standupsitdown

No one should be unable to see the game because they prefer / have to sit, or are of short stature. But fans should have the choice to stand. There is a simple solution - separate those who want to sit from those who want to stand. Ideally safe standing / terrace areas, but if not simply sell seats at front for sitting and back for standing. (or even better, lower tier stand, upper tier sit). This would manage the uncontrolled standing that happens across the country and prevent the ongoing conflict between fans & stewards.

An Early Day Motion has been raised in Parliament with the aim to build support amongst MPs for a relaxation in the government’s stance to allow safe standing trials in the Premier League or Championship.   The Football Supporters’ Federation are urging supporters to contact their MPs to get them to sign this EDM. The more who sign the greater will be the pressure on the government to allow safe standing trials.   Please follow this link to read more, sign the petition and email your MP.   http://www.fsf.org.uk/campaigns/safestanding/index.php  

The Taylor Report blamed a number of factors for Hillsborough – poor policing, failure to plan, faults with the ground design, failure to learn from previous lesson etc – but it didn’t say the cause was standing. Taylor stated that the evidence he received was that there should be a reduction in standing (swap the 2:1 ratio of standing : seating capacities), he made many recommendations that made terraces safer, then recommended that they should all go. Not only at football but at all sports.   Much of the recent report was already in the public domain through the Taylor Reports & elsewhere, (indeed two chapters of my book say much the same as the new report but were written some time before it was published) ,but it is only now that the media and public have listened and know that it wasn’t the fans who caused the loss of life.   The Taylor Report is far from redundant – it made many good recommendations that make football safer (but many others that are conveniently ignored). However Hillsborough cannot reasonably be used as a reason why we should not have standing areas. If they are safe in Leagues One & Two, at rugby grounds and in Europe, why not in all grounds?

[quote user="standupsitdown"] Good to see a poll on front page of Pinkun. To answer post above - For rail seats seat numbers are only used when the seats are unlocked for European games. In standing mode people stand where they want within their allocated section. [/quote]   http://www.pinkun.com/home Currently 76% in favour of standing areas.

Good to see a poll on front page of Pinkun. To answer post above - For rail seats seat numbers are only used when the seats are unlocked for European games. In standing mode people stand where they want within their allocated section.

Excellent post by Kingsway. A few comments.   I went to a match at Stuttgart for research for the book and yes it was safe, with a far better atmosphere than at most English grounds.   There is no logical reason why the safety of a terrace should be related to the level of football on the pitch.   Causes of Hillsborough were complex but basically poor planning, policing, ground layout and most of all fences. And yes lives would have been lost with such over crowding in a seated area – as they were at Ellis Park   I was at the West Ham v Norwich quarter final (and the replay) but wasn’t aware of crushing in the Norwich section. The worst I ever experienced was QPR v West Ham in the cup, when too many fans were allowed in (sold out all ticket but club allowed others to pay at gate) . It’s described in the book but had there been fences at Loftus Road, Hillsborough wouldn’t have happened as there would have been deaths of West Ham fans.   I’m glad you say hooliganism was reducing before all seater. I have arrest figures in the book which back this up.   Hillsborough & the other disasters occurred before we had a proper safety culture. It is not only football that has become safer by taking more care over safety.   One correction on rail seats. Fans have tickets for a section but not necessarily a specific spot in that section.  

You can''t have Di Canio. We want him at West Ham - well some of us do.

[quote user="Yorkshire Canary"]I used to go to Hillborough as a boy well before the disaster. On more than one occassion i was squeezed in a crowd of people so i was moved along without my feet touching the floor it was really scarey. The Hillsborough disaster was terrible but such a thing was waiting to happen somewhere at sometime. For me i would never want to see standing take place in any great numbers again. I think memories are short and can also recall swaying to the crowd at various grounds whether you wanted to and also people pissing on others as it was too tight for them to go to the loo. The most important thing is despite  who we support and what opinions we hold we and our families can go to games in safety[/quote]   I''ve been in similar situations on terraces but what people don''t seem to be appreciating is that it is not proposed to return to the type of terraces that were at Hillsborough. Capacities were redcued after Hillsborough and the number of people allowed in a set area has been further reduced since then. There is no longer crushing on terraces. Turnstiles are computerised so it is not possible for too many people to enter the terrace. If there was a problem escape is easy (often easier than from seats) as there are no fences. The rail seats which are proposed for the top clubs have a rail on every row and it is hard to envisage how these can be unsafe. Supporters attend lower league grounds in safety. It is safe to stand at Peterborough yet an arbitary rule means they have to go all seated unless relegated this season. If they were safe in League One why not with the same capaicty in the Championship. I''m not seeking to make money from my book. In fact it has cost me over £4000 to get it published and I''ll be lucky to get half that back. What I hope is that it will help supporters understand both sides of the arguments, then when they have the full facts, make up their own fully informed minds.  

[quote user="paul moy"]Since grounds went all-seater we''ve had very few hooligan issues and we''ve also had an influx of families for that reason. Going back to the old days is a risk. It''s arrogant to assume that it isn''t, and sensible politicians will not want to be held responsible if something goes wrong again. Why run the risk of the police having to carry the can yet again.  All-seaters are easier to police and are proven safer..... simples.[/quote] I can''t go through all the arguments in detail on here but these points are all examined in the book. But I can say that having travelled to the 23 grounds that still have terraces, there are as many if not more families than at all seated grounds, virtually no hooliganism and less arrests than comparable all seaters. Also, we already have standing at most grounds - it''s just unofficial and not managed. I follow West Ham home & away and haven''t sat down for years. It is a mistake to compare football now with 20 years ago and link the changes with all seating.  

[quote user="Robert N. LiM"]Some issues are complicated. They have shades of grey rather than being black and white. This one isn''t. It''s totally straightforward. Safe standing is exactly that - safe. It happens in huge grounds in Germany with no problems at all. Of course football supporters should be allowed the choice of whether to sit or stand. Note that no one is forcing anyone to stand (unlike the current situation where those standing in seated areas force those behind them to stand up too). But it is impossible to imagine it happening in England in the foreseeable future, not because it''s dangerous or because of Hillsborough, but because the clubs are very happy with the affluent, middle-class fans that all-seater stadiums attract, and with the ridiculous prices they charge for those cramped bits of plastic. It''s a disgrace, pure and simple.[/quote]   Indeed. To quote from my final chapter, Misinformation, Cover-up or Conspiracy: It seems that whatever the evidence, the powers that be don’t want football supporters to be permitted the choice to stand. Unsubstantiated and spurious arguments are used to maintain the status quo, and many people believe that football simply doesn’t want the type of supporters that it thinks want to stand up. It has been suggested that all-seating facilitates the social engineering that replaces traditional working class supporters with more affluent customers, who are able to pay high ticket prices and spend more on club merchandise.

To answer a few points raised.   The issue is choice. The majority wish to sit. A large minority prefer to stand. Why shouldn’t they be allowed this choice? Surveys show that a large majority of fans, whatever their personal preference, believe that there should be a choice to sit or stand.   Currently many fans stand in seated areas, blocking the views of others who want or need to sit. Separate standing areas would solve this problem. It very rarely occurs in grounds with terraces.   Other sports do have standing. Rugby & horse racing for two. There is widespread standing at football across the world. All top German league grounds have standing areas.   Where is the evidence that standing leads to hooliganism? The arrest rate at League One & Two clubs with terraces is lower than those with all seated grounds.   And where is the evidence that modern standing areas are less safe than seats. I’ve analysed injury figures from the Football Licensing Authority and they don’t show it’s safer to sit.   There were fences at the front of the stand at Hillsborough in 1981. On this occasion the police opened them to allow Spurs fans out and relive the crushing. No one is suggesting that we return to terraces with fences in front.

[quote user="Highland Canary"]I hope terraces are never reintroduced. The last time I stood at the football (excluding standing at away games which is obviously only one person per seat) was at West Ham in the quarter finals of the FA Cup - the only time I''ve feared for my own safety at a football match. Safety has be the number one and only consideration at sporting stadia notwithstanding the loss of atmosphere this has brought to football grounds post-Hillsborough.[/quote] A lot has changed since that cup quarter final and no one is proposing bringing terraces back to the top two leagues without adequate safeguards. Convertible rail seats, where each row has a rail in front of it, and with seats that can be unlocked for use in European matches is what is proposed for the top two leagues. See photos & info through this link. http://www.safestandingroadshow.co.uk/ Small modern terraces, such as those shown on the photo of Barnet further up the thread, are proposed for the lower leagues. Terraces are still in place at 23 grounds and work very well. In fact, safety is generally not considered to be the main argument against standing.

I''ve just come across this forum and as writer of Stand Up Sit Down can I correct a couple of posts about Ibrox.   Firstly the disaster occurred on the exit steps, not a terrace. Secondly the cause was found not to be fans trying to return after a late goal, although this is still commonly thought to be the case. To quote from the book:   A public inquiry headed by Lord Wheatley refuted initial suggestions that the crush was caused by Rangers fans, who had left after Celtic scored, attempting to return to the terrace when they heard the cheer for the equaliser. This myth is however still commonly believed today. Wheatley concluded that the cause was simply the downward force of so many supporters leaving at the same time, with the momentum of the crowd meaning that once people started to fall there was no way of holding back the mass of bodies.   I have summarised the causes of the four disasters as follows:   At Ibrox Park there was no suggestion of poor behaviour by supporters. The disaster was caused by unsafe ground design with a long straight exit stairway. Previous incidents had highlighted the risk, but no significant action had been taken. Hooliganism had no part in Ibrox.   At Valley Parade too there was no suggestion of poor behaviour by supporters. The disaster was caused by a combination of a wooden stand, accumulated rubbish and no ban on smoking. The death toll was increased by exits being shut or locked. A letter warning of the risks of the exact scenario which resulted in the 56 deaths had been ignored by Bradford City. Hooliganism had no part in the Bradford fire.   The immediate cause of Heysel was the charge by Liverpool supporters, which led to Juventus supporters backing away and the collapse of a wall. The state of the stadium, ticketing arrangements and poor policing were also to blame, and had any one of these four causes not occurred, loss of life would have been unlikely. We cannot however escape the fact that whatever their provocation on the day or from previous occasions, without the action of those few Liverpool supporters the Heysel disaster would not have happened.   The causes of Hillsborough were more complex, but can be summarised as inadequate planning and crowd control, resulting in severe overcrowding in a fenced area with no means of escape. Lessons had not been learned from previous incidents, so the situation was entirely foreseeable, but failings in policing allowed it to become a disaster. Despite the lies by the police match commander, and in Lord Taylor’s words, the presence of an unruly minority who had drunk too much and aggravated the problems outside, it was not hooliganism that caused the death of the 96 Liverpool fans. However, the fact that there were fences and to an extent the police actions both in planning and on the day, reflect on twenty years of football hooliganism, which hence played an indirect part in the Hillsborough disaster.   Stand Up Sit Down - A Choice to Watch Football is available through this link for £6.99. http://amzn.to/Kox5uH