I just can't see the sort of clientele (for want of a better word) football now attracts wanting to stand up. And like it or not, many of the old standers have either been priced out or prefer to watch on TV. In fact, I think that even had the Taylor Report not included the all-seater recommendation, terraces such as the Holte would have been gone by now anyway.
When you think of the costs involved for most clubs to modernise or completely rebuild stands I don't think they'd have taken that kind of financial hit unless they absolutely had to.A 45,000 VP as was (with the new Witton) would have perfectly met the demands of today so why would the club have incurred any greater expense than they absolutely had to? You remember who our chairman was at the time.That would have been mirrored up and down the country. I think only a few clubs would have felt the need to expand, Man U with the wave of demand they encountered post 1993 and Arsenal, who were landlocked at Highbury. Ergo standing would have been prevalent at most grounds, save some of the more unsavoury venues such as at Millwall and the B-lose. Those would have needed to be all seater to keep tabs on the mutants via CCTV.
Simon Inglis' excellent Football Grounds of Great Britain details that a lot of clubs did receive funding from the Trust. But nowhere near close to covering most or all costs involved. Many clubs faced a significant financial burden, a burden that impacted on their ability to move forward on the pitch.Why would the Football Trust dish out large sums anyway if they didn't feel it was absolutely necessary?A knock on effect is that grounds now have better comfort and facilities but I don't think that was the primary goal. The primary focus was safety, in the climate of a fear of a repeat of the events of April 89. But as stands were being gutted and rebuilt, what harm providing more eating spaces and better decor and lighting in the concourses at the same time.A better case could/ should have been made for safe standing but few would have felt comfortable forcing the issue after Hillsborough.
Given the way football's gone since 1994, would the Holte End as it was have been doomed anyway? Or if it had stayed, how would things have been different? I can't see half of that crowd on Saturday, or any other time for that matter, standing up.
It's a moot point whether the game became gentrified because of all-seaters or whether the new football fans drove demand, but it's absolutely certain that the make up of modern crowds is totally different to those pre-1994 and that's a point usually missed by anyone who says terraces would be packed.
Why is the argument that it wouldn't be like it used to be an argument against doing it atall?If standing returned, of course it wouldn't be a giant seething mass of people any more. It also wouldn't be as easy to decide to go at the last minute and still be able to meet up with your mates if they brought it back now. It would be safer because it would be divided into small sections - your space may even be ticketed in a similar way to seating. These are things that make it safer - and they are the things that the police won't want to let go of, because they help them to keep track of you. If standing returned - it wouldn't be the same.However - even with these changes from the way it used to be - there is still a will to stand. Come the big games, people still stand, because, as even the anti-standing rules acknowledge, excitement draws people to their feet....and the atmosphere builds more easily with people on their feet because people feel they can blend into the crowd when they sing and shout.Apart from this - the pro standing argument that everyone always misses is that come mid winter - it's so much warmer! Sitting is bloody freezing sometimes!
Please donate to help towards the costs of keeping this site going. Thank You.
Author
Topic: Another standing debate (Read 11777 times)
