Terracing to return?

keane2097

No

flahavaj wrote: »

Boggles getting pulverised here tbh.

lol

Pro. F

No

wobblyknees wrote: »

Here is a picture of a safe standing area (minus the chalk on the ground):

I did NOT know that that's what safe terracing looks like. That looks excellent. I presume that there's no big barrier between the crowd and the pitch either?

I totally get where Boggles is coming from that all seaters have a 100% safety record and so shouldn't be changed. Also that just because something works in Germany doesn't mean it will work anywhere else - seriously Germans are just on a different planet in terms of organisation and civic responsibility.

But now that I've seen that picture of safe terracing I can understand how it can be safe. If it's going to be like that then I'm all for it.

The Sparrow

Don't care

I've never really understood the appeal of terraces tbh. I mean most terraces are located behind a goal which is the worst place in a stadium to watch a game. I'd always prefer to be somewhere around the halfway line towards the front of a higher tier so you have a good view of the whole pitch.

I used to stand on the north and south terrace of Lansdowne back in the day and it was annoying standing for a whole game. I prefer a decent seat anyday!

Although the improved terraces that have been shown here look pretty safe so Ii would have no real problem bringing it back on a limited basis for those that are interested.

Mitch Connor

No

The atmosphere is generally a lot better in the goal ends then the main stands. Particular the hardcore ends (Kop at Liverpool, Stretford End at United, Shed End - i think - at Chelsea for example).

The view isn't as good as it would be on the halfway line, but the experience is better and the view isn't really that bad. I certainly prefer to be behind the goal for the reason of a better atmosphere.

wobblyknees

Pro. F wrote: »

I did NOT know that that's what safe terracing looks like. That looks excellent. I presume that there's no big barrier between the crowd and the pitch either?

I totally get where Boggles is coming from that all seaters have a 100% safety record and so shouldn't be changed. Also that just because something works in Germany doesn't mean it will work anywhere else - seriously Germans are just on a different planet in terms of organisation and civic responsibility.

But now that I've seen that picture of safe terracing I can understand how it can be safe. If it's going to be like that then I'm all for it.

If there is no big barrier between seats and the pitch, why would there in front of a safe standing area?

flahavaj

Don't care

I wonder would clubs be opposed to this on the grounds that they'd probably have to charge less for terraced tickets? (just going by GAA prices here, maybe it'd be different for soccer?).

wobblyknees

flahavaj wrote: »

I wonder would clubs be opposed to this on the grounds that they'd probably have to charge less for terraced tickets? (just going by GAA prices here, maybe it'd be different for soccer?).

But they'd also get more people into the ground.

Pro. F

No

wobblyknees wrote: »

If there is no big barrier between seats and the pitch, why would there in front of a safe standing area?

yup fair enough

flahavaj

Don't care

wobblyknees wrote: »

But they'd also get more people into the ground.

True I suppose. I suppose it'd balance out. I was just thinking of the German model and photo,where you have a designated spot for each person which would mean you wouldn't get many more in as you would sitting.

I bet the Glazers will try to get people to stand on each others' shoulders so they can pack a few more hundred in.:pac:

Boggles

Don't care

keane2097 wrote: »

What's the conspiracy theory? You had no problem suggesting that the move to bring back terraces was a political stunt, I'm just suggesting the move to get rid of them was a political stunt.

You have a theory that the government brought in these changes recommended by an independant commission to appease the angry public and grieving families. Now unless you have some proof or some sort of factual evidence to back up your claim, then yes it is a theory and because a government is involved it usually is defined as a conspiracy theory.

The Lib Dems are promising the sun, moon and the stars for "A Fairer Britain". They have been quite clever in looking at an issue heavily favoured by the "working man" and made it one of their main "plans" in their manefesto.

Now you could argue I am being a conspiracy theroist claiming the Lib Dems are just trying to curry votes by promising changes they have no intention of bringing in if they get into power.

Maybe I am. Like I said though you don't have to look back that far to see Blair and his labour were promising the exact same thing when they were in the Lib Dems position. No sooner were they in, when it was dismissed at a crazy notion.

Not every recommendation in the Taylor Report was implemented by the government of the time, in fact quite a lot of it was dismissed. The government subsidised stadia changing from Terrace to seating costing millions.

Who will pay for it now?

Government are broke, Clubs are broke?

FIFA and UEFA won't be dictated to by any government. Do these seating areas simply get closed off during European or International matches? What will that do to attendance figures for the more lucrative competitions?

What is the logistics and expense of bringing in Temporary sitting?

Simply put, who foots the bill.?

At a guess, the already stretched football fan, who will either get it in ticket prices or taxes one way or another.

keane2097 wrote: »

So go ahead and roll your eyes, but your rolling them at yourself kid

Oh the irony!

keane2097 wrote: »

Clearly, this is what you're doing here, as you're flat-out ignoring direct statements from experts saying unequivocally that terraces are safe and bad procedures are a problem.

I would not trust any "expert" that claims anything which involves upwards of 100,000 people congregating in a small area as safe. As I already said there is varying degrees of safety, with nothing been 100% safe.

As it stands I don't need any expert to tell me what is the safer option. As it is undoubtedly seated arena. Health and Safety by its very nature strives for "overkill". They try and elimate "what ifs"

See the Volcanic Ash Cloud last week as a glaring recent example.

keane2097 wrote: »

You're just trying to get me to say I've never been to a terraced match in Britain as though that will win you the argument or something. I've been to terraced matches in Ireland, England and Wales in four different sports.

I enjoy the atmosphere more when I'm in a terrace. That's the benefit.

Again, what you're hoping to tell me is that the atmosphere in English soccer terraces will be less enjoyable because I'll be intimidated by rough elements.

The solution to this is not related to whether or not a terrace exists.

I'm not trying to get you to say anything.

I was merely trying to establish why you are so passionately in favour of bringing back terraced football grounds in Britain.



I have no idea what stadium that is.

But are they not seats?

Looks to be that they take up the exact same amount of space a normal seat would take up.

I would have absoutely no problem with the above setup.

I'd have 2 question though.

Can you get more people in to a stadium with that set up?

And

Does it meet Fifa and Uefa rules?

Mitch Connor

No

Boggles wrote: »

I'd have 2 question though.

Can you get more people in to a stadium with that set up?

And

Does it meet Fifa and Uefa rules?

Question 1 - yes.

(ratio seated to standing)1:1.6
at the Veltins Arena, 1:1.94 at Signal Iduna Park
and 1:2 at the Weser Stadion.

Question 2 - no.

Safe standing area is converted to seated area (the seats you see in the pic) for Uefa games and Fifa games (World Cup)

FSF document. Sections 11.14 and 11.15

http://athens2007.fsf.org.uk/media/uploaded/safe-standing-report-web.pdf

Dempsey

No

I was merely trying to establish why you are so passionately in favour of bringing back terraced football grounds in Britain.

Terracing still exists in the UK





Just not allowed in the top 2 divisions.

What is the last disaster you heard that involved terracing in any sport?

keane2097

No

Boggles wrote: »

You have a theory that the government brought in these changes recommended by an independant commission to appease the angry public and grieving families. Now unless you have some proof or some sort of factual evidence to back up your claim, then yes it is a theory and because a government is involved it usually is defined as a conspiracy theory.

The Lib Dems are promising the sun, moon and the stars for "A Fairer Britain". They have been quite clever in looking at an issue heavily favoured by the "working man" and made it one of their main "plans" in their manefesto.

Now you could argue I am being a conspiracy theroist claiming the Lib Dems are just trying to curry votes by promising changes they have no intention of bringing in if they get into power.

Maybe I am. Like I said though you don't have to look back that far to see Blair and his labour were promising the exact same thing when they were in the Lib Dems position. No sooner were they in, when it was dismissed at a crazy notion.

Not every recommendation in the Taylor Report was implemented by the government of the time, in fact quite a lot of it was dismissed. The government subsidised stadia changing from Terrace to seating costing millions.

Who will pay for it now?

Government are broke, Clubs are broke?

FIFA and UEFA won't be dictated to by any government. Do these seating areas simply get closed off during European or International matches? What will that do to attendance figures for the more lucrative competitions?

What is the logistics and expense of bringing in Temporary sitting?

Simply put, who foots the bill.?

At a guess, the already stretched football fan, who will either get it in ticket prices or taxes one way or another.

Oh the irony!

I would not trust any "expert" that claims anything which involves upwards of 100,000 people congregating in a small area as safe. As I already said there is varying degrees of safety, with nothing been 100% safe.

As it stands I don't need any expert to tell me what is the safer option. As it is undoubtedly seated arena. Health and Safety by its very nature strives for "overkill". They try and elimate "what ifs"

See the Volcanic Ash Cloud last week as a glaring recent example.

I'm not trying to get you to say anything.

I was merely trying to establish why you are so passionately in favour of bringing back terraced football grounds in Britain.

Boggles the way you pick and choose little bits of posts to be pedantic about and completely abondon arguments where you're being shown to be wrong make you extremely tedious to debate with.

The commission, being the best experts we have, have said unequivocally that terraces are safe.

You initally tried to argue that the report was on your side, then when you were shown to be wrong you decided all of a sudden taht you "don't need any experts" to tell you what is safer.

I have two questions for you, I don't expect a straight answer so assuming I don't get one I won't bother posting here anymore:-

1. What are you basing your contention that seated stands are safer than terraces on besides a hunch of your own?

As it stands I don't need any expert to tell me what is the safer option. As it is undoubtedly seated arena.

The obvious extension to this question is what makes you qualified to make such a judgement ahead of people who we can all agree know a lot about the subject. I assume the answer to that is "nothing at all" so there's probably no need to pose the question.

2. What is it about seated stands that, assuming they are much safer as you contend, makes them safer? Specifically.

therecklessone

No

Boggles wrote: »

It wasn't all seated it was 50-50.

My apologies, you are correct.

Boggles wrote: »

Like the aviation industry which learn from every disaster and implement safety measures for the future. The same can be said for Stadia. The Procedures and rules are there for good reasons, not because the stewards like to act the dick.

Interesting you mention aviation...

Aviation safety standards are constantly evolving, largely driven by new technologies. The most recent safety scare in the industry was caused by volcanic ash from Iceland, and the fallout (pardon the pun) from that scare has shown that ICAO asked airlines, aircraft manufacturers, and engine manufacturers to decide on safe levels of volcanic ash to fly in and around a number of years ago, but they delayed based on a fear of litigation should their decision prove to be the wrong one.

The ICAO complained it had "proven difficult to get formal aviation representation" at workshops on the issue organised by the UN's World Meteorological Organisation. It suggested "input of the aviation industry to this problem may have to be sought" through its sub-group on volcanoes, which has industry representatives. It asked several groups, including the International Air Transport Association, Iata, representing 230 airlines, to prepare reports for the volcano group's next meeting at Lima in Peru last month.

Minutes for that meeting show the industry did not deliver. "Iata informed the group about the strong efforts made in order to get representation from the industry ... but unfortunately these efforts had not been successful, to the disappointment of the group."

Funnily enough the threat of bankruptcy encouraged a loosening of sphincters and we now have European aviation back to pre-volcano levels.

A little more clear cut is the introduction of RVSM: prior to it's introduction, aircraft flying above 29,000ft had to maintain 2,000ft vertical separation due to concerns about the accuracy of pressure altimeters as altitude increases. Following it's introduction, that vertical separation was reduced to 1,000ft for approved carriers, have a read about it here

Furthermore, longitudinal separation over the North Atlantic is currently procedural, based on time, because of the lack of radar monitoring. Continue the development and role out of satellite-based surveillance systems and that will allow for reduced separation minima, and increased capacity at optimum cruise levels on the ocean.

What does all this prove? That advances in technology and our understanding of how people and objects interact allow for greater understanding of safety standards, and allow us to adjust previously set minima within safe parameters. Our understanding of crowd dynamics, and stadium design, has advanced exponentially since the tragic events of Bradford, Heysel and Hillsbrough.

Refusing to accept there may be a sound case for safe terracing is a modern day luddism. Because it is safe now does not mean it cannot be safe with change in the future.

therecklessone

No

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

Its clear that grounds are safer to visit but again as Lucky Lloyd said would think there would be some strong opposition from Liverpool fans

Would you?

http://www.fsf.org.uk/campaigns/safestanding.php

One of the pleasing aspects of the season has been the emergence of fans taking the issue of standing to their clubs and campaigning in favour of it. Wycombe Wanderers hosted a Safe Standing day), while Liverpool and Bradford City fans have been pro-active in working with their club officials on the issue. And it is in this area that I hope the campaign will grow during the coming season.

First hit for a google search on "liverpool supporters safe standing"

http://forums.liverpoolfc.tv/archive/index.php/t-131022.html

I believe you frequent the site.

This from a man considered a sure thing on all things Liverpool in the meida:

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/everton-fc/everton-fc-news/2007/03/16/why-some-fans-are-standing-up-for-change-100252-18765566/

With a survey revealing 92% of football fans are in favour of bringing back standing on the terraces, Tony Barrett speaks to those touched by the tragedy of Hillsborough

JOHN Glover lost his 20-year-old son Ian on the terraces of Hillsborough.

So when the campaign to bring back terracing to British football stadia was re-ignited this week you might expect him to be one of its most vociferous opponents.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

“I’ve always said I am not against standing at games and nothing I have heard or read since Hillsborough has changed my mind,” says John, from Walton.

“But what I would say is that if it is brought back it has to be strictly controlled and there has to be a proper commitment that fences will not be introduced and that clubs will not look to pack fans in.

“I stood on the Kop for years and I never had a problem. I always felt safe, even though there were a couple of occasions when I felt uncomfortable, and the atmosphere was always better then than it is now.”

John’s belief that terraces can be safe has not been dented by what happened at Hillsborough. Rather, it has been bolstered by his knowledge of what happened on that fateful day on April 15, 1989 when 96 Liverpool fans lost their lives.

“If anyone studies what actually happened at Hillsborough they will realise that people died that day because of a breakdown in policing.

“It was nothing to do with standing in itself.”

Admittedly, he offers a conflicting perspective from another person who lost loved ones:

Jenni Hicks who lost daughters Sarah and Vicki at Hillsborough hopes the government sticks to its guns and is not swayed by the growing clamour for the re-introduction of terraces.

She says: “Lord Justice Taylor’s report set out a vision for football that would ensure there would be no more Hillsboroughs.

“The key recommendation, among others addressing the police reaction to the incident, was that terraces be removed and football stadiums become all-seater.

“For those there who watched in horror as the tragedy unfolded, it was clear that a combination of standing terraces with people caged in behind metal fences and the inability to monitor how many people were admitted into standing areas were all contributing factors causing the crush.

“A forward step was needed to improve the safety of football fans and all-seater stadiums were needed.

“The argument that the atmosphere is not the same if people are forced to sit pales into insignificance when you compare it to the increased safety seating provides.

“To see the re-introduction of standing terraces can only be a backwards step.

“Just like at Hillsborough, there is the chance that more and more fans will be pushed into standing areas, way beyond capacity set for that ground.

“And if that goes ahead we will simply recreate the conditions that will mean another Hillsborough is only a matter of time.

“If we create the same conditions will the authorities react again in the same way?”

Boggles

Don't care

keane2097 wrote: »

Boggles the way you pick and choose little bits of posts to be pedantic about and completely abondon arguments where you're being shown to be wrong make you extremely tedious to debate with.

Apolgies I trawled through your post to pick out the most coherent points and tried to debate them. By all means, post what you think I left out and again and I will endeavour to make sense from them.

If you could do the same, especially the bit about financing and the logistics of it, I'd be grateful. Also your thoughts on how Fifa and Uefa might deal with it?

keane2097 wrote: »

The commission, being the best experts we have, have said unequivocally that terraces are safe.

Amazing.

If the Taylor report stated terraces were unequivocally safe, why was their major recommendations vehemently in favour of eradicating them?

keane2097 wrote: »

1. What are you basing your contention that seated stands are safer than terraces on besides a hunch of your own?

Because I have experience of both.

keane2097 wrote: »

What is it about seated stands that, assuming they are much safer as you contend, makes them safer? Specifically.

Apart from the fact that seated stadium in britain have an impeccable safety record.

It's easier identify, control and disperse a crowd that is segregated into well layed out seating areas.

We know seated stadium work in Britain. Why change them, why take the chance? Simply question.

Why do you want terraces back?

Do you think it makes you a more hardcore fan if you stand in a disignated place for a game?

Do you think it will bring the youth back to the football grounds?

Do you think what would undoubtably be a heavily policed standing arangement will bring the atmosphere back to stadia that we experienced in the 70s and 80s?

Boggles

Don't care

therecklessone wrote: »

My apologies, you are correct.



Interesting you mention aviation...

Aviation safety standards are constantly evolving, largely driven by new technologies. The most recent safety scare in the industry was caused by volcanic ash from Iceland, and the fallout (pardon the pun) from that scare has shown that ICAO asked airlines, aircraft manufacturers, and engine manufacturers to decide on safe levels of volcanic ash to fly in and around a number of years ago, but they delayed based on a fear of litigation should their decision prove to be the wrong one.



Funnily enough the threat of bankruptcy encouraged a loosening of sphincters and we now have European aviation back to pre-volcano levels.

A little more clear cut is the introduction of RVSM: prior to it's introduction, aircraft flying above 29,000ft had to maintain 2,000ft vertical separation due to concerns about the accuracy of pressure altimeters as altitude increases. Following it's introduction, that vertical separation was reduced to 1,000ft for approved carriers, have a read about it here

Furthermore, longitudinal separation over the North Atlantic is currently procedural, based on time, because of the lack of radar monitoring. Continue the development and role out of satellite-based surveillance systems and that will allow for reduced separation minima, and increased capacity at optimum cruise levels on the ocean.

What does all this prove? That advances in technology and our understanding of how people and objects interact allow for greater understanding of safety standards, and allow us to adjust previously set minima within safe parameters. Our understanding of crowd dynamics, and stadium design, has advanced exponentially since the tragic events of Bradford, Heysel and Hillsbrough.

Refusing to accept there may be a sound case for safe terracing is a modern day luddism. Because it is safe now does not mean it cannot be safe with change in the future.

As for greater understanding of crowd dynamics, that maybe true.

There is absoutely no set of variables or equation that will forecast how a large crowd will react when faced with any sort of heightened trama.

There has been many books and reports written, but Mob mentality or Herd Behavior has yet to be explained to any satisfying level.

keane2097

No

Boggles wrote: »

If you could do the same, especially the bit about financing and the logistics of it, I'd be grateful. Also your thoughts on how Fifa and Uefa might deal with it?

I have no idea. The only point I've been arguing is the fallacious claim that seated stands are safer than terraces.

The logistics of reintroducing terraces to stadia is above my head tbh.

Boggles wrote: »

Apolgies I trawled through your post to pick out the most coherent points and tried to debate them. By all means, post what you think I left out and again and I will endeavour to make sense from them.

Great.

Now I've actually decided to not answer any of the rest of your post until we actually have you stop squirming your way around this point, because it's really the central issue.

Boggles wrote: »

Amazing.

If the Taylor report stated terraces were unequivocally safe, why was their major recommendations vehemently in favour of eradicating them?

You've insisted on acting as though this wasn't in the report:

The Taylor Report into the Hillsborough tragedy, in which 96 fans died, cited errant policing, poor stadium design and bad sign-posting as key factors, and added that standing was not intrinsically unsafe.

Unfortunately for your argument, that's what the report says.

I don't know why terraces ended up being removed, but the experts said - it's written there, see it? - standing at games is safe.

So you're basing your argument on false pretexts and a disingenuous suggestion that the experts agree with you, along with your own "experience".

In actual fact, only one of that triumvirate is really on your side, and that's your own inexpert opinion.

keane2097

No

Boggles wrote: »

There is absoutely no set of variables or equation that will forecast how a large crowd will react when faced when any sort of heightened trama.

There has been many books and reports written, but Mob mentality or Herd Behavior has yet to be explained to any satisfying level.

Whether or not they are near seats is of course completely irrelevant to this point.

Mitch Connor

No

Boggles wrote: »

Apolgies I trawled through your post to pick out the most coherent points and tried to debate them. By all means, post what you think I left out and again and I will endeavour to make sense from them.

If you could do the same, especially the bit about financing and the logistics of it, I'd be grateful. Also your thoughts on how Fifa and Uefa might deal with it?



Amazing.

If the Taylor report stated terraces were unequivocally safe, why was their major recommendations vehemently in favour of eradicating them?



Because I have experience of both.



Apart from the fact that seated stadium in britain have an impeccable safety record.

It's easier identify, control and disperse a crowd that is segregated into well layed out seating areas.

We know seated stadium work in Britain. Why change them, why take the chance? Simply question.

Why do you want terraces back?

Do you think it makes you a more hardcore fan if you stand in a disignated place for a game?

Do you think it will bring the youth back to the football grounds?

Do you think what would undoubtably be a heavily policed standing arangement will bring the atmosphere back to stadia that we experienced in the 70s and 80s?

Bradford Stadium fire - people in a seated area of the stadium died. The fact they were seated is as relevant to their deaths as the fact people were standing at hilsborough.

Boggles

Don't care

keane2097 wrote: »

I have no idea. The only point I've been arguing is the fallacious claim that seated stands are safer than terraces.

Right. I'm going to make it very easy.

In Britain all seated stadiums have a impeccable safety record. Thats a fact. You can't argue that, agreed?

Now you claim Terraces are just as safe. That maybe true. But you can't 100% confirm to me that they are just as safe as complete seated arena.

Agreed?

Even if they are 99% as safe? What is the acceptable cut off period?

Why take the chance. Seated arena work, they are safe and this has been proven.

keane2097 wrote: »

So you're basing your argument on false pretexts and a disingenuous suggestion that the experts agree with you, along with your own "experience".

In actual fact, only one of that triumvirate is really on your side, and that's your own inexpert opinion.

I'm basing my argument on reality and personal experience.

What exactly are your basing yours on?

One line in a report, a report whos main objective was to erradicate terraces.

Can you not see how ridiculous your arguement is?

Why do you want terraces back?

keane2097

No

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Bradford Stadium fire - people in a seated area of the stadium died. The fact they were seated is as relevant to their deaths as the fact people were standing at hilsborough.

Exaclty, I mean come on - what effect is the fact that you have a seat going to have on your behaviour in an emergency? Are you going to sit in your seat as flames lick their way towards you?

Of course not, you're going to scramble over the seats heading for the nearest exit immediately, exactly how you would in a terrace.

The only important thing is how the exits themselves are controlled by the groundstaff.

keane2097

No

Boggles wrote: »

Right. I'm going to make it very easy.

In Britain all seated stadiums have a impeccable safety record. Thats a fact. You can't argue that, agreed?

Now you claim Terraces are just as safe. That maybe true. But you can't 100% confirm to me that they are just as safe as complete seated arena.

Agreed?

Even if they are 99% as safe? What is the acceptable cut off period?

Why take the chance. Seated arena work, they are safe and this has been proven.



I'm basing my argument on reality and personal experience.

What exactly are your basing yours on?

One line in a report, a report whos main objective was to erradicate terraces.

Can you not see how ridiculous your arguement is?

Why do you want terraces back?

You're basing your argument on an incorrect assumption about impeccable records. As Mitch stated, people died in the seated area in Bradford.

Are you going to claim that there being a terrace in another part of the ground caused the deaths of the seated patrons?

EDIT:

Again your logic is mind-numbingly useless. The fact that there hasn't been an accident in an all-seated ground doesn't prove ANYTHING about their relative safety compared to any other type of ground.

How long have all-seated stadia even been in existence? Compared to how long there were all terraced stadia?

If I pick out an all terrace ground and tell you there has never ever been an accident there, by your logic that PROVES that the terrace ground is safer than a half-and-half setup like Bradford, which makes seated sections more dangerous than terraces.

By your logic, the Concorde was unimpeachably safe right up to the moment the first one crashed plunged into the ground in a fiery blaze. Your logic doesn't stand up to scrutiny at all.

If I setup a stadium and have a blacksmiths anvil that will drop from a height every game in a random place then this is by your logic exactly as safe as a regular ground as long as the anvil falls in a spot that doesn't happen to have any people on it. As soon as it does it's not as safe anymore. It's reactionary, flawed thinking that ignores the simple fact that human error and procedural flaws, and not the seating arrangement of the ground was to blame in this incident.

therecklessone

No

Boggles wrote: »

As for greater understanding of crowd dynamics, that maybe true.

There is absoutely no set of variables or equation that will forecast how a large crowd will react when faced with any sort of heightened trama.

There has been many books and reports written, but Mob mentality or Herd Behavior has yet to be explained to any satisfying level.

So explain to me why:

1. Football below Championship level does not require all-seater stadiums.
2. German league football does not require all-seater stadiums (remember, Dortmund have a terrace that holds more people than some PL stadiums can hold)
3. Terracing at GAA matches is considered OK.
4. Standing at concerts is OK.

I've been at concerts where I've feared for my life in the past (including the night a teenage girls died in the Point Depot during a Smashing Pumpkins gig, yet with changes in crowd control and stewarding we have been able to continue with standing at music events.

Boggles

Don't care

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Bradford Stadium fire - people in a seated area of the stadium died. The fact they were seated is as relevant to their deaths as the fact people were standing at hilsborough.

I was first to bring up the Bradford Fire on the thread and it was nothing to do with the arguement for and against terraces. For the record the seating at Bradford was 50/50.

I brought it up to explain why health and safety are sometimes seen as over zealous, as a tragedy as preventable as that happened only 25 years ago next month.

Like I have already stated several times, seats arn't there just for people to sit on, so we can sanitize crowds.

The benefits of seating arrangements bring order and management into crowd control. Also over crowding is a thing of the past as is congreating in large areas of grounds which minimise space and heighten the danger of accidents.

Boggles

Don't care

therecklessone wrote: »

So explain to me why:

1. Football below Championship level does not require all-seater stadiums.

Numbers. Your simply not going to get 50,000 people at league one match.

therecklessone wrote: »

2. German league football does not require all-seater stadiums (remember, Dortmund have a terrace that holds more people than some PL stadiums can hold)

Society, mentality, organisation. Oh and the cops have guns.

therecklessone wrote: »

3. Terracing at GAA matches is considered OK.

Healthy Rivalary.

therecklessone wrote: »

4. Standing at concerts is OK.

I've been at concerts where I've feared for my life in the past (including the night a teenage girls died in the Point Depot during a Smashing Pumpkins gig, yet with changes in crowd control and stewarding we have been able to continue with standing at music events.

And yet this summer, somewhere in europe someone will be killed attending a concert.

It brings me back to the question of acceptable risk?

keane2097

No

Boggles wrote: »

And yet this summer, somewhere in europe someone will be killed attending a concert.

It brings me back to the question of acceptable risk?

That's an argument for banning absolutely everything - from skiiing, to smoking to watching concerts.

Boggles

Don't care

keane2097 wrote: »

You're basing your argument on an incorrect assumption about impeccable records. As Mitch stated, people died in the seated area in Bradford.

Are you going to claim that there being a terrace in another part of the ground caused the deaths of the seated patrons?

EDIT:

Again your logic is mind-numbingly useless. The fact that there hasn't been an accident in an all-seated ground doesn't prove ANYTHING about their relative safety compared to any other type of ground.

How long have all-seated stadia even been in existence? Compared to how long there were all terraced stadia?

If I pick out an all terrace ground and tell you there has never ever been an accident there, by your logic that PROVES that the terrace ground is safer than a half-and-half setup like Bradford, which makes seated sections more dangerous than terraces.

By your logic, the Concorde was unimpeachably safe right up to the moment the first one crashed plunged into the ground in a fiery blaze. Your logic doesn't stand up to scrutiny at all.

If I setup a stadium and have a blacksmiths anvil that will drop from a height every game in a random place then this is by your logic exactly as safe as a regular ground as long as the anvil falls in a spot that doesn't happen to have any people on it. As soon as it does it's not as safe anymore. It's reactionary, flawed thinking that ignores the simple fact that human error and procedural flaws, and not the seating arrangement of the ground was to blame in this incident.

Again, why are you so in favour of bringing back Terraced Stadia or parts of Stadia.

Think this could be my 4th time asking.

Well?

keane2097

No

Boggles wrote: »

Again, why are you so in favour of bringing back Terraced Stadia or parts of Stadia.

Think this could be my 4th time asking.

Well?

Better atmosphere. I've said it about four times as well.

EDIT: I also so a general philosophical problem with things being banned for no good reason, I think it impinges on personal freedoms which I can't abide.

Boggles

Don't care

keane2097 wrote: »

That's an argument for banning absolutely everything - from skiiing, to smoking to watching concerts.

Rubbish.

It's an arguement for making seating mandatory at all events that see large people congregating.

If you ski, your flying down a hill at 60km an hour.

If you smoke you know your damaging your health.

If you go to a football match, your there to cheer on your team while safe in the knowledge that the chances of something happening to you is limited because of stringent health and safety policies.

Boggles

Don't care

keane2097 wrote: »

Better atmosphere. I've said it about four times as well.

Your only reason for wanting terraces back is that you think it will provide a better atmosphere?

How?

everdead.ie

keane2097 wrote: »

That's an argument for banning absolutely everything - from skiiing, to smoking to watching concerts.

This is so true sure watching tv and having your mobile in your pocket causes you to go sterile an argument can be made for everything personnaly I prefer all seaters but that's just preference

keane2097

No

Boggles wrote: »

Rubbish.

It's an arguement for making seating mandatory at all events that see large people congregating.

If you ski, your flying down a hill at 60km an hour.

If you smoke you know your damaging your health.

If you go to a football match, your there to cheer on your team while safe in the knowledge that the chances of something happening to you is limited because of stringent health and safety policies.

Driving a car, taking a bus, a plane, going to a nightclub, touching something you don't know is sanitised etc etc etc ad nauseum. I can go on and on and on if you'd like.

Boggles wrote: »

Your only reason for wanting terraces back is that you think it will provide a better atmosphere?

How?

No, my main reason is that I think they're safer than seated stands.

therecklessone

No

Boggles wrote: »

Numbers. Your simply not going to get 50,000 people at league one match.

Nonsense.

25k at Elland Road at the weekend, by law they could rip out all their seating and have them all standing.

You'll have to try harder.

Boggles wrote: »

Society, mentality, organisation. Oh and the cops have guns.

Nonsense. English authorities are at least as competent as their German counterparts, Britons are among the most surveilled people in the world and there are countless pieces of legislation used and misused by UK police forces to counter crowd disorder.

It's not as if German fans don't have a history of crowd violence as well.

Boggles wrote: »

Healthy Rivalary.

Nobody is suggesting we do away with segregation.

Boggles wrote: »

And yet this summer, somewhere in europe someone will be killed attending a concert.

It brings me back to the question of acceptable risk?

In what circumstances? I mean, someone will probably die on the roads this weekend, do we ban cars?

We cannot wrap everybody is bubblewrap.

Boggles

Don't care

keane2097 wrote: »

No, my main reason is that I think they're safer than seated stands.

keane2097

No

Boggles wrote: »

Well from my personal experience they're definitely safer.

Seated stadia are an accident waiting to happen imo. Imainge how many people will die when one goes on fire and nobody thinks to get out of their seat. At least in a terrace you'll be standing up so you'll probably head towards the exit.

flahavaj

Don't care

keano has had boggles on the ropes for some time now, but has failed to put him away. I sense a boggles comeback.:pac:

Boggles

Don't care

therecklessone wrote: »

Nonsense.

25k at Elland Road at the weekend, by law they could rip out all their seating and have them all standing.

You'll have to try harder.

I'm sure you'll find if they tried to do that they wouldn't be allowed.

Also Elland Road is an all seater stadium. Bad example.

What was the average attendance for League one matches at the weekend?

therecklessone wrote: »

Nonsense. English authorities are at least as competent as their German counterparts, Britons are among the most surveilled people in the world and there are countless pieces of legislation used and misused by UK police forces to counter crowd disorder.

How many football disasters have Germany had where the police were directly blamed to have aggrevated the situation?

therecklessone wrote: »

It's not as if German fans don't have a history of crowd violence as well.

Come off It, I'm not going down that road. They are nowhere near as bad as the english.

therecklessone wrote: »

In what circumstances? I mean, someone will probably die on the roads this weekend, do we ban cars?

We are not talking about cars. We are talking about large congreations of people and the fact is seating limits the chances of crushing. No?

keane2097

No

flahavaj wrote: »

keano has had boggles on the ropes for some time now, but has failed to put him away. I sense a boggles comeback.:pac:

I'd say he'll outlast me tbh.

He reminds me of Deepak Chopra actually - you can't beat him in an argument because he has epic stamina and has no problem persisting with demonstrably false claims.

Boggles

Don't care

keane2097 wrote: »

Well from my personal experience they're definitely safer.

Seated stadia are an accident waiting to happen imo. Imainge how many people will die when one goes on fire and nobody thinks to get out of their seat. At least in a terrace you'll be standing up so you'll probably head towards the exit.

Jesus how long does it take you to go from sitting to standing?

Nonsense arguement.

I know for a fact the seating arrangement at Old Trafford was designed with stadium evacuation as one of the main factors.

Boggles

Don't care

keane2097 wrote: »

I'd say he'll outlast me tbh.

He reminds me of Deepak Chopra actually - you can't beat him in an argument because he has epic stamina and has no problem persisting with demonstrably false claims.

Name just one false claim I have made and I will stop posting.

keane2097

No

Boggles wrote: »

We are not talking about cars. We are talking about large congreations of people and the fact is seating limits the chances of crushing. No?

DANGER - LOGIC - IGNORE IGNORE IGNORE IGNORE IGNORE

No it doesn't, because in the event of an emergency people - this is the important bit - get out of their seats.

On the way out of the ground *everybody* is standing - the only important variable is the control of the exits.

DANGER - LOGIC - IGNORE IGNORE IGNORE IGNORE IGNORE

Boggles

Don't care

keane2097 wrote: »

No it doesn't, because in the event of an emergency people - this is the important bit - get out of their seats.

On the way out of the ground *everybody* is standing - the only important variable is the control of the exits.

The interchange specifically mentioned concerts. Try stay on the same page lad.

The girl at the smashing pumkins concert wasn't killed because there was an emergency, She was crushed to death while the crowd surged.

Seating would have prevented this.

Mr Alan

No

its also worth noting Boggles, that it is permitted to stand during exciting incidents during the game.

Boggles

Don't care

Mr Alan wrote: »

its also worth noting Boggles, that it is permitted to stand during exciting incidents during the game.

Yes Alan, I know, thanks.

In fact I imagine this is exactly what safe terraced seating is. If your stray from your area you will be asked to move back.

Whats the point?

Mr Alan

No

Boggles wrote: »

Yes Alan, I know, thanks.

Don't mention it x x

*the point is, you keep repeatadly saying that standing is dangerous at football, its not, you keep talking about crushes etc, they simply don't happen like you seem to be thinking they do. Presumably these crushes happen at moments of excitement during the game, so its certainly worth noting the model which you are praising as safer currently has people standing during exciting moments during a game. For example yesterday you cited how you'd get pushed forward when a goal when in which is potentially dangerous, well, you wouldn't, no more so than people do already when goals are scored.

wobblyknees

I'm presuming most people agree that since stadiums were converted to all seater, the atmosphere at football matches has become very poor in general. It's only when large sections of fans choose to stand during a match that things get going. I liken many games in the premier league to going to the cinema. You pay for your ticket, get a nice comfy seat and if anyone stands up in front of you, you can moan about not being able to see the entertainment.

Boggles

Don't care

wobblyknees wrote: »

I'm presuming most people agree that since stadiums were converted to all seater, the atmosphere at football matches has become very poor in general. It's only when large sections of fans choose to stand during a match that things get going. I liken many games in the premier league to going to the cinema. You pay for your ticket, get a nice comfy seat and if anyone stands up in front of you, you can moan about not being able to see the entertainment.

What stadiums have you been in.

Usually the seating is hard plastic with a generic arse groove, the last thing I would describe it as is "Comfy".

keane2097

No

Boggles wrote: »

What stadiums have you been in.

Usually the seating is hard plastic with a generic arse groove, the last thing I would describe it as is "Comfy".

Typical - he makes a point about dampened atmospheres in grounds and you pick out the word "comfy" to have an argument about.

Do you really have nothing better to do?

flahavaj

Don't care

keano appears to have collapsed from exhaustion.

Boggles by highly dubious TKO in the 12th.

My new ambition is also to use the word "luddism" in an argument on boards in the next 7 days.