Technical Recommendations and Requirements for the Construction or Modernisation of Football Stadia

http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/tournament/competition/football_stadiums_technical_recommendations_and_requirements_en_8211.pdf

i downloaded it 1 year ago :D
its very good IMO

enjoy it

Observations from someone that has read this and the UEFA document:

- Roofs again are only recommended when possible. Specifically in rainier, windier or hotter climates. Not required.

- The overall requirements are not as strict as posters would make one believe.

- Some have balked in other parts of SSC on my talk of lighting requirements. I hadn't noticed it before, but wisely unlike the UEFA, FIFA recommends stadiums talk to television authorities. The amount of light necessary for playing was surpassed a long time ago. Now its up to the broadcaster's needs.

- FIFA seems to want all domes or retractable ones eventually.

- FIFA seems to favor infill turfs over grass if you read between the lines. At least it seems like what they want. I remember a friendly at Qwest Field a couple of years ago, where the Qwest folks went all out to develop a grass that would ancor to the infill. It was played on, but FIFA really liked the artificial surface. They also like the hybrid surface at Invesco Field. They've observed, as have many that they are great, consistent surfaces. The one disadvantage is the oxygen they create, though this can be solved with the hybrids. Like in American football, I'm sure fans would rather the game be played on grass, but the new turfs are very consistent and eliminate kinks and divets that can cause injuries as well as consistent balls while having similar "give" and softness.

(- Roofs again are only recommended when possible. Specifically in rainier, windier or hotter climates. Not required.)

Hopefully, that doesn't become mandatory. Otherwise, that would make the American stadiums incompatiable. Even the "soccer-only" stadiums don't have complete roofs.

its not that big of a deal. By the time the US can host again, you'll have enough retractables and domes to more than cover that recommendation.

Does anyone have the formula for calculating the number of seats in an area of stadium. I remember reading on in a book about football grounds, but can't remember exactly what is was now.
I know it would vary depending on the size of the seats, the spacing between the seats, etc., but I'm curious as to the lower end number - like many here, I assume, I spend a bit of my spare time getting 'creative' regarding stadiums, and I'd be curious to work out capacities for my venues (also, going into a little more detail, to work out how many access ways would be required, etc.)

Also, what would be considered the minimum and maximum 'safe/effective' rake for the seating decks?

Thanks to anyone who can supply the info and does. Pants to anyone who can, but doesn't.

Capacity:

There are other threads on here that relate to seat and spacing dimensions, which I'm sure would help you calculate almost all you'd need to know. The only thing it won't tell you is the maximum number of seats per block, i.e. before an aisle/vomitory must be included. A figure of 28 sticks in my mind.

This is what makes me slightly dubious of the speculation that Wembley will have the ability to raise capacity to 110,000 if planning and feasibility allow, simply by putting the seats closer together. A quick look at the oft-shown fish-eye pic shows a maximum seating array of 24 between aisles. A maximum array of 28 (and I admit I could be wrong about this number) would imply a maximum addition of 16.7% capacity or 15,000 seats, giving a capacity of 105,000. Of course, if the figure is actually 30, the 20k uplift would be theoretically possible, although I doubt they'd manage it with the 90k seats that are in there, as it would require the current spacing between each seat to be a quarter of the width of a seat, which I'd doubt. It'd require a whole 110,000 narrower seats...

Rakes:

I'm sure the maximum rake angle (for the UK) is around 40 degrees.

I seem to remember that the third tier of the main stand at Charleroi is more than that (42 deg?) and this was used by some to claim that Charleroi was an unsafe venue for England for their Euro 2000 game with Germany.

As for minimums, I don't think there are regulations for this because it is a quality, not a safety issue. Looking at the really shallow rakes like Maracana, it suggests that there is a minimum effectiveness level, even if it is not by definition unsafe. Short answer: whatever you can get away with?

I made this one myself. You will need excel

http://rapidshare.com/files/10853489/Stadium_Capacity_Calculator_v_1_.1.xls.html

Capacity:

There are other threads on here that relate to seat and spacing dimensions, which I'm sure would help you calculate almost all you'd need to know. The only thing it won't tell you is the maximum number of seats per block, i.e. before an aisle/vomitory must be included. A figure of 28 sticks in my mind.

This is what makes me slightly dubious of the speculation that Wembley will have the ability to raise capacity to 110,000 if planning and feasibility allow, simply by putting the seats closer together. A quick look at the oft-shown fish-eye pic shows a maximum seating array of 24 between aisles. A maximum array of 28 (and I admit I could be wrong about this number) would imply a maximum addition of 16.7% capacity or 15,000 seats, giving a capacity of 105,000. Of course, if the figure is actually 30, the 20k uplift would be theoretically possible, although I doubt they'd manage it with the 90k seats that are in there, as it would require the current spacing between each seat to be a quarter of the width of a seat, which I'd doubt. It'd require a whole 110,000 narrower seats...

Rakes:

I'm sure the maximum rake angle (for the UK) is around 40 degrees.

I seem to remember that the third tier of the main stand at Charleroi is more than that (42 deg?) and this was used by some to claim that Charleroi was an unsafe venue for England for their Euro 2000 game with Germany.

As for minimums, I don't think there are regulations for this because it is a quality, not a safety issue. Looking at the really shallow rakes like Maracana, it suggests that there is a minimum effectiveness level, even if it is not by definition unsafe. Short answer: whatever you can get away with?

Is Wembley not working on the notion of putting rows of seats closer together (ie less leg room), thus being able to add numerous extra rows of seating right around the stadium?

As for rake - the angle on the top deck at Cologne is seriously steep, must be approaching 45 deg.

Anyway, big thanks to both you and Rexfan for your help.

This question sort of came up in this thread

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=330547

basically you need to know the area of seating then divide this by the area of one seat. Also minus the amount of aisle space (do this as a percentage).

I also use an excel spread sheet with 10 parameters and can work out the capacity for a rectangle or oval field for any number of tiers.

Those 10 parameters I should explain are:

Field Length - Length of Playing Field
Field Width - Width of Playing Field
Seat Height - height of the seat (where you sit) to the ground
Seat Width - width of each seat
Row Space - distance between rows
Boundary Width - Distance between playing field and 1st row of 1st Tier.
Minimum View - Minimum height between rows on 1st tier.
Aisle Percentage - this includes any other areas not used for seating
Tier Height - Distance between 1st and 2nd tiers.
Maximum Centre Height - Maximum height level someone sitting in 1st tier but under 2nd tier.

Also you need to define how many rows for each tier.

Some of these parameters are to calculate the angle of tiers this is important if you want as many people as close to the playing field as possible. The closer the tiers are the greater the angle. People don't want to sit at 45degrees.

PS If someone knows how to show a profile in 3D I would be grateful.

Is Wembley not working on the notion of putting rows of seats closer together (ie less leg room), thus being able to add numerous extra rows of seating right around the stadium?

How could they? These distances are governed by the dimensions of the terracing beneath the seats:
_
.|_
....|_
.......|_

You couldn't just 'squash' the step pattern up a bit. It would require the whole concrete bowl to be re-engineered from the rakers up.

The only way you can do it IMO is to squeeze more seats into each row, between aisles. I guess this is why there currently are 24 seats between aisles, when there could be more. Why else would you not have as many as the regulations allow other than for expansion? I suspect all other stadia work to 28* seats per block row.

*If anyone can confirm this figure (or the correct one), I'd be grateful.

Is Wembley not working on the notion of putting rows of seats closer together (ie less leg room), thus being able to add numerous extra rows of seating right around the stadium?


if it is, it wouldnt be able to host a World Cup match, where the minimum distance is 80 cm. (from chair back to chair back)

Hi everybody.

I'm looking to find some sort of a document, if any, governing the stadium construction and licensing. So far I found UEFA Stadium Infrastructure Regulations (http://www.svenskfotboll.se/files/%7B07BCAD38-1ED9-4CC4-86D7-E45400BE8F71%7D.pdf) only.

Is there any other document in this field?

Thank you.

Hi everybody.

I'm looking to find some sort of a document, if any, governing the stadium construction and licensing. So far I found UEFA Stadium Infrastructure Regulations (http://www.svenskfotboll.se/files/%7B07BCAD38-1ED9-4CC4-86D7-E45400BE8F71%7D.pdf) only.

Is there any other document in this field?

Thank you.

emm yes, the fifa document sercan put on the first post...

emm yes, the fifa document sercan put on the first post...

Actually he moved my post.

Thank you, Sercan.:cheers:

There's often debate about what FIFA want from stadia... Here's the document that gives all the details...

http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/tournament/competition/football_stadiums_technical_recommendations_and_requirements_en_8211.pdf

(apologies, didn't know it had been posted previously)

The distance from first row to touch line is excessive in some cases. Just look at the Emirates. Brutal views in the first few rows and It's not like it protecting the players from the fans when Spurs fans have no trouble invading the pitch to celebrate the equalizer on Wednesday

It's not about protecting fans or players - it's about providing the maximum space for unobstructed views of advertising.

I agree with Benjuk

Now I would like to know the stadium requirement to host European Championship.

It's not about protecting fans or players - it's about providing the maximum space for unobstructed views of advertising.

FIFA's justficiation in the document is protection for the players

The distance from first row to touch line is excessive in some cases. Just look at the Emirates. Brutal views in the first few rows and It's not like it protecting the players...Agreed. This is heinous and I'd rather stadiums built the first few rows retractable as a means to comply with this for FIFA events. Otherwise let the fans get closer as they deserve.
It's not about protecting fans or players - it's about providing the maximum space for unobstructed views of advertising.
Sadly, so true. Well, this and for photographers and special FIFA personnel, but either way it sucks.
FIFA's justficiation in the document is protection for the playersThat's because their just being FIFA, an organization that just looks out for it's own interest. They'll only act on behalf of the game, fans and/or players when their livelihood is at stake.

According to FIFA stadium book the distance between stand and pitch has to be +6m at the sights and +7,5m at the goal stands.
(They demolished the first 2-3 rows at Dortmund West stand)

Don't know about the rrows.
In the book its shown as 80cm which is nowadys standard.

it doesn't "have" to be

rules can and have been bended

But the distance have to be. Just look at Dortmund.

stupid rules... fans should be as close to the pitch as possible... it even looks better on telly...

While many stadia are top class, it is likely that minor works will take place inside and outside the venue e.g. tunnels for players installed in the correct areas, the first few rows of seats removed, lighting etc.

stupid rules... fans should be as close to the pitch as possible... it even looks better on telly...

You need space for ambulance or trucks (transport)

Do you? I don't quite understand that. Is health and safety at Old Trafford not up to standard already then? I'm sure, given our country's experience with stadium tragedies, they're about as safe as they can be. I don't want to sound too pompous, but how could removing the first few rows at Old Trafford be of any practical benifit to anyone other than pencil-pushers who say "rules is rules"?

While many stadia are top class, it is likely that minor works will take place inside and outside the venue e.g. tunnels for players installed in the correct areas

Could you tell me how rerouting the player's tunnel is a minor job or even why it's necessary other than the fact that FIFA say it is? I mean practical reasons why walking out from the corner isn't good enough please..

Auxiliary area
Additional flat areas are required beside the playing field, ideally behind each goal
line, where players can warm up. This area should also allow for the circulation of
assistant referees, ball boys and girls, medical staff, security staff and the media. It is
recommended that this be a minimum of 8.5m on the sides and 10m on the ends.
This results in an overall playing field and auxiliary area dimension of:
length: 125m, width: 85m

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=715478

At CL games the first 2-3 rows are empty at OT

Seems overly beuracratic and kind of pointless to me. The fans don't like being far away from the pitch and it does nothing for the atmosphere. FIFA has some odd rules.

Those are the rules though and if you want the World cup then they have to be applied, end of Story

I'm sure they would be if they're still in place by 2018. But for me, they take away more than they give to the event.

Seems overly beuracratic and kind of pointless to me. The fans don't like being far away from the pitch and it does nothing for the atmosphere. FIFA has some odd rules.

Well it is beaucratic but those are teh rules. World Cup is a show not only an event. FIFA gets money from there. And if you're talking about atmosphere i believe it's correlated with the situation in the stadium itself doesn't matter if it's close or not.

World Cup has very expensive ticket prices and would you spent so much money just to watch the back of the ad boards?

We know about these regulations. However, it will be the FIFA that has to change its regulation because the player tunnel at Old Trafford won't move. The UEFA has no problems with eccentric player tunnel. So why should the FIFA.

Same could be said about seat close to the pitch. Crowds close to the pitch is eye-catching and looks extremely good on TV. Yet again, it's FIFA which should change their regulations and leave security concerns to the local authorities.

And don't get me started about sight lines. Everyone who complains about sight in a football ground is no football fan and can fvck right off.

it seems you forgot that WC is a FIFA event not UEFA so you need to follow the organizer's rules. It's simple, right?

FIFA has been the organizer of WC for years and they made the regulations based on the previous experiences.

If the FA don't like the rules FIFA have several other bidders who are more than capable of hosting with those rules.

Look, I didn't say the FA wouldn't implement such rules. I was just questioning their validity, that's all.

Look, I didn't say the FA wouldn't implement such rules. I was just questioning their validity, that's all.

I suppose that having learnt first hand one of the main FIFA rules, I am less than optimistic about England somehow being "accommodated."
That rule is "What FIFA wants FIFA gets".

Auxiliary area
Additional flat areas are required beside the playing field, ideally behind each goal
line, where players can warm up. This area should also allow for the circulation of
assistant referees, ball boys and girls, medical staff, security staff and the media. It is
recommended that this be a minimum of 8.5m on the sides and 10m on the ends.
This results in an overall playing field and auxiliary area dimension of:
length: 125m, width: 85m

A reccomendation is not the same as a rule.

it seems you forgot that WC is a FIFA event not UEFA so you need to follow the organizer's rules. It's simple, right?

FIFA has been the organizer of WC for years and they made the regulations based on the previous experiences.
Football is played in England for more than 150 years. England is experienced in hosting football matches more than any other country and even more so than the technocrats in the FIFA HQ.

FIFA's rules aren't based on experience. They are made in an ivory-tower in Switzerland, far away from real football. Who needs bloody 8,50 m on the sidelines?

FIFA can dictate even their silliest rule only as long as there are enough candidates to chose from. But this could change rather quickly as the outlook of the world's economy is rather bleak. More and more country slide into recession. And their governments will soon have better things to do than spending large portions of their budget on preparing a World Cup.

Actually it has to be at least 6m at the sidelines. 8,5m is just "better" recommend
The same at the goal stands.
It has to be at least 7,5m but 10m is recommend

it is still a dumb rule... taking the fans further out of the equation than they already are... there is actually no logical reason for it... Look at fulhams stands right on top of the pitch, and whats wrong with that... NOTHING

Yeah, but it'snot gonna be the Fulham fans in the stands at a Germany-Poland or England-Argentina.

^^ what the hell has that got to do with anything... you think having fns closer to the pitch creates a hooliganism threat??? LMAO

Not, but it still safer to host a game on a Olympic Stadium then on a stadium with the stands similar and if not, then keep a small distance. The thing England simply has more civilized supporters then others doesn't mean that at the World Cup only England is going to play the games.

Let me just get this straight... you are saying...

we have more civilized supporters LOLs

Games for the football word cup, should be played in "Olympic Stadiums" rather than football stadiums LOLs

boy stop!!

You must be really dumb if thats what you understood, who the hell said all games should be played at a Olympic Stadium? Where the hell did you get that?
And yes, if you have the damn idea about whats happening in other places, Englands supporters are quite civilized in the stadiums, not causing much problems, solving they're frustrations outside with the rivals if they want. That is not the case in a country like Romania, where on the stadium with no athletics field champions could have been decided because of the incidents, and it was just 1 goal from happening this May. And it's not something that happens sometimes, it happens at every derby in a way or another. While on a stadium with athletics track the incidents don't affect the game only if some manage to escape and run on the field ( not to simply appear on tv or kiss a players boots, eventually beat a rival player or even its own ), thing that in a stadium like England could be done much easier.

Also see that face to 1996, in 2018 and even now, east european people have more money, a lot more money then just a few years after the fall of communism. Practically in 1996 the smallest attendances were between Romania and Bulgaria and Russia and The Czech Republic, it was far to expensive to go to England then...but now in 2008 at least even at a World Cup in South Africa or Australia people will be fighting hard to get they're hands on those tickets and even want to stay there as much as they can, not come only for one game.

Man you should use a spellchecker

You must be really stupid if that what
you understood,

Yeah dude, i'm really dumb :(

who the hell said all games should be played at a Olympic Stadium? Where the hell did you get that?

you said

it still safer to host a game on a Olympic Stadium then on a stadium with the stands similar

the meaning derived, is that you think games should be played at athletics track stadiums rather than football stadiums on safety grounds :lol:

And yes, if you have the damn idea about whats happening in other places, Englands supporters are quite civilized in the stadiums, not causing much problems, solving they're frustrations outside with the rivals if they want. That is not the case in a country like Romania, where on the stadium with no athletics field champions could have been decided because of the incidents, and it was just 1 goal from happening this May. And it's not something that happens sometimes, it happens at every derby in a way or another. While on a stadium with athletics track the incidents don't affect the game only if some manage to escape and run on the field ( not to simply appear on tv or kiss a players boots, eventually beat a rival player or even its own ), thing that in a stadium like England could be done much easier.

1. Have you ever watched italian football?? the rome derby played in an athletics stadium was held up a few years back by rioting fans... the dimensions of the stands do nothing to deter violence...

2. Club football fandom is totally different to international football fandom... hooliganism at an international level is relatively rare... major instances have tended to involve at least 1 of England, Germany, Poland or The netherlands...

It is unheard of to hear of italian ultras uniting into a italian super tifosi....

1.I didn't say games should be held at Olympic Stadium I ONLY SAID ITS SAFER IN CASE OF SOME INCIDENTS. IMO i hate Olympic Stadiums for football and I've mentioned that in other posts.
2.I didn't say that incidents can't happen on a Olympic Stadium :). Rioting fans can cause problems everywhere but it's much easier to trow a lighter in a players head on Anfield then it is on Ataturk or Olympiastadion.
3.Italy's fans might not unite neither they will in Romania, the problem is that at the Euro/WC the group isn't made of united clubs fans its simply a chance for anyone to sign in for the draw and it doesn't matter if you're a simple fan, a miner, a judge or the President of the Chambers of Deputies.

it is still a dumb rule... taking the fans further out of the equation than they already are... there is actually no logical reason for it... Look at fulhams stands right on top of the pitch, and whats wrong with that... NOTHING

You need space for ambulance etc.

Eh?

Ambulances/ We have spaces for them at the side of / under the stands.

Yeh, but why can Premier League matches cope without such ambulances pitchside? I don't really understand this discrepancy.

Maybe becasue also of this :)

Grass area
In this area, a minimum of 5m on the sides or touch lines and 5m behind the goal
lines, reducing at an angle to 3m near the corner flags (see diagram 4c on page 62),
must be of the same surface material as the playing field (grass or artificial turf )

So the space between stand and grass is actually just 2,5m-3m.

Look at Allianz. IMO the stands are very close and you have a very good atmosphere

Yeh, but why can Premier League matches cope without such ambulances pitchside? I don't really understand this discrepancy.

neither do i robH, neither do i... but then there are so many pointless rules in the world why should football miss out!

Cause league is different than International.
Germany has got terraces at league games but at UEFA or FIFA games it has to be all-seater.

Cause league is different than International.
Germany has got terraces at league games but at UEFA or FIFA games it has to be all-seater.

so doesn't mean there is a point to it... there is actually no logical reason why german domestic games can have terraces but international games within the same stadium can't...

there is no point to these rules, except bereaucracy!!

I think its not just bureaucracy. I am sure that theyve made many test and report.

BTW will move the post to the Stadium Regulations and Requirements thread

I think its not just bureaucracy. I am sure that theyve made many test and report.

BTW will move the post to the Stadium Regulations and Requirements thread

the point is... they have different rules for the same stadiums, the rules operated with domestically are better than the uefa/fifa rules... there is no reason for uefa/fifa not to use domestic rules!!!!

Cause domestic have different rules :)

For expample in Germany you need those "barriers" if the rows are higher than 50cm
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/30/Allianz-Arena-Rang.3.JPG

In some countries you do not need it.

UEFA and FIFA are general and mostly for their organisations.

Cause domestic have different rules :)

For expample in Germany you need those "barriers" if the rows are higher than 50cm
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/30/Allianz-Arena-Rang.3.JPG

In some countries you do not need it.

UEFA and FIFA are general and mostly for their organisations.

yes but you haven't actually given a reason!!!!

I am not from the UEFA or FIFA. :)
Maybe we should write an email to them.

What major football stadiums in Europe complies to all the criteria?

of course all new one :)

Allianz Arena, Emirates, Wembley

stupid rules... fans should be as close to the pitch as possible... it even looks better on telly...

looks good till a disgruntled fan jumps out of the stands, tackles a ref and snaps his neck.

If you just need to ignore comfort then you could just make a stadium with FIFA requirements and for league games you could install retractable stands, just seems fair to me if you guys are debating like this.

Unless there's a moat or a high enough wall to make a pitch invader risk injury then distance from the pitch isn't going to deter them. Just look at the Emirates. The first row is a day trip from the touch lines. The extra distance didn't really help when half the Spurs away section invaded the pitch to celebrate the Tottenham equalizer a few months back.

If someone in determined enough to get onto the pitch they will, regardless of the distance for the stand to the pitch.

My ground, Windsor, has the FIFA space between the pitch and stands and 2.5m deep moats at the front of the new stands. They haven't stopped pitch invaders in the past.

The Oval, in east Belfast, has 3m high barbed wire fence along with the FIFA distance, it hasn't stopped invaders.

Emirates is really extreme
Goals stands is are 12-13m away although FIFA and UEFA say +7,5m

Unless there's a moat or a high enough wall to make a pitch invader risk injury then distance from the pitch isn't going to deter them. Just look at the Emirates. The first row is a day trip from the touch lines. The extra distance didn't really help when half the Spurs away section invaded the pitch to celebrate the Tottenham equalizer a few months back.

EXACTLY

not to nit pick, but it should be half the spurs away section that hadn't already gone home :lol:

Emirates is really extreme
Goals stands is are 12-13m away although FIFA and UEFA say +7,5m

that's because the arsenal don't care about the real fans anymore... all they care about is the money!!!

Shame.
Galatasaray's aim was to earn money with the new stadium. But "it must have it" points had been given to the Architects (asp):
-close stands
-good acoustics
-steep stands

2005 the board asked the fans for there opinion. More than 10,000 mails have been sent within 2 weeks.

You have to involve the fans in the project.

Here is a case in point of how arsenal don't care for the fans that followed the club through thick and thin

Thousands attend funeral of legendary Arsenal fan (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/premier_league/arsenal/article2696597.ece)
19/10/2007 - The times

The streets of North London were brought to a standstill on Thursday, as thousands of mourners attended the funeral of legendary football hooligan, Dainton “The Bear” Connell.

Considered a folk hero by many Arsenal fans, Mr Campbell, 46, was killed in a car crash in Moscow two weeks ago, where he was working as a bodyguard for the Pet Shop Boys. He had forged a close friendship with the band, which cancelled a gig in Romania to attend the funeral and said they were “devastated” at his death.

Around 3000 mourners, from the “big men” of the terraces to former Arsenal players such as Lee Dixon and Ian Wright, followed the funeral procession from Arsenal’s Emirates Stadium to the Mary Magdalene Church in North London.

As the sombre crowd passed through the cordoned off roads around Highbury, bemused onlookers watched as some men cried while other held up floral tributes. Friends on the procession described Mr Connell, also known as “Denton”, as a warm and loving man who mellowed in his later years and a fan who was “Arsenal through and through.”

Former Arsenal full back Lee Dixon told The Times that the turnout was “amazing” adding: “you can see for yourself how much he was loved.”

A message on a wreath left by the club’s former striker Ian Wright read: "To The Bear - lived and loved life and the Arsenal. Gooners live forever. Wrighty." Other celebrity friends such as Frank Bruno joined fans from other clubs around the country at the church service.

Mr Connell is named in books written by self-confessed hooligans who clashed with Arsenal fans in the 1980s. He has been described as a “main face” and “the top lad” amongst the ranks of Arsenal hooligans at the time. But these accounts have been contested, with Mr Connell concerned that he had been unfairly named.

Because of the large crowds at the church, family were given ribbons in the club colours, red and white, to gain entry to the service. They were followed by close friends, wearing blue and yellow ribbons, the colours of the team's away jersey. Hundred of others spilled out across the church grounds and surrounding roads to hear the service over loudspeaker.

A prayer was read out by Chris Lowe, one of the Pet Shop Boys. An order of service, made up to look like an old-fashioned football programme featuring Mr Connell posing on the cover was passed around. The service was frequently interrupted by spontaneous applause and deafening roars, mirroring those from a terrace when a goal is scored. Some fans chanted “The Bear’s” name.

A tribute from Mr Campbell’s wife Mandy read: “It wasn’t always easy but I would not change a thing. You to me are everything, always and forever, your Goddess, Mandy.”

The service was also laced with humour, with a close friend telling the congregation that Mr Campbell’s relationship with the Pet Shop Boys meant: “Denton found that he had something in common with the Queen. He could travel the world without a dollar in his pocket."

But there was also palpable anger amongst some mourners that felt the club had not made a proper tribute to a man many considered to be Arsenal's biggest fan. Some pointed out that Arsenal had not allowed the wake to be held at the Emirates Stadium because it would be “bad publicity” and even though the Pet Shop Boys had reportedly offered to pay the £65,000 it would cost to hire the club’s facilities. A club spokesperson denied this, saying it was club policy not to allow any such events at the ground the day before a match.

Friend of “The Bear”, John Kiernan, 47, said: “It shows the marginalisation of working class fans who followed the team even when it was rubbish. Now it’s more interested in tapping into the far east market and merchandising. This outpouring of grief shows that ordinary fans should be respected. Denton should have been respected.”

click on the link to see pictures and comments from fans who are turning their backs on the arsenal

Although i don't no denton, i was there coincidentally in Islington on the day of the funeral, the scenes were amazing. They are what embody the spirit of the Arsenal and i ain't talking hooliganism, but passion!

anyway all irrelevant lol!

I've found this site, with some more links: http://www.patrickmartinsports.com/standards.html

fill the moats with crocodiles

I've found this site, with some more links: http://www.patrickmartinsports.com/standards.html

Does somebody have the pdf's for the basketball ones?

does anybody know how wide vomitories and aisles in an indoor areena have to be ? im doing a school project designing an arena that fits on a cramped property , and i guessed that al isles and vomitories were about 2 meters wide , but looking at photos from various arenas , it looks like they are closer to 1 -1,5 meters ..

I think indoor arena vomitories wide is the same as for stadiums, 1,2m minimum.

ok thanks do you know the width and height requirements of the " vomitories " or more of openings that go onto the arena floor? i know it has to be big enough for an ice machine end for a flexible arena like the one im designing , a small traktor ... but are there any specific heght / with requirements of these openings ?

ok thanks do you know the width and height requirements of the " vomitories " or more of openings that go onto the arena floor? i know it has to be big enough for an ice machine end for a flexible arena like the one im designing , a small traktor ... but are there any specific heght / with requirements of these openings ?

I don't think there is any. It's probably up to what you want to pass through those vomitories. For soccer stadiums i know they must have one big enough for a ambulance, and for music concerts you need them big enough for big trucks or to allow the passage of big steel/structures to build the stage.

Some arenas have these entrance/exits "hidden" by temporary stands

ok so 4 ( one in each corner ) of these each 5 meters wide and 3 meters tall should be enough to build stages and stuff inside right ?

ok so 4 ( one in each corner ) of these each 5 meters wide and 3 meters tall should be enough to build stages and stuff inside right ?

Yes, but you don't need all 4 that big... 1 or 2 with that size are enough.

Unfortunately it probably couldn't be closer to the pitch because the facists at FIFA or whoever have decided stands have to be a certain distance from the pitch for new stadiums. It's utter rubbish - as if our current stadiums aren't OK as they are.

fifa wc stadium, Nelspruit compared to Allianz and Wembley. Its the most intimate world cup venue for 2010.

http://www.rlarchitects.co.za/images/Sport_2010_MB_MU.jpghttp://www.rlarchitects.co.za/images/Sport_2010_MB_WM.jpghttp://www.rlarchitects.co.za/images/Sport_2010_animation.gif

Unfortunately it probably couldn't be closer to the pitch because the facists at FIFA or whoever have decided stands have to be a certain distance from the pitch for new stadiums. It's utter rubbish - as if our current stadiums aren't OK as they are.

Minimum distances from the stands to the pitch are 6m at the sidelines and 7.5m behind the goals, so it's surely not the quote: "facists at Fifa" that made them add an extra bit to those distances, that's all solely the clubs officials fault not building the stands as close to the pitch as possible and having the lower tiers so shallow.

the stand distances are for international finals. Stands can always be most easily modified at the bottoms where there is no support structure

Minimum distances from the stands to the pitch are 6m at the sidelines and 7.5m behind the goals, so it's surely not the quote: "facists at Fifa" that made them add an extra bit to those distances, that's all solely the clubs officials fault not building the stands as close to the pitch as possible and having the lower tiers so shallow.

Do you know why it is 6m / 7,5m?
Why not 5m or 8m.

Do you know why it is 6m / 7,5m?
Why not 5m or 8m.
I allways asked myself that question also, and I never found a reasonable answer to that. The rules of the German soccer association (DFB) say that there needs to be a safety zone around the pitch of 1m at the sidelines and 2m behind the goals. Advertisements may be placed 4m to 5m from the sidelines and 5m behind the goals (up to as close as 3m near the corners)
I never found where this difference of 1.5 m comes from.
It would have made sense to me if the safetyzones behind the goals would have to be 2.5 meters Then there would have been a difference of 1.5m to the sides or if the advertisements would be placed 5.5m behind the goals then the minimum at the sides would have been 1.5m less. But in all these requirements there's no difference of 1.5meters, so I never really understood where these minimums of 6m and 7.5m come from.
The "optimum distances" suggested by the Fifa are 8.5m and 10 m, by the way, so they also have the same difference of 1.5m.

1,5m = 2 persons :)

im at the roof stage now on my indoor arena school project , and i have built a base of beams , but before i continue i would like to know if there are any specifications as to how thick the roof needs to be to fit necessary isolation and such ?

I have a question, why did UEFA replace their star ranking system with that stupid Elite rating? The ranking order is Category 1, 2, 3, and Elite and I don't even know what the requirements for Categories 1, 2, or 3 are. They need to bring back the old ranking system.

Strange to think nearly every ground in England had them in one form or another back in the 70s and 80s. The one I knew at Cambridge's Abbey Stadium surrounded half of one end terrace, so the "hooligans" eventually moved to the unfenced half.

Notoriously, fences were a factor in so many dying in the Hillsborough Disaster in Sheffield, and Chelsea once had plans to electrify theirs.

What brought this to mind was a TV report of a match at Seaview, home of Crusaders in Northern Ireland, complete with crowd stuck behind good old fashioned hooligan fences.

So coming to some kind of point. When did they finally disappear from England? Did any clubs refuse to install them? Do they still survive in any countries? Please share any memories you have of them in your location.

They disappeared after the taylor report came out

They priced out hooligans. Pretty simple.

im making a 3d model of how i envision Stadio Olimpico in rome SHOULD have been built , and i need to know ( prefferably as fast as possible ) the meassurements of an olympic track

i know that the circumference of some part of the track is 400 m but that doesn't help me drawing the track up .. what i think i know ( feel free to correct me on this ) is :

lenght of the straits between the two 180 degree curves : 84 meters

with of each track lane : 1.22 meters

what i need to know is : distance between the two straits , aka the width of the pitch area inside the track . if anyone know the answer to this , i would appreciate it very much and reward you with a render of the completed stadium ;)

http://www.sporyapi.com/teknik_saha_projeleri_1.asp

the inside radius of the turns is 36.5 metres

When did they finally disappear from England? Did any clubs refuse to install them? Do they still survive in any countries? Please share any memories you have of them in your location.
In Mexico almost all the stadiums have this fences, only newer stadiums and Azteca don't. They are not just unsafe, they block the view.

I'm interesting what are the rules of projecting an (multi sports) arena for international sports? to be specific, should line of sight of last row match with courts line in the same side?
Or any ideas, where should I look for?

Thanks a loT!!

I'm interesting what are the rules of projecting an (multi sports) arena for international sports? to be specific, should line of sight of last row match with courts line in the same side?
Or any ideas, where should I look for?

Thanks a loT!!

I guess this book here might be very helpfull:

Stadium Atlas

by Stefan Nixdorf
ISBN: 9783433018514
Format: Hardback (210mm x 297mm x 37mm)
Pages: 368
Publish Date: 13-Feb-2008
Country of Publication: Germany
www.bokus.com/bok/9783433018514/stadium-atlas/ (http://www.bokus.com/bok/9783433018514/stadium-atlas/)

Or the authors (Dr. Stefan Nixdorf) doctoral thesis titled:
"Sightlines and Safety - Grandstand Profiles of Modern Sports and Event Venues"

They disappeared after the taylor report came out
I think some might have started coming down before that, although most were removed within a year or two. Some, particularly at away ends, stayed up, but were just reduced in height and had extra exit gates installed.

Not every ground had them though, although the majority did. Highbury never had fences, for example.


They priced out hooligans. Pretty simple.

Not really true. The game was still pretty cheap when the fences came down. Prices have only got seriously bad in the last decade or so.

There were widespread predictions from the press - still obessed with the idea that football fans were largely hooligans - that the removal of fences would see regular pitch invasions and fights in the stands, but those fears were unfounded.

Strange to think nearly every ground in England had them in one form or another back in the 70s and 80s. The one I knew at Cambridge's Abbey Stadium surrounded half of one end terrace, so the "hooligans" eventually moved to the unfenced half.

Notoriously, fences were a factor in so many dying in the Hillsborough Disaster in Sheffield, and Chelsea once had plans to electrify theirs.

What brought this to mind was a TV report of a match at Seaview, home of Crusaders in Northern Ireland, complete with crowd stuck behind good old fashioned hooligan fences.

So coming to some kind of point. When did they finally disappear from England? Did any clubs refuse to install them? Do they still survive in any countries? Please share any memories you have of them in your location.

In Ecuador (and most of South America) we still have them almost everywhere. The club I root for even has nets coming down from the roofs of the stands onto the fences; it looks like crap but continued sanctions due to objects been thrown to the field made it happen (that's why there's also usually more fencing and/or plastic tunnels put up at player/referee exits). In my country the fences have never been or caused an issue, though; the only violent death in a stadium in history came from a misguided firework.

I feel that new stadiums should ditch the fences and use ditches/moats instead.

Another solution is how they built the following stadium. They have fences but it doesn't block the spectators' view after the main stand was built over the fence. Nice idea.

http://static.panoramio.com/photos/original/29619150.jpg

^^

I feel that new stadiums should ditch the fences and use ditches/moats instead.

Another solution is how they built the following stadium. They have fences but it doesn't block the spectators' view after the main stand was built over the fence. Nice idea.


It just has the downside of larger distances between the pitch and the stands, an awfull look on TV and no possobility for fans to party and celebrate, shake hands and get autographs from the players "their heores" after a match.
Ditches are also even more dangerous than fences, because they don't prevent the attempts of pitch invasions all that effectively, but form are a hazard to the health of those that panic or are being pushed and trampled down into the ditches instead once a pitch invasion is already under way.

Fences in the terracing sections here in germany allways have gates at the staircases that are being opened as emergency exits, to allow people running onto the pitch in case of emergency or a panic or whenever a stand has to be evacuated. And they only obstruct the views of those in the first few rows, depending on how steep a stand is and how tall the spectator standing behind it, and fangroups often use them to place their banners on them.

I'm just curious but what happens to someone who runs onto the field when the game is going on. in countries other than the U.S. Like what crimes could they charged with or would could the local football refuse to sell them tickets. I didn't realize it was so bad that some stadia actually need a fence.

^^



It just has the downside of larger distances between the pitch and the stands, an awfull look on TV and no possobility for fans to party and celebrate, shake hands and get autographs from the players "their heores" after a match.
Ditches are also even more dangerous than fences, because they don't prevent the attempts of pitch invasions all that effectively, but form are a hazard to the health of those that panic or are being pushed and trampled down into the ditches instead once a pitch invasion is already under way.

Fences in the terracing sections here in germany allways have gates at the staircases that are being opened as emergency exits, to allow people running onto the pitch in case of emergency or a panic or whenever a stand has to be evacuated. And they only obstruct the views of those in the first few rows, depending on how steep a stand is and how tall the spectator standing behind it, and fangroups often use them to place their banners on them.

I agree with you on ditches they look awful, just look at the San Siro now and before it raised the stands (oh and the Veltins Arena).

But there shouldn't be fences either full stop, they are even worse, you can hardly see the terrace at Dortmund because it is blocked off by the fences. I think it is ridiculous that in Germany they still have fences, surely the onus should be on using more intelligent methods to stop people running on the pitch and no matter how safe they say they are they are still a risk compared to having no fences at all.

Not every ground had them though, although the majority did. Highbury never had fences, for example.

Yep and it cost us hosting cup semi finals until 1992. Because of a riot between Everton and Southampton in the '84 semi final. After Everton's late winner their fans invaded the pitch and so did southampton's....

UlYeLDFiGrA
jgQyyBne2_M
TWnLzSFu8OU

Didn't get a semi until Pompey vs Liverpool in 1992.

c8szdkOr4xo

Not really true. The game was still pretty cheap when the fences came down. Prices have only got seriously bad in the last decade or so.

Yeah they didn't price out "hooligans" there are plenty of old school who go to games and sit down on the fat arses balding observing games. My old boss on over 200k a year was former ICF but now he's a respectable director. Plenty of "hooligans" were in respectable well paid jobs back in the day too.

They priced out the poor and young, and tbf that's gonna hurt smaller lower league clubs far more than high profile big clubs near the top where there is always some other mug willing to pat with there hard earned.

There were widespread predictions from the press - still obessed with the idea that football fans were largely hooligans - that the removal of fences would see regular pitch invasions and fights in the stands, but those fears were unfounded.

Selhurst Park just after Hillsborough...

KYmkS5dyCpY

I'm just curious but what happens to someone who runs onto the field when the game is going on. in countries other than the U.S. Like what crimes could they charged with or would could the local football refuse to sell them tickets. I didn't realize it was so bad that some stadia actually need a fence.

Trespass iirc, in England you're likely to get a football banning order too which is an absolute joke. They do show some discretion like when Spurs scored a last minute equaliser against us in the 4-4 game, but if you watch a game in England whenever a goal is score the stewards literally try and stop any interaction between players and fans it is totally stupid.