I'm officially bored of travelling away with Reading

[Katie Marsden]

What price for a 'safe standing campaign' after last night then?

You can argue until you are blue in the face about the relevance of the events in Rome, but the politicians and FLA will inevitably see that as a sign that standing is not safe. Just put yourself in their position - England = all seater stadia at the top level = no serious crowd trouble for years; Italy = standing on terraces = serious trouble; add to the the fact that an English club was involved this time and it all adds up to a big no to the chances of reintroducing standing to our stadiums.

It may or may not be a valid comparison, and it may or may not be a relevant argument, but it will be employed to ensure that standing doesn't happen here.

Eh???? All matches in all UEFA competitions must be played in all-seater stadia - that includes yesterday's.

That's the reason the German stadia have standing areas with convertible seating - so they can cater for both.

So personally I can see no link between yesterday and the safe standing debate, except possibly further evidence that there is no link between football-related disorder and standing/sitting.

I bow to your knowledge on this one. You might help by refering me to the relevant regulation? I have looked on the UEFA website, at the rules for the Champions League, and they don't say that so far as I can tell. In fact they only say that the stadium must have a valid safety certificate, valid under the national law of that country.
Anyway,it is not really relevant to my original argument, if you read it carefully.

And, yet again, you miss the main thrust of what I was saying - it isn't yours or my personal opinion on this that counts it is the people who make the rules whose opinions are important. I am merely suggesting that they will inevitably use this to 'demonstrate' that football fans are not ready for standing areas in stadiums.


http://www.uefa.com/newsfiles/19071.pdf

Yet again you speak bullsh1t.

The Stadio Olympico is all seater you idiot, come back when you actually have a clue about what your talking about

[Behindu]

He has a point.

When moronic English fans behave like that then there is no chance that the authorities will relax any of the current rules.

Fans have to prove they can behave and then we will get concessions.

I think the arguement was being won but Man Utd and Spurs go and ruin it for the rest...

[Katie Marsden]

Using his logic...

Trouble in an all seated ground means sitting at games is unsafe. If there hadn't been seats they'd have been nothing for the fans to throw, so terraces are infact safer than seated grounds.

[West Stand Man]

What price for a 'safe standing campaign' after last night then?

You can argue until you are blue in the face about the relevance of the events in Rome, but the politicians and FLA will inevitably see that as a sign that standing is not safe. Just put yourself in their position - England = all seater stadia at the top level = no serious crowd trouble for years; Italy = standing on terraces = serious trouble; add to the the fact that an English club was involved this time and it all adds up to a big no to the chances of reintroducing standing to our stadiums.

It may or may not be a valid comparison, and it may or may not be a relevant argument, but it will be employed to ensure that standing doesn't happen here.

Eh???? All matches in all UEFA competitions must be played in all-seater stadia - that includes yesterday's.

That's the reason the German stadia have standing areas with convertible seating - so they can cater for both.

So personally I can see no link between yesterday and the safe standing debate, except possibly further evidence that there is no link between football-related disorder and standing/sitting.

I bow to your knowledge on this one. You might help by refering me to the relevant regulation? I have looked on the UEFA website, at the rules for the Champions League, and they don't say that so far as I can tell. In fact they only say that the stadium must have a valid safety certificate, valid under the national law of that country.
Anyway,it is not really relevant to my original argument, if you read it carefully.

And, yet again, you miss the main thrust of what I was saying - it isn't yours or my personal opinion on this that counts it is the people who make the rules whose opinions are important. I am merely suggesting that they will inevitably use this to 'demonstrate' that football fans are not ready for standing areas in stadiums.


http://www.uefa.com/newsfiles/19071.pdf

Yet again you speak bullsh1t.

The Stadio Olympico is all seater you idiot, come back when you actually have a clue about what your talking about

Sadly you also find it hard to read what is actually written. I have tried hard, and I can't find anywwhere where I have said that the Stadio Olympico is a standing stadium - what I have said is that the 'powers that be' will use this as a demonstration that there are still enough risks involved for them not to sanction any return to terracing of any sort.

I also noted that the UEFA regs don't seem to have any menion of all seater stadia - but that I'm open to be directed to the correct reference if anyone knows where it is?

ps - it is 'you 're' not 'your'. I could suggest that you come back when you can write in good English!

[West Stand Man]

Using his logic...

Trouble in an all seated ground means sitting at games is unsafe. If there hadn't been seats they'd have been nothing for the fans to throw, so terraces are infact safer than seated grounds.

Not my logic - you half wit.What I said was ..... oh what the hell I can't be bothered to try again with pushing a message through to an empty skull. It just isn't worth it.

[Katie Marsden]

What price for a 'safe standing campaign' after last night then?

You can argue until you are blue in the face about the relevance of the events in Rome, but the politicians and FLA will inevitably see that as a sign that standing is not safe. Just put yourself in their position - England = all seater stadia at the top level = no serious crowd trouble for years; Italy = standing on terraces = serious trouble; add to the the fact that an English club was involved this time and it all adds up to a big no to the chances of reintroducing standing to our stadiums.

It may or may not be a valid comparison, and it may or may not be a relevant argument, but it will be employed to ensure that standing doesn't happen here.

Eh???? All matches in all UEFA competitions must be played in all-seater stadia - that includes yesterday's.

That's the reason the German stadia have standing areas with convertible seating - so they can cater for both.

So personally I can see no link between yesterday and the safe standing debate, except possibly further evidence that there is no link between football-related disorder and standing/sitting.

I bow to your knowledge on this one. You might help by refering me to the relevant regulation? I have looked on the UEFA website, at the rules for the Champions League, and they don't say that so far as I can tell. In fact they only say that the stadium must have a valid safety certificate, valid under the national law of that country.
Anyway,it is not really relevant to my original argument, if you read it carefully.

And, yet again, you miss the main thrust of what I was saying - it isn't yours or my personal opinion on this that counts it is the people who make the rules whose opinions are important. I am merely suggesting that they will inevitably use this to 'demonstrate' that football fans are not ready for standing areas in stadiums.


http://www.uefa.com/newsfiles/19071.pdf

Yet again you speak bullsh1t.

The Stadio Olympico is all seater you idiot, come back when you actually have a clue about what your talking about

Sadly you also find it hard to read what is actually written. I have tried hard, and I can't find anywwhere where I have said that the Stadio Olympico is a standing stadium - what I have said is that the 'powers that be' will use this as a demonstration that there are still enough risks involved for them not to sanction any return to terracing of any sort.

I also noted that the UEFA regs don't seem to have any menion of all seater stadia - but that I'm open to be directed to the correct reference if anyone knows where it is?

ps - it is 'you 're' not 'your'. I could suggest that you come back when you can write in good English!

The highlighted part clearly shows you implying that the stadium was terraced, which it isn't.

Any 'half wit' knows you can't use terracing in UEFA compeitions.

As for picking me up on a spelling mistake, that says it all about your arguement or lack of one. You don't have one, just a mixture of incorrect observations.

You can't even explain yourself at the end, again that says it all.

If you want, feel free to explain how fighting in ALL SEATED grounds abroad will have a negative effort on the safe standing movement in England?

Surely the fact seats were used as missiles only adds more weight to the safe standing arguement?

[West Stand Man]

That is 'argument'. Do communicate in English if you are going to try to get me involved.

You may disagree with me, and you have every right so to do. You do, however, seem to miss the fact that I did state quite clearly that this was not necessarily a valid line - simply one that will probably be taken by the powers ...... But then you can't be expected to actually read what I said, simply what you'd like me to have done.

[Katie Marsden]

That is 'argument'. Do communicate in English if you are going to try to get me involved.

You may disagree with me, and you have every right so to do. You do, however, seem to miss the fact that I did state quite clearly that this was not necessarily a valid line - simply one that will probably be taken by the powers ...... But then you can't be expected to actually read what I said, simply what you'd like me to have done.

Once again picking up on a spelling mistake in order to worm your way out of replying to the question I asked.

OK I'll put it to you another way.

If you want, feel free to explain how fighting in ALL SEATED grounds abroad will have a negative effort on the safe standing movement in England and why the authorities will use it as an excuse not to introduce safe standing areas in England? You made the comment that the trouble in Italy WILL be used against the safe standing arguement, so back it up.

Surely the fact seats were used as missiles only adds more weight to the safe standing arguement?

[West Stand Man]

That is 'argument'. Do communicate in English if you are going to try to get me involved.

You may disagree with me, and you have every right so to do. You do, however, seem to miss the fact that I did state quite clearly that this was not necessarily a valid line - simply one that will probably be taken by the powers ...... But then you can't be expected to actually read what I said, simply what you'd like me to have done.

Once again picking up on a spelling mistake in order to worm your way out of replying to the question I asked.

OK I'll put it to you another way.

If you want, feel free to explain how fighting in ALL SEATED grounds abroad will have a negative effort on the safe standing movement in England and why the authorities will use it as an excuse not to introduce safe standing areas in England? You made the comment that the trouble in Italy WILL be used against the safe standing arguement, so back it up.

Surely the fact seats were used as missiles only adds more weight to the safe standing arguement?

I answered your question, you just can't understand the answer - which I can't help, sorry.

Oh, and it is still 'argument' not 'arguement'. Once is a silly error, but to continue after being corrected is pure stupidity.

[Katie Marsden]

That is 'argument'. Do communicate in English if you are going to try to get me involved.

You may disagree with me, and you have every right so to do. You do, however, seem to miss the fact that I did state quite clearly that this was not necessarily a valid line - simply one that will probably be taken by the powers ...... But then you can't be expected to actually read what I said, simply what you'd like me to have done.

Once again picking up on a spelling mistake in order to worm your way out of replying to the question I asked.

OK I'll put it to you another way.

If you want, feel free to explain how fighting in ALL SEATED grounds abroad will have a negative effort on the safe standing movement in England and why the authorities will use it as an excuse not to introduce safe standing areas in England? You made the comment that the trouble in Italy WILL be used against the safe standing arguement, so back it up.

Surely the fact seats were used as missiles only adds more weight to the safe standing arguement?

I answered your question, you just can't understand the answer - which I can't help, sorry.

Oh, and it is still 'argument' not 'arguement'. Once is a silly error, but to continue after being corrected is pure stupidity.

No you haven't.

You said the fact it was terracing in Rome (which was later proven to be incorrect) WILL be employed to ensure that standing doesn't happen here.

How do you know it WILL be employed against the safe standing arguement in this country? Surely the fact seats were used as missiles only adds more weight to the safe standing *arguement?

* For your benefit.

[working class hero]

Using his logic...

Trouble in an all seated ground means sitting at games is unsafe. If there hadn't been seats they'd have been nothing for the fans to throw, so terraces are infact safer than seated grounds.

IIRC Leeds fans started the seat throwing at the Euro final vs Bayern.... and yet seats still came in.

I think the Rome situation was akin to terracing as the seats had no backs and so fans [and polis] could run down the area without impediment.

I doubt whether the politicians will listen to the safe standing argument as it might encourage horrible working class types to return in large numbers. And the WC are clearly trouble to the likes of New Labour. Indeed I suspect that there may be drastic action taken and that standing may be more readily punished in the short term.

Any prospect of a Euro ban for the clubs concerned?

[telford royal]

All the slagging off on this board is pathetic, this is a discussion forum. A DISCUSSION FORUM, surely this means that all and sundrie should be able to discuss the relevant post in a sensible and mature way. Personal attacks should not be tolerated, this forum is here for all to put across their own personal views, and we all have different views on life ( ie. should we stand or sit in an all seater stadium ! ).
As A kid I was taken to a Chelsea V Leeds game by my Dad ( mid 70's) didn't see a thing, apart lots of drunk blokes having a piss where they stood on the terracing ( if they went to the loo they would never had got back to "their place" due to the massive overcrowding), at least at Elm Park you only got wet up to your ankles in the bogs. This is not a type of football, if I was a child, I would like to expirience again. I remember very violent games at Elm park, mainly Swansea, Cardiff and Millwall, the only time I have had any problems at the the Mad was when we played Millwall about 5 or 6 years ago. Football has moved on, more modern grounds and facillities.

60's early 70's - cheap tickets, some mixed supporters - good banter - violence on the increase

70's - mid 80's - fencing - supporterts seggregated- violence increases even more

80's - 90's - football becomes the scum of all scum - tickets still cheap

Late 90's - modern day - tickets expensive, everything at the ground expensive but we do have nice seats with an excellent view in a fairly secure and safe stadium, we get to see good football ( which is what we all go for ) against the top teams. Violence on the decrease - families return to the sport

As a kid I didnt have a choice, if I went to see a football game and didnt get to sit on the wall, then I would miss a lot of the game. This shouldn't be the case nowadays.
Unfortunatly the chavs and selfish nobbers that attend football these days seam to want to ruin it for the rest of us.

Why should families be segregated to a section of the the ground away from every one else, football is for all, to be shared.

Thank you for reading my rant, I now expect replies regarding my grammer, spelling and the fact im talking shite. But I don't care. This is a discussion forum and I am free to exspress my stories and views. If you dont like, thats up to you.

happy easter

[Ooo Trevor Morley]

Telford: It's Grammar - mwuhaha. Sorry, I am not mean, I just didn't want to ruin you expectations. I should get in to the Easter spirit and say good post. I hope you get lots of choclate eggs - I won't be getting a single one where I am.

[telford royal]

Well oooohh T M, thanks for your reply. I noticed that you picked up my obvious spelling mistake ( honestly ) and I also noticed that the warring idiots had stopped bickering with each other. I didnt get any easter eggs as my little boy beat me to them. Git . Dont you get chocolate dogs over there . Sorry

[Huntley & Palmer]

I'd just like to say, that I will be getting very drunk for today's game. Ta

[Dirk Gently]

Do consider that Charlton stewards are famous for their over-vigorous approach to drunkenness.

[Huntley & Palmer]

Indeed, I have been warned by other fans. However, it's on TV should it all go wrong

[The 17 Bus]

Indeed, I have been warned by other fans. However, it's on TV should it all go wrong

A bit late, but can I say that drunk H&P is no threat to peace, tho he might swear a tad.

[Royal 0pinion]

I've given up going to watch Reading now for a lot of these reasons. Its not as simple as because we cant stand, and its certainly not because I strive for aggro - before one the many thought police on this thread try to suggest otherwise.


With highlights of our every game on television giving at least as good a view of the action as I'd likely have in the stand, I wouldnt be going for just the football anymore...

Atmosphere............. dont make me laugh! OK so there are odd occasions, but those that are billed as big games end up swamped by 'daytrippers'

The majority of my fellow supporters would be quiet, boring & lacking any grasp of the concept of humour. So I certainly wouldnt be going for the people...

Letting slip expletives gets you into trouble with at least the militant mother infront (who has no such reservations herself, I must add, whilst receiving a firm shafting from the milkman each morning)

Even having a few drinks or a fag is frowned upon or banned !!! (ok well I know the days for fags are numbered anyway)


Its like the fookin matrix. Sat there lifeless in your allocated receptacle, electronically tagged by your seat number & smart card, watched on cctv & by stewards with contempt, whilst the fat cats drain us of a significant wodge of cash

It was great fun back in the day but now its just not worth spending the many many hours, miles & pounds to go watch some blokes kick some leather round in a field, in the company of the boy scouts and their step-dads. Sorry

Its why im happy to be sat here with a few cans and a roast on its way, about to watch KO from the comfort of my own sofa

G'ARN U ROYALS!!!

[Platypuss]

Sadly you also find it hard to read what is actually written. I have tried hard, and I can't find anywwhere where I have said that the Stadio Olympico is a standing stadium - what I have said is that the 'powers that be' will use this as a demonstration that there are still enough risks involved for them not to sanction any return to terracing of any sort.

I also noted that the UEFA regs don't seem to have any menion of all seater stadia - but that I'm open to be directed to the correct reference if anyone knows where it is?

ps - it is 'you 're' not 'your'. I could suggest that you come back when you can write in good English!

Anywwhere?

Menion?

Please let me know in which dictionary these words can be found. Thanks.