Hillsborough

PilgrimJosh · Apr 14, 2014

Has it changed football forever?

Don't know if you've ever been to the likes of Newport and Wimbledon but it's shabby, unsafe and at some points, particularly the latter, I felt genuinely unsafe and thought i might have been crushed, it would be very, very easy to see how a horrific accident could occur. Newport felt like scaffolding and I didn't really trust the thin metal gate I was leaning on nor the floor that dipped far too much for comfort when stepped on.

I agree it's important to remember it and pay our respects, but there's a hell of a lot more that needs to be done before we can say it has changed football, in particular the stadiums and the away ends that people travel to, and pack out, on regular occasions.

Still more needs to be done. I'm all for standing but I think it needs to be made much, much safer. Ie railings at the very least. Not herded into a hole like cattle.

tigertony · Apr 14, 2014

PilgrimJosh":1t872iag said:
Has it changed football forever?

Don't know if you've ever been to the likes of Newport and Wimbledon but it's shabby, unsafe and at some points, particularly the latter, I felt genuinely unsafe and thought i might have been crushed, it would be very, very easy to see how a horrific accident could occur. Newport felt like scaffolding and I didn't really trust the thin metal gate I was leaning on nor the floor that dipped far too much for comfort when stepped on.

I agree it's important to remember it and pay our respects, but there's a hell of a lot more that needs to be done before we can say it has changed football, in particular the stadiums and the away ends that people travel to, and pack out, on regular occasions.

Still more needs to be done. I'm all for standing but I think it needs to be made much, much safer. Ie railings at the very least. Not herded into a hole like cattle.

Very valid argument imo. Either standing is safe or it isn't safe ? Not - its safe at Newport but not at Argyle.

Mazza26 · Apr 15, 2014

PilgrimJosh":1fu8sg1r said:
Has it changed football forever?

Don't know if you've ever been to the likes of Newport and Wimbledon but it's shabby, unsafe and at some points, particularly the latter, I felt genuinely unsafe and thought i might have been crushed, it would be very, very easy to see how a horrific accident could occur. Newport felt like scaffolding and I didn't really trust the thin metal gate I was leaning on nor the floor that dipped far too much for comfort when stepped on.

I agree it's important to remember it and pay our respects, but there's a hell of a lot more that needs to be done before we can say it has changed football, in particular the stadiums and the away ends that people travel to, and pack out, on regular occasions.

Still more needs to be done. I'm all for standing but I think it needs to be made much, much safer. Ie railings at the very least. Not herded into a hole like cattle.

I'll speak to my cousin who works at AFC Wimbledon and see what his views are. I think they're in a position where they know that Argyle in particular bring a lot of away fans and they generally don't want to turn people down if supporters have travelled from afar especially as we aren't high risk (we're a friendly bunch) BUT they still operate to a capacity and they always bring that down a bit to be on the safe side anyway - also it's usually all-ticket. Remember Kingsmeadow is also home to Kingstonian who play in the 7th tier. The ground has had to have a lot of money chucked at it to meet league standards. I feel it's a bit harsh to call it shabby, it's partly down to the fact we fill the away end to the brim - and if you look at the average attendances they are top in terms of filling the ground up to the capacity (88%) Portsmouth are next with 73%. York's ground on the other hand is what I call shabby (of course it has that nostalgia feel about it, and a lovely town but in terms of facilities... not good.)

Ollieargyle9 · Apr 15, 2014

MAZZA26":2vlbhdpg said:
PilgrimJosh":2vlbhdpg said:

Has it changed football forever?

Don't know if you've ever been to the likes of Newport and Wimbledon but it's shabby, unsafe and at some points, particularly the latter, I felt genuinely unsafe and thought i might have been crushed, it would be very, very easy to see how a horrific accident could occur. Newport felt like scaffolding and I didn't really trust the thin metal gate I was leaning on nor the floor that dipped far too much for comfort when stepped on.

I agree it's important to remember it and pay our respects, but there's a hell of a lot more that needs to be done before we can say it has changed football, in particular the stadiums and the away ends that people travel to, and pack out, on regular occasions.

Still more needs to be done. I'm all for standing but I think it needs to be made much, much safer. Ie railings at the very least. Not herded into a hole like cattle.

Click to expand...

I'll speak to my cousin who works at AFC Wimbledon and see what his views are. I think they're in a position where they know that Argyle in particular bring a lot of away fans and they generally don't want to turn people down if supporters have travelled from afar especially as we aren't high risk (we're a friendly bunch) BUT they still operate to a capacity and they always bring that down a bit to be on the safe side anyway - also it's usually all-ticket. Remember Kingsmeadow is also home to Kingstonian who play in the 7th tier. The ground has had to have a lot of money chucked at it to meet league standards. I feel it's a bit harsh to call it shabby, it's partly down to the fact we fill the away end to the brim - and if you look at the average attendances they are top in terms of filling the ground up to the capacity (88%) Portsmouth are next with 73%. York's ground on the other hand is what I call shabby (of course it has that nostalgia feel about it, and a lovely town but in terms of facilities... not good.)

Thing is "capacity" does not mean "as many people as we can physically squeeze into the stand" but the number of people that can fit into the stand without any compromise to safety. If the away end cannot safely accommodate for however many people it is said to hold then its capacity has to be downgraded.

It's a bit like a lift, there may be room for them to squeeze people in so that no single space is left empty by squashed people up against each other, maybe you could fit a good 20-30 people in especially if you sat a couple of people on each others shoulders to fully utilise the space. However if the cable pulling that lift up the building can only carry 10-15 people at a time then the capacity can only ever be 10-15 no matter how many people you physically have space for.

Mazza26 · Apr 15, 2014

Ollieargyle9":c5craod1 said:
MAZZA26":c5craod1 said:

PilgrimJosh":c5craod1 said:

Has it changed football forever?

Don't know if you've ever been to the likes of Newport and Wimbledon but it's shabby, unsafe and at some points, particularly the latter, I felt genuinely unsafe and thought i might have been crushed, it would be very, very easy to see how a horrific accident could occur. Newport felt like scaffolding and I didn't really trust the thin metal gate I was leaning on nor the floor that dipped far too much for comfort when stepped on.

I agree it's important to remember it and pay our respects, but there's a hell of a lot more that needs to be done before we can say it has changed football, in particular the stadiums and the away ends that people travel to, and pack out, on regular occasions.

Still more needs to be done. I'm all for standing but I think it needs to be made much, much safer. Ie railings at the very least. Not herded into a hole like cattle.

Click to expand...

I'll speak to my cousin who works at AFC Wimbledon and see what his views are. I think they're in a position where they know that Argyle in particular bring a lot of away fans and they generally don't want to turn people down if supporters have travelled from afar especially as we aren't high risk (we're a friendly bunch) BUT they still operate to a capacity and they always bring that down a bit to be on the safe side anyway - also it's usually all-ticket. Remember Kingsmeadow is also home to Kingstonian who play in the 7th tier. The ground has had to have a lot of money chucked at it to meet league standards. I feel it's a bit harsh to call it shabby, it's partly down to the fact we fill the away end to the brim - and if you look at the average attendances they are top in terms of filling the ground up to the capacity (88%) Portsmouth are next with 73%. York's ground on the other hand is what I call shabby (of course it has that nostalgia feel about it, and a lovely town but in terms of facilities... not good.)

Click to expand...

Thing is "capacity" does not mean "as many people as we can physically squeeze into the stand" but the number of people that can fit into the stand without any compromise to safety. If the away end cannot safely accommodate for however many people it is said to hold then its capacity has to be downgraded.

It's a bit like a lift, there may be room for them to squeeze people in so that no single space is left empty by squashed people up against each other, maybe you could fit a good 20-30 people in especially if you sat a couple of people on each others shoulders to fully utilise the space. However if the cable pulling that lift up the building can only carry 10-15 people at a time then the capacity can only ever be 10-15 no matter how many people you physically have space for.

Agree.

Super horns · Apr 15, 2014

RIP to those 96 who went to watch a game and never got the chance to return home.

NorfolkGreen · Apr 15, 2014

RCC Green":3gjr7yf0 said:
'All very sad but time to try and move on'. Isn't that what the police were saying 25 year ago?

96 people died, countless families ripped apart and 'football' was blamed. But it wasn't 'footballs' fault and all 96 deserve justice.

Anyone who watched on TV that day and claims kicking off at 3.07 is wrong doesn't deserve football.

Is there a reason the games kicked of at 15:07, but the radio was saying the minutes silence today was 15:06, the time the game was abandoned?

Lundan Cabbie · Apr 15, 2014

NorfolkGreen":29v0b049 said:
RCC Green":29v0b049 said:

'All very sad but time to try and move on'. Isn't that what the police were saying 25 year ago?

96 people died, countless families ripped apart and 'football' was blamed. But it wasn't 'footballs' fault and all 96 deserve justice.

Anyone who watched on TV that day and claims kicking off at 3.07 is wrong doesn't deserve football.

Click to expand...

Is there a reason the games kicked of at 15:07, but the radio was saying the minutes silence today was 15:06, the time the game was abandoned?

Yes, the semi-final was stopped after 6 minutes and therefore there was a minute silence at 3.06pm at every match...... followed by kick-off at 3.07pm

NorfolkGreen · Apr 15, 2014

Lundan Cabbie":2ofxt2m7 said:
NorfolkGreen":2ofxt2m7 said:

RCC Green":2ofxt2m7 said:

'All very sad but time to try and move on'. Isn't that what the police were saying 25 year ago?

96 people died, countless families ripped apart and 'football' was blamed. But it wasn't 'footballs' fault and all 96 deserve justice.

Anyone who watched on TV that day and claims kicking off at 3.07 is wrong doesn't deserve football.

Click to expand...

Is there a reason the games kicked of at 15:07, but the radio was saying the minutes silence today was 15:06, the time the game was abandoned?

Click to expand...

Yes, the semi-final was stopped after 6 minutes and therefore there was a minute silence at 3.06pm at every match...... followed by kick-off at 3.07pm

Makes sense thanks

forever green · Apr 20, 2014

Bristol Rich":37rp7dn9 said:
tigertony":37rp7dn9 said:

PAFC94":37rp7dn9 said:

Hillsborough seems to take more precedence over the other disasters, Valley Parade and Heysel never get remembered. Kicking off at 3.07 was just stupid.

Click to expand...

or Ibrox or Burnden Park !
If Heathrow had a minutes silence for every plane crash all flights would be stopped.
I'm still not sure what the ''justice'' agenda covers in total.

All very sad but time to try to move on.

Click to expand...

I think a large part of the issue is there has never been justice for the 96, hence the continued publicity. An establishment cover up that was cooked up in the Thatcher cabinet, and they wonder why the police are distrusted and disliked. It's taken 25 years to get a proper investigation, disgusting.

Well said.

mike gss · Apr 24, 2014

It gets worse (if this report is true)...

Telegraph

tigertony · Apr 24, 2014

But then any company that allows staff to use social sites during breaks utilising secure intranets face the same snag. My organisation allows it.

mike gss · Apr 25, 2014

tigertony":2edmzldt said:
But then any company that allows staff to use social sites during breaks utilising secure intranets face the same snag. My organisation allows it.

Yes it's a dilema. No company wants to be too draconian but there's a difference between using social sites to arrange a night out with your mates, or looking at auntie Betty's holiday snaps, and on the other hand using company time and equipment to brand innocent people "to blame" for the tragedy and calling them "...w*****s".

I doubt you'd retain your at-work internet privalidges if your organisation was linked (however indirectly) to such use.

Hillsborough

PilgrimJosh

tigertony

Mazza26

Ollieargyle9

Mazza26

Super horns

NorfolkGreen

Guest

Lundan Cabbie

NorfolkGreen

Guest

forever green

Guest

mike gss

tigertony

mike gss