That is the second time recently that a player has tried to run off an injury only to come off later, and it be a bad one, Wilson at Bournemouth did similar, I don't know what the physio or doctors are doing allowing them to do so.
Surely they should be able to notice the signs of academic injury starting?

You have every right to mock us for that, I was really ashamed that any fan can do that, especially as, for us there was still time to get at least one more goal. I feel those leaving like that probably had an effect not just on Klopp, but the players too - they weren't real fans.

Just been reading an excellent write up on TIA, it really does hit the nail on the head, and honestly, not just Liverpool fans should read this - all fans should!

LINK

Fair points but I still don’t really think we look like conceding whenever we have to deal with a cross.

Take corners for example. The stats are not much worse than our rivals:

http://www.thisisanfield.com/2015/11...rpool-corners/


I would say more important is to not give so many corners away

I think that is something we can definitely agree on!

Interesting points but why would any club review ticket prices when, like you say, the grounds are full (or very nearly full)? Simple business would see that as long as people continue to pay the high prices then the clubs will continue to charge them.

The only reason ticket prices are so low in Germany is because they had to offset the damage of screening all matches live on TV so to avoid people staying at home they had to cut prices. The UK is a different beast when it comes to that, because of the 3pm blackout.

As for safe standing... that's a mute point when it comes to this club. I personally wouldn't have issue with it but with everything this club has fought for with the families, it would be a massive slap in the face for them if safe standing was introduced. If the families agreed to it, then so would I but for as long as they continue to say no to the idea then I wouldn't disagree with that. It wasn't too long ago that I think we were the only club to vote 'no'... and the reasons for that are clear.

I think pretty much everybody in the Kop is aware of it being the 'singing' stand. But this point is valid and one that I seem to remember Man Utd looking at too by making a dedicated section for singing etc.

Safe standing will never happen in this country until there is an economic benefit to the clubs, and there isn't.

Simple business could mean getting the right kind of fans through the gate, the 12rh man and all that, spurring the team on to be successful, thereby bring more money into the club. Just a thought, maybe clubs need commercial managers who think outside the box.

The Kop these days is full of tourists and so there is often very little singing from it - certainly compared to what it was like in the past the atmosphere is very poor.


For all the fact that FSG we are told are business men above all I would really like to think that they would be sensitive enough to not introduce standing at Anfield by seeming to value economics over the wishes of the families of the 96. As has been said already standing will simply never happen at Anfield. I do think they (the owners) have shown that they do have some sense of the history of our club and so feel sure that they would never do such an insensitive act.

Speaking for myself Hillsborough is an absolute passion of mine, I feel incredibly strongly over what happened that day and especially in the aftermath, but even so I can see merit in the idea of safe standing - which I know is heresy to many. I would also say that if the families do not want it then it is a none starter - even if all 91 other clubs in the league have it, LFC won't. Simple as!!

Given that you've been whinging about Mourinho on here from the day he returned to Chelsea, you've got some front lecturing about 'support'.

I agree to an extent but what measures would you have to bring in to ensure that was successful? Surely to bring in the 'right kind of fans' would mean going through an unfair pre-selection vetting process? I'm not sure it would go down too well if somebody tried to buy a ticket but they got turned down for not being the right kind of fan we're after.

The bit about another person working on areas of focus is a valid point though IMO.

Its a very sensitive issue but I don't think that makes any sense at all. If standing is safe then its safe and all clubs should have it on that basis if it was reintroduced. If its not actually safe then it shouldn't be an option for any club - not just Liverpool because of Hillsbororugh. There are many things in place to ensure there isn't a repeat of what happened in 89, standing itself wasn't the problem.

However as Tony says unless there is a financial gain to be had from a reintroduction of standing it will never happen because frankly it makes no sense to do so.

Sadly money is and will be the deciding factor in terms of safe standing, if us can monetise it, then it will happen, if not then it won't.

Sometimes in matters where grief and hurt are involved logic goes out the window and this is one such. I agree with you totally that standing was a) not in itself the cause of Hillsborough and b) could be made 100% safe. So if it was just me deciding on whether we should have standing at Anfield in a vacuum I would have no real problem. However in the real world there is not a vacuum there are the wishes of 96 families to consider and due to that I could never support standing areas at Anfield - unless a time came in the future when the families said it was acceptable.

In the world today I would observe that far too often money considerations rule over people considerations - at times that has even been the case at LFC - I would like to think it would never be a factor when considering Hillsborough and those hurt by it - which is the most emotive issue of all surrounding our club.

For how many generations will the families have a say?

Will their great grandchildren who grow up in the future still be as important a voice as those who are around now?

I agree that currently since it is still fresh (or relatively fresh) in peoples minds, and people can still recall it first hand, then they should be listened to, but will that be the case, ten, twenty or thirty years in the future, when they will be recounting second hand or more stories about this awful tragedy.

Even leaving the economic emotional cases to one side for a moment, I don't think even then the case for standing is particularly strong at all and I don't think there's much demand for it either.

Outside of that time once or twice a season when the lobby group release a press release, who ever talks about safe standing? Where are the banners in the stadiums, the protests outside, the football phone-in shows inundated with supportive calls to introduce standing into football grounds? Occasionally when the campaign lobby group for safe standing issue a press release you might get a discussion on forums and the subject might trend on Twitter for a few hours but that's about it. I don't think the average football fan cares about the issue much at all, which is why the campaign group(s) really struggle with promoting the change as something that has widespread support.

I don't think its a decision for the families in truth and I mean no disrespect to them in any way by saying that. It would be a decision based on what would be right, proper and safe and to be honest i'm not sure if the decisions about standing in a football stadium are best made by someone who lost a loved one standing in a football stadium. I think were standing ever to come back it would be due to a demand led by fans as a whole and its reintroduction wouldn't be in any way a slap in the face to the victims or their families, but i'm far from an expert on such emotive matters. I think you have to be sensitive to the past but assuming standing was safe then it would simply be an option for those who wanted it. If the families (understandably) didn't want to stand then of course they wouldn't, I'm unsure how many of them could face being in a football ground anyway.

When I spoke of money I didn't mean that Liverpool would actively introduce it against the will of the people because there was money to be made, quite the opposite in fact. Regardless of whether there is a demand for standing or not it wont come back IMO because you are asking clubs to take out existing seats and replace them with seat/standing area type things at a cost of £x with no increased revenue as a result (as you cant charge more to stand than to sit). There is therefore little incentive to do it. If we reached a stage where grounds were half empty I could perhaps see clubs investing in it if they thought it would lead to increased attendances and therefore increased revenue but as things stand that isn't an issue

I don't see safe standing as remotely the same as it would have been before. The whole concept from what I've understood, and its in another thread, relates to rail seating. It does appear to me the cost of introducing it seriously outweighs the genuine benefits.

I don't like the idea that this approach would draw objection on a point of principle, nor do I really think its for the families to decide. Clearly if you try to recreate the Kop as it was in, say, the 1960s, that is a wholly different and valid argument to make.

So I would argue the debate is over the financial benefit rather than the emotional outcry that might result. However as is being said I don't know that anyone really has the appetite to do it, whether Liverpool or anyone else.

What a ridiculous way to look at things. The fact is that there are families still fighting for justice because their sons and daughters lost their lives on that day and that's the bottom line.

The beauty of it is that people can say it's not down to the families to decide but the club have made it pretty clear that it is. They've been every step of the way with the families and they're still fighting with them now so there is no chance LFC would introduce it even if every other club in the land did... evident by the club being the only 'no' vote in the last opinion poll.

Like others have said, it would get a 'yes' vote from me because I appreciate it's a world apart from the terraces of the 80's but so long as the families oppose it then it wouldn't meet any opposition from me.

Was there a demand from Hillsbrough victims for the club to get rid of the Kop?

I don’t think an issue of safe standing would be a concern.


I would say the demographic of those who attend needs to be monitored.

How many are young? How many go with there mates?


If young people are not attending you have a problem regardless if the ground is full.

German prices are low as the majority fans wouldn’t have it any other way. The TV deal is nothing to do with it. Bayern said they could actually raise prices if they wanted and still sell out but choose not to.

Dortmund have low prices as they want the ground to be full of people from all kinds of backgrounds.

Please don't misunderstand me, I respect the families so much from the very committed way that they have gone about this whole case, it was an awful event that I would not wish upon anyone to have to have to go through.

I was only wondering in the future say twenty, thirty or more years, will the viewpoints of what might be the grand children or great grand children be taken as seriously as those currently alive, and those who have had first hand experience of this awful event.
I hope that they are still listened to, but they will only have second or third hand stories to tell, which might not resonate as much in the future, I hope that is not the case, but it could be the case sadly.

When you introduce safety procedures based on a disaster or series of disasters, you don't keep them in place only until the point comes where stories told about the event are no longer first hand. It doesn't work like that. They didn't wait until the last person to remember the first commercial plane crash had died before saying "the arguments for the safety changes introduced since are no longer compelling given that nobody who remembers why we introduced them is alive any more"

It's bad enough that you have to infect this thread with your inanity, but for you to post this bumbling nonsense is frankly pissing me off.

You're an idiot, so please don't post about anything to do with Hillsborough.

Of course they will be taken seriously. What an crass remark.

I can see the point you are making but I don't think it really works in practice.

Many young fans may well be priced out of attending football with their mates at the expense of the wealthier "tourist fan" but simply dropping the prices whilst making it more available for the younger fan, wont suddenly put off those that were happy to pay the higher price. The ground wont suddenly be filled with local kids.

Essentially you cant really make the product worse so that only the hardcore football fan is prepared to go. I know that isn't what you mean, but the cork is out of the bottle as far as football appealing to a wider wealthier market and I don't think it can be put back in any time soon. You certain cant reverse engineer it now I don't think.

If you have a finite availability of what you are selling i.e the capacity of the ground. There will always be unhappy people.

Yes, they were vocal at the time regarding the terraces and bringing about all seated stadia.


The age of the supporter has nothing to do with it. Would a Premier League club be more concerned with having a gang of four 18 year olds paying £15 each or would they prefer to sell a Thomas Cook package for anywhere up to £300 a pop?

As for the German model, it is an entirely different beast to the rest of Europe because of the 50%+1 method they use. But TV does also play a part - even more so now that they're benefiting from increased TV revenues.