Great news from the SPL, safe standing trials OK!

[ditch_drfc]

See you speak that much rubbish it's hard to see what you're actually trying to say. This has got nothing to do with O'Driscoll. It's about trials for safe standing.

[silent majority]

Benny,

Any chance you could answer the questions I asked? In particular your statement that seats are safer than standing? I'm intrigued as to where you get this information from.

[Rovers Return]

See you speak that much rubbish it's hard to see what you're actually trying to say. This has got nothing to do with O'Driscoll. It's about trials for safe standing.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/NPiGJBHVadA\"

[Rovers Return]

See you speak that much rubbish it's hard to see what you're actually trying to say. This has got nothing to do with O'Driscoll. It's about trials for safe standing.

http://youtu.be/hJVGuxj7AWQ

[benaldo]

Benny,

Any chance you could answer the questions I asked? In particular your statement that seats are safer than standing? I'm intrigued as to where you get this information from.

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football-long-haul-to-implement-taylor-report-1087369.html  - This article talks about the alcohol fuelled crowds of pre-hillsborough. And touches briefly on Taylors recommendation that the comfort of the spectator (or lack of) was detrimental to crowd safety. Seats?


http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olliewilliams/2009/08/how_violent_your_teams_fans_ar.shtml this is quite interesting. I think, for me, the biggest evidence I can find is the arrest numbers at football. Over 6000 in the season leading up to Hillsborough...while just over 3500 twenty years later. If we are to believe that police numbers have fallen in that period, then I would argue that along with some other improvements, seating has been the single biggest factor in reducing not just people falling over, but in beating each other up too? And considering that the arrest stats for the decade of the 2000's appear to remain fairly static, I would argue that the majority of the decrease ocured in a very shirt space of time after the introduction of seating and then plateu'd.

I hope that goes some way to answering your question.

[River Don]

There is no economic reason why a seat at a football match should be cheaper than a standing place, the only reason they are is that clubs can get away with it. In fact you can get a seat at a Serie A game in Italy, cheaper than you can stand at some Conference games!

There are a couple of small economic benefits I can think of, standing areas tend to generate a louder atmospheric noise and that in turn makes the match experience more compelling.

Standing areas allow friends to turn up on the spur of the moment on a match day and with little organisation watch the match with a group of friends. None of this re-arranging seating, organising things beforehand business.

[silent majority]

Benny,

Any chance you could answer the questions I asked? In particular your statement that seats are safer than standing? I'm intrigued as to where you get this information from.

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football-long-haul-to-implement-taylor-report-1087369.html  - This article talks about the alcohol fuelled crowds of pre-hillsborough. And touches briefly on Taylors recommendation that the comfort of the spectator (or lack of) was detrimental to crowd safety. Seats?


http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olliewilliams/2009/08/how_violent_your_teams_fans_ar.shtml this is quite interesting. I think, for me, the biggest evidence I can find is the arrest numbers at football. Over 6000 in the season leading up to Hillsborough...while just over 3500 twenty years later. If we are to believe that police numbers have fallen in that period, then I would argue that along with some other improvements, seating has been the single biggest factor in reducing not just people falling over, but in beating each other up too? And considering that the arrest stats for the decade of the 2000's appear to remain fairly static, I would argue that the majority of the decrease ocured in a very shirt space of time after the introduction of seating and then plateu'd.

I hope that goes some way to answering your question.

That's a disappointment Benny. You made a statement that seating was safer than standing and the best your google search comes up with is a 12 year old article that uses the word hooliganism once and a blog written by a bloke called Ollie Williams. Who incidentally has an opinion on the arrest figures over the last few years, but even he doesn't draw the conclusion that the reduction has anything to do with safety, seats, standing or anything else to do with the subject. No, the conclusion and assumption is all down to you, and that's not evidence.

Injury statistics are kept for all grounds and match by match. A report is compiled at the end of every game by the Safety Officer which has to be submitted to the Football League or Premier League. All of these figures are gathered and recorded by the FLA (Football Licensing Authority) the SAG (Safety Advisory Group) the FA and other statutory authorities. They are available if you care to ask for them. What those figures show for the last 20 years is that there is no distinction between seated and standing areas in Football grounds, none whatsoever. The authorities, but especially the FLA, now called the SGSA (Sports Ground Safety Authority)now admit that they cannot distinguish between one ground and another, between seated and standing areas. What was a prominent statement on their website has been removed. Furthermore the SOA (Safety Officers Association) have also admitted that they see no distinction between one and the other. All that is the basis for the announcement yesterday by the SPL.

You, along with others I might add, confuse hooliganism with safety, the two are not comparable. Hooliganism in the UK declined significantly after Heysell and the introduction of Football Banning Orders. Furthermore the increase use of technology and increasingly draconian laws have all played their part.

Its a pity Benny, I was hoping for some evidence that I hadn't seen before to support your argument, instead you came up with nothing but an opinion based on some guys blog.

[Rovers Return]

Benny,

Any chance you could answer the questions I asked? In particular your statement that seats are safer than standing? I'm intrigued as to where you get this information from.

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football-long-haul-to-implement-taylor-report-1087369.html  - This article talks about the alcohol fuelled crowds of pre-hillsborough. And touches briefly on Taylors recommendation that the comfort of the spectator (or lack of) was detrimental to crowd safety. Seats?


http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olliewilliams/2009/08/how_violent_your_teams_fans_ar.shtml this is quite interesting. I think, for me, the biggest evidence I can find is the arrest numbers at football. Over 6000 in the season leading up to Hillsborough...while just over 3500 twenty years later. If we are to believe that police numbers have fallen in that period, then I would argue that along with some other improvements, seating has been the single biggest factor in reducing not just people falling over, but in beating each other up too? And considering that the arrest stats for the decade of the 2000's appear to remain fairly static, I would argue that the majority of the decrease ocured in a very shirt space of time after the introduction of seating and then plateu'd.

I hope that goes some way to answering your question.

Another factor to maybe consider though is times have changed. 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's were far more violent than they are today despite what they try to tell you. It was part of the normal match day to run about and fight each other and it was somewhat expected every Saturday afternoon. These days you can quite safely walk about and even socialise before a game in the opposing town wearing your club colours. I remember the days when your accent was a give away even in Rotherham. Most people just don't want that crap anymore.

[benaldo]

Hang on a minute, you can't have it both ways SM. A load of factual statistics (Arrest numbers pre and post hillsborough) are undeniable, they simply measure arrests at football games. The conclusion from that that I have drawn (accepted, it's my conclusion) is that seating has had a part in that. My interpretation of those stats is as valid as yours surely as you can't find any evidence to disprove what I'm saying either.

Seeing as Taylor and varying government \"specialists\" (ie not me and you) all said that seating would go a long way to solving many problems at football grounds, I fail to see who/how/why you or I am to argue?

Like I've said before, I couldn't care less if there was a section for people to stand, in fact I think it's good people have the choice, but please don't try to tell me that it's safer than seating, because all these experts seem to disagree with you.

[silent majority]

Hang on a minute, you can't have it both ways SM. A load of factual statistics (Arrest numbers pre and post hillsborough) are undeniable, they simply measure arrests at football games. The conclusion from that that I have drawn (accepted, it's my conclusion) is that seating has had a part in that. My interpretation of those stats is as valid as yours surely as you can't find any evidence to disprove what I'm saying either.

Seeing as Taylor and varying government \"specialists\" (ie not me and you) all said that seating would go a long way to solving many problems at football grounds, I fail to see who/how/why you or I am to argue?

Like I've said before, I couldn't care less if there was a section for people to stand, in fact I think it's good people have the choice, but please don't try to tell me that it's safer than seating, because all these experts seem to disagree with you.

All these experts?? You obviously haven't read my post. I'm talking safety, not arrests, not comfort, not facilities, nothing but safety figures.

Who are these experts you rely on? Your post is rubbish Benny. You stated that seating was safer than standing, I asked you for the evidence and you came up with nothing about safety just some blog on arrest figures and then the conclusion that because arrests had gone down then it must be safer, two very different subjects despite your attempt to link them.

The experts have already agreed that there is no difference between seated areas and standing with regard to safety. Why would you ignore that and state the opposite? Come on Benny give us the statistics that support the statement you made.

It's a fact that more people have died in stadiums that are all seated than are standing during the last 20 years, which clearly points, yet again, that its about management of crowd control that's  important and not if seats are provided.

[Mr1Croft]

I'm guessing that since the SPL have set the ball rolling, rolling ow is the time to pile pressure on the politics of English football? Okay given how the SPL don't have to answer to Parliament whereas the FA, FL and PL do in terms of legislation might be a potential stumbling block.

That said I still think this is a terriffic step for Football, now it has been proven that seating is no safer than standing I can't see why we can't push home for this.

Just for the record I have hurt myself much more in seated areas when we score (not much leg room usually leads to me falling over the seats) than in any standing areas. For those of who who have visited Gateshead's athletic stadium, the seating areas along the sides are at an angle of about 100 degrees from the pitch, when seated your shoes are level with the head of the person in front. Very steep, good job I was celebrating a try over a goal!

[silent majority]

Lee,

I couldn't possibly elaborate on here what the next steps are!! However we have heard from the PL and Hugh Robertson this week on what their position is and no surprise they are in exactly the same place as before, apart from the Minister suggesting they would look at the SPL initiative.

As has been alluded to on here by various people, especially BST, no politician wants to be seen to create a situation where they will be remembered for overturning the legislation that creates problems not solves them.

However, what I can share is that the FL have not issued any statement, nor have any individual clubs. I am aware of several PL club Chairmen who are in complete sympathy with this action by the SPL.

Oh, I'm in complete agreement with you over the dangers of seats in standing areas, they are a bloody nuisance and should be removed. Its strange isn't it that most injuries are caused by seats when people are getting to their feet during moments of high excitement, which is allowed under the ground regulations!!

[Rios]

Looking at this selfishly, how would this affect the Keepmoat?  I recall Andy Liney saying that we could only get the funding we required for the stadium if it was all-seater.  If the SMC/JR rip out all the south stand seats will these bodies want their money back?

[silent majority]

Looking at this selfishly, how would this affect the Keepmoat?  I recall Andy Liney saying that we could only get the funding we required for the stadium if it was all-seater.  If the SMC/JR rip out all the south stand seats will these bodies want their money back?

Good question Rios,

The answer is nobody really knows.
Interestingly York City applied for funds from the Football Foundation to carry out repairs to Bootham Crescent, and then in subsequent years went back to the FF to discuss moving to a new stadium. The FF said they would support the new stadium but only on condition that it was all seater, quite preposterous given their situation, and if they did move to the new stadium without their assistance they would require repayment of existing funding. Catch 22.

However all is not lost. Under this round of spending cuts and the tightening of belts the FF has so little funds to give out now that its contribution to stadium development is probably non-existent. And if we did do as you suggest then just about every club in the land would also be asked to do the same, not really feasible. The funds for the FF came from the clubs themselves anyway and was then topped up by central government, clubs would then argue about getting a refund from the FF.

[benaldo]

I can't believe that you're trying to say that arrest figures don't count in terms of safety at footy games?!!

I would have thought the lessening in arrests at football games since seating was introduced meant they were safer?? Isn't that obvious? Or does safety just mean not getting crushed to death? Personally I wouldn't have taken my mum to watch Rovers in the old pop stand, but I have taken her to watch at the KM. Why? Because I thought it was safer.

You can't ignore arrest figures in any discourse about safety at football matches, ask anyone apart from you and they'll tell you arrests and disorder at football mean more unsafe events for the punters around and caught up in it. I just cannot believe you are that stupid as to argue about it? Ask anyone involved innocently in any rioting at football games, or any violence at all at matches, if they felt safe..........

And when Taylor referred to \"comfort\" at football matches he was in fact meaning the fact that you aren't scared of getting crushed to death by a crowd, or beaten to death by a bunch of thugs.

I have zero against people standing in standing areas, I think it's a positive thing for people to have a choice, but statistics, the government, the Taylor report and, most of all, sheer common sense, say that seating dissuades lots of general violence at football games - if only because it is much more difficult to move about and jump into people or go after people in an aggressive manner. It's really not inventing the wheel as a concept is it....but of course, you just HAVE to be right.

[Rios]

The other side to that though Benaldo is that with seats it also means that people caught in the middle have no escape, like the lady at Norwich last season who got manhandled/pushed by their stewards in their haste to deal with the non-incident.  Terracing doesn't cause violence and seats doesn't resolve the issue and the same drunk numpties are still going to kick off regardless.

After our non-league journey (and my continued attendance of non-league games since) I've never been able to understand why one set of fans are quite happy to mingle on terracing/seats, yet another set seem totally incapable of behaving like normal adults and require segregation/policing/stewards/seats/etc.

[silent majority]

I can't believe that you're trying to say that arrest figures don't count in terms of safety at footy games?!!

I would have thought the lessening in arrests at football games since seating was introduced meant they were safer?? Isn't that obvious? Or does safety just mean not getting crushed to death? Personally I wouldn't have taken my mum to watch Rovers in the old pop stand, but I have taken her to watch at the KM. Why? Because I thought it was safer.

You can't ignore arrest figures in any discourse about safety at football matches, ask anyone apart from you and they'll tell you arrests and disorder at football mean more unsafe events for the punters around and caught up in it. I just cannot believe you are that stupid as to argue about it? Ask anyone involved innocently in any rioting at football games, or any violence at all at matches, if they felt safe..........

And when Taylor referred to \"comfort\" at football matches he was in fact meaning the fact that you aren't scared of getting crushed to death by a crowd, or beaten to death by a bunch of thugs.

I have zero against people standing in standing areas, I think it's a positive thing for people to have a choice, but statistics, the government, the Taylor report and, most of all, sheer common sense, say that seating dissuades lots of general violence at football games - if only because it is much more difficult to move about and jump into people or go after people in an aggressive manner. It's really not inventing the wheel as a concept is it....but of course, you just HAVE to be right.

Benny, two things are obvious from the posts you keep making on this subject. One is that you have never read the Taylor report and the second is you have not read or understood a single word I've written but have just continued to offer a misguided opinion.

Lord Justice Taylor did not, and I repeat DID NOT, make any reference in his report to hooliganism and general levels of violence. None whatsoever. He made 93 recommendations to improve the safety at football grounds based on poor ground safety levels, poor management of football supporters, very very poor policing. Introducing seating was  just one amongst many. You sound very much like the Sun newspaper who blamed the tragedy on the Liverpool supporters themselves, in fact you sound exactly like that!! I despair, after 22 years they still have not got the justice they deserve. You're despicable, with people like you around its impossible for any football supporter to be treated like other sections of society.

I asked you to give me the statistics that support your argument that seating is safer than standing. You have provided zero evidence to support that. You have suggested that hooliganism and safety go together and that since Hillsboro because of all seater stadiums then that proves your point. By that very statement it shows you don't know the subject. Just remember that not all grounds are all seater in this country, by your logic the grounds that retain terracing should a) be more dangerous and b) have higher levels of violence. If that is so then you should be able to provide the facts to prove it.

But that brings me right back to where I started, there is no difference and despite your claim that government concludes that's the situation I'm afraid yet again your so desperately wrong. Not unusual for you though is it?

[Rovers Return]

I can't believe that you're trying to say that arrest figures don't count in terms of safety at footy games?!!

I would have thought the lessening in arrests at football games since seating was introduced meant they were safer?? Isn't that obvious? Or does safety just mean not getting crushed to death? Personally I wouldn't have taken my mum to watch Rovers in the old pop stand, but I have taken her to watch at the KM. Why? Because I thought it was safer.

You can't ignore arrest figures in any discourse about safety at football matches, ask anyone apart from you and they'll tell you arrests and disorder at football mean more unsafe events for the punters around and caught up in it. I just cannot believe you are that stupid as to argue about it? Ask anyone involved innocently in any rioting at football games, or any violence at all at matches, if they felt safe..........


And when Taylor referred to \"comfort\" at football matches he was in fact meaning the fact that you aren't scared of getting crushed to death by a crowd, or beaten to death by a bunch of thugs.

I have zero against people standing in standing areas, I think it's a positive thing for people to have a choice, but statistics, the government, the Taylor report and, most of all, sheer common sense, say that seating dissuades lots of general violence at football games - if only because it is much more difficult to move about and jump into people or go after people in an aggressive manner. It's really not inventing the wheel as a concept is it....but of course, you just HAVE to be right.

The worst crush I was ever involved in was in a seated area. We couldn't get out of the way. When I say we, I mean men, women and children. The fantastic Slovakian police thought it was a good idea to baton charge a very, very over packed seated area. Where 6,000 of us should have been, it was easy double that figure. No ticket checks, no tickets needed, no stewarding, no bloody organisation in a ground that made Denaby United look like Wembley. I had the delight of having two boys in front of me aged about 11. The police started a baton charge into our area, we couldn't get out of the way...why? Seats...those who tried fell over them. We were crushed in and I did my upmost best to keep one of the little boys head up and could see his little face looking up at me. The police ( I call them police but they were military really) then used the seats to walk on to tower above us waving their batons.

Factors all play a part in ground safety and they need to all come together to assure safety. Seating on its own doesn't make grounds safe or safer, people do. There are thousands of sporting events throughout the world on a daily basis involving terracing/standing without incident. There is room in our grounds for both seating and terracing. After Hillsborough, people’s attitude to football violence changed. We don't want it anymore and I would say that factor helped in a drop in arrests post Hillsborough. Another factor is the policing has got a little bit less confrontational, in this country anyway.

Don't shoot me down here, but didn't seating at Bradford contribute to the tragedy because people couldn’t escape quickly?

[Filo]

I can't believe that you're trying to say that arrest figures don't count in terms of safety at footy games?!!

I would have thought the lessening in arrests at football games since seating was introduced meant they were safer?? Isn't that obvious? Or does safety just mean not getting crushed to death? Personally I wouldn't have taken my mum to watch Rovers in the old pop stand, but I have taken her to watch at the KM. Why? Because I thought it was safer.

You can't ignore arrest figures in any discourse about safety at football matches, ask anyone apart from you and they'll tell you arrests and disorder at football mean more unsafe events for the punters around and caught up in it. I just cannot believe you are that stupid as to argue about it? Ask anyone involved innocently in any rioting at football games, or any violence at all at matches, if they felt safe..........


And when Taylor referred to \"comfort\" at football matches he was in fact meaning the fact that you aren't scared of getting crushed to death by a crowd, or beaten to death by a bunch of thugs.

I have zero against people standing in standing areas, I think it's a positive thing for people to have a choice, but statistics, the government, the Taylor report and, most of all, sheer common sense, say that seating dissuades lots of general violence at football games - if only because it is much more difficult to move about and jump into people or go after people in an aggressive manner. It's really not inventing the wheel as a concept is it....but of course, you just HAVE to be right.

The worst crush I was ever involved in was in a seated area. We couldn't get out of the way. When I say we, I mean men, women and children. The fantastic Slovakian police thought it was a good idea to baton charge a very, very over packed seated area. Where 6,000 of us should have been, it was easy double that figure. No ticket checks, no tickets needed, no stewarding, no bloody organisation in a ground that made Denaby United look like Wembley. I had the delight of having two boys in front of me aged about 11. The police started a baton charge into our area, we couldn't get out of the way...why? Seats...those who tried fell over them. We were crushed in and I did my upmost best to keep one of the little boys head up and could see his little face looking up at me. The police ( I call them police but they were military really) then used the seats to walk on to tower above us waving their batons.

Factors all play a part in ground safety and they need to all come together to assure safety. Seating on its own doesn't make grounds safe or safer, people do. There are thousands of sporting events throughout the world on a daily basis involving terracing/standing without incident. There is room in our grounds for both seating and terracing. After Hillsborough, people’s attitude to football violence changed. We don't want it anymore and I would say that factor helped in a drop in arrests post Hillsborough. Another factor is the policing has got a little bit less confrontational, in this country anyway.

Don't shoot me down here, but didn't seating at Bradford contribute to the tragedy because people couldn’t escape quickly?

That was obviously one of the factors, the main factor was the exit gates were still locked!

[benaldo]

I don't think SM that I've ever ever ever suggested at all in the slightest, and you know it but can't make a point any other way than by slurring the other person, that the supporters were at fault for Hillsborough!! What a stupid thing to suggest. It's a bit nasty actually. I really hope I don't get taken to task over it or seating at football grounds will be the least of your worries.

Tell you what, how about you back up your claims with some stats? No?

[Rovers Return]

I don't think SM that I've ever ever ever suggested at all in the slightest, and you know it but can't make a point any other way than by slurring the other person, that the supporters were at fault for Hillsborough!! What a stupid thing to suggest. It's a bit nasty actually. I really hope I don't get taken to task over it or seating at football grounds will be the least of your worries.

Tell you what, how about you back up your claims with some stats? No?

Jeez! Get a room you two.

The discussions between the pair of you on a forum lose at lot of infliction in the written word and arguments and debates are never won or lost. Maybe, just maybe, you might get on face to face.

[silent majority]

Tell you what, how about you back up your claims with some stats? No?

Of course, that's easy. However I'm not going to type it all out as I'll be here for the next few weeks. In fact I suggest that you read all of the links and the attached documents which document the discussions between ourselves, the FLA and the National Statistics Office.

Best link is this one - http://www.fsf.org.uk/news/fla-not-aok.php - which gives the whole to-and-fro of the FLA/FSF/UKSA thing from 2009.

Also might be helpful are the two below:

http://www.straightstatistics.org/article/making-stand-standing

While in 2005-06 the FLA speculated that higher injury rates at League 1 and 2 grounds could be related to standing, they do not make such a claim this time.  “We have been unable to establish any clear link between the type of accommodation and the number of reported injuries” the FLA says. This is in spite of the fact that while injury rates have improved in the top two divisions, they have worsened in the lower two. Of this, the FLA says: “There was no obvious pattern or any evident safety factors to explain the changes in the figures.”

The quote from the FLA in response to our report was

\"The FSF report correctly identifies that the injury statistics we produce do not provide firm statistical evidence that standing is less safe than seating.\"

So, that's the supporters, the FLA and the National Statistics Office which agree that there is no evidence to support your argument Benny, none at all. Oh and when you've finished reading all that I'll send you the link to the Safe Standing Report. You'll love that!!

And in the above documents you'll find this quote, I love it...  

The Taylor Report itself stated that standing was “not intrinsically unsafe” and in 1995, Tony Blair, the then leader of the opposition, said “I was never convinced . . . that the removal of all standing was necessary . . . While safety must always be the ultimate criterion, there is no reason to ignore technological improvements made since Taylor reported, which might allow for safe standing.”

[River Don]

\"sheer common sense, say that seating dissuades lots of general violence at football games\"

It didn't dissuade those Millwall t**ts from moving menacingly toward the West stand a couple of years back. What did dissuade them was the presence of coppers. Later they were identified on CCTV and banned.

I also remember way back the Luton match with torrents of seats being thrown at opposition fans.

Not so safe seating: [video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7uxCAIqB0A&feature=related[/video]

The seating point doesn't explain why it's a lot safer outside of football grounds these days either. Bans on alcohol, better stewarding, CCTV and the use of banning orders have had a far greater impact on hooliganism at football.

[silent majority]

RD

Your points are spot on and correct. Seating is not safer, nor does it prevent hooliganism. It really annoys me when people make these claims, don't do any research, read the Daily Mirror and adopt their view or whatever and when a contrary position is offered stick their fingers in their ears shouting 'I'm not listening'.........

[benaldo]

On this link, and I've tried most of the further links on the site, and please don't think I'm being deliberately cantankerous, I couldn't find any stats other than some people arguing about the government not collecting the right stats. http://www.fsf.org.uk/news/fla-not-aok.php


This one http://www.straightstatistics.org/article/making-stand-standing (and you'd have a field day if I posted something like this wouldn't you), is an article full of quotes backing your campaign...it's not unbiased. But I did like the stats (although they are apparently wrong according to the previous website). They appeared to show that the percentage of injuries at grounds across the divisions hovers at around the 1 per 20,000 spectators regardless of standing or not. So, while I think that is perhaps (if the stats are true, although your website seems to disagree) easy to see that standing makes for no safer way to watch football, seating is certainly no more \"dangerous\". Also, I think you have to bear in mind that \"safety\" in terms of football related violence, is mainly perpetrated at the higher levels - man u have for years had the highest supprter arrest rates as a percentage of the crowd - so you could argue that seating increases safety if \"injury\" levels are the same as inoffensive clubs like Tamworth, Forest Green etc etc...clubs who do not have a history of violence.

Again, I do not condemn standing areas at football grounds, I think they are a good thing. People should have the choice to watch in these areas where you can stand up, jump about (don't know what else is attractive to be honest). I do still stand by my assertion that seating goes a long way to preventing a lot of trouble (in conjunction with better stewarding, policing) at football games.

On the topic of the Millwall game. I thought the seating and the barriers prevented a riot. From my seat I saw the Millwall fans struggle to get to the Rovers fans because of a section of metal barriers and an empty block of seating. Had the away end and the north west corner been terraced it would have prevented no barrier at all. I saw Millwall fans struggling to get over seating, many of them giving up....apart from that woman waving her stiletto. I don't recall the police doing much apart from getting attacked and being woefully underrepresented...it kind of blew itself out didn't it when the Rovers fans tried to run away from what I remember?

[benaldo]

Looks cosy.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5yHbDAz2Sc&feature=results_main&playnext=1&list=PLA2FA1A1C84E7C00F

[River Don]

I thought the seating and the barriers prevented a riot. From my seat I saw the Millwall fans struggle to get to the Rovers fans because of a section of metal barriers and an empty block of seating. Had the away end and the north west corner been terraced it would have prevented no barrier at all.

It's all in the design though. You can have effective barriers next to standing areas. The new Wembley has a system of steel grids in front of the seats to prevent pitch invasions without obstructing the view. Similar solutions can be found.

[silent majority]

Benny,

Whilst the stats are not too explicit they are there and are easily obtainable from the FLA website.

But the main points to take away from those articles are;

1) The FLA and therefore the government were using certain figures to make their claims.

2) When challenged the figures for 2004/2005 went missing!

3) When the figures for 2006/07/08/09 were analysed they were found to be badly put together and misleading.

4) The National Statistics Office concluded that the figures did not show any significant difference between standing and seated areas.

5) The FLA no longer make those claims, although certain football authorities mistakenly keep doing so therefore perpetuating the myth (deliberately in my opinion)

6) Point proven! You cannot state that seating is safer than standing because the evidence is not there.


We got there at last!