Off Field Management

[Miles Away]

Not the 'strike with a closed fist' type of punch. Centre punch.

Modern methods? I like it, though I suspect Alan Young would frown upon it.

 

[Macky]

Hanged, drawn and a quarterly subscription to the Crocheted Animals Journal should be sufficient punishment

 

[spionfox]

I'm having 'Post #40' as a T-shirt.

Here you go Mawsley - my pressie to you for having a pop in the McCann discussion :icon_bigg

 

[Hazzman]

I stood on the popular side at Filbert street in the 42,000 record crowd, In the kop at anfield in '62, on the big bank at Hillsborough in a 68,000 crowd, and the Holt end at Villa Park in a 65,000 throng. Watching the football was as safe as houses but getting out afterwards was a nightmare! The old wembley in the end terraces with 100,000 was no better.

Not quite these numbers but I'll say for the second time, there's a top European league where it's common for each ground to have a terrace containing five figures. On these terraces, they can openly drink beer, they wave massive flags, generally very loud and boisterous. Interestingly, there's no deaths every year. The authorities are backwards for taking their view (even more so for that odd top two divisions rule) and people thinking standing is unsafe is too. If it's managed correctly and the precautions are there it's safe.

26k stand on Westfalenstadion's Sud Tribute, no-one injuried....a lad at Scunthorpe in a dinky 1800 seating stand ended up blind this year

 

[Cate Fox]

Here you go Mawsley - my pressie to you for having a pop in the McCann discussion :icon_bigg

View attachment 7799

and again I am pissing myself laughing :icon_lol:

 

[Blue Maniac]

26k stand on Westfalenstadion's Sud Tribute, no-one injuried....a lad at Scunthorpe in a dinky 1800 seating stand ended up blind this year

In fairness, that wasn't because he was in a seated stand. It's because he was acting the ****.

 

[Hazzman]

In fairness, that wasn't because he was in a seated stand. It's because he was acting the ****.

The thing is if he acted a **** in a full terrace, he wouldn't fell the distance he did. He acted a **** in a full seating stand and kaboom.

 

[Macky]

:icon_lol: 1 hour and 16 minutes between these posts. What the feck did you do between them? :icon_lol:

I'd been trying to do some work, but then I saw this:

Shut up Macky...

He's fortunate that I'm not hunting him down so that I can ask him to make me shut up

 

[Mawsley]

:icon_lol:

This is rather worrying. Frankly Jeff terraces seem to be the last of your problems I am concerned about the word "someone" - surely you must have a suspect. It does seem to me that "someone" is sending you a message.
Has anyone increased the insurance on your life recently?

 

[Mawsley]

Here you go Mawsley - my pressie to you for having a pop in the McCann discussion :icon_bigg

View attachment 7799

Top bombing. Good work fella.

 

[TornadoShaunUK]

You obviously didn't read what I wrote. This is what I wrote: "It might be dangerous if you have huge steep terraces like we used to have. Not many people are calling for the return of those days."

Huge steep terrace, sloped terrace - same thing in my book! It evidently did imply that you wanted flat level standing as that's the implication I got! Regardless of the type of standing you want to see implemented or reintroduced, the safety argument remains the same.

The sort that I thought you would understand. But obviously I was wrong.

The point I was making is that if you're standing up and you get pushed from behind on a shallow standing area, you're less likely to fall over because you can just step forwards. And if you do fall over, you don't fall far.

On the other hand if you're pushed when you're standing in a seated area you're more likely to fall because you can't step forwards to stop the fall, you're more likely to trip over the seat in front. And with seated areas being so steep these days the fall is likely to be more dangerous.

It's pretty obvious which is safer of the two, but you obviously don't understand the point I am trying to make either which is that it's a pointless analogy in the first place, it's obviously safer to fall from a lesser height regardless of whether anyone is in your way or not. What I'm saying is, if the roles were reversed and the person sitting infront of you is at the lower height, which is safer then? Arguably it's still the one at the bottom of the stairs.

Why should there be more people in a standing area than a seated area?

I don't remember saying there should, infact I'd have thought that everything I have said on th subject indicates that I feel large standing areas are definately not as safe as seated areas.



In an emergency evacuation, in a standing area, all you have to do is step forward a little (probably no more than ten yards) and you're on the pitch. You might have to duck below a barrier and step over small wall to get there, but it's something that can happen very quickly.

In a seating area you either have to clamber over seats, or queue and wait your turn to get to the steps.

If you really can't see that the first option is quicker I wonder what planet you're on.

Firstly, you still have to queue and wait to get out of a standing area!!!

Secondly, you are obviously just referring to the possibility of small standing areas where there is less far to travel, and you are obviously also only referring to those on the front row. What you don't calculate into the equation is the potential for panic in the event of a rush, IMO this is the main thing that makes standing areas unsafe, at football - or anywhere else. Because of the earlier mentioned lack of space and greater potential for crushing or trampling. Remember, safety should always come before speed, like I said earlier, if people wind up getting trampled being escorted out of the standing area then the whole thing is pointless because this is exactly what you are trying to prevent!

To be honest I don't know why I'm even bothering as it doesn't bother me either we do or don't have standing areas at football matches. I never stand other than to celebrate a goal. I thought I'd try and put forward a subjective argument as to why I personally agree with the fact that the authorities deem them unsafe.

 

[TornadoShaunUK]

I'd been trying to do some work, but then I saw this:



He's fortunate that I'm not hunting him down so that I can ask him to make me shut up

I'd love to see that! Do you think I'm some weedy computer geek who hides behind a computer screen? Arguably saying shut up is nothing compared to your response. Maybe if you stick me on your ignore list so I don't have to read anymore of the shit you spout out then we'd both be better off and can avoid any future confrontations. I'd do it myself, but unfortunately because you're a mod I can't put you on mine, so I have to put up with your incessant victimisation.

 

[TornadoShaunUK]

He started it

Just how old are you? Just to clarify, I started nothing. I didn't invite you into the discussion I was having with Jeff, you just butted in in an insulting manner, in your brown-nosing way as is often the case with you...

 

[GazLCFC]

....a lad at Scunthorpe in a dinky 1800 seating stand ended up blind this year

Did he end up blind? Seemed to be seeing ok at the back of L1 during the last home game of the season.

 

[Jeff]

Huge steep terrace, sloped terrace - same thing in my book! It evidently did imply that you wanted flat level standing as that's the implication I got!

Your book is obviously not a dictionary. I bet no one else read it the way you did.

Regardless of the type of standing you want to see implemented or reintroduced, the safety argument remains the same.

Of course it doesn't. If all standing was as dangerous as you think it is it would all be banned.

It's pretty obvious which is safer of the two, but you obviously don't understand the point I am trying to make either which is that it's a pointless analogy in the first place, it's obviously safer to fall from a lesser height regardless of whether anyone is in your way or not. What I'm saying is, if the roles were reversed and the person sitting infront of you is at the lower height, which is safer then? Arguably it's still the one at the bottom of the stairs.

You still don't get it!
The standing area would be shallow. You're less likely to fall because you can step forwards to stop yourself. In the unlikely event that you do fall you're never going to fall far because the terrace is so shallow. It will be like tripping up when you're walking in the street.

If you're anywhere in a seating area apart from the front row you'll fall further than anyone in the standing area would because the seating areas are so steep. And you're much more likelly to fall because the gaps between rows are so small there's no room to step forward to stop yourself.
And on top of that if you're standing in a seating area and you fall forwards there's a danger of leg injuries due to legs becoming wedged under your seat, and the danger of injuring the person in front as you land on top of them.

A fall forwards from anywhere in the seats, other than the front row, will result in a bigger fall than from anywhere in the standing area. That is a fact.


You're talking as though you think the terraces are exactly the same as the seating areas, but without the seats.

I don't remember saying there should

If that's the case, please can you explain the relevance of the quote below to this discussion.

c.) I'm implying that's it's easier for safety staff to marshal people who are already separated and keep them in an organised form than it is to marshal a mass crowd. What's that got to do with anything? Well it's one of the factors that will determine how efficently and speedily you can evacuate an area...

Firstly, you still have to queue and wait to get out of a standing area!!!

But nowhere near as long as you would for a seating area.
If you're in an emergency situation in a small terrace, there might be up to 10 people in front of you trying to get onto the pitch. It's not like you're all queuing to get to a small exit, you just walk forwards. The days of big fences to stop people getting onto the pitch are long gone. If you want to see how easy it is to evacuate a terraced area I suggest you look at some old videos of pitch invasions. Or have a look at this picture to see the terrace where I regularly stand. Notice how small the steps are, how many barriers there are, to prevent crushes, and how small the wall at the front is. Evacuation onto the pitch from there would be very quick and safe. That's a very old stand, I'm sure a modern standing area would be even safer and probably smaller. You asked me to prove that evacuation of a terraced area is quicker than a seating area, but imagine that area in the picture with seats on it instead and think how much longer it would take to evacuate.

Secondly, you are obviously just referring to the possibility of small standing areas where there is less far to travel, and you are obviously also only referring to those on the front row. What you don't calculate into the equation is the potential for panic in the event of a rush,

In the event of a panic the people in the seats will be standing too, but it will be more difficult for them to escape. Do you think a panic can't happen in a seating area?

IMO this is the main thing that makes standing areas unsafe, at football - or anywhere else. Because of the earlier mentioned lack of space and greater potential for crushing or trampling.

Why do you think there will be a lack of space?

Do you think they will pack people in like sardines?

That's not how it works. Not these days anyway.

it doesn't bother me either we do or don't have standing areas at football matches.

Does it not annoy you when the person in front is standing and you can't see? If you go to away games that's bound to have happened to you. It pisses me off. If people were allowed to stand in proper standing areas it would help those people who want to sit, not just those who want to stand.

I thought I'd try and put forward a subjective argument as to why I personally agree with the fact that the authorities deem them unsafe.

Those same authorities think standing is safe in a lower division ground or at a rugby match. They can't have it both ways, it's either safe or it isn't. If they really think it's unsafe they'd have banned it everywhere. Therefore they must think it's safe really, and as someone who thinks the authorities know what they're doing, you must also think its safe and this whole discussion has been pointless :icon_wink

 

[Macky]

I'd love to see that! Do you think I'm some weedy computer geek who hides behind a computer screen?

Would you now, you ****ing cocksucker?
I'd make you sob like the bitch you are. Send me your address so you Nobsucking prick if you're such a ****ing hardman, I'll be in the UK next month Mr Hardman, I couldn't give a **** who you are, you would need to be a very,very big, armed **** to make me back down
Make no mistake, I will make you sob like a bitch. So do your worst Mr Hardman. You will not wave your cock as forceably as me.

Arguably saying shut up is nothing compared to your response.

Complete and utter nonsense. You do not tell any man to shut up, that is the single most offensive thing you can say to any man, so **** you and shut the **** up yourself.

Maybe if you stick me on your ignore list so I don't have to read anymore of the shit you spout out then we'd both be better off and can avoid any future confrontations. I'd do it myself, but unfortunately because you're a mod I can't put you on mine

If only I could, I wouldn't have to suffer your shite

so I have to put up with your incessant victimisation.

You are obviously too stupid to understand what the words 'incessant' and 'victimisation' actually mean. Give me even one example of my 'incessant victimisation', just one, go on, I challenge you. Please, please give me an example.

Just how old are you?

You'll find that out when you send me your address

Just to clarify, I started nothing.

Yes you ****ing did, you told me to shut up

I didn't invite you into the discussion I was having with Jeff, you just butted in in an insulting manner

It was a discussion on an internet forum, I joined in , get ****ing over it

I was having with Jeff, you just butted in in an insulting manner, in your brown-nosing way as is often the case with you...

Brown nosing? Do you even understand what that means? How the ****ing **** does that work?

 

[Hazzman]

Did he end up blind? Seemed to be seeing ok at the back of L1 during the last home game of the season.

In one eye yes but the doctors say there's a chance it may recover.

 

[Micky]

 

[drummindefender]

Way too ****ed off that Ayman al-Zawahiri is now USA's No.1 target and not me.

And he's on my death list !

 

[Mawsley]

"Guys, guys...what's happening to us? Squabbling, bickering. We never used to be like this."