"Safe standing would not be a return to the dark ages"

[Sharpe's Fox]

 Good article by Daniel Taylor on safe standing and Hillsborough.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/oct/09/safe-standing-hillsborough-rail-seating-bundesliga-celtic

 

It isn’t an easy subject. It is, however, an important one, and perhaps the best place to start when it comes to the issue of safe standing is to look at the number of countries who have already had the debate and concluded that if it can change football for the better then there is nothing to be afraid of.

 

It is the creation of a safe-standing section that helps to explain why watching football at Celtic Park can have the same effect as standing next to the speakers at an Iron Maiden concert. Germany has led the way and, one by one, the other leagues are following behind. Austria, Switzerland, Hungary, Belgium, Norway, Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands all now operate safe standing. Australia is bringing it in. Various grounds in the United States have put it in place. Even Russia, a football environment that sometimes feels like stepping back into the 1980s, has gone for the modern option. CSKA Moscow have safe-standing areas, featuring rail seats, behind both goals in their new stadium, the Arena CSKA.

 

It is also apparent that the majority of Premier League clubs like the idea. Tottenham Hotspur, Crystal Palace, Sunderland, Swansea City, Burnley, Hull City and Watford are all actively pushing for safe standing, and it is commonly known that many others think it is time the league’s chief executive, Richard Scudamore, began exploratory talks with the government. Indeed, one of the people involved in the process estimates that if it went to a vote in the coming week all 20 clubs, bar Liverpool, would support a consultation process.

Others suspect Everton might choose to abstain but the safe standing movement certainly appears to be gaining traction. The Chelsea Supporters Trust has asked the club to explore the possibilities at a redeveloped Stamford Bridge. Spurs have already designed parts of their new ground with this in mind, which indicates they imagine the legislation will eventually be changed. David Gold, West Ham’s joint chairman, has backed safe standing and maybe wishes it was already in place, given some of the settling-in issues at their new stadium. Arsenal are keen and, though it is not something the two Manchester clubs feel they should actively push, my information is that both will be supportive, when the time is right. It is just a delicate area when there so many sensitivities to take into account. Nobody wants to be seen as lacking tact, or failing to understand how emotive this issue is on Merseyside.

 

It does, however, feel like more and more people are acknowledging it is time to have the debate and are coming round to the idea that safe standing means exactly what it says, and is arguably safer than the common practice of supporters standing in seated areas.

 

What it does not mean – and it is important to be clear on this – is a return to the vast terraces where crushes were once commonplace, injuries taken for granted and a sense of danger was never too far away. A safety barrier would be on each row, eradicating the threat of overcrowding or those old terrace-tumbles when in one sudden sway you could suddenly find yourself transported 20ft in any given direction. The rail seats are bolted upright. They can be turned down for European games, when Uefa insists on all-seated stadiums, but otherwise each spectator would be given a place to stand where their seat would usually be.

 

Liverpool’s position, in line with that of the Hillsborough Family Support Group, is in support of all-seated stadiums and, to go back to my earlier point, this is always going to be a highly sensitive subject. Trevor Hicks, whose teenage daughters, Sarah and Victoria, died in the tragedy, has explained to me the group’s thinking and we are talking here about someone whose dignity, courage and perseverance marked him out as a man of rare substance during that long, almost unimaginable fight to prove Hillsborough was not just a national disaster but a national scandal.

 

His view is that all-seated stadiums have brought more families and young people to football and the sport should not bend to a “vociferous minority who live in the past”. We spoke on Friday and he was absolutely vehement that standing at football should never return. “We are against any attempts to go backwards. In very simple terms, we think it would be a retrograde step. It is a point of principle and we believe all‑seater grounds are much safer.”

 

Is it possible to respect that view, and hold this man in the highest esteem, while also disagreeing? I sincerely hope so because my view is that standing has never really gone away. The Taylor report into the events at Hillsborough, whose recommendations led to the outlawing of standing in the top two divisions, suggested that match‑goers would get accustomed to sitting down. Instead, what we see every week are thousands of supporters on their feet in front of their seats. It breaches safety regulations and blocks views. It causes arguments between fans, disputes with stewards and, on occasion, injuries (one recent example being a Manchester United supporter suffering a broken leg when a massed goal celebration at Hull spilled over the seats).

 

In many cases, it also leads to away-fan allocations being reduced, whereas I am yet to see any possible downside to an area such as the one accommodating 2,975 people in a corner of Celtic Park. One quote from the Celtic chief executive, Peter Lawwell, feels highly relevant. “The introduction of rail seating represents an investment in spectator safety,” he said.

 

A debate of this nature is always going to divide opinion but it does strike me that each club should be allowed the choice and it is a mistake, plain and simple, to assume that everybody affected by Hillsborough is opposed to standing.

 

Stephen Wright, whose brother, Graham, 17, was one of the 96 people to die in that FA Cup semi-final against Nottingham Forest in April 1989, was passed the microphone during the recent AGM of Spirit of Shankly, one of Liverpool’s more influential supporters’ groups, and proceeded to talk in favour of a safe-standing debate, as did every speaker from the floor.

 

Lou Brookes, whose brother, Andrew, died at Hillsborough, aged 26, is another advocate: “I know my brother would have hated sitting. Standing didn’t kill my brother but other factors did.” The Hillsborough Justice Campaign is supportive of a “full and objective debate” and there was a notable exchange on BBC Radio Merseyside recently when Peter Daykin of the Football Supporters’ Federation was invited to put forward the case for safe standing.

 

Barry Devonside, whose son, Christopher, died at Hillsborough, aged 18, was also on the show, having previously argued in the Liverpool Echo that football should stick with the Taylor report and that it would not be safe to do otherwise. It was all set up for the classic radio format: one guest putting across one side, another taking the opposing view. Except Barry, speaking with dignity and grace, announced he had changed his mind, having made it his business to find out more about what was involved, and now thought there was a legitimate argument that should merit a wider debate.

 

There is certainly an appetite to follow the Bundesliga, given that one of the FSF’s large-scale surveys had 92% of fans in England and Wales wanting a choice between sitting and standing, and you may have seen the news in the last few days about Spirit of Shankly deciding to adopt a position on safe standing, now beginning a process of consultation to determine precisely what that position should be.

 

The surprising thing, perhaps, is that the Premier League has never formally raised the issue when, behind the scenes, the relevant people are fully aware about the strength of support and the sports minister, Tracey Crouch, has stated the standing ban will be reassessed “once evidence from the Scottish experience is available”, the first time any government has committed to a review of the legislation.

When the Football League asked its clubs to vote three years ago, 77% were in favour of safe-standing trials. Nobody should be surprised if that number was even higher now bearing in mind the shift in attitude, for instance, that led to Brighton, once opponents of safe standing, announcing a few days ago that they had visited Borussia Dortmund and Celtic, seen how it worked and would eventually like to incorporate such an area at the Amex Stadium. Nobody can be sure when this might be. It is, however, reaching the point when the relevant authorities have to realise it is time they started looking at it seriously themselves.

 

Interesting to see we're not one of the clubs pushing for it.

[Trav Le Bleu]

It's ridiculous to say that safe standing shouldn't be allowed because of Hillsborough. It's like saying that because your friend was stabbed to death all knives should be banned. Or that Germans shouldn't be allowed because of two world wars. Terracing was only "part" of the problem at Hillsborough, not "the" problem.

[davieG]

Was it even part of the problem, if the terraces hadn't  been fenced in I have doubts that anyone would have died. Fences were there as a governmental ill advised solution to hooliganism.

[Fox92]

1 hour ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

 

Interesting to see we're not one of the clubs pushing for it.

"Interesting" as in 'surprised' or 'not surprised'? For me it's the latter.

[Sharpe's Fox]

52 minutes ago, Fox92 said:

"Interesting" as in 'surprised' or 'not surprised'? For me it's the latter.

Yeah not suprised. Susan Whelan seems to have a fingers in ears policy about it, she doesn't want to know.

[Stadt]

2 hours ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

Yeah not suprised. Susan Whelan seems to have a fingers in ears policy about it, she doesn't want to know.

She's attended a roadshow and had her picture taken alongside a banner. I don't think Susan Whelan or the club are particularly against safe standing, in fact I think they quietly support it but we're not going be one of the clubs paving the way for it's introduction

[Dan]

The connection people have made between Safe Standing and Hillsborough is indicative of the ignorance of people in general. The massive irony in it all is that people who oppose it for those links have spent years campaigning to prove that the two aren't actually directly linked.

 

It's definitely the next goal-line technology. Something that's been talked about for years, with much debate, which once introduced, we do wonder what the hell we spent so long debating about.

[theessexfox]

I don't really understand any counter-arguments because the fact is that there is a large section of all fanbases who want to, and therefore do, stand. So blocking attempts for safe standing not only aims to stop this section enjoying the match in the way they want to, but it actually subjects them to more danger than standing in rail seating would - all-seater stadia aren't designed for standing, as you'd imagine. 

[GaelicFox]

3 hours ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

Yeah not suprised. Susan Whelan seems to have a fingers in ears policy about it, she doesn't want to know.

Why should she ?? 

 

Its not likely to happen and if it does then I'm sure she will show some interest 

 

lovely lady by the way and her professionalism in making this club move forward should never be forgotten 

[stripeyfox]

The new style "standing" systems are a world away from the old style terraces. Those who died at Hillsborough did not do so because of "standing" but because of the failure of the police to manage the crowd. That combined with a frankly dilapidated stadium and the club's lax attitude (probably typical of most, if not all at the time) to stadium improvements and the presence of fencing was the cause.

 

Today's stadiums, thankfully, are much safer and much better managed, so I don't see a "safety" argument against standing.

 

It does seem like the idea is gaining a bit more traction - maybe the closure of the Hillsborough saga has helped that.

 

If Leicester were to announce rail seating I assume it would be on the kop. The logical extension of that is that if a "standing" area is provided then it is reasonable to expect people in other areas (L1?) to sit down?

 

It would be a good way of making a small increase to the capacity.

 

 

 

[foxy boxing]

we can stand if we want to, you can leave your seats behind 

because if your friends don't stand and you don't stand then your no friends of mine

it's safe to stand, it's safe to stand

[GaelicFox]

10 hours ago, stripeyfox said:

The new style "standing" systems are a world away from the old style terraces. Those who died at Hillsborough did not do so because of "standing" but because of the failure of the police to manage the crowd. That combined with a frankly dilapidated stadium and the club's lax attitude (probably typical of most, if not all at the time) to stadium improvements and the presence of fencing was the cause.

 

Today's stadiums, thankfully, are much safer and much better managed, so I don't see a "safety" argument against standing.

 

It does seem like the idea is gaining a bit more traction - maybe the closure of the Hillsborough saga has helped that.

 

If Leicester were to announce rail seating I assume it would be on the kop. The logical extension of that is that if a "standing" area is provided then it is reasonable to expect people in other areas (L1?) to sit down?

 

It would be a good way of making a small increase to the capacity.

 

 

 

Very good post 

 

I'd like to see it but if it's introduced everyone else needs to sit down 

 

I also think all away sections should be safe standing if it's introduced because let's be honest everyone stands away from home every game 

 

if we are going to do it , it needs to be done with legislation and licensing and common sense 

 

saying all that I can't see it happening anytime soon 

[Finnaldo]

Shouldn't even be an argument at this point. Showed it's effectiveness in Germany, virtually foolproof.

 

The only people who oppose it are those who haven't done the slightest research, politicians who feel the connotations of terraces and bringing them back could bring them a bad rep, or relations of the victims of Hillsborough too grieved to see sense in this context.

[GaelicFox]

It's not going so well at Celtic with the safe standing  , sporadic violence amongst the sweaty socks last few home games , last night some more serious stuff.

 

The majority of fighting seen at West Ham is by fans refusing to sit down and poorly trained  stewards 

 

 

the more this happens the more the authorties will argue seated supporters and highly trained stewards is the only way to keep stadium safe 

 

can't see safer standing ever happening here 

[C-man]

19 hours ago, GaelicFox said:

It's not going so well at Celtic with the safe standing  , sporadic violence amongst the sweaty socks last few home games , last night some more serious stuff.

 

The majority of fighting seen at West Ham is by fans refusing to sit down and poorly trained  stewards 

 

 

the more this happens the more the authorties will argue seated supporters and highly trained stewards is the only way to keep stadium safe 

 

can't see safer standing ever happening here 

Evidence of Celtic issues being linked to safe standing?

 

The West Ham issue is literally proof all-seaters don't work.

[Fox92]

West Ham has nothing to do with it. If anything it's bad management by the club.

 

At Upton Park all the Bobby Moore stand stood every game. The lower end of the East Stand often stood too. They've now moved to an all seater "modern" ground and they've mixed people who want to stand with people who want to sit. Never going to work.