Another standing debate

Go Down

#30 Reply
Posted by Tezmond on 16 Nov, 2010 17:07
I'm sure the old Holte would've had to have been cut into partitions to stop the sideways sways of the crowd. The floodlight pylon grounding right into the left side wouldn't pass muster either.

I do wonder how many of those who long for the old days would have actually migrated to the sides as the rigours of running up and down 15-20 steps, whenever the play moved into the near half of the pitch, took their toll week in week out?

I have a theory that some of the lack of atmosphere from the new Holte could be due to blokes still clinging onto their seats in the upper when years ago they would've first moved down to the lowest sunken walkway and then to a different stand - leaving just young rowdy lads at the back? (controversial, and probably the worst forum to post such an opinion too!)

#31 Reply
Posted by DeKuip on 16 Nov, 2010 17:11
Try telling a young kid whose only known the comfort (if that's the right word) of sitting at games that from now on he/she has got to stand up all game like we used to. It's not so easy holding and eating a giant coke, burger and chips when you're standing. And besides, doesn't the 10 minute walk from the car count as enough exercise to warrant two hours sitting on their backside!

I would love to see the German model adopted, but even if our authorities ever allowed it the numbers would be so restricted it just wouldn't have the same feel, or appeal.
Sadly, it's now part of a bygone era, and like with most things in life that get brought back because we miss them (Gordon Cowans excepted) - it's never the same again.

#32 Reply
Posted by Blackcountry Villa on 16 Nov, 2010 17:34
If the demand isn't there then why do we stand at every away game? Why do the lower North stand all stand for big games? Why do the Holte stand for big games?

The kids, old folk etc who want to sit simply move and those that want to stand go in the standing section, it would be rammed every week and the atmosphere would be ten times better than the shit atmosphere at VP these days.

#33 Reply
Posted by pauliewalnuts on 16 Nov, 2010 17:36
Here we go again.

Well, for a start, you haven't got much choice in standing at an away game. It doesn't take many people to stand to effectively force the rest of the fans to stand.

#34 Reply
Posted by Brigada1874 on 16 Nov, 2010 17:45
for anyone interested here's a link to the FSF (football supporters federation) safe standing campaign

http://www.fsf.org.uk/campaigns/safestanding.php

#35 Reply
Posted by KevinGage on 16 Nov, 2010 17:48
Quote from: dave.woodhall on 16 Nov, 2010 16:10
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.

#36 Reply
Posted by dave.woodhall on 16 Nov, 2010 18:33
Quote from: KevinGage on 16 Nov, 2010 17:48

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.

Most, if not all, of the cost came from the Football Trust.

#37 Reply
Posted by KevinGage on 16 Nov, 2010 18:46
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.

#38 Reply
Posted by dave.woodhall on 16 Nov, 2010 18:59
Quote from: KevinGage on 16 Nov, 2010 18:46
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.

That was what they were there for - to distribute the money they had (which in the pre-Lottery days was a lot). There were two main reasons for the all-seater aspect of the Taylor Report. The main one was the fear of another Hillsborough, but it was also seen as a sop to the government after the Report spoke out against identity cards and gave them the get-out for abandoning the idea. 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.

#39 Reply
Posted by amfy on 16 Nov, 2010 19:10
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!

#40 Reply
Posted by DeKuip on 16 Nov, 2010 19:23
Quote from: dave.woodhall on 15 Nov, 2010 18:26
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.
Going back to Dave's original question... YES the Holte would have been doomed anyway. Capacity had been greatly reduced from when 28,000 used to pack in there... I think it was down to about 20,000 at the end (might be wrong). The catering/toilets etc would not have coped with the expectations of a modern day football crowd, and from what I recall there wasn't really much more that could have been done with the old structure to drastically improve that part of things.
So even if the capacity hadn't then been reduced further by the authorities, fans wouldn't have put up with insufficient facilities there when they could have the comfort of other areas of the ground, so the Holte would probably have lost its appeal to many, the crowd would have thinned out and it just wouldn't have been the same.

Our selective memories remind us of the Holte at its best, but let's not forget that during the mid 80s football slump, and crowds of 15-20,000, there was room to chase West Ham fans through it without knocking a cup of bovril out of someone's clutches.

The future?
If all the seats were taken out of the lower Holte to allow for standing, with current safety laws they'd hardly allow it to be rammed like the old days. The amenities/exits etc are designed for its current capacity so we'd just have a load of people in the middle/back squashed together and space everywhere else.

To me the most logical answer is keep the seats as they are and allow people to stand if they want to. If I buy a ticket for a gig at the NIA it says on it that "people around you may stand" - in other words don't moan if the row in front decide to stand up and dance as that's all part of being at a gig. Why can't a designated area of a football ground, such as lower Holte, just have that printed on its tickets?
And tell us this Birmingham Council - how come people can stand in seated areas of the NIA (where the seated structure is not as solid as Villa Park), drink, dance and enjoy themselves - but can't at Villa or the Sty?

Sorry drifted off onto another forum there...

#41 Reply
Posted by KevinGage on 16 Nov, 2010 19:25
Quote from: dave.woodhall on 16 Nov, 2010 18:59

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.

Agreed.

You can't put the genie back in the bottle.

I do think that a limited area of safe standing could work -or at the very least should be explored. But If we get between 35/40000 for most games now I don't think half of that number (the capacity of the old Holte in other words) would be happy standing. The expectations of supporters and what they demand from the full authentic matchday experience re catering, facilities and the like give a fairly good indication in that regard. You only have to look on the General Krulak thread and the moans about pie selection, types of coffee and lack of homemade crinkle cut chips to see that.

That's as things stand (non pun intended) now though.

Had things remained the same supporters would have known no different. Other areas of the ground would have improved without question, with the growth of popularity in the game, corporates and so on. But the Holte would have been probably been very similar now to the one in 1994 -save for perhaps a new roof using more modern methods. Probably cantilevered or goal post as it is now, instead of the four posts propping up the old roof and dodgy extension.

#42 Reply
Posted by JUAN PABLO on 16 Nov, 2010 20:12
I miss taking my beer crate down ;-)

#43 Reply
Posted by KevinGage on 16 Nov, 2010 20:20
Quote from: amfy on 16 Nov, 2010 19:10
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!

Great post amfy.

Agree with all of that.

#44 Reply
Posted by bob on 16 Nov, 2010 20:31
Decent thread.

My first and last standing game was The Holte's Last Stand. My feet didn't touch the ground for the whole of the second half. It was one of the most memorable experiences of my life. Truly wonderful.

I thought for many years that I would prefer to stands. Recently, not so much.

I'm getting a bit older. I notice that my tolerance for other people in general seems to be diminishing. Do I want to spend a game on a stand crammed in with 20,000 others? I don't think I do. I like a bit of personal space. I'm not all that fussed about singing and shouting like I used to be.

Huh. I'm getting a bit depressed so I'll stop now. Modern football is rubbish. I don't care that much any more.