http://www.sportsvenue-technology.com/projects/invesco/images/Invesco_Mile-high-stadium1.jpg
All Seater ^^

http://www.paddocktalk.com/news/html/images/ussoccer/HAMStadium2.jpg
Mainly Seated, Some Terracing ^^

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

:cheers:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some Terracing, Mainly Seated

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some Terracing, Mainly Seated

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

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


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

Seems about right to me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

www.standupsitdown.co.uk/

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Seems about right to me.

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

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

It is harder, but it ain't impossible.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

...you've got a point.

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

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

Any information most welcome.

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

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

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

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

Angle of the stand.

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

Angle of the stand.

The tribune at the Westfalenstadion looks pretty steep to me, for a terrace.Angle, I thought so, but wasn't sure. Well, I guess if you want to have a very steep standing area, you need those supports every one or few rows...

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

Calling Argentinian stadiums safe is pushing it though :D

...

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

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

am I correct in saying that you coulnt create a terrace by simply removing the seats, say to recreate a paddock in the stretford end/kop
I was told you couldnt due to height of steps etc? can anybody clear this up pls cheers:)Well, you could put an extra step on every row, thus doubling the number of rows and reducing them from lets say 80x40 to 40x20 in depth and height. But I don't know whether the structure could hold the extra weight.

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

it can't be 1 seat, to 2 people standing, because you have things like taking gangways into account, and the fact you take up more than 2 peoples room when sitting, i reckon it's closer to 1 seat to 2.5 to 3 people!
Yes, it can, because a) gangways are the same whether there's seats or terracing and b) modern regulations are for 2 standing places where 1 seat would normally be. Look at German stadia, the standing areas are usually double the capacity of those areas when they're seated.

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

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

Cheers Pal, good info

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

We have a very steap stadium, so on every row there has to be a fence, or we wouldn't be aloud to have standing areas.
http://nacblog.nl/media/4/20080108-vakGG.jpg

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

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

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

Where is the stadium FlyingDutchman?

Breda

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

Where is the stadium FlyingDutchman?

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

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

http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/5827/rweuu8.jpg

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

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

Vote! :)

Terraces

corporate boxes

Terraces, nice and better view!:)

Seats for the fans and terraces for the ultras

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

I think Borussia Dortmund has it right, 81,000 capacity, with 56,000 seats and standing for 25,000.

Seats for the fans and terraces for the ultras

What he said.

all seaters

I like having alternatives. We don't have terraces here in the US for football, but at baseball fields, there's usually open, raised places to stand and watch, or in smaller parks, grassy berms to gather or lay out. Beats sitting in one place for a whole game.

seats & terracing

Terraces for atmosphere and cheaper tickets!!!

all seaters

All-seaters for aesthetics, and you can still stand up if you really want to.

Terraces.

My stadium is the only one in my league in which the terraces are closed to the supporters.

Although in saying that we can still make plenty of noise when we get going, but the atmosphere at every away ground is still 100 times better then it is at home.

All-seaters for aesthetics, and you can still stand up if you really want to.

Fully agree.
If you want to stand up then a seat will not deter you from doing it.
Another disadvantage of having terraces is the fact that they usually come alongside fences which are looking awful.

If you want to stand up then a seat will not deter you from doing it.

Unfortunately not here in Blighty...if you dare try and stand up, more often than not some power mad steward will try and force you to sit down, threatening you with being kicked out if you don't.

God I miss terracing :(

All-seaters, of course...:wink2:

Seats on the side, terraces at the ends... Predominently the way it used to be when I started going to games, the way it should be. Alternatively, seat 3/4 of the stadium and just have one 'home' end where the noise-makers can assemble (thus increasing the home team's advantage as their support can make even more noise).

You can not sing properly if you are (a) seated, and (b) spaced out - note that any choral group/chior will almost always stand and stay close together when singing thus allowing (a) full expansion of the diaphram, and (b) concentrating sound.

Real fans STAND!

You can not sing properly if you are (a) seated, and (b) spaced out

But you can watch the game. ;)
In an all-seater you have the choice between standing up or sitting down whereas youll only get one option on terraces.

But you can watch the game. ;)
In an all-seater you have the choice between standing up or sitting down whereas youll only get one option on terraces.

Not everywhere. Here in England in an all seated stadium you get forced to sit down by over zealous stewarding, only because you may want to stand and sing in a group.

I don't understand why football grounds (in England atleast) can't have a variety of both terracing and seating to accomodate everyone, rather than forcing us all into a seat, an aspect that has become common since the taylor report.

I'd call for a new range of modern "safe standing" terraces rather than instigate the crumbling 1980's versions, atleast then you'd be able to be more sociable with fellow fans, something that has been lacking in the advent of all seaters.

But you can watch the game. ;)
In an all-seater you have the choice between standing up or sitting down whereas youll only get one option on terraces.

Tell that to the FLA and stewards. And what about people who pay a small fortune for a seat expecting a nice sit down and a lovely game of football and are then forced to stand by those who chose to stand?

Seats and terracing.

Someone mentioned Dortmund - spot on.

Malmö FF's new stadium has a specially designed northern stand with only one tier (the rest of the stadium is two tier all seated) designed specifically for that purpose - for the hardcore supporters/ultras to create atmosphere and choreographies.

I think Borussia Dortmund has it right, 81,000 capacity, with 56,000 seats and standing for 25,000.

agreed.

Not everywhere. Here in England in an all seated stadium you get forced to sit down by over zealous stewarding, only because you may want to stand and sing in a group.

Thats done for security reasons as the all-seaters in England dont have any "Wellenbrecher" (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/47/Wellenbrecher.jpg) on their stands.

I don't understand why football grounds (in England atleast) can't have a variety of both terracing and seating to accomodate everyone, rather than forcing us all into a seat, an aspect that has become common since the taylor report.

I like the policy of only having all-seaters. The first times I went to Bundesliga games I always went on the main stand where youd have seats.
When I then went to watch the game on terraces I really didnt get the point. Its the same thing except that you have a hard time seeing anything and that youre forced to stand all the way through.
Not to mention that you have to turn up earlier by an eternity to get decent spots. The only argument that seems to make some sense from terrace-fans is the atmosphere question.

Tell that to the FLA and stewards. And what about people who pay a small fortune for a seat expecting a nice sit down and a lovely game of football and are then forced to stand by those who chose to stand?


If they end up in a fanblock where the fans will choose to stand up for the majority of the time then thats the way it is. However I would not charge them much more of what they are currently paying for their terraces where you have no choice in the first place.
What has driven the atmosphere out in the EPL is the fact that they charge you so much more for a ticket than they do in Germany.

Turkish 1st and 2nd league teams have to have all-seater stadiums
But the "ultras" stand :)

My personal preference is terraced 'promenades', where you have rows of terracing all around the pitch and then seats behind the terracing.

If you want to stand up then a seat will not deter you from doing it.

No but the fact that other people, who have also paid for seats, may not want to stand should deter you from it. I'm sorry but I find those that choose to stand in a seated area extremely rude because their decision forces others to also stand, whether or not they want to.

Turkish 1st and 2nd league teams have to have all-seater stadiums
But the "ultras" stand :)

The Kop does, so does K Stand at Man United.

The rest are a beaten bunch of do what the state says puppets.

If they end up in a fanblock where the fans will choose to stand up for the majority of the time then thats the way it is. However I would not charge them much more of what they are currently paying for their terraces where you have no choice in the first place.
What has driven the atmosphere out in the EPL is the fact that they charge you so much more for a ticket than they do in Germany.

The problem is that people (well day trippers) want to be a part of the bouncing blocks but when they get in them they don't like the borderline anarchy and slightly loutish goings on. Those people should do what they used to do - go in the side stands or better still stay at home.

The Kop does, so does K Stand at Man United.

The rest are a beaten bunch of do what the state says puppets.

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

If I ever go to a gig its standing or nowt. With Football there is just no choice but for the big games and away games its standing or standing even with seats.

Fully agree.
If you want to stand up then a seat will not deter you from doing it.
Another disadvantage of having terraces is the fact that they usually come alongside fences which are looking awful.
you can stand up, but you can´t slam, jump, run down and up the rows (like when celebrating a goal) , etc apart fropm the stuff already mentioned

you can stand up, but you can´t slam, jump, run down and up the rows (like when celebrating a goal) , etc apart fropm the stuff already mentioned

Why? The turkish fans still do it :D

you can stand up, but you can´t slam, jump, run down and up the rows (like when celebrating a goal) , etc apart fropm the stuff already mentioned

And thats a good thing.
If Im going to the stadium I want to see a decent match. The atmosphere is a part of it of course but there are some fans who think the atmosphere is actually more important than the game itself.

No but the fact that other people, who have also paid for seats, may not want to stand should deter you from it.
I'm sorry but I find those that choose to stand in a seated area extremely rude because their decision forces others to also stand, whether or not they want to.

Usually its the fanblocks in which a group of people stands up for the majority of the time.
If youre in an area where the majority doesnt want to stand up then itll indeed deter you from standing up which imo is fine.

And thats a good thing.
If Im going to the stadium I want to see a decent match.

and that's why you have seats in a stadium, for people like you. but not everybody is like that and that is why i don't like all-seater-stadiums. because there are different types of people (I am not speaking of troublemakers, they don't belong to a stadium at all) and some simply prefer to stand on a terrace. often simply because it's cheaper. more tickets on same space = usually lower price per ticket.

And thats a good thing.
If Im going to the stadium I want to see a decent match. The atmosphere is a part of it of course but there are some fans who think the atmosphere is actually more important than the game itself.
i think stadiums should have both, for people like you and people who like to do such stuff

lol i 2nd the corporate boxes, nothing beats that. i prefer seats and when i feel like standing i simply stand. da duh!

and that's why you have seats in a stadium, for people like you. but not everybody is like that and that is why i don't like all-seater-stadiums. because there are different types of people (I am not speaking of troublemakers, they don't belong to a stadium at all) and some simply prefer to stand on a terrace.

Yes, thats why I opened the poll in order to see who of the people here likes the idea of having terraces and why. So far the main argument seems to be the atmosphere question. Id agree that terraces make a difference there but overall, imo, the negative aspects do overweigh the positive ones.

often simply because it's cheaper. more tickets on same space = usually lower price per ticket.

The question here would be if the people who choose to go on terraces for economic reasons would prefer seats if it came at the same price.
The next question would be if theyd still buy tickets if the prices generally would go up a bit to balance out the reduction in cap that would result if the terraces would be replaced with seats.

Standing. Sitting at a football game? No way, it's never that boring. Or at least it should never be. Standing helps coordinate, gives a whole new bunch of possibilities for supporters. But then again, there's fewer and fewer supporters in the stadiums currently. More spectators, consumers and corporate guests. Shame on football.

For the record: I would gladly vote for seats if I had a guarantee the British situation won't repeat here and that we would always be allowed to stand in seated zones. But there's no chance of a guarantee of this kind. Especially with Polish gov't blindly following Britain without much thought involved.

No but the fact that other people, who have also paid for seats, may not want to stand should deter you from it. I'm sorry but I find those that choose to stand in a seated area extremely rude because their decision forces others to also stand, whether or not they want to.

I'm shocked :lol: I think it's extremely rude to pay for tickets (which other people would have bought) and sit on one's butt in silence when the team needs you. More - it's actually disgraceful! It's also shameful to eat popcorn while others try to be the 12th man. Who said the right to sit is the most holy one? I think the PRIVILEGE of being there for my team is way more important. If I wanted to sit, I would stay home, watch TV with closeups and replays.

PS: Of course I'm not suggesting all-terraced stadiums, but a wisely planned distinction between seating and standing sections.

stadiums should offer choice, standing areas for those who want to stand and seated areas for those who want to sit. The way it used to be!

Then in England at least ticket prices could be forced down in the standing areas so once again the big clubs have that passionate young working class fanbase which stop there stadiums become sterile homes full of families and fat balding old men trying to rekindle there youth.

Personally i prefer to stand at football, and even watching it in a bar. When my team the arsenal is palying, but at the emirates you get so many johnny and joanie come lately twats who tell you to sit down, i mean me and a mate were told to stop singing and sit down by a middle aged woman during an arsenal-tottenham game- she got told to fuck off, luckily the steward understood the situation of the game, the seats should be for people like her who want to be entertained, for me i want to support my team, and have a laugh with my mates!

Also a large terraced stand isn't comepeltely horrible to look at, i think the beauty is in it's imposing nature, in many stadiums an endless wall of steps, which when full represent a wall of noise which can suck balls into the net and blow balls away dependent on who's attacking the specific goal, is an amazing thing of beauty!

Standing brings passion to football, and it's passion what football in England is sadly lacking at the moment, apart from the really big games.

That's my two penneth anyways!!

The question here would be if the people who choose to go on terraces for economic reasons would prefer seats if it came at the same price.
The next question would be if theyd still buy tickets if the prices generally would go up a bit to balance out the reduction in cap that would result if the terraces would be replaced with seats.


i personally think that maybe it's the case for many, thats why when they get older and more economically sound some people in the past graduated from the "end" to the seats. That couldve been also to avoid the SPORADIC bouts of violence that could errupt on a terrace at any given momenet, espeically during the 70s.

However there are definately lots of people who prefer the freedom and anonimity you get on terraces, the ability to bunch with friends and the ability to Cascade.

I'd liken watching football to a vice. Watching football is bad for your health like smoking, watching it on a terrace is like taking cocaine or something, it gives you a buzz, it's exciting and it could be bad for your health and there is a miniscule chance of death. Whereas watching it from a seat is like smoking or drinking, it's compulsive but it doesn't give you the same buzz, it's more relaxing and entertaining than adrenaline pumping. Some people can kick the terrace habit and drop down to seats, some people are addicted and stuck for life, and some people never see the attraction of stading in the first place they see the risks far outweighing the benefits.

That maybe a bit of an outthere example but it sums it up for me.

For the record: I would gladly vote for seats if I had a guarantee the British situation won't repeat here and that we would always be allowed to stand in seated zones. But there's no chance of a guarantee of this kind. Especially with Polish gov't blindly following Britain without much thought involved.

Theres a reason for the over zealous stewards - nearly 100 people were killed at Hillsbrough.

I do think its gone a bit too far though now. Afterall, it has become clear that while standing back then was dangerous, it was in fact the police's fault.

So bring back standing in the German style.

Theres a reason for the over zealous stewards - nearly 100 people were killed at Hillsbrough.

I do think its gone a bit too far though now. Afterall, it has become clear that while standing back then was dangerous, it was in fact the police's fault.

So bring back standing in the German style.

If there were no fences or pens, everyone would've spilled onto the pitch, and probably no one wouldve died.

The same would happen in an all seater stadium with a fence, if too many people are let in then they have no where to go but to crush each other, and with seats you have added obstacles which make it more dangerous.

it was clear that terracing wasn't at all to blame for hillsborough, but became the scapegoat at a time when the authorities were looking at a reason to get rid of it without lighting the blue touch paper to a football fan revolt accross the country

Theres a reason for the over zealous stewards - nearly 100 people were killed at Hillsbrough.

I do think its gone a bit too far though now. Afterall, it has become clear that while standing back then was dangerous, it was in fact the police's fault.

So bring back standing in the German style.

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

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

Sitting at football matches? :lol:

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

my butt likes seats :D

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

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

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

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

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

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

And all seater stadia are to blame.

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

[...]

And all seater stadia are to blame.

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

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

What happened at Tottenham?

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

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

What happened at Tottenham?

I'm not sure how money is responsible - safe standing in areas of the pitch would increase capacity in stadiums and people could then choose between standing, seating and the corporate boxes/ridiculous corporate tiers. That way they can maximise the profits from all comers through price differentiation.

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

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

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

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

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

You haven't lived until you have been involved in a 10,000 person cascade down a flight of concrete steps...

Does anyone know the ratio of standing to sitting. It must be somewhere between 2-3 standies to one person sitting. That would still make standing @ the big london clubs grossley expensive. If it's 40 for the cheapest seat at Arsenal then it will be around £13-20 to stand, which is still a rip off.

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

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

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

^^

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

just to show that terracing is still modern:

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

http://www.union-foto.de/udb/albums/upload/2009_07_06_bau_af_denkmal/normal_bau_af_2009_07_06_23_18_13IMG_3302.JPG
http://www.union-foto.de/udb/albums/upload/2009_07_06_bau_af_denkmal/normal_bau_af_2009_07_06_23_18_59IMG_3307.JPG

This is how it looked before renovation

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c6/Union2.jpg

Bring back terracing I say. It rocks!!

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

They are called crush barriers as far as i know.

Terracing for the USA!

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

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

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

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

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

How soon one forgets all the tragic deaths from the not so distant past.
Modern terracing is quite different from ancient terracing here in germany.
They have smaller blocks separated so people don't crowd up too much, they don't allow as many people int the same areas as in former times, so the crowd isn't too dense. Much better emergency exits, "wavebreakers" to prevent masses from pushing people against fences or walls. Better security checks at the entrace, video observeillance and the troublemakers being expelled and banned from stadia all over germany. Plenty of police, especially in high security matches like between local rivals. Strict separation of guest and homefans, in some stadia not even allowing guestfans utensils in the home sectors or parts of the home sectors (mostly areas with terracing or those where the hardcore fans are located) and so on.
It really is very safe to have terracing in german stadia. That might not be the same in some other countries in the world, but in germany it is completely safe. And all those troublemakers and Hooligans usually meet and get into fights outside of the stadia much rather than inside. Most troublesome events are fireworks or some racist paroles shouted by a few idiots or objects thrown at players on the pitch. That usually results in a fine for the club and the responsible people who are often identified by video surveillance. And the clubs commonly have fan projects, local cops and social workers who know the szene and work together with fan organisations and the clubs to help minimize these troublesome incidents.
It's definetely not like in the 50ies anymore where stadia had completely different safety standards and were totally overcrowded often. which lead to some tragedies especially in cases where the people paniced. In modern stadia it's quite different and much much safer. simmilar to ddrivin around in an old VW Beetle in comparison to brand new modern state of the art car with Antilock brakes, ESP and lots of airbags. A lot has changed when it comes to terracing since those disaster-days, especially in Germany. And when it's considered safe and possible to have "terracing" with masses of people standing commonly and naturally at any larger concert all around the world, I really don't see any reason why it shouldn't be possible and safe to have terracing at soccer matches also especially with all the modern safety measures, standards and precautions.
You may assume people forget about those things, which in fact just isn't te case at all, the exact opposite is the case actually. They learned from them and have changed a lot since. And currently still are changing things here and there wherever things can be optimized and improved.

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

shows your ignorance, it was nothing to do with terracing, do you remember these ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellis_Park_Stadium_Disaster

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/1272810.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7971140.stm

poorly policed, overcrowded all seater stadium= death trap

well managed, well policed, all ticket terrace= safe

Modern terracing is quite different from ancient terracing here in germany.
They have smaller blocks separated so people don't crowd up too much, they don't allow as many people int the same areas as in former times, so the crowd isn't too dense. Much better emergency exits, "wavebreakers" to prevent masses from pushing people against fences or walls. Better security checks at the entrace, video observeillance and the troublemakers being expelled and banned from stadia all over germany. Plenty of police, especially in high security matches like between local rivals. Strict separation of guest and homefans, in some stadia not even allowing guestfans utensils in the home sectors or parts of the home sectors (mostly areas with terracing or those where the hardcore fans are located) and so on.
There were crush barriers for decades and video surveillance were already in place at Hillsborough. Yet, it couldn't prevent people from dying. The small pens even contributed to the disaster.
You are completely wrong about Hooligans being banned from German football grounds. They are still there and causing troubles in the ground particularly on the terraces.

It really is very safe to have terracing in german stadia. That might not be the same in some other countries in the world, but in germany it is completely safe. And all those troublemakers and Hooligans usually meet and get into fights outside of the stadia much rather than inside. Most troublesome events are fireworks or some racist paroles shouted by a few idiots or objects thrown at players on the pitch. That usually results in a fine for the club and the responsible people who are often identified by video surveillance. And the clubs commonly have fan projects, local cops and social workers who know the szene and work together with fan organisations and the clubs to help minimize these troublesome incidents.
German terraces are nowhere near as safe as you claim as the most unsafe measure is still in place, parameter fences.
The only real improvement compared to terraces of the past are the even and solid concrete steps.

But then again, people also died on seated stands. If you want to be really safe stay away from football grounds.

^^

The disaster in hillsborough were caused by bad police men doing their job wrong.

They let the gates open causing many liverpool supporters walk in the same way without paying, and causing one pen to be overfilled while other pens just half full.
There's a documentary in this, cant remember its name.

Anyway, standing at seated areas is far more dangerous.

^^
There's a documentary in this, cant remember its name.
It's called the lord Justice Taylor's reports ;) Actually there were also some documentaries that showed the stereotype Flierfy presents. That's wh I suggest sticking to the facts - terraces are not unsafe by itself, just like seated stadiums.

But then again, people also died on seated stands. If you want to be really safe stay away from football grounds.
Don't forget cars, aircraft, schools, workplace and last but definately not least - homes, as most accidents happen there.

It doesn't really matter what method you use in stadia. If people with a ticket are the only ones in, you don't have a problem. If there are no perimeter fences trapping people you shouldn't have a problem.

Neither of those have any relevance to terraces or all-seater. They can happen in both.

The disaster in hillsborough were caused by bad police men doing their job wrong.
Bad policing was just one contributing factor. There were others as well that were equally disastrous.

It's called the lord Justice Taylor's reports ;) Actually there were also some documentaries that showed the stereotype Flierfy presents. That's wh I suggest sticking to the facts - terraces are not unsafe by itself, just like seated stadiums.
Stereotypes? Do you actually know what you write. I rectified some biased statements that were made in previous posts to allow a more balanced view on terraces in this thread.

Neither of those have any relevance to terraces or all-seater. They can happen in both.
Of course they have. The German FA insists on parameter fences or similar measures that prevent supporters on the terraces from invading the pitch. Contrary to seated stands where there are rarely fences that separate supporters from the pitch anymore.

Why no fences at all seater stands? If there is a risk of people invading the pitch, then they just assume it would only be from the terraces?!

terracing all the way! best atmosphere FACT!

Irish stadiums have always used and will always use terracing..just watch

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kN3Y4FLenlw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65g1c3w1U8o

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_1MOTT6nYU&feature=related

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/64/177094595_7bf125870f.jpg?v=0

http://www.roadtoireland.eu/Ireland-Dublin-Croke-Park3.jpg

http://www.ardcloughgaa.com/BOI%20Football%20Championship%2006/dublin%20vs%20laois%2024th%20june/fans-on-hill.gif

http://longford.gaa.ie/longford%20v%20dublin%20action%2020%2005.jpg
http://www.freewebs.com/tims92/Croke%20Park/Croke%20Park%208.JPG

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkE7N8XFNMs

Why no fences at all seater stands? If there is a risk of people invading the pitch, then they just assume it would only be from the terraces?!

There is in Råsunda on the goal stands, but we never sit down.

Thats the most dangerous, standing in seated areas without backrest and without crush barriers :lol: hurray

Why no fences at all seater stands? If there is a risk of people invading the pitch, then they just assume it would only be from the terraces?!

Lots of all seater stadiums have fences...

There is in Råsunda on the goal stands, but we never sit down.

Thats the most dangerous, standing in seated areas without backrest and without crush barriers :lol: hurray

exactly!!

I don't know it is has been mentioned here before, I haven't read the entire thread, but how about a stand with steps 20cm high and 40cm deep, with every two rows those German seats that combine a tip-up seat with an individual crush barrier. In all-seater configuration the seat would cover the step underneath it when folded down and the seating capacity would be higher than for example at VfB Stuttgart's Gottlieb-Daimler Stadium, where you only have those seats every three rows:
http://www.fussballtempel.net/uefa/GER/Gottlieb-Daimler-Stadion6.jpg
I don't know if it would be very practical though, 80cm might be a bit narrow/claustrophobic for two rows of people passing through and standing?

all seaters - terraces are not the problem, problems starts when clubs sell more tickets than they should to earn more money........and then is whem terraces turn dangerous.

I think Buenos Aires and Argentinean football deserves a better stadium.

Some of the seats are concrete slabs!

They're called terraces and a football stadium without a terrace is pretty much a castrated stadium.

I like stadiums without terraces. Terraces are just not my thing.

I like stadiums without terraces. Terraces are just not my thing.

For a lot of people terraces considerably enhance the experience of watching football. People want to stand and chant. You can't stop a stadium full of people standing, even with all seater stadiums. I watched the Besiktas vs Manchester United Champions League game tonight and from what I could see not one of the 32,000 people there were sitting. If people are standing, it's a lot safer to do it in properly designed standing areas like they have in Germany than in areas designed for seating. Yes, old fashioned terraces can be dangerous but modern ones, combined with proper stewarding can be very safe.

In an ideal world all stadiums would have a standing section, even though I would expect the majority of the stadium to be seated.

United away fans stand wherever they go and Besiktas fans probably do the same.

Although it's not as safe my favourite position is to stand in a seated area. That way you can get into the game and chant, but you still have an allocated space and somewhere to sit down to eat your burger at half time.

Old fashioned terraces were death traps. Modern terraces benefit from both modern technology and proper stewarding. The best football stadiums have modern terraces on the ends and proper seating on the sidelines.

Back on topic....... That stadium looks very vibrant in the pictures I have seen from it.

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

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

That's what I, and most away fans, do! Then sometimes we get told to sit down even though we're not blocking anyone. When I go to Swindon away games, the deal is that the people who want to stand and chant fill the back first and those who want to sit fill the front first. Unfortunately stewards can still intervene!

Capacity overflows can only happen when the terraces aren't policed and/or ticketed properly. If they were ever brought back in in the UK, then they would be 'ticket only' (meaning you can't buy a ticket on the door) and a capacity for the terrace would be calculated first. They might divide them up into smaller sections.

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

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

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

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

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

^^ there is a thread about terracing somewhere. But there is nothing to know as far as I'm aware.

It's just they don't let as many people stand as in the olden days, and it's not penned off, they have fences at the front (but they also have lots of gates). I reckon the old terraces in england were somewhere between 2.5 -3:1 but Germany terraces are strictly 2:1. That is two people can stand where one person can sit.

The Anfield kop used to hold 28,000 in a footprint about 3/4 the size of the current kop (from comparing pictures) which holds around 13,000. Putting my maths head on that would mean the kop as a modern terrace could only hold 26,000, in a larger space than the old kop.

Also they have CCTV so it's impossible to just dissapear into the crowd, they also make terraces all ticket and they make sure crush barriers are checked and replaced regularly and terraces aren't left to rot.

Terracing as Lord Justic Taylor said himself isn't inherently safe, it's just when you cage and pen people in and the let too many people stand in that same area where have they got to go? The same would happen in an all seated area!

The problem is they linked terracing to hooliganism when they clearly weren't intrinsically linked. Terracing doesn't make you a hooligan it just faciliates hooligans, just like seating doesn't make you a pacifist, in fact it makes a damn good weapon. If people could free their minds and realise they aren't linked we'd have it back.

Main differences I can find are

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

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

^^ How does rake effect how many people can fit in? I would argue a shallow terrace is far safer than a steep one.

You still see surges in Germany though, you even see them in all seater stadiums in France, Italy and elsewhere... Especially when a goal is scored

The safe standing is still 2:1 though. If you look between those barriers there are two steps. I perrsonally don't like them as they are restrictive, and if you look most clubs are building the more open kind.

Bayern
http://www.fussballtempel.net/uefa/GER/Allianz_Arena_SK4.jpg
http://www.fussballtempel.net/uefa/GER/Allianz_Arena_SK6.jpg

Schalke
http://www.fussballtempel.net/uefa/GER/Auf_Schalke5.jpg

Dortmund, you can really see it in these pics
http://www.fussballtempel.net/uefa/GER/Westfalenstadion8.jpg
http://www.fussballtempel.net/uefa/GER/Westfalenstadion9.jpg

Gladbach
http://www.fussballtempel.net/uefa/GER/Borussia-Park5.jpg
http://www.fussballtempel.net/uefa/GER/Borussia-Park6.jpg
http://www.fussballtempel.net/uefa/GER/Borussia-Park7.jpg

seems like quite a few crush barriers in these pictures

http://www.stalbansceltic.com/old%20parkhead.jpg

http://www.oldgrounds.co.uk/bank.jpg

Is this Celtic park?
http://www.stalbansceltic.com/old%20parkhead.jpg

yep and the other one is Molineux (Wolves)

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

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

there is a downside to having terracing. a crowd avalanche<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/tWNU10EFkY4&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/tWNU10EFkY4&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

jesus.....if u think that videos bad check this one out totally insane! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKnujGgUMco&feature=PlayList&p=89649DB65BB8FB9F&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=56

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

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

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

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

@ alemannia fan

tbf I was watching the dortmund-schalke derby a few months back and when dortmnd though they scored there was a massive avalanche. Also watch games at St. Ettienne or Genoa when they score in all seater stadiums.

Although i'm not to sure what's wrong with them, people haven't died in surges it's usually been crushes of too many people. Of course you could get trampled but i've never heard stories of that.

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

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

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

jesus.....if u think that videos bad check this one out totally insane! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKnujGgUMco&feature=PlayList&p=89649DB65BB8FB9F&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=56

haha, my team! Grêmio!

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

^^ exactly, the sooner people get that in their head the sooner we can get to bringing them back. And i'm not talking about little pens, i'm talking about big sections like in Germany!

pro terracing:

Dortmund vs. Schalke - North stand:

FmxDmLgKbf4

deleted

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

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

there is a downside to having terracing. a crowd avalanche<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/tWNU10EFkY4&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/tWNU10EFkY4&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

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

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

Terraces never killed people...bad policing and stewarding did :cheers::okay:

Terraces/Populares toda la vida

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

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

XNboU_PbZMY

q9XUUMF-ihU

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


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

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

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

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

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

EEJ6Xe7_LOs

two comments below tell their own story

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

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

I misspelled this:

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

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

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

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

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

All-seaters...

Terraces.

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

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

Look this picture
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ea/Racing_2.jpg

THAT IS FOOTBALL

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

All seater:
http://www.neuepresse.de/var/storage/images/np/sport/hannover-96/uebersicht/trauriger-promi-auflauf-zur-gedenkfeier/4166928-1-ger-DE/Trauriger-Promi-Auflauf-zur-Gedenkfeier_ArtikelQuer.jpg
(picture from: www.neuepresse.de)

Terracing:
http://www.sportschau.de/sp/fussball/news201004/21/img/aachen_dpa512.jpg
(picture from: www.sportschau.de)

Terracing all the way!

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

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

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3318/4613474688_f7cdc4ce82.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3250/2842020725_fe8c8ae541.jpg

http://k43.pbase.com/v3/08/578508/2/49142032.UpLoadPhotosHill16.jpg

http://www.sportingvisions.com/imgdir/165122476/dublin-team.jpg

http://homepage.eircom.net/~flukey/Pictures/DubTyHill16.jpg

This is the biggest terrace in Ireland (14,000), and there has never been an accident on it because when the tickets are fully allocated for it they dont sell anymore
h81RqAyzyFc

The Safe Standing Bill



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Huh?? I wish we had standing areas

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

You guys are thinking about it from a spectators point of view.

Lets take Tottenham for instance. What incentive do Spurs have in making their capacity bigger than 56,000? This would disrupt the demand/supply leverage they hold with a 56,000 seater. 5-10,000 extra standing room tickets for cheap or a lowered capacity in which you can dictate pricing through supply/demand? The clubs building new stadiums need to ensure they have avenues in which to bleed supporters further down the track; standing room is in direct violation of that.

I'm no expert on this, but it seems implausible that clubs wouldn't take that line of thought. From an economic perspective I really don't see why any large club would support standing room areas. You also have to take into account that the league in which standing room works the best is the Bundesliga - not the best example considering how cheap tickets are across the board. Admission prices are generally lower seat or no seat, which makes it difficult to compare to English football. You would have to ask yourself what clubs in England would get out of offering 10,000 cheap tickets? Atmosphere? Ok, sure. But thats not enough.

You guys are thinking about it from a spectators point of view.

Lets take Tottenham for instance. What incentive do Spurs have in making their capacity bigger than 56,000? This would disrupt the demand/supply leverage they hold with a 56,000 seater. 5-10,000 extra standing room tickets for cheap or a lowered capacity in which you can dictate pricing through supply/demand? The clubs building new stadiums need to ensure they have avenues in which to bleed supporters further down the track; standing room is in direct violation of that.

Experience in the lower divisions of England has shown that you don't need to offer huge discounts on standing tickets for those areas to still be popular.


I'm no expert on this, but it seems implausible that clubs wouldn't take that line of thought. From an economic perspective I really don't see why any large club would support standing room areas. You also have to take into account that the league in which standing room works the best is the Bundesliga - not the best example considering how cheap tickets are across the board. Admission prices are generally lower seat or no seat, which makes it difficult to compare to English football. You would have to ask yourself what clubs in England would get out of offering 10,000 cheap tickets? Atmosphere? Ok, sure. But thats not enough.
Bundesliga seat tickets aren't that much cheaper than England. It's just the terrace tickets which are much cheaper.

Adding terraces would improve the atmosphere in grounds hugely. It improves the whole matchday experience, making it likely that fans would want to go. German football has the highest crowds in Europe, after all, and probably the best atmosphere.

Far too many grounds in England are dull and lifeless for much of the time. Seats just encourage you to sit back and be a spectator, rather than a fan.

Experience in the lower divisions of England has shown that you don't need to offer huge discounts on standing tickets for those areas to still be popular.


Bundesliga seat tickets aren't that much cheaper than England. It's just the terrace tickets which are much cheaper.

Adding terraces would improve the atmosphere in grounds hugely. It improves the whole matchday experience, making it likely that fans would want to go. German football has the highest crowds in Europe, after all, and probably the best atmosphere.

Far too many grounds in England are dull and lifeless for much of the time. Seats just encourage you to sit back and be a spectator, rather than a fan.

The Bundesliga has €350m less per season than the Premier League in matchday revenues.

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2010/apr/11/bundesliga-premier-league

So clearly there is a difference in ticket pricing.

I'm not arguing against standing room under any circumstance outside of economic value in matchday revenue. I think there are a number of clubs (looking at Arsenal, Chelsea, Tottenham, Man United specifically) that would be hesitant to include standing room because of what the knock on effect it would have on ticket pricing in general.

Its all down to supply and demand. You say games are dull, but stadiums are generally full. If fans start to leave the game, then prices will come down substantially. It'll all even itself out.

You guys are thinking about it from a spectators point of view.

Lets take Tottenham for instance. What incentive do Spurs have in making their capacity bigger than 56,000? This would disrupt the demand/supply leverage they hold with a 56,000 seater. 5-10,000 extra standing room tickets for cheap or a lowered capacity in which you can dictate pricing through supply/demand? The clubs building new stadiums need to ensure they have avenues in which to bleed supporters further down the track; standing room is in direct violation of that.

You seem to think that 56,000 would represenet the sum total of demand for tottenham... 56,000 is the amount of people willing to pay crazy money, but you factor in terracing and the demand goes way higher than that.

I'm no expert on this, but it seems implausible that clubs wouldn't take that line of thought. From an economic perspective I really don't see why any large club would support standing room areas. You also have to take into account that the league in which standing room works the best is the Bundesliga - not the best example considering how cheap tickets are across the board. Admission prices are generally lower seat or no seat, which makes it difficult to compare to English football. You would have to ask yourself what clubs in England would get out of offering 10,000 cheap tickets? Atmosphere? Ok, sure. But thats not enough.

As the good reverand says bundesliga prices aren't really that much different to premier league ones.

For instance a terraces ticket in the bundesliga works out to roughly half the cheapest seated tickets in the premier league and terraces can hold two people where one person can sit, so in reality you probably make mor emoney with terracing as you can sell more food and drink. But a seated ticket is roughly the same, they even have more expensive seated tickets than we do.

Big clubs don't want it because they are scared it will bring back the proles and ruin the images they are trying to create to attract the upper middle class and corporate clientele, the ones with the real money.


The Bundesliga has €350m less per season than the Premier League in matchday revenues.
Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2010/apr/11/bundesliga-premier-league So clearly there is a difference in ticket pricing.

Err what, the bundesliga plays 306 games, the premier league 380. That's 74 more games the premier league makes that money off of, it's a lot closer than you think.


I'm not arguing against standing room under any circumstance outside of economic value in matchday revenue. I think there are a number of clubs (looking at Arsenal, Chelsea, Tottenham, Man United specifically) that would be hesitant to include standing room because of what the knock on effect it would have on ticket pricing in general.

Err

1. Arsenal have a season ticket waiting list of 40,000, and a membership base of over 130,000.
2. All those clubs you listed have thousands of poor fans who can't afford the current tickets. Terracing would allow them to get those fans in the stadium without losing revenue as they'd price the tickets at half the current prices. The fear is that it would just be the fans who currently pay transferring to the terracing and then leave loads of empty seats. If terrace tickets were just for new fans it would not effect ticket prices at all.

Its all down to supply and demand. You say games are dull, but stadiums are generally full. If fans start to leave the game, then prices will come down substantially. It'll all even itself out.

And if you knew what you were talking about you'd know there would be huge demand for terracing and seats still.

As the good reverand says bundesliga prices aren't really that much different to premier league ones.

For instance a terraces ticket in the bundesliga works out to roughly half the cheapest seated tickets in the premier league and terraces can hold two people where one person can sit, so in reality you probably make mor emoney with terracing as you can sell more food and drink. But a seated ticket is roughly the same, they even have more expensive seated tickets than we do.

Terraces are very cheap. You can get into Bundesliga games for about £11 (adult price).

Seats tend to vary hugely in price. You can get the poor seats, top tier in corners etc for around £20. Average would be nearer £30, but top prices exceed £40.

Take a look a Hamburg's seating prices as an example.
http://www.hsv.de/fileadmin/redaktion/Tickets/Saison_10_11/Grafik%20Preise%20Homepage%2010_11.JPG
http://www.hsv.de/fileadmin/redaktion/Tickets/Saison_10_11/Grafik%20Preise%20Homepage%2010_11.JPG


When the premier league was formed, they took advice from the NFL about various things, and one bit of advice they gave was to keep capacity lower than demand, as this not only allowed you to charge more due to seats being at a premium, but made fans think they had to buy a season ticket or they wouldn't get in.

The German model clearly revolves around mixing better facilities with giving the fans what they want to encourage all types to attend.

I feel sorry for those who haven't experienced the buzz of standing on a packed-to-the-rafters terrace with thousands of others and having no control of where you may end up when the crowd starts to sway and pile forward. Football was great in the 70s and 80s :banana: :cheers: :cheers1::master::cheers2::bow::grouphug:

Terraces are very cheap. You can get into Bundesliga games for about £11 (adult price).

Seats tend to vary hugely in price. You can get the poor seats, top tier in corners etc for around £20. Average would be nearer £30, but top prices exceed £40.

Take a look a Hamburg's seating prices as an example.
http://www.hsv.de/fileadmin/redaktio...ge%2010_11.JPG

The German model clearly revolves around mixing better facilities with giving the fans what they want to encourage all types to attend.

the german model revolves around price points, same with the italian model (Where they put the cheap seats up in the Gods). That is they price a ticket at a point where demand would stay high, whereas in England we underprice our seated tickets meaning that the difference between the cheapest and most expensive tickets at most clubs is tiny in comparison to Germany or Italy. For example a ticket on the side at Arsenal should be going for much more than it does and a seated ticket at the Emirates should be a lot cheaper too, Essentially the expensive tickets cross subsidise the cheaper ones.

Having a large amount of price points allow you to attract a wide variety of fans. Clubs currently descriminate and I know fears have been raised about where the next generation of premier league fans are coming from as most people say under 30 rarely attend stadiums are used to watching on TV or computers. Having a lower price point will allow every type of person in, safeguarding fans for when they are older and richer.

When the premier league was formed, they took advice from the NFL about various things, and one bit of advice they gave was to keep capacity lower than demand, as this not only allowed you to charge more due to seats being at a premium, but made fans think they had to buy a season ticket or they wouldn't get in.

Are you sure about this... I've heard in the 1980s that people like David Dein went over to see how things were done and were shocked at the slickness of their business model, but I don't recall reading the NFL actually giving advice.

Anyway other than Arsenal I can't think of a club who have set capacity below demand, and Arsenal originally wanted an 80,000 seater and were forced by Islington council to settle for 60,000. Most other clubs have kept with demand (manchester united), play in stadiums way above demand (Bolton, Blackburn) or have been trying to move/expand for years (even though they don't sell out all the time now) but can't (Spurs, Liverpool, Everton, Villa, Pompey). Remember West Ham, Wolves, Charlton, Reading, Derby all proposed stadium expansions when they were in the premier league. Also mean when Chelsea first expanded stamford bridge to 42,000 it only increased their average to around 39,000.

Anyway, number of normal seats doesn't directly effect premium seats. I would argue even if Arsenal didn't sell any of their normal seats people who currently pay for club level wouldn't switch because the seats are sepcifically catered for that type of consumer whereas normal seat aren't.

the german model revolves around price points, same with the italian model (Where they put the cheap seats up in the Gods). That is they price a ticket at a point where demand would stay high, whereas in England we underprice our seated tickets meaning that the difference between the cheapest and most expensive tickets at most clubs is tiny in comparison to Germany or Italy. For example a ticket on the side at Arsenal should be going for much more than it does and a seated ticket at the Emirates should be a lot cheaper too, Essentially the expensive tickets cross subsidise the cheaper ones.

It depends how you view it. Are our seats underpriced, or are our "cheap" seats overpriced?

It is perhaps surprising that so few clubs here charge a premium for the best seats, typically charging the same price for a whole stand, maybe more for the upper tier.



Are you sure about this... I've heard in the 1980s that people like David Dein went over to see how things were done and were shocked at the slickness of their business model, but I don't recall reading the NFL actually giving advice.

Either that or the voices in my head are talking again.


Anyway other than Arsenal I can't think of a club who have set capacity below demand, and Arsenal originally wanted an 80,000 seater and were forced by Islington council to settle for 60,000. Most other clubs have kept with demand (manchester united), play in stadiums way above demand (Bolton, Blackburn) or have been trying to move/expand for years (even though they don't sell out all the time now) but can't (Spurs, Liverpool, Everton, Villa, Pompey). Remember West Ham, Wolves, Charlton, Reading, Derby all proposed stadium expansions when they were in the premier league. Also mean when Chelsea first expanded stamford bridge to 42,000 it only increased their average to around 39,000.

This is going back 20 years though, when the all-seater requirements were just being mooted. Ground capacities would be slashed by adding seats, and it was realised this wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. Highbury may have held nearly 60000 in 1989, but the club's average crowd was only 35000.

It wasn't so much about locking fans out, as creating scarcity for tickets. Back then very few fans had season tickets. You just didn't need one. You turned up on the day and paid in cash (and typically moaned that it was outrageous that ticket prices had gone up to £5). Chop down that capacity by 25% or so, and paying on the day becomes a riskier option, meaning fans start to buy season tickets in larger numbers. Get enough season ticket holders and wavering fans, those who might have only gone 8 or 9 times a year suddenly realise they need to buy a season ticket.

Of course, as demand increases, you can then increase capacity bit by bit to meet that extra demand.


You have to also consider that it was also a time when confidence in the game was much lower than now. Top division crowds in 1988, for example, were the second lowest since the war, at just 19,273. If you'd suggested crowds 20 years later could average around 36000, you'd have been laughed at. Clubs were more concerned with retaining the fans they had than anticipating the boom that was about to come.

It depends how you view it. Are our seats underpriced, or are our "cheap" seats overpriced?

It is perhaps surprising that so few clubs here charge a premium for the best seats, typically charging the same price for a whole stand, maybe more for the upper tier.

It is stupid they don't charge a premium imho...

Our lower league tickets are definately over priced but they can do that because games are rarely on tv. In other countries you can watch 3rd division teams week in week out on telly, and that is ridiculous, obviously lowering demand for match tickets.

In the premier league, I'd argue the big clubs under price and over price. Whereas the smaller clubs over price their cheap tickets but obviously do so because they need all the revenue they can get because we don't share it.

Either that or the voices in my head are talking again

This is going back 20 years though, when the all-seater requirements were just being mooted. Ground capacities would be slashed by adding seats, and it was realised this wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. Highbury may have held nearly 60000 in 1989, but the club's average crowd was only 35000.
.

I don't think our capacity was 57K in 89. Iirc (I can't find where I read it) our highest gate that season was 45K and our lowest was 28K. I think we lost capacity putting the boxes in the clock end and cutting out the corner between the east stand and the clock end with a medical facility or something.

Oh yeah round up it was 35,595, in 1990/91 we averaged 36864

I know there was plans to all seat the old north bank but this would've left the capacity at 32,000, lower than we were averaging so we didn't build it based on demand. The capacity of all seat highbury was suprisingly close to the terrace capacity (of its later days). And anyway the first season we filled highbury to more or less capacity was 1995-96.

It wasn't so much about locking fans out, as creating scarcity for tickets. Back then very few fans had season tickets. You just didn't need one. You turned up on the day and paid in cash (and typically moaned that it was outrageous that ticket prices had gone up to £5). Chop down that capacity by 25% or so, and paying on the day becomes a riskier option, meaning fans start to buy season tickets in larger numbers. Get enough season ticket holders and wavering fans, those who might have only gone 8 or 9 times a year suddenly realise they need to buy a season ticket.

I know, and the fact that we televise less than half our league games means fans of clubs no to get to see a decent percentage of their club's games they'd actually have to turn. Unlike in other countries where you can watch every one of your favourite team's games from your living room, hence why it's no wonder why Serie A and La liga struggle to sell out.

Oh and of course the season ticket thing works, look at Milan's crowds in the early 90s when games were rarely on TV and they were selling 70,000+ season tickets. They dangle the carrot of the big game in front of people and say that you need to buy season tickets to guarantee your place at the games you want to go, in Spain they even whack the prices up for the big games to encourage people to buy season tickets (or milk people I dunno).

The problem of season tickets is it means less different people actually go to games in a given season. You could argue even in Arsenal's dark days we probably had as many if not more different people turning up to the stadium than now. But I do thing foreign leagues would benefit from more season tickets and less televised games if only to fill up their stadiums again.

Of course, as demand increases, you can then increase capacity bit by bit to meet that extra demand.

Juventus' plan

You have to also consider that it was also a time when confidence in the game was much lower than now. Top division crowds in 1988, for example, were the second lowest since the war, at just 19,273. If you'd suggested crowds 20 years later could average around 36000, you'd have been laughed at. Clubs were more concerned with retaining the fans they had than anticipating the boom that was about to come.

Come on top division crowds had it plateau around the 19,000 mark for most of the mid-late 80s. But we're not talking 88 but 90 after the taylor report where clubs planned mass redevelopments. By then crowds were back on the rise (if only by a little), and I'm sure most clubs didn't start to mke their plans until after the euphoria and rebirth of Italia 90. As David Conn wrote in his book The beautiful game, the clubs knew, there was going to be a football explosion in terms of TV and fans pouring back, that's why there were all that report published in the early 90s recommending that the FA and FL merge.

[QUOTE]
I know, and the fact that we televise less than half our league games means fans of clubs no to get to see a decent percentage of their club's games they'd actually have to turn. Unlike in other countries where you can watch every one of your favourite team's games from your living room, hence why it's no wonder why Serie A and La liga struggle to sell out.

I don't know about Arsenal, but I know it is possible to watch ALL Liverpool games (home and away) in many pubs in Liverpool, and the majority of Everton games too. I would be surprised if it wasn't the same for Arsenal too. The vast majority of LFC's local support are now armchair fans who can be certain of watching every game from the comfort of their local for nothing, and have long since given up on attending Anfield. Everton's 12,000+ obstructed views (3k+ severely obstructed) severely limits the number of season tickets that can be sold, and greatly adds to the pub-going fraternity who wont pay £1-2 less than usual to sit behind a column that obscures half the pitch. On matchdays, throughout Merseyside the pubs do a roaring trade, and it's very common to have both clubs on at once in each pub. This has become the normal matchday routine for the vast majority.

Oh and of course the season ticket thing works, look at Milan's crowds in the early 90s when games were rarely on TV and they were selling 70,000+ season tickets. They dangle the carrot of the big game in front of people and say that you need to buy season tickets to guarantee your place at the games you want to go, in Spain they even whack the prices up for the big games to encourage people to buy season tickets (or milk people I dunno).

The acid test is often when the cup games come around. (If cup games aren't included in season Tkt packages).... the drop in gates can be quite dramatic. In my youth, the cup games often yielded the biggest attendances of the season.... now they're often the smallest. Many fans who are now tied into attending League games via their season tickets, don't seem to have the same conviction for the cups. Again, in my younger days, a season ticket holder was a loyal fan who would probably not miss any games. Now many are quite casual fans just forced to attend by "marketing" of ST's.


The problem of season tickets is it means less different people actually go to games in a given season. You could argue even in Arsenal's dark days we probably had as many if not more different people turning up to the stadium than now. But I do thing foreign leagues would benefit from more season tickets and less televised games if only to fill up their stadiums again.

Agree, the aging demographic will bite them all on the backside one day..... but for the moment most are trying the complete opposite of "stack 'em high, sell 'em cheap".... a limited market strategy in the long term IMO.

Agree, the aging demographic will bite them all on the backside one day..... but for the moment most are trying the complete opposite of "stack 'em high, sell 'em cheap".... a limited market strategy in the long term IMO.

Clubs are probably thinking that the 20 somethings now will have vastly more disposable income by the time they are 40, thus replacing the current middle aged baldies that make-up the bulk of match going supporters. They don't really have to worry, at the moment, about losing fans to the sport. It seems even those who have never grown up where attending matches is a big part of their life, are still clued to football. I have to be honest though, football becomes less and less important in my life every season and I'm 26. I wasn't in the UK from July until 2 weeks ago and, tbh, I never missed it.

Clubs are probably thinking that the 20 somethings now will have vastly more disposable income by the time they are 40, thus replacing the current middle aged baldies that make-up the bulk of match going supporters. They don't really have to worry, at the moment, about losing fans to the sport. It seems even those who have never grown up where attending matches is a big part of their life, are still clued to football. I have to be honest though, football becomes less and less important in my life every season and I'm 26. I wasn't in the UK from July until 2 weeks ago and, tbh, I never missed it.
I think it's pretty normal for fans to be more "hardcore" when they are younger. As you get older, fans tend to thin out. Some find that with families they have more important things to spend their money on. For many, you just get a sense of "been there, done that" and the appeal dries up.

That's the big danger with having so many older fans making up the crowd these days. They are relying on fans who didn't go in their youth to make up the numbers when the a proportion of the younger fans who do go, drop out.

Mind you, as much as people go on about the high average age of fans these days, there's very little info on how old fans used to be. Certainly the noisy parts of the terraces people rememeber from their youth were filled with young people of roughly the same age, but the same wasn't true of the other parts of the grounds.

I think it's pretty normal for fans to be more "hardcore" when they are younger. As you get older, fans tend to thin out. Some find that with families they have more important things to spend their money on. For many, you just get a sense of "been there, done that" and the appeal dries up.

That's the big danger with having so many older fans making up the crowd these days. They are relying on fans who didn't go in their youth to make up the numbers when the a proportion of the younger fans who do go, drop out.

Mind you, as much as people go on about the high average age of fans these days, there's very little info on how old fans used to be. Certainly the noisy parts of the terraces people rememeber from their youth were filled with young people of roughly the same age, but the same wasn't true of the other parts of the grounds.

I can't say I've researched to any great depth, but I feel this is all happening against a backdrop of a much different demographic for society generally, compared to say 30-40yrs ago. Given the falling birthrate of the past few decades I don't think there is anything like the same number of youngsters in most UK cities. Both Liverpool clubs had a massive young population on their doorstep that doesn't even exist nowadays. I believe this (amongst other things) has resulted in Everton having the longest serving fans in the league.... an average of 30yrs+ of attending matches. This doesn't bode well for the future..... and to get back on thread, I'm not sure how this would allow for the re-introduction of terraces. Are the youngsters out there in sufficient numbers to fill these sections? If the Lower Gwladys and Paddock/lower-Bullens were reverted to terracing, the capacity could be 50k+. It would at least erradicate some of the obstructed view issues, in that someone standing can choose not to stand directly behind a pillar. :)

I don't know about Arsenal, but I know it is possible to watch ALL Liverpool games (home and away) in many pubs in Liverpool, and the majority of Everton games too. I would be surprised if it wasn't the same for Arsenal too. The vast majority of LFC's local support are now armchair fans who can be certain of watching every game from the comfort of their local for nothing, and have long since given up on attending Anfield. Everton's 12,000+ obstructed views (3k+ severely obstructed) severely limits the number of season tickets that can be sold, and greatly adds to the pub-going fraternity who wont pay £1-2 less than usual to sit behind a column that obscures half the pitch. On matchdays, throughout Merseyside the pubs do a roaring trade, and it's very common to have both clubs on at once in each pub. This has become the normal matchday routine for the vast majority.

It's the same round where I live there are one or two pubs and when I lived down in canterbury there was a well known pub there packed full on a saturday. Then you also can stream any game in pretty good quality on the net.

But you have to remember there are kids out there who can't/don't go in pubs and people who aren't computer savvy enough to know where to go to stream. So I still think a significant percentage of people aren't watching games when they could if they were broadcast live to our homes.

Isn't it really Everton's fault for selling obstructed tickets so high, or even the fan's fault for being willing to pay those prices in the first place. You guys badly need a new stadium...

The acid test is often when the cup games come around. (If cup games aren't included in season Tkt packages).... the drop in gates can be quite dramatic. In my youth, the cup games often yielded the biggest attendances of the season.... now they're often the smallest. Many fans who are now tied into attending League games via their season tickets, don't seem to have the same conviction for the cups. Again, in my younger days, a season ticket holder was a loyal fan who would probably not miss any games. Now many are quite casual fans just forced to attend by "marketing" of ST's.

Arsenal use cup games to bring in the "out-casted" fans, as it were. Cheaper tickets and they look they are doing their bit for the community. hence why we get huge crowds for even the carling cup.

Agree, the aging demographic will bite them all on the backside one day..... but for the moment most are trying the complete opposite of "stack 'em high, sell 'em cheap".... a limited market strategy in the long term IMO.

Since when has football ever thought about the long term...

I can't say I've researched to any great depth, but I feel this is all happening against a backdrop of a much different demographic for society generally, compared to say 30-40yrs ago. Given the falling birthrate of the past few decades I don't think there is anything like the same number of youngsters in most UK cities. Both Liverpool clubs had a massive young population on their doorstep that doesn't even exist nowadays. I believe this (amongst other things) has resulted in Everton having the longest serving fans in the league.... an average of 30yrs+ of attending matches. This doesn't bode well for the future..... and to get back on thread, I'm not sure how this would allow for the re-introduction of terraces. Are the youngsters out there in sufficient numbers to fill these sections? If the Lower Gwladys and Paddock/lower-Bullens were reverted to terracing, the capacity could be 50k+. It would at least erradicate some of the obstructed view issues, in that someone standing can choose not to stand directly behind a pillar.

There are definately enough kids, in London anyway. I mean there must be at least 300,000 kids on merseyside, surely that's enough, wiki says 42% of Liverpool's population is under 30. The UK is hardly full of old people and the population is increasing (mainly down to immigration i know). I can't see why Everton would have a problem with that.

Isn't it really Everton's fault for selling obstructed tickets so high, or even the fan's fault for being willing to pay those prices in the first place. You guys badly need a new stadium...

A few new roofs would erradicate all upper tier obstructions..... and/or perhaps a new grandstand on the Bullens side could improve things dramatically.... so I'm not too bothered about "needing" to move as such tbh. But you're right, obstructed views should be practically freebies.


There are definately enough kids, in London anyway. I mean there must be at least 300,000 kids on merseyside, surely that's enough, wiki says 42% of Liverpool's population is under 30. The UK is hardly full of old people and the population is increasing (mainly down to immigration i know). I can't see why Everton would have a problem with that.

As I said, I haven't researched it to any depth..... but I do know that the number of schools in Liverpool has dropped dramatically since I was at school, as has the population generally. The densely populated districts of Everton and vauxhall (between the city centre and Anfield/GP) have only a fraction of their former populations too, and these roads used to be teaming with thousands of matchgoing fans walking to the game every weekend..... It's a wasteland now..... then of course not to mention what Liverpool's successes did to erode that support further.

I want to bump this thread as I was reading some articles about an, IMO, dumb move by FSF to reinstate "limited standing areas" on English stadia and came across this thread.

First of all, I think the game is far more civilized with all-seater stadia. For decades, football had been used as a way to promote stupid and often deadly local/regional rivalries, catering for the low-lives of society. It was a game people of respect would stay out of attending.

The situation of football in certain countries by the 1970s was like the situation of their blighted social/council housing projects: crime-ridden, violent, decaying.

After many, many warning we had the first carnage of Heysel (1985), which still didn't prompt swift action to reform football, having it to wait until the mayhem of Hillsborough 4 years later.

Under a strict crowd control approach, all-seater stadium is better than partially-standing stadium. Even if people stand up in seating areas, they will not congregate in dangerous numbers in the front rows, and each person will stay within its seat area pretty much all the way.

All-seating arrangements is an important part, though not the only factor, in changing the makeup of stadia attendance. I really couldn't care less about atmosphere or "vibrancy". I just don't want to read in BBC Sports or Gazzetta or La Marca that couple dozen fans died in what is supposed to be just a game, enjoyable sometimes, but never a reason to live and, let alone, die.

So I think the gentrification of stadia, if one calls it that way, is more than welcome. There is no such thing as "right to football" as some advocates suggest that football clubs would be "indispensable" to some geographically defined place. If you need a hooligan gang to feel you have an "identity", better head to a doctor, not to a stadium. In the specific case of Premier League, it helps a lot its "Asian expansion" plans. An unruled crowd, stadium fights, police interventions would blow the image of modernity and the league has been building around itself. What is the point of moving kick-off time earlier to match primetime in Asia if you have then some crowds resembling a barbarian gang?

In regard of ticket pricing, fellow forumers already explored very well the economic implications. If you follow the Italian/German ticket paradigm, you end up with people having narrowly defined preferences for specific sectors: the "ultras" won't bother paying high prices for premium seat area, but families or just people who want to WATCH a game will never bother to buy a ticket for the "ultras' corner".

When you integrate all of your seats and reduce this tiering system, you vastly increase the reach of seats for each person, as they don't perceive much difference about different seats but the view.

Season tickets also have the advantage of assuring a narrowly defined area in which you can watch any game you want. Unassigned seating, let alone standing, brings up dangerous situations in which people start arriving much earlier to "key" games because they want to watch it from a privileged spot and the only way to do it is arriving earlier.

It is also important to place the ticket price increase within the context of football becoming far more wealthy. English clubs, particularly, are heavily indebted and need to make as much money as possible if they want to stay competitive on the World stage. It has been an "arms race" that brought player's salaries 10-fold what they were in the mid-1980s, even adjusting for inflation - let alone transfer fees. But I think it is better that players are getting a larger piece of the football money pie, it wasn't that way in the 1980s, when income had started growing (more TV £££) but salaries were stagnated pretty much.

I want to bump this thread as I was reading some articles about an, IMO, dumb move by FSF to reinstate "limited standing areas" on English stadia and came across this thread.

First of all, I think the game is far more civilized with all-seater stadia. For decades, football had been used as a way to promote stupid and often deadly local/regional rivalries, catering for the low-lives of society. It was a game people of respect would stay out of attending.

The situation of football in certain countries by the 1970s was like the situation of their blighted social/council housing projects: crime-ridden, violent, decaying.

That is certainly true. However, a few clubs did go all seater way before Hillsborough, and crowd trouble still existed in those stadiums.

What changed, in England at least, was a combination of more effective policing (particularly with regards to using CCTV to convict and ban troublemakers) and a change in attitudes among fans. The hooligans didn't necessarily go away, but they were marginalised.


After many, many warning we had the first carnage of Heysel (1985), which still didn't prompt swift action to reform football, having it to wait until the mayhem of Hillsborough 4 years later.

You seem to be under the impression that Hillsborough was caused by crowd trouble. It wasn't. It was caused by around 2000 people being funnelled into and area only capable of holding about 1500, with no means of exit. There had been a number of problems in that end before because of the poor design.


Under a strict crowd control approach, all-seater stadium is better than partially-standing stadium. Even if people stand up in seating areas, they will not congregate in dangerous numbers in the front rows, and each person will stay within its seat area pretty much all the way.

People don't congregate dangerously in the front rows of terraces. The front is actually the least popular place of any terrace due to the poor view.

"Safe standing" is actually a call for people to be allowed to stand in seated areas. That's currently banned in England.

I really couldn't care less about atmosphere or "vibrancy".

An awful lot of people do though.


I just don't want to read in BBC Sports or Gazzetta or La Marca that couple dozen fans died in what is supposed to be just a game, enjoyable sometimes, but never a reason to live and, let alone, die.

Nor should jetting of on holiday and risking being in a plane crash. What the aviation industry does is look at crashes and near incidents to see where safety can improve. It doesn't say "fly is dangerous, so we must stop doing it".

The football industry, in contrast, has tended to act only to very serious incidents with multiple fatalities. Often there have been warnings that have been ignored.


So I think the gentrification of stadia, if one calls it that way, is more than welcome. There is no such thing as "right to football" as some advocates suggest that football clubs would be "indispensable" to some geographically defined place. If you need a hooligan gang to feel you have an "identity", better head to a doctor, not to a stadium.

Your continued logic of equating terracing with hooliganism, as if people who want to stand also therefore must want crowd trouble, is so wrong as to be almost frightening.


In the specific case of Premier League, it helps a lot its "Asian expansion" plans. An unruled crowd, stadium fights, police interventions would blow the image of modernity and the league has been building around itself. What is the point of moving kick-off time earlier to match primetime in Asia if you have then some crowds resembling a barbarian gang?

Again, if you think having a terrace will mean riots, then you just don't have a clue.


In regard of ticket pricing, fellow forumers already explored very well the economic implications. If you follow the Italian/German ticket paradigm, you end up with people having narrowly defined preferences for specific sectors: the "ultras" won't bother paying high prices for premium seat area, but families or just people who want to WATCH a game will never bother to buy a ticket for the "ultras' corner".

...and that's actually the idea scenario, with everyone in "their" place in the stadium, with their kind of people.



Season tickets also have the advantage of assuring a narrowly defined area in which you can watch any game you want. Unassigned seating, let alone standing, brings up dangerous situations in which people start arriving much earlier to "key" games because they want to watch it from a privileged spot and the only way to do it is arriving earlier.

It's not a dangerous situation. If people want the best spots they turn up early. If the place they'd prefer is full, they stand somewhere else. It's not dangerous at all, just as long as movement isn't restricted by fences.


It is also important to place the ticket price increase within the context of football becoming far more wealthy. English clubs, particularly, are heavily indebted and need to make as much money as possible if they want to stay competitive on the World stage. It has been an "arms race" that brought player's salaries 10-fold what they were in the mid-1980s, even adjusting for inflation - let alone transfer fees. But I think it is better that players are getting a larger piece of the football money pie, it wasn't that way in the 1980s, when income had started growing (more TV £££) but salaries were stagnated pretty much.
English football clubs have always been in debt, and players have always had the large slice of the pie. All that's changed is the amount of those debts. £2 million of debt for Chelsea in the 1980s was nearly enough to send the club under.

@Suburbanist:
I completely disagree in nearly all points that you bring up.
With all respect, but in my opinion Your whole argumentation is full of half truths, myths and some very weird reasoning.
Let me just pick out a few points and show you where I disagree most.

...
All-seating arrangements is an important part, though not the only factor, in changing the makeup of stadia attendance. I really couldn't care less about atmosphere or "vibrancy". I just don't want to read in BBC Sports or Gazzetta or La Marca that couple dozen fans died in what is supposed to be just a game, enjoyable sometimes, but never a reason to live and, let alone, die.
Where did you read about disasters and people dying by the dozens in Germany lately. We have terracing here in nearly every stadium. Do you seriously believe that watching soccer in Germany where nearly every stadium has terracing sections is any unsafer than it is in the UK?
If you seriously do, do you have any statistic evidence to undermine your theory that watching soccer in a stadium in Germany is significantly unsafer than it is watching it in an all-seater in the UK?

You won't find the disasters and deaths in german terracing sections that you fear and believe in, because watching soccer in a German stadium with terracing is simply not any bit unsafer than watching it in an all seater in the UK.

...
If you need a hooligan gang to feel you have an "identity", better head to a doctor, not to a stadium. In the specific case of Premier League, it helps a lot its "Asian expansion" plans. An unruled crowd, stadium fights, police interventions would blow the image of modernity and the league has been building around itself. What is the point of moving kick-off time earlier to match primetime in Asia if you have then some crowds resembling a barbarian gang?
There is no point in moving kick off times earlier other than a higher potential of TV viewers in asia. Moving the kick off to an earlier time has nothing to do with barbarian fans or atmosphere in stadia, it's only ...and I really mean ONLY about the demands of the Asian TV market and thus a higher attraction of the premier league for international sponsors etc. Fans, hooligans are of no relevance at all in this aspect.
But even if they were, then in fact the exact opposite was probably the case, unpopular kick off times attract less ordinary fans, but still nearly the same amount of fanatic troublesome fans. Thus raising the percentage of troublesome fans within the entire crowd of visitors, not lowering it.

...
The "ultras" won't bother paying high prices for premium seat area, but families or just people who want to WATCH a game will never bother to buy a ticket for the "ultras' corner".
Where did you get that kind of strange "wisdom" from?
Let me give you an example to show you how wrong and persumtuous your reasoning here is: Here in Aachen in the local soccer club Alemannia Aachen our ultras split up into two groups because most fans widely dislike the modern ultra style of support and prefer the classic style and critisized the ultras. Now we have two groups, one smaller Ultra group that remained to stick with the typical "modern" Ultra style of support and one, the larger group, that supports in the traditional manner.
The Ultras that remained with their typical ultra style support are constanty being ignored and critisized on the terracing section isolating themselves more and more. Now at away matches they recently moved into seating sections and at home this group is also planning to move into a seating section in a stadium corner because of the constant criticism and antipathy in the terracing section. Ultras are not about having not enough money to spend on soccer. In fact each of them usually spends far more money than most ordinary fans do, even willing to travel very long distances to attend away matches, why at away games the overall percentage of ultras and troublesome fanatic fans is in relation to the entire fangroup is far higher at away games than it is at homegames. High prices don't keep away many fanatics, but plenty of ordinary harmless fans.


...
Unassigned seating, let alone standing, brings up dangerous situations in which people start arriving much earlier to "key" games because they want to watch it from a privileged spot and the only way to do it is arriving earlier.
Complete nonsense. There is nothing wrong with fans arriving earlier, it even increases a clubs incomes because people consume more food and drinks when they stay longer.


...
It is also important to place the ticket price increase within the context of football becoming far more wealthy. English clubs, particularly, are heavily indebted and need to make as much money as possible if they want to stay competitive on the World stage. It has been an "arms race" that brought player's salaries 10-fold what they were in the mid-1980s, even adjusting for inflation - let alone transfer fees. But I think it is better that players are getting a larger piece of the football money pie, it wasn't that way in the 1980s, when income had started growing (more TV £££) but salaries were stagnated pretty much.
The exact opposite is the case. soccer is so wealthy and populat because it is a sport for the masses, for everyone. Tennis, Polo, Golf, sailing Horseback-riding those are sports for the wealthy. If your theory were correct then those would be the sports that had all the sponsors and the wealthiest sportsmen. But they don't because soccer is by far the biggest and wealthiest sport in the world.
And that is surely not because it's so elitarian, but because millions of teenagers and kids spend their weekly money for team jerseys, an merchandise collecting cards etc... the masses of the "poor" are what make a sport really wealthy, not the few rich people. Soccer happens to have the great advantage of being attractive for all kinds of people, poor and wealthy.

^^ When I said football got wealthy was in a sense of dealing with far more money, higher salaries, lavish stadia, £ 30.000.000 transfer fees, all of which requires increased revenues. Some people on this thread and others similar appear to feel "nostalgic" of times in which players rarely ventured abroad and were mostly from withing the region the club is located. A rather backward vision.

My Homeland has too many terrace-only stadiums.
Hope the new one is the first all-seater stadium.

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

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

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

Some people on this thread and others similar appear to feel "nostalgic" of times in which players rarely ventured abroad and were mostly from withing the region the club is located. A rather backward vision.
How would having all the best Dutch stars playing in Holland, rather than abroad, be a backward step for the Dutch league?

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

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

http://www.nibstadium.com.au/sites/default/files/shed/shed1.jpg
http://www.nibstadium.com.au/sites/default/files/imagecache/event-image-medium/Bankwest%20Shed.jpg
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-CtHW-Yzm41k/TqP4XLCGAcI/AAAAAAAAAGA/4Q7-YH5h9NI/s1600/Glory%2BShed.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


My Main Man is SMARTTTT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit: Post no. 500!

^^ In all fairness german league has a substantially larger attendance because they have terracing.In the terracing sections there are 2 standing fans occuping the place normally taken by one seat.In all-seater configuration i dont know if german stadiums are bigger,and if they are,its a small difference.
Well, Bundesliga offers more modern and bigger stadiums. In my opinion in regard to the high incomes of the PL, England should have better stadiums. But, we should not complain, the real disgrace is Italy.

Wait how much is the average yearly wage in Germany in terms of USD?
About 24.000 EUR after taxes.

In case of being a Leverkusen fan:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

Give me a good terrace every day of every week!

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

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

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

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

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

Give me a good terrace every day of every week!

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

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

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

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

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

I don't even think most Pl grounds would be improved with terracing. One argument for standing areas is that they generate a better atmosphere, but the sort of fans who visit PL games (Except the few die-hard) don't sing at the moment and wouldn't sing standing up. If you want to go to a proper match with proper fans and a decent atmosphere, for less money, watch non-league or leagues 1&2 where, I would argue, there is a lot more passion and a better atmosphere. People think that building terraces in PL grounds will create an atmosphere like the lower leagues, it won't! In fact, in the few all-seater grounds in non-league the atmosphere is almost as good, everyone just stands up anyway.

I mean, im talking most grounds here. If you made the Kop all standing and found a way to stop dads with kids or grumbling OAP's from standing there, I think the atmosphere at anfield would vastly improve. But look at the emirates for example, rarely an atmosphere there, or Manchester United, who are calling in acoustic experts this week to try and improve the atmosphere at OT. Terraces wouldn't change anything.

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

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

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

I don't even think most Pl grounds would be improved with terracing. One argument for standing areas is that they generate a better atmosphere, but the sort of fans who visit PL games (Except the few die-hard) don't sing at the moment and wouldn't sing standing up. If you want to go to a proper match with proper fans and a decent atmosphere, for less money, watch non-league or leagues 1&2 where, I would argue, there is a lot more passion and a better atmosphere. People think that building terraces in PL grounds will create an atmosphere like the lower leagues, it won't! In fact, in the few all-seater grounds in non-league the atmosphere is almost as good, everyone just stands up anyway.

I mean, im talking most grounds here. If you made the Kop all standing and found a way to stop dads with kids or grumbling OAP's from standing there, I think the atmosphere at anfield would vastly improve. But look at the emirates for example, rarely an atmosphere there, or Manchester United, who are calling in acoustic experts this week to try and improve the atmosphere at OT. Terraces wouldn't change anything.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Totally agree with you Rammie.

Typical Terrace tribune of Argentina (Racing Club)

http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/9530/dsc02830yg4.jpg

Way better than all seaters I think.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Typical Terrace tribune of Argentina (Racing Club)

http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/9530/dsc02830yg4.jpg

Way better than all seaters I think.

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

Weired "seats" or "terraces"


Look at the empty area at the 1st tier.
What is it?
http://i.imgur.com/n1QZXSw.jpg


All-seater, but majority is standing :D
http://img842.imageshack.us/img842/4092/img1105jm.jpg

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

...

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

The atmosphere is part of the experience.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The terracing section in the new Tivoli is in a corner and elevated:
http://www.rainersche-post.de/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/tivoli_gaesteblock_gross.jpg
source:http://www.rainersche-post.de/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/tivoli_gaesteblock_gross.jpg

Now in some matches the guestfans from Eintracht Frankfurt, Fortuna Düsseldorf and Hansa Rostock entered the seating section to stand and watch the game from there and then more or less sucessfully tried to enter the pitch after the game or ripped out seats and threw them down at the security personell and the police.
Here a picture that shows Hansa Rostock fans standing and singing in the seated section during the game.
http://static.alemannia-aachen.de/cache/c75c570dced58d33ec71e13968801b24-2659.jpeg
source:http://static.alemannia-aachen.de/cache/c75c570dced58d33ec71e13968801b24-2659.jpeg

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

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

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

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

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

Regarding Alemania, normally in a Bundesligamatch seating costs 50 EUR and Standing 15 EUR, additionally there are a lot of stewards between the stands an the pitch, police at the guest seating and cameras.

So there is no problem.

Of course there is trouble when in the very low leagues teams arrive with a lot of fanatics, system collapse.

Argentina (Terraces)

River Plate
http://www.riverplate.com/foto/albums/2009-22-02%20banfield/100-z-hinchada-river-plate-9.jpg

Boca Juniors
http://s2.subirimagenes.com/fondosycapturas/4142144bocaestudiantes12.jpg

Estudiantes
http://www.riverplate.com/foto/albums/userpics/10001/100-hinchada-vs-estudiantes.jpg

Godoy Cruz
http://www.cdgcat.com.ar/cdgcat/hinchada/fotos/hincha_fotos0102_02.jpg

Talleres
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8006/7672683704_fd0983ee95_b.jpg

Rosario Central
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-VKxAcuek8uQ/T5XQalaauhI/AAAAAAAAAIk/g5p_GbLAOIY/s1600/o_rosario_central_gigante_de_arroyito-1474584.jpg

Regarding Alemania, normally in a Bundesligamatch seating costs 50 EUR and Standing 15 EUR, additionally there are a lot of stewards between the stands an the pitch, police at the guest seating and cameras.

So there is no problem.

Of course there is trouble when in the very low leagues teams arrive with a lot of fanatics, system collapse.

Eintracht Frankfurt Fans and Fortuna Düsseldorf fans partially even climbed over the glass wall between the seating and terracing section. Rostock Fans just overran the security guards between the sections.

And of course there were massive amounts of security and police between which only had the choice between using clubs and gallons of pepper spray risking a panic within the guest section or deescalating the situation by remaining rather passive and letting the crowd of fans invade the pitch after the match. The new Tivoli is a brand new stadium, more modern than many stadia in the first Bundesliga and pitch invasions are certainly not just a problem in lower league stadia and matches. Especially the Eintracht Frankfurt and Fortuna Düsseldorf had well known troubles with pitch invasions fairly recently, especially when advancing up to the first Bundesliga.

It's certainly not just a lower league problem and high ticket prices in the seating sections also don't prevent anyone from climbing over a fence into the seated sections or large organized groups of hundreds of fans overrunning security guards either.
Of course usually and traditionally pitch invasions tend to be more of an issue with euphoric or upset homefans though and not so much with organized groups of guest fans up for causing trouble.

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

a bit off topic, but was is the situation at the club these days?

The club site seems to indicate the club plans to see out the season, which would be something (not least personally because I have a ticket for their last game at Osnabruck).


I went to the old Tivoli in its last season (a 3-0 win v 1860 I think) and loved the place. It reminded me of my club Reading's old Elm Park. I knew fans would regret the move, but not in the way its turned out.

Those in Argentina arent really terraces.Not like the old ones in England or current ones in Germany.Theyre stands without seats.But its just 1 person/row.In Germany each seating row becomes 2 terrace standing rows.The german terraces are twice as crammed :lol:
They do look great with all that colour though,always liked the Monumental atmosphere.
:cheers:

a bit off topic, but was is the situation at the club these days?

The club site seems to indicate the club plans to see out the season, which would be something (not least personally because I have a ticket for their last game at Osnabruck).


I went to the old Tivoli in its last season (a 3-0 win v 1860 I think) and loved the place. It reminded me of my club Reading's old Elm Park. I knew fans would regret the move, but not in the way its turned out.

The situation here with Alemannia Aachen is pretty complex and hard to predict and changing nearly every day.

One thing that's pretty clear is that most likely all of the season matches will be played, but it may be the case that they won't all be counted.
Currently the club is bankrupt but in an intermission phase to allow for keeping it in business. The original plan was to finally go into bankruptcy after the season, to finish the whole legal process before the start of the new season, which will most likely be in league 4 the "Regionalliga West".
In that case all the matches played by Alemannia would count, which is important for the other teams, especially those that won against Alemannia Aachen.
But it may also very well be the case that the club has to go into bankruptcy before the end of the season, as soon as it's clear that the club (currently on the last position) has no chance left to remain in league 3.

In that case the matches would still all have to be played, so that the club doesn't loose the right to start in League 4. (If they wouldn't play all the matches the team would drop all the way down into Kreisklasse D, which is a only a local community league.)
But due to the regulations of the DFB in that special case all the matches Alemannia Aachen played and still have to be play until the end of the season would NOT count. So in that case some of the coming matches - the ones after going into the final bankruptcy - might have to be played as some sort sort of "forced friendly matches".

The reason why the club waited is the faint possibillity to remain in league 3 despite of the bankruptcy.

But the whole situation is legally very complex and difficult and very new and special because the laws on bankruptcy here in Germany have just been changed and modernized very recently. So the whole process with this special form of a controlled bankruptcy is very new and Regulations of the German soccer association the DFB are not really made and suited for this new legal process of a controlled bankruptcy.

So all that's pretty reliable for now is that all the matches will most likely be played either way, wether they will count or not. (and unless something very unexpected happens that)
Just a few hours ago the city of Aachen has also finally decided to partially finance the stadiums cost and allow for the club to play in the new Tivoli at least for the coming season, in whatever league that may be. (most likely league 4)

Another interesting decision is, that yesterday the DFB also granted the license to Alemannia for league 3 in case they would manage to qualify. For now still under certain conditions (like having a stadium where the club can play and others), but those can actually be met, even though the club is currently bankrupt.

So the whole situation here with Alemannia Aachen is completely awkward at the moment and it's pretty incomprehensible for anyone who hasn't read plenty of paragraphs.