they don't in Germany, but they do in the lower leagues. I don't know what suggests that the behaviour of Britons will mimic Germans because in other things (eg Drinking) it doesn't. In all seated stands in England you just don't see people moving from their seat or row, other than in exceptional circumstances. In terraces people do move when they score, and with more people in a smaller area the effect is exaggerated.


 As I just said before that argument is not based on facts but on assumtions and prejudice. Barriers effectively prevent crowd movements and rushing forward of crowds.




Leedsrule said:


> All seaters are more easy to manage and police which is a key issue. Hillsborough may have been down to poor stewarding not the terrace itself but it would have been easier to manage in a seated section because you can easily tell when its fill or if there is still space. Not saying it wouldn't have happened in a seated stand, we will never know, but we haven't had a similar issue in the 20 years since in all seated stadiums. So my overall argument is basically if All Seaters are working fine for us, instances of crowd disturbances are rare and usually happen outside the stadium, Pyro isn't used much in the premier league, fans are generally well behaved and even if they stand up in front of their seat they are comfortable because they have their own personal 50x80cm box.


Well again those arguments - especially the first one that all seaters are supposedly to be more easy to manage - are basically all just assumptions and your personal conclusions which you find to be true, but others here happen to disagree with you in various points and happen do evaluate these aspects differently than you do.



Leedsrule said:


> Please don't reply to each of these points because we have been going around in circles for pages so it will be a complete waste of time. I know what your reply will be and you know what my reply to that will be. So can we (finally) just agree to disagree, and let people in charge make the decision.


Well I'm sorry I did comment them all briefly, but that shall really be it from my side now and itdefinetely is best to agree to disagree here at this point.


----------



## Leedsrule (Apr 6, 2010)

Ok great, you can probably guess my replies to that so lets leave it there for now


----------



## Rev Stickleback (Jun 23, 2009)

Leedsrule said:


> You get 100s of fans everywhere (including the front) because the terraces will be full to capacity...


They would not be standing in the flat area in front of the first step of terracing, mainly because they'd get a far better view elsewhere.




> They do with railseats, but some of you are still saying regular terracing does the same, and I know from being in packed terraces here and in other countries that people do generally push forward after scoring, especially after important goals, and it is possible with spaced crush barriers.


You get some people who may rush forward if a goalscorer runs over to the fans, but that happens in seated areas too.

But no, you DO NOT get an avalanche on terracing after goals have been scored. It could only happen on a terrace with very few barriers, unless you think fans collectively limbo-dance under crush barriers as they surge down the terracing.

Really, find one example in a modern stadium (apart from Gremio, which was deliberately designed without barriers because of their tradition of avalanche celebrations) of a avalanche.

You keep asking others to prove their points, but you state claims as facts without offering a shred of evidence yourself.




> But theyre not rowdy at the moment (In the sense that it really isn't a problem these days) so why take a risk when the current system is working? I think we would see more pyro/ pitch invasions/ fighting in a terrace if we reintroduced them. Obviously I cant prove that and you cant prove the other way, we'll just have to wait ands see.


Why do you associate terracing with violence so much? Why isn't there regular crowd trouble in the 3rd and 4th tiers of English football?



> From my experience, avalanches can happen after goals- not every goal but it dosent need to be every goal to be dangerous. Fans moving forward in a packed terrace which isn't railseats does happen, can happen and can be dangerous.


Name the games you've been to where there were crowd avalanches.



> You don't understand there would be masses of fans everywhere! So there would be a mass of fans congregating at the front, and more congregating behind!


sorry, but I just don't have the benefit of your ignorance on the subject.



> Still no proof to show i'm wrong from those two then, next?


Discussing this reminds me of discussions with the Football Licencing authority types, who invent their own dangers and ask fans to prove them wrong, when it's virtually impossible to do so because you can't prove a negative.

They claim, for example, that standing in seated areas is dangerous, because fans could topple forward in a domino effect, down the stands. they won't accept that it does't happen, or has never happened, as proof. They'll only accept proof that it can't happen, which can't be proven by anyone.

I mean, I could show you loads of pictures of full terraces where there aren't fans at the front of the terrace, but you'd just reject them because they don't prove it doesn't happen elsewhere or at other times.

The only time you get fans at the front is in the final minutes of a promotion/survival game, where fans are getting ready to invade the pitch.

This is the typical distribution of fans on a terrace. As you can clearly see, they do not all go to the front.












> I have replied to every one of your points here. You seem to think that as youre older than me that automatically means you know a load more and you know what happenens in terraces, which isn't true at all.


I've been to far more games than you, standing on far more proper terraces than you, in far more places than you.

That gives me a wealth of experience that you just don't have, with a knowledge of crowd dynamics that you don't have, with a first hand knowledge of the good/bad old days that you don't have.

It may sound arrogant to you, but sadly it does mean that I know what I'm talking about far more than you do.


If you are going to make claims (about anything) the onus is on your to back them up with something resembling evidence. You can't just state something as fact, then demand proof that you didn't offer from anyone who disagrees.

Really, if I was to make an assumption about something, and people with a lot more experience of that situation than me were all saying I was mistaken, I would start to question whether my assumption was correct.



edit: as others have said, unless any new points get raised, further discussion is pointless.


----------



## Leedsrule (Apr 6, 2010)

Obviously that isn't a full terrace and any premier league ones would be full to capacity 99% of the time. So I don't know why you posted that. 

Im not replying to anything else because you will find my answers in previous posts.


----------



## The Sloth (Nov 4, 2011)

*@Leedsrule* Hillsborough may have been down to poor stewarding not the terrace itself but it would have been easier to manage in a seated section because you can easily tell when its fill or if there is still space. Not saying it wouldn't have happened in a seated stand, we will never know, but we haven't had a similar issue in the 20 years since in all seated stadiums. So my overall argument is basically if All Seaters are working fine for us, instances of crowd disturbances are rare and usually happen outside the stadium, Pyro isn't used much in the premier league, fans are generally well behaved and even if they stand up in front of their seat they are comfortable because they have their own personal 50x80cm box. 

Why are you so adamant that 'SAFE' standing would be dangerous in Premier League stadiums?

Standing, (not even SAFE standing) is okay for lower league clubs, for rugby teams and at concert/festivals... However for a football team in the Championship/Premiership it suddenly becomes dangerous? What do you envisage happening? Do you honestly think over overly stewarded stadiums are going to allow un-ticketed fans to pile in?

Why are you so against it anyway? Did you twist your ankle in the seventies, did something go wrong for you?

Safe standing is indeed safe. It's all ticketed, and each fan has their own space behind their own barrier. I've yet to hear of any disasters in Germany.

Hillsborough will never happen again as games are all ticketed, and barrier controlled standing sections prevent any crowd surges.

If anything, standing/jumping up after a goal is far more dangerous than already standing and celebrating with a barrier in front of you. Have you seen the resulting injuries when somebody falls over the shin high seat in front? Not good!

Also, what's it got to do with you if somebody wants to stand, why are you so concerned? Sit down and shut up in the quiet, family orientated section you obviously belong in.


----------



## matthemod (Apr 8, 2008)

Edit: I originally posted something about how Leedsrule ignores points we bring up to counter his arguments, but I realised that this is only perpetuating this stupid online debate. The dude has made his mind up, and even though to me and many other posters it's plain wrong, there's little point in continuing.


----------



## Rev Stickleback (Jun 23, 2009)

Leedsrule said:


> Obviously that isn't a full terrace and any premier league ones would be full to capacity 99% of the time. So I don't know why you posted that.


This full enough for you?











Now your turn. Show me a full (or even nearly full terrace) where 100s of fans are at the front by the fence instead of standing on the terracing.


And if you could give me that list of games you've been to where there were goal avalanches, that would be nice.


----------



## Leedsrule (Apr 6, 2010)

As you can see from that picture you just posted, there are hundreds of fans at the front of the terrace by the fence. 

And can you provide me with a full list of every game youve ever been to which fans didn't move forward after goals were scored. And another list of games youve been to where incidents happened in all seated stands that wouldn't have happened if there was terracing? Dates and scores please too


----------



## Alemanniafan (Dec 15, 2008)

Leedsrule said:


> As you can see from that picture you just posted, there are hundreds of fans at the front of the terrace by the fence.
> 
> And can you provide me with a full list of every game youve ever been to which fans didn't move forward after goals were scored. And another list of games youve been to where incidents happened in all seated stands that wouldn't have happened if there was terracing? Dates and scores please too


Now, that is just way too great an invitation for me to ignore.

You know what Leedsrule, that happens to be a really really simple task for me, so let me just do that really quick for you:

Here you'll find a link with the list of all games from Alemannia Aachen:
http://www.alemannia-aachen.de/archiv/saisonarchiv/

Sadly the website is only in German, but google translate should probably help. 
Alemannia Aachen relegated back up into the second Bundesliga in the year 2000, so that's a reasonable point to start, because that's when the relevant regulations for professional sports in the first two bundesligas had to be fulfilled again and certain minor modernisations were made every year to the old stadium. 
And it also happens to be the time when friends and I started visiting watches from Alemannia Aachen regularly. 

I can absolutely guarantee you, that you will not find a single homegame in this century from Alemannia Aachen, where there was an avanlanche after a goal or crowds rushing forward i terracing sections as you prefer to call it. Not in the long demolished old Tivoli and not in the new Tivoli opened in 2009. I myself have attended many of them and my friends have allways kept me informed about games that I haven't attended.

I believe the list of homegames in Aachen in this millenium should probably be sufficient for you, but if you happen to believe that is not, then you may of course certainly also have a look at all the other matches in the first and second Bundesliga in that period and see if you manage to find even just a single crowd avalanche after a goal in a terracing section. 

I personally, as well as all my friends and all the other fans from Alemannia Aachen I know have not whitenessed a single avalanche in the old and new Tivoli in this milennium.


Now in addition to that you asked for incidents that happened in an all seated stand that would not have happened in a terracing section. 
That also happens to be a very easy and simple thing for me to do.
Here are three examples:

1. The first of the three examples I'll give you here is one that happened in the new Tivoli on Monday, April 23rd 2012. Eintrach Frankfurt won against Alemannia Aachen 0:3 and relegated back up into the first Bundesliga. Frankfurts fans invaded the pitch after the game from the seated section. The Ultra Fans deliberately bought their tickets in the seated guest section because the terracing section in the new Tivoli happens to be elevated in the corner with stairs and a Tunnel in front and underneath which makes pitch invasions from that terracing section impossible. 
The seated section has no fence so it was very easy for Frankfurts fans to invade the pitch from there and the police let them( for reasons of deescalation and preventig panic situation in the guest section. But they then were very rigurous spraying pepperspray at any homefan suspicious of wanting to invade the pitch as well). The guests did not only invade the pitch but also ripped out seats and tore the goal net apart causing over 75000€ of total damage. 
here's a youtube video:





2. The second example is the most recent one and happended one season later on April 12th 2013 when Hansa Rostock won against us 3:4 and thus almost certainly managed to stay in the 3rd league not relegating down. Basically the same kind of incident as when Eintracht Frankfurt fans invaded the pitch in the new Tivoli from the seated section just on a much smaler scale with only a few fans on the pitch.
before they invaded the pitch from the seated section they invaded the guests seated section passing the entrance controls of the seated block in very large numbers overrunning the stewards. (They did not overrung the general ticket control outside at the stadium entrance, but the stewards inside the guest area checking people at the entrance to the seated section, if they really have tickets for seats and not terracing) 
From this seated section they then went over the small wall at the front onto the pitch to get to try to et to their players. 

Now these two examples of pitch invasions are not incidents which are generally impossible on terracing sections, except for the vandalism of seats and the more or less minor injuries people got breaking seats or stumbling over seats. But both incidents could not have happened in the guests terracing section of the Tivoli stadium, because that is in the corner and has no direct access to the pitch (something that is also the case with several terracing guest sections in german stadia also because they tend to be placed in the stadiums corners or even in cheaper sections further back and up). And had there been a fence as terracing sections here allways have, the crowd would have been much easier to control and keep from invading the pitch. So these two incidents are also a perfect example how crowds in seated sections aren't allways and automatically easier to control than in modern terracing sections with fences in the front.

3. The last example I'll give you is the example of an incident i have brought up in this thread before. 
Its an incident where Alemannia Aachens Fans vandalized in the Esprit Arena in Düsseldorf on Monday September 28 th 2009. (the result of the game was 0:0)
At that time the Esprit Arena was still an all seater stadium, which was very unusual in Germany. And Fortuna Düsseldorfs homefans were fighting to finally get a terracing section in their stadium for quite a while with Stadium owners and club officials.
Well our fans from Aachen decided to help them turn the seated section into a terracing section during the game and ripped out benches of seats throwing them, down at the stewards and police.
Here's the picture from a lokal newspaper, the Aachener Zeitung of the result:








source: www.aachener-nachrichten.de/sport/a...rgen-fuer-verwuestung-im-gaesteblock-1.328594
Now this incident is undoubtfully one that simply can not happen in a terracing setcion without seats at all, can it?

I believe that should be plenty of evidence right there, shouldn't it?
And you know what, in addition to all the evidence i brought up, I'm sure that just like me, Rev Stickleback will also not have a very hard time at all to even add some more evidence to what i brought up for you.

So, there you go leedsrule. 
It's your turn to bring up some real evidence now!

I remember Rev Stickeback asked you to:


Rev Stickleback said:


> Name the games you've been to where there were crowd avalanches.


If that is something you can not do, then you should at least try to name games where crowd avalanches did occured and where the stands met all the modern regulations (like the modern standards for terracing in the German Bundesliga and not outdated standards for lower leagues like in [Redacted] or in some poor 3rd world countries).

I am sure that unlike me and my list of games and examples of incidents that would or even could not have happened in a terracing section at all, as there are no seats in terracing sections fans could rip out and throw at police or stewards, that this task for you to bring up some solid evidence is something you simply won't be able to bring up for us here.

And if that is something you can not bring up, I and several others here will be waiting for you to admit, that your made up scenario of avalanches in terracing is simply unrealistic and something that does not happen anymore on modern teraces like in Germany. 

(P.S.: Oh, and just because at some point you once claimed you knew all the regulations involved so well. How about you start looking up some scientific research and evidence on how modern barriers placed densely enough in terracing stands actually really do effectively prevent avalanches and crowd movements from being dangerous.
Because there is plenty of research on that which shows how crushing or "wavebreaker" barriers have to look and be placed to be effective and that they are very effective when built and placed according to modern standards. 
You could really learn something if you read a little into some of that scientific research on crowd dynamics crowd behavior and crowd behavior in panic situations etc... )


----------



## Leedsrule (Apr 6, 2010)

I Can't even be bothered to read that yet alone respond to it. I thought we were dropping this? Because you lot might consider my arguments ridiculous but im not the only one who thinks it and for now at least the law agrees.


----------



## Alemanniafan (Dec 15, 2008)

Leedsrule said:


> I Can't even be bothered to read that yet alone respond to it. I thought we were dropping this? Because you lot might consider my arguments ridiculous but im not the only one who thinks it and for now at least the law agrees.


Yeah go ahead and feel free to keep ignoring the facts, as you have all through the discussion. Just don't expect anyone to take you serious anymore.


----------



## Leedsrule (Apr 6, 2010)

Alemanniafan said:


> Yeah go ahead and feel free to keep ignoring the facts, as you have all through the discussion. Just don't expect anyone to take you serious anymore.


If there was only facts which supported safe standing, then the government would have changed the law. There must be a decent amount of credibility behind the argument that all seaters are safer otherwise the government *would* have changed the law. I know you don't agree but that's how it is. 

From a quick scan of your big post above it looks like youre saying pitch invasions are more common in the seated part of your stadium, but didn't you say yourself that the terraced section has a fence around it and the seated section doesn't? That answers your own question then. 

You and everyone else keep spouting nonsense about how I have no facts behind my argument, but you haven't actually proved anything ive said to be wrong using hard facts, you might say avalanches don't happen in terraces but can you *prove* that they cant and wont happen? Of course not. I can prove that you were wrong about terracing being law. That's the difference, you need hard proof like that. And because your argument and the FSF's argument is mostly powered by opinions and doesn't cover all of the drawbacks of terracing. For example I still haven't seen a decent argument to reply to the fact it is harder to police a terrace than an all seated stand. And the lower leagues prove this to be the case already. That reason alone is enough to prevent any sort of terracing being introduced. 

So can we you drop it? If youre so passionate go and email the government, someone who can make a difference. You will never persuade me and even if you did it wouldn't mean anything. Make a difference and stop arguing on here if you actually want it to change.


----------



## Immunda Leodis (Aug 10, 2008)

It's incredibly naive to think that government policy and legislation is based entirely on facts alone.


----------



## matthemod (Apr 8, 2008)

It's like I've said time and time again, the ban on terracing in the top two tiers is based upon the knee-jerk reaction to Hillsborough, and the antiquated perception of hooliganism. It's based on a prejudiced idea that terraces breed anti-social behaviour, and turn normal citizens into violent thugs. 

The fans who wish for a return to terracing/safe standing do so to correct this prejudice, because they want to stand safely, in the same way that Rugby fans can. 

There's absolutely no logic to banning 1,500 people from standing on my clubs former terrace, but allowing 15,000 fans of the Bradford Bulls to stand, solely because of the sport they enjoy. It's prejudice, simple as that.

Gillingham Football Club - Priestfield Stadium 
*Illegal* (Now banned and replaced with a flimsy temporary stand)










Bradford Bulls - Rugby League
*Legal*


----------



## MarkJF (Apr 16, 2009)

Great Odsal pic Matt, an unusual angle. I have watched Championship level football there (before REDACTED) and I've been in there with 20000+ for Bulls v Rhino's derbies. To my knowledge, not one person has suffered any injury.................and why would they?


----------



## Immunda Leodis (Aug 10, 2008)

Funny how that old style terrace is still being used without anyone being killed or maimed on a regular basis. 

How much has that stand changed over the past 100+ years? Not very much I'm guessing!


----------



## Rev Stickleback (Jun 23, 2009)

Leedsrule said:


> As you can see from that picture you just posted, there are hundreds of fans at the front of the terrace by the fence.


No. They are stood on the terracing, filling the terracing, as anyone would expect on a full terrace. You can clearly see a gap between the people and the fence, showing they are not standing in the flat area.

You were wrong.

Show me something backing up your case? Oh no, you can't because you were wrong. Too bad.



> And can you provide me with a full list of every game youve ever been to which fans didn't move forward after goals were scored. And another list of games youve been to where incidents happened in all seated stands that wouldn't have happened if there was terracing? Dates and scores please too


So you can't supply any corroborating evidence there either?

So you were wrong there too.

That's OK though. You [REDACTED] after all. One who believes that drawing a few stadiums in google sketch-up means he's well on the way to becoming a [REDACTED].

No reason for anyone to be too hard on you.


----------



## Rev Stickleback (Jun 23, 2009)

MarkJF said:


> Great Odsal pic Matt, an unusual angle. I have watched Championship level football there (before Leedsrule was born) and I've been in there with 20000+ for Bulls v Rhino's derbies. To my knowledge, not one person has suffered any injury.................and why would they?


Yeah, but just imagine if some of the players had started kicking a round ball about. It could have been lethal.


----------



## Immunda Leodis (Aug 10, 2008)

There seems to be an interesting definition of the word 'proof' being used here.


----------



## Rev Stickleback (Jun 23, 2009)

ah..not true.

Your claim (surrounding the amount of people "crushing" against the barrier at [Redacted]) was "...because there were only 500-1000 people in the terrace. But imagine if there had been 10 times that at a premier league stadium."

Now, that terrace holds 25000, 25 times the number suggested as being on the terrace at [Redacted].

As you claimed over 100 were against the barrier at [Redacted], by your estimation there'd be 2500 at least against the fence, when there are none.

Hence you are wrong.


Quote a single bit of proof you've posted then.



So "every game you've ever been to" has had a goal avalanche?

You can't even name a few games you've been to where there's been one?


point one out and I'll let you know.

I mean, I can show you one who thinks he's being smart but is actually hanging himself when it comes to credibility by being embarrassingly obtuse and juvenile, but [REDACTED]


Maybe I will, but I know that designing something on google sketch-up and being a [REDACTED] are about as far apart as working on a school play and producing a west end musical.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

Seater stadia will always be safer. Standing should be banned by all FA under UEFA umbrella. 

Have any of you ever been to a tennis match? It is an interesting game, and the fans go there to watch it unfold instead of socializing with other people yelling and jumping as if they were on a music concert.


----------



## Kerrybai (Apr 29, 2013)

Suburbanist said:


> Seater stadia will always be safer. Standing should be banned by all FA under UEFA umbrella.
> 
> Have any of you ever been to a tennis match? It is an interesting game, and the fans go there to watch it unfold instead of socializing with other people yelling and jumping as if they were on a music concert.


Another supporter of the Nanny state. :lol:


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

^^ I support safety.

Moreover, stands are very discriminatory, they are populated by an audience that is 90% 20-30 year old males. Women were often harassed or just flat out told standing terraces "were not a place for ladies" back in the 1980s before the courageous Taylor report banned them. 

I just want supporters to be more like spectators and viewers with less noise, movement and mess.


----------



## Guest (May 6, 2014)

Suburbanist said:


> Seater stadia will always be safer. Standing should be banned by all FA under UEFA umbrella.
> 
> Have any of you ever been to a tennis match? It is an interesting game, and the fans go there to watch it unfold instead of socializing with other people yelling and jumping as if they were on a music concert.


I've been to the tennis. It's full of extremely old people, mostly ladies. Standing will come back to England, it's just a matter of when.


----------



## Kerrybai (Apr 29, 2013)

Suburbanist said:


> ^^ I support safety.
> 
> Moreover, stands are very discriminatory, they are populated by an audience that is 90% 20-30 year old males. Women were often harassed or just flat out told standing terraces "were not a place for ladies" back in the 1980s before the courageous Taylor report banned them.
> 
> I just want supporters to be more like spectators and viewers with less noise, movement and mess.


Why though? Why would you want to infringe on peoples desires and wishes? Safe standing would involved 5-10% of seats turned into standing room. Women and children can sit in seated areas if they do not feel comfortable standing. 

Plenty of football fans want to stand, I for one support allowing people to do as they wish provided it does not infringe on someone else's rights.

Also there is nothing unsafe about 'safe standing.' You can read over the last few pages for evidence of this. We all support safety.


----------



## Alemanniafan (Dec 15, 2008)

5portsF4n said:


> I've been to the tennis. It's full of extremely old people, mostly ladies. Standing will come back to England, it's just a matter of when.


Yeah and moreover very discriminatory ones too. Tennis stadia are populated by an audience that is 90% elderly. The minority of young 20-30 year old male spectators who have a habit of celebrating and shouting are often harrased or even flat out told to leave. :lol:


----------



## Immunda Leodis (Aug 10, 2008)

I've been to Dortmund twice. Once in the Sudtribune the other time in the seats at the other end and on both occasions supporters were able to move about freely at the front. 

It's not obvious from the photos but after the first few rows there is a break in the terrace, which is flat where loitering is prohibited. 

When you see people pictured stood in seating sections it always looks fuller and less ordered than when they are seated but that doesn't mean that there are more people in the same space and it can give a misleading perspective. Just see the example of shared away ends, which are sold out seating sections where home fans are sitting and away fans are standing and you'll see what I mean. 

The pictures of the Sudtribune are not completely aligned with the fences so I would be cautious about saying that the front row of fans is flush with the fence. 

@Leedsrule it would be great to see some of your stadium designs on here. Maybe you could use your renders and models to illustrate how they are safer than terraces? I'm sure others would love to check out your work.


----------



## MarkJF (Apr 16, 2009)

Immunda Leodis said:


> Funny how that old style terrace is still being used without anyone being killed or maimed on a regular basis.
> 
> How much has that stand changed over the past 100+ years? Not very much I'm guessing!


From memory......it was made 3 sided about a decade ago and the last significant investment were the crush bars, shown clearly in in Matts pic and below, these would have been installed 1984/85 in anticipation of Odsal hosting the world speedway final.

It still has a capacity of over 27000 (much reduced after the Taylor report) with only about 4000 seats (?). 37000 watched the 1985 speedway final and of course, it holds the record crowd for rugby league nearly 102569 for the 1954 Challenge Cup final, that's the official crowd, it was reputedly far larger (see pic).


----------



## Rev Stickleback (Jun 23, 2009)

Leedsrule said:


> Are you mentally ill??? Can you not see the people standing at the front of the terrace??? Ive illustrated this picture to show you. They yellow is the fence, the orange is the fans which as you can see are just behind the fence. The green is the other fans behind. At woking the Aldershot fans were in front of the fence. *Here, the fans are at the front of the terrace by the fence*. Quote what I said and youll see that I was not wrong.


That's the critical part. They were on the terrace. Those at [Redacted] weren't.

Just try to understand that if people are behind crush barriers, they won't be able to "surge" forward and press against the fence if a goal is scored.

If you have five steps of terracing in front of a barrier then only those people on those five rows could surge forward. It doesn't matter if there are 5000 or 25000 people behind them. The pressure from any theoretical surge won't get any greater.




> As you can see from this picture of the Imtech Arena the fence at the front is in the terrace. Hence fans can and do stand against it. As you can see they do in this image


Yes, people do stand against the fence.

It's just not the normal pattern of how fans take up positions on a terrace. Usually it's just kids (as in those photos) as they go there for a better view.


If the burden of proof has forced you to essentially water down your claim to "if a terrace is full, people will stand on the front steps of terracing" then you didn't exactly have an earth shattering point to begin with.




> I have made many points which are factual, although you lot say I haven't made 1 factual point.


the accusation was that you weren't backing up your claims with facts. You just demanded proof from anyone saying you were wrong instead.



> It is certainly not a fact that less people = more violence. I think you will find more crowd trouble in league 1 and 2 in terraces than in the ryman premier, which proves that more people generally equals more trouble.


Has that really been in doubt? Who wouldn't think trouble is more like with a crowd of 8000 than a game in front of 250?



> Did I say that?


Yes you did.


> From my experience, avalanches can happen after goals- not every goal but it dosent need to be every goal to be dangerous.


You then failed to name a single game where anything had happened, despite your "experience" of it happening.



> And the word 'avalanche' which started out in inverted commas was meant to mean people rushing forward after a goal is scored. That dosent happen in all seaters


No?

Try Bristol Rovers' goal at Wycombe, as an example, of a couple of weeks ago, from a seated area. That was at least as "bad" as what happened at [Redacted].

If you are looking for genuinely potentially serious examples from seats then no, I don't know of any. I don't know of any in modern european standard terracing either, but I'm not the one claiming they happen.



> but just watch a few highlight from woking games and you will often see the fans from the kre terrace rushing towards the front fence after scoring at that end.


...completely inconsequentially.



> It really does bother you doesn't it!!!  Now can we get back to the discussion...


It would bother me if it were true.

Alternatively, if your goal was to display your immaturity, lack of knowledge, lack of experience, lack of civility, lack of credibility, and to mark yourself out as an individual not worth having a meaningful discussion with, then well done. Victory is yours.

[REDACTED]


----------



## Immunda Leodis (Aug 10, 2008)

Have you got any section plans or other technical documents? As I said, it would be good if you could tie back your designs to the discussion around safety... it could be excellent exam preparation for you!

Fair play to you for knowing what you want to do at [REDACTED] but there's a long way to go beyond copying exiting stadiums in sketch up and completing A Levels, getting into a good University, Getting a good grade in [REDACTED], being able to stand out in the crowd and get a job in [REDACTED] with a practice that designs stadiums and will be able to give you the pieces of work, which will no doubt be considered flagship projects for the practice.


----------



## Leedsrule (Apr 6, 2010)

Edited.


----------



## Whalix (Oct 13, 2012)

Suburbanist said:


> ^^ I support safety.
> 
> Moreover, stands are very discriminatory, they are populated by an audience that is 90% 20-30 year old males. Women were often harassed or just flat out told standing terraces "were not a place for ladies" back in the 1980s before the courageous Taylor report banned them.
> 
> I just want supporters to be more like spectators and viewers with less noise, movement and mess.


I don't think I have ever seen a worse comment in my entire life. Less noise, movement and mess?! That is the whole part of stands, building an atmosphere. It is being the 12th man, spurring on your players, full of passion and desire. In other sports such as tennis, players may prefer silence and still-ness, but I've seen interviews with players who dread going to certain grounds because of their dullness..


----------



## 1887 Tyke (Nov 24, 2011)

Suburbanist said:


> the courageous Taylor report


:lol::lol::lol::lol:

Thatcher strikes again.


----------



## Kerrybai (Apr 29, 2013)

@Leedsrule I think we have all come full circle with this debate and I think we have all learned a lot. 

However I want to pick you up on this - 'People can go under or around crush barriers. Remember, there were crush barriers at Hillsborough...'

People didn't go under the barriers at Hillsborough ( at least I don't think they did ) The number of crush barriers at Hillsborough were inadequate, basically you could move in between them and there were not enough rows. 

I think we should separate discussions involving safe standing, old terracing and Hillsborough.


----------



## poguemahone (Apr 4, 2012)

Kerrybai said:


> @Leedsrule I think we have all come full circle with this debate and I think we have all learned a lot.
> 
> However I want to pick you up on this - 'People can go under or around crush barriers. Remember, there were crush barriers at Hillsborough...'
> 
> ...


It's impossible to go under or around them with safe standing too. People aren't arguing for the older style terracing to be reintroduced into grounds, but the 'safe standing' alternative. Standing in these is 10 times safer than standing in seated areas, which fans do anyway, most noticeably away fans. The only way someone could rush to the front is by going down the aisle, which is no different to if it was all seater, but if it was all seater you could also have people jumping seats down to the front after a goal etc.


----------



## MrYoung (Mar 4, 2008)

Ah I love this thread, so much entertainment!



poguemahone said:


> It's impossible to go under or around them with safe standing too. P*eople aren't arguing for the older style terracing to be reintroduced into grounds, but the 'safe standing' alternative*. Standing in these is 10 times safer than standing in seated areas, which fans do anyway, most noticeably away fans. The only way someone could rush to the front is by going down the aisle, which is no different to if it was all seater, but if it was all seater you could also have people jumping seats down to the front after a goal etc.



I on the other hand find 'safe standing' ridicilous and would actually argue for proper terracing. No, I'm not talking about crumbling terracing and rusty roof, but normal terracing with solid, evenly spaced crush barriers. It gives people freedom, but properly designed terracing also has sufficient barriers to prevent a large amount of people from rushing forward when celebrating a goal.




Leedsrule said:


> Did I say that? And the word 'avalanche' which started out in inverted commas was meant to mean people rushing forward after a goal is scored. *That dosent happen in all seaters, people stay in their little area*, but in my experience of terracing people certainly do move forward towards the fans when they score.


Does this include laying on your back on the seats two rows in front of where you were originally standing? Because I have tried that a few times, without actively seeking it.


I believe I have mentioned it before in this thread, but my club SK Brann, located in Bergen, Norway, removed 500 seats behind the goal last season. They installed crush barriers and extra steps so that what was before one row of seating became two rows of standing places. Capacity was increased from 500 seats to 1000 standing places. And guess what, I have never felt safer celebrating a goal! Yes, there was a tiny rush where I was standing, but with only 6 rows of standing between each row of crush barrier no one was hurt. Before with the seats people would end up all over the place, tripping over seats and ending up laying in a seating row or two below.

Here are two pictures I took before the previous home game.


----------



## Alemanniafan (Dec 15, 2008)

^^
MrYoung, Your arguments and pictures impressively show us how standing in a modern seated section is certainly unsafe. And since stadiumseats - unlike modern car or aircraft seats - don't happen to have seatbelts preventing people from standing up and walking or even jumping around during matches, seated stands pose an intolerable safety threat. 

Terracing sections are naturally of course much safer than seated sections, because there are no seats to fall over or on to or to be broken and rip out thrown at stewards or police by vandalizing fans. 
Still Leedsrule has impressively presented an endless number of prejudices and assumtions claiming terracing to be unsafe. 
And especially the arument of increased ticket prices keeping troublesome fans out effectively is a very effective strategy to make stadia safer.

So as a conclusion, I must say the only reasonable solution to come to in terms of making stadia safer, is the introduction of modern VIP-only stadia. VIP-only stadia have no terracing and no seated section at all but only VIP boxes, which are well known to not only have the benefit of being the safest possible solution, but also financially the most beneficial option. And on top of that they certainly are the most comfortable way of enjoying soccer matches.

The UEFA should certainly and rigurously enforce all stadia in european contests to be VIP-only stadia, so that after all these years of fan troubles we can finally start getting to see soccer matches without the usual fan troubles on a regular basis. 

So let's have a big round of applause for the introduction of VIP-only stadia and finally declare this discussion settled with this most modern and groundbreaking perspective!


----------



## MrYoung (Mar 4, 2008)

Just to clarify, when I'm arguing for 'proper terracing' over safe standing, I completely understand that safe standing is as safe as it can possibly be. My opinion is that it is overly protective and that a properly designed terracing with properly designed crush barriers, both in terms of strength and placement, is not at all unsafe compared to standing in a seated area. Its easy to argue that the fans should sit down and not stand, but there is simply no way that is going to happen.

Oh, and here is how our section of the stadium looked like before it was changed to terracing. No doubt in my mind what is safer...


----------



## Alemanniafan (Dec 15, 2008)

double post


----------



## Alemanniafan (Dec 15, 2008)

^^
I totally agree with you and that is also why I believe the term safe standing is in a way kind of misleading. And it's not very surprising this term is only brought up and used in the UK and nowhere else in the world. 

After all the term safe standing indirectly implies propper modern terracing or regular modern terracing were in any way unsafe, which is certainly not the case. And nowhere else in the world but in the UK can one find such an intense popular discussion accompanied by campainging for and against terracing.

Instead of the invidious term "safe standing" the propper term used should infact much rather be "safe*r* standing".


----------



## poguemahone (Apr 4, 2012)

MrYoung said:


> Ah I love this thread, so much entertainment!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't find it unsafe either. But I guess I'm arguing from a English football point of view, where they can ticket each person appropriately. I can't see the FA wanting standing areas General Admission but rather each individual person having a designated spot which the 'safe standing' allows. Much easier to manage a crowd if people are in their allocated spots.


----------



## smolki (Oct 24, 2010)

does someone have a foto of seating/standing system in BayArena and Stuttgart stadium? Or maybe know what company delivered this?


----------



## Leedsrule (Apr 6, 2010)

Well to be honest if you don't believe that people glory-hunt then there's no point me continuing this, but assuming you do understand that a lot of people support teams because they are good....

If people in Exeter or [Redacted] or wherever support their local team, they can stand up! My point is that rather than complaining about the fact you cant stand at a top level game, why don't you go and watch a local game where you can stand?

My point isn't the same as my earlier ones, this is simply opinion. You wont hear the government using this argument (Or the FA, as they don't give a shit about local teams) but it is a fact that the majority of Chelsea fans don't like in Chelsea and therefore have teams far more local to them who they could support. And there's a very high chance that a stadium near them has a terrace.

The reason I have this opinion is the sort of fans who support a team because they are good are the sort of fans who should sit on a comfy padded seat at the Emirates. _In my opinion_ they aren't *proper* football fans, who should be standing on a proper terrace with other proper fans. People argue that introducing terracing to the prem will improve the atmosphere, but if the club had proper football fans there would be noise even in an all seater. In non league we still sing at the few all seaters there are. 

To be honest my opinion dosent just spread over the premier league- it is simply the top, maybe, 10 teams. If Hull or Palace get terraces I wouldn't mind because I see them as proper teams with proper fans. You wont find many people in Exeter choosing to support Palace because they are good. But the amount of plastic fans the top clubs have is ridiculous (and believe me I know a lot of them) and I don't see them as proper fans at all. Now I know your reply to this post will be "why" "you don't care about safety at all" "youre just being stupid" "your stadium designs are shit" but I do also think you and a lot of other plastic premier league fans don't actually realise what its like to stand in a packed terrace. Ok, maybe if you do at the moment week in week out in Germany, but like ive said british fans are different and im not sure they could cope going from comfy all seaters with everyone having their own personal space to a packed terrace where there will be like 5 people per sqm in some places and I genuinely think that could be dangerous among fans who aren't used to it.

Remember 'avalanche' was in inverted commas, fans do run to the front when a goal is scored and for proof of that watch a video of woking fans away and most home games too, if they are in a terrace they will rush forward and against Aldershot and the like when the terrace was full you could really feel it and it wasn't comfortable. Probably even less so in the Aldershot end.

Now I understand that you disagree with me and every point I make, even if I make a point which is absolute common sense someone disagrees. Proof of that is when I posted proof that terracing is law and people were still arguing against it. That's not the only time its happened. So I would be surprised if one of you now comes on and disagrees that Palace and Hull should be allowed terracing, or you'll disagree and say fans always support their local teams and every Chelsea fan lives in Chelsea. Or you'll disagree (with each other) over whether regular terracing is better than railseats- or maybe youll argue that its impossible to duck under regular terrace barriers and like Heysel showed those barriers are completely effective. I don't even care but ive been bored with this argument for some time and like Ive said you lot should direct your 'facts' at the prime minister because even if you convinced me, which you wont, nothing will change.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

Maybe England (and some other European countries) just have too many professional football clubs for what the market can bear, in a context where hyper-local loyalties have long been lost (robbing them of a viable neighborhood market).


----------



## Kerrybai (Apr 29, 2013)

This debate has gotten very bizarre.


----------



## Rev Stickleback (Jun 23, 2009)

Leedsrule said:


> Well to be honest if you don't believe that people glory-hunt then there's no point me continuing this


Nobody at all claimed that.



> If people in Exeter or [Redacted] or wherever support their local team, they can stand up! My point is that rather than complaining about the fact you cant stand at a top level game, why don't you go and watch a local game where you can stand?


So Leeds fans from Leeds who want to stand should go and watch Guiseley or Farsley instead, despite having no connection to those towns?





> but I do also think you and a lot of other plastic premier league fans don't actually realise what its like to stand in a packed terrace.


so who here is a plastic premier league fan?

Who here, other than you, hasn't stood on packed terrace many times?



> Ok, maybe if you do at the moment week in week out in Germany, but like ive said british fans are different and im not sure they could cope going from comfy all seaters with everyone having their own personal space to a packed terrace where there will be like 5 people per sqm in some places and I genuinely think that could be dangerous among fans who aren't used to it.


ah, so we are back to opinions again

When fans of premier league clubs get drawn away to smaller clubs and stand on terraces, they seem to cope well enough. Maybe you know differently.



> Now I understand that you disagree with me and every point I make, even if I make a point which is absolute common sense someone disagrees.


The problem is it's not "common sense". It's just your opinion, and it's an opinion not based on experience.

It's as if you are involved with the Football Licencing Authority, who dream up a variety of weird and wonderful things that could happen if fans stood up, and won't accept their ideas are a bit silly. People could potentially topple forwards creating a domino effect avalanche down a seated section, and that is enough to declare it dangerous. The fact that it doesn't happen, and has never happened, doesn't count. They've decided there's a potential danger, and their opinion is all that matters.



> maybe youll argue that its impossible to duck under regular terrace barriers


It's certainly possible to duck under barriers. It's just a lot more difficult on a packed terrace, and there's also little incentive to do so as the people in front won't be surging forward, because crowds on packed terraces don't all run to the front when a goal goes in. It just does not happen.

Non league games, where there a few barriers and few fans, are very different.


----------



## Rev Stickleback (Jun 23, 2009)

Suburbanist said:


> Maybe England (and some other European countries) just have too many professional football clubs for what the market can bear, in a context where hyper-local loyalties have long been lost (robbing them of a viable neighborhood market).


That potentially makes sense if you look at London, and say it's hard for Dagenham and Orient to gain supporters.

It becomes a little less convincing when you look all the towns around the country who have a team, but have no other obvious team to support if their town's club didn't exist.

It's also the sort of thinking that makes sense somewhere like the USA or Australia, where to a large extent you have large cities a few hundred miles apart, with suburban towns around them.

Someone in San Jose might thing a San Francisco team represent their area. Someone in Gillingham, I'd imagine, wouldn't think any London club represents theirs.


----------



## matthemod (Apr 8, 2008)

Rev Stickleback said:


> Someone in San Jose might thing a San Francisco team represent their area. Someone in Gillingham, I'd imagine, wouldn't think any London club represents theirs.


As someone from Gillingham, it's more so that there are plenty of people willing to pitch their flag to the masts of London teams, but for varying reasons.

Arsenal and Chelsea are obvious.

West Ham, Millwall and Charlton are all based quite often because families from East and South London moved out to Gillingham and family loyalties still run true.

Overall at my school, the best yardstick of measuring club support, it was around about 20% Gills, 15% Charlton, 15% Millwall, 15% West Ham, and the rest Arsenal/Chelsea/Man Utd/Liverpool.

As mentioned earlier however, the vast majority of these latter fans will openly support Gillingham as a "2nd team", and will go along to the odd game and ask how "we" did on Monday morning.


----------



## Guest (May 15, 2014)

matthemod said:


> As mentioned earlier however, the vast majority of these latter fans will openly support Gillingham as a "2nd team", and will go along to the odd game and ask how "we" did on Monday morning.


Which is natural. Theres no reason why one shouldnt follow the team from their area, and one that competes at the top level. If those two overlap, thats great, but for most thats not the case.


----------



## The Sloth (Nov 4, 2011)

Suburbanist said:


> Maybe England (and some other European countries) just have too many professional football clubs for what the market can bear, in a context where hyper-local loyalties have long been lost (robbing them of a viable neighborhood market).


Maybe England, and some other European countries? What????

It's every other country in Europe/ROW that struggles to garner support for provincial small town clubs, but not England. 

Why people are using England as an example of a country which has poor support for local teams is completely baffling?!


----------



## The Sloth (Nov 4, 2011)

Leedsrule said:


> ...My point is that rather than complaining about the fact you cant stand at a top level game, why don't you go and watch a local game where you can stand?


So you're saying people from Stretford/Old Trafford/Chorlton/Urmston who support Man Utd aren't proper football fans? Who should they support, who's more local? Who do you think made Old Trafford the fabled venue it is? Why shouldn't a standing terrace be provided for the people who want to stand and sing? Are you saying that Man United is only for out of towners/The Prawn Sarnie Brigade? This is supposedly a democratic country, if fans want to stand why shouldn't they?



Leedsrule said:


> ...the sort of fans who support a team because they are good are the sort of fans who should sit on a comfy padded seat at the Emirates. _In my opinion_ they aren't *proper* football fans, who should be standing on a proper terrace with other proper fans.


What about the fans who support a team who just happen to be good? Surely they have the right to stand? Who's to say a mediocre team now won't be table toppers in 5 years time? Do fans turn into glory supporters when their team becomes good?



Leedsrule said:


> People argue that introducing terracing to the prem will improve the atmosphere, but if the club had proper football fans there would be noise even in an all seater. In non league we still sing at the few all seaters there are.


Yes, introducing terraces would improve atmosphere, and keep like minded fans together.



Leedsrule said:


> To be honest my opinion dosent just spread over the premier league- it is simply the top, maybe, 10 teams. If Hull or Palace get terraces I wouldn't mind because I see them as proper teams with proper fans. You wont find many people in Exeter choosing to support Palace because they are good. But the amount of plastic fans the top clubs have is ridiculous (and believe me I know a lot of them) and I don't see them as proper fans at all.


I've never heard as much rubbish in all my life?! Your statement is insulting to all the good fans of the top sides.

Again, are you telling everyone it's impossible to be a local fan of a top flight team? That it's not possible to support a top flight side and be a proper football fan?


----------



## Leedsrule (Apr 6, 2010)

Rev Stickleback said:


> So Leeds fans from Leeds who want to stand should go and watch Guiseley or Farsley instead, despite having no connection to those towns?


Fucks sake, read what I said. Of course not, but I did say _Of course if you live in Chelsea and support Chelsea then I cant complain_. i also mentioned tat it was only the top clubs with gloryhunting fans who I disliked, if i'm ok with Palace having standing then that obviously applies to all championship sides with 'proper' fans. This is what I mean that you are just arguing with everything I say whatever it is.



> so who here is a plastic premier league fan?
> 
> Who here, other than you, hasn't stood on packed terrace many times?


You might not be a plastic fan but you certainly are blind, as i'm sure I mentioned that I have stood on packed terraces 'many times', although I wouldn't expect you to remember as you don't actually read my posts you just quote random stuff and say "That's not true".



> ah, so we are back to opinions again
> 
> When fans of premier league clubs get drawn away to smaller clubs and stand on terraces, they seem to cope well enough. Maybe you know differently.


This entire argument is opinions. you may have people saying that railseats are 100% safe but if there was absolute proof that terracing is 100% safe then we would have re-introduced it. Simple as.

Even when they are drawn away to smaller grounds, which isn't common, the terraces they are in are not the size of the Kop. Anyway i'm sure one of you lot said that terraces like at woking aren't that safe, which would be proven by the barrier collapse which like Hillsborough had other factors but at the end of the day it happened on a terrace. Its difficult to argue with you lot because you all actually think different things. Some of you say all terracing is safe, some say anything they have in Germany is safe and some say only railseats are entirely safe. Im not sure`` which of them the FSF is in.



> The problem is it's not "common sense". It's just your opinion, and it's an opinion not based on experience.


It is common sense that if there are more people in a smaller area there are more likely to be problems with crowd control. Its just obvious, more people will mean more people who could do something stupid which means more chance of trouble. And yet im still facing some idiots that think that bigger crowds in a smaller area will mean *less *crowd trouble. People who think Milwall would be a safer place if more people were allowed in. What can I do.

Oh yeah and like I have mentioned *multiple* times, my opinion most certainly is based on experience.



> It's as if you are involved with the Football Licencing Authority, who dream up a variety of weird and wonderful things that could happen if fans stood up, and won't accept their ideas are a bit silly. People could potentially topple forwards creating a domino effect avalanche down a seated section, and that is enough to declare it dangerous. The fact that it doesn't happen, and has never happened, doesn't count. They've decided there's a potential danger, and their opinion is all that matters.


That sounds very similar to what I would say. It hasn't happened in an all seater. So why change? And we're back to the start.




> It's certainly possible to duck under barriers. It's just a lot more difficult on a packed terrace, and there's also little incentive to do so as the people in front won't be surging forward, because crowds on packed terraces don't all run to the front when a goal goes in. It just does not happen.
> 
> Non league games, where there a few barriers and few fans, are very different


Ok so this comes back to the point above about what level do you see terraces being safe. You clearly understand this could be a problem at non league level. but in actual fact I think you'll find the terraces at non league level, most of them anyway, are up to the same standards the ones in Germany are. Unless you can show some evidence that proves otherwise. But you say fans only rush forward when the terrace isn't packed, but look at [Redacted] Aldershot for example- when we scored the fans in the LGS (Big seated stand) stood up and cheered. Most didn't move an inch. The fans in the KRE moved sideways for a start, towards the Aldershot fans, and forwards towards the players on the pitch. And that terrace wasn't even fill to capacity. That isn't the only example, its just the most recent. I believe that when a big goal is scored fans do move forward and certainly a lot more so than in seated stands.


----------



## Rev Stickleback (Jun 23, 2009)

Leedsrule said:


> You might not be a plastic fan but you certainly are blind, as i'm sure I mentioned that I have stood on packed terraces 'many times', although I wouldn't expect you to remember as you don't actually read my posts you just quote random stuff and say "That's not true".


You've said you have, but haven't yet named a single game. You instead go on about [Redacted] v Bromley as if it's in any way similar.



> if there was absolute proof that terracing is 100% safe then we would have re-introduced it. Simple as.


The FLA won't accept any proof. There arguments are very similar to yours, strangely enough, in that they won't accept what happens in Germany as proof.

They even went on a fact-finding mission to Germany, and agreed that terracing in Germany (real terracing) was safe, but said they were still unconvinced it would be ok here. They didn't give a reason why.



> Even when they are drawn away to smaller grounds, which isn't common, the terraces they are in are not the size of the Kop.


What difference does that make?

This is why I keep asking about the big packed terraces you've been on, as you don't seem to understand the dynamics of large crowds at all. It's why you keep saying stuff about big terraces meaning loads more fans down the front, and far more fans surging forward when goals are scored.




> Its difficult to argue with you lot because you all actually think different things.


Yes. Remarkably different people don't have the same opinion.




> That sounds very similar to what I would say. It hasn't happened in an all seater. So why change? And we're back to the start.


That's the FLA's thinking behind banning standing in seated areas, not terracing.





> but in actual fact I think you'll find the terraces at non league level, most of them anyway, are up to the same standards the ones in Germany are.


Most of them are far more slack than Germany terracing, mainly in the provision of crush barriers, where there are far fewer.



> But you say fans only rush forward when the terrace isn't packed, but look at [Redacted] Aldershot for example- when we scored the fans in the LGS (Big seated stand) stood up and cheered. Most didn't move an inch. The fans in the KRE moved sideways for a start, towards the Aldershot fans, and forwards towards the players on the pitch. And that terrace wasn't even fill to capacity.


When a big terrace is full, it's much harder to move about in the same way. As a consequence people don't move about in the way they do at non league games, where the difference between the back and front of the terrace is about six steps.

Anyone with experience of being in even fairly large terraces with a big crowd would know that. Or do you really think that in the old days, when Aston Villa scored at the Holte End, fans would push through the crowds and duck under 30 different crush barriers to get to the front?



> That isn't the only example, its just the most recent. I believe that when a big goal is scored fans do move forward and certainly a lot more so than in seated stands.


The front few rows_ in front of the first barrier_, may rush forward, but pretty much nobody else.


----------



## SteveCourty (Mar 14, 2013)

I go to maybe 35 live games a season mainly lower league as I support my local team. I am a Liverpool fan but as I live miles away from anfield I watch Swindon town as I believe both in supporting your local team and the fact I can't afford to go to anfield every week, nor can I get many tickets! Anyway 99% of grounds you can stand as generally the away support is more of the vocal variety on the rare occasion you have to sit the atmosphere is normally dire. It leads to one thought to me.... You can't sing sitting down. Luckily where my season ticket at the county ground is is full of standing and singing despite the ground being an all seater. Top level doesn't get this bonus though so they need to reintroduce terracing or safe standing. Imagine anfield with a kop like the old days? Awesome! Not only that but look at the German clubs who have a terrace then bolt seats on for the European games surely that's the way forward?


----------



## Kerrybai (Apr 29, 2013)

Medics attending to injured fans in Spain. Any thoughts at his LeedsRule? Happened in a seated stadium! I thought they were supposed to be safer?

Safe Standing would have prevented this.


----------



## Leedsrule (Apr 6, 2010)

Kerrybai said:


> Medics attending to injured fans in Spain. Any thoughts at his LeedsRule? Happened in a seated stadium! I thought they were supposed to be safer?
> 
> Safe Standing would have prevented this.


I don't see how terracing would have helped anything here, I think the same thing would have happened. Neither of us can prove it either way, we will never know, that's why this discussion is pointless.


----------



## Immunda Leodis (Aug 10, 2008)

With Ellis Park and now this there is very little or no integrity on the argument that seating is safer than standing.


----------



## matthemod (Apr 8, 2008)

Leedsrule said:


> I don't see how terracing would have helped anything here, I think the same thing would have happened. Neither of us can prove it either way, we will never know, that's why this discussion is pointless.


That's as close to an admission that he accepts he isn't completely infallible that we're going to get. :lol:


----------



## Leedsrule (Apr 6, 2010)

Immunda Leodis said:


> With Ellis Park and now this there is very little or no integrity on the argument that seating is safer than standing.


But you use Ellis Park in the same way I can use Hillsborough, Heysel or Gremio. 

Matthemod I am just so bored of this argument now.


----------



## Immunda Leodis (Aug 10, 2008)

Leedsrule said:


> But you use Ellis Park in the same way I can use Hillsborough, Heysel or Gremio.
> 
> Matthemod I am just so bored of this argument now.


How the hell can you? You use the example of crushing to claim standing is unsafe and then completely ignore that similar occurances have taken place in all seater stadiums. 

Do you have any concept of logic?


----------



## Kerrybai (Apr 29, 2013)

Leedsrule said:


> I don't see how terracing would have helped anything here, I think the same thing would have happened. Neither of us can prove it either way, we will never know, that's why this discussion is pointless.


The rails used in safe standing would prevent a pile up of people. :banana:


----------



## Jim856796 (Jun 1, 2006)

At a major football stadium with extensive standing terraces, like the Westfalenstdion in Germany, how many times a year would such a stadium switch between a standing-and-seated format and an all-seater format for international matches, for example Champions League games, etc.?

Also, can a stadium keep its rail seating for international matches, like the FIFA World Cup or any of the UEFA Finals, just to avoid having to switch between standing/seated and all-seater formats for such fixtures?


----------

