Taken from yesterday's Manky Evening Blues:

COUNCIL bosses who are threatening to close parts of Manchester United's ground if fans won't sit down are backing calls for the return of standing areas.

As revealed in Manchesteronline, Trafford Council says it will shut sections of the all-seater Old Trafford stadium if supporters continue to persistently stand during games.

They have told United they will take action unless fans remain seated at Tuesday's European match against Sturm Graz.

But the council revealed today that it has told Sports Minister Kate Hoey it is prepared to allow a trial standing area at Old Trafford if she will consider a change in the law.

Clubs were ordered to make major stadiums all-seater after the Hillsborough disaster. But fans want new style terracing, pioneered in Germany, to be introduced.

Yesterday United manager Sir Alex Ferguson fuelled the debate, saying he would like safe standing areas to be introduced if the government ban was lifted.

Today Councillor Barry Brotherton, Trafford Council Community Safety Cabinet member, said: ''We have no choice other than to order fans to sit down in the stadium at present because it is an all-seater and they are breaching safety regulations by standing up.

''But we have an open mind on this issue and will be happy to operate a safe standing trial based on the German model. We met Kate Hoey on this issue and the offer still stands to the government and the club.

''It could provide a safe alternative and remove the problem of people standing in seated areas.''

United spokesman Patrick Harverson said that Sir Alex's comments represented a personal view and the club had no choice but to comply with government policy.

But the Independent Manchester United Supporters Association welcomed Sir Alex's plea and backed the council proposal.

Spokesman Andy Walsh said: ''Sir Alex has his finger on the pulse of what people in football want to see. It is time the government responded to the concerns of fans, managers and players to bring back safe terracing and to boost the atmosphere at grounds.''

For once, I'm in agreement with SAF. Crikey, Nurse, more medication please.

-- Anonymous, March 11, 2001

Answers

Colours pinned to the proverbial - I'm totally against a return to terracing.

Like £, shillings and pence, the Flying Scotsman 'blinker', trafficators, the Morris Oxford, and bi-planes, this is romantic relic of a bygone age, that has no useful place in footy today.

Having been provided with safe stadia at vast expense, why on earth would we willingly encourage a return to a set-up that would be sheer manna for the hooligans - who let me remind you are still lurking, waiting for just such an opportunity to re-infect the game with their mindless violence given the necessary cover and anonymity?

IMHO, the term "safe terracing" is an oxymoron in 21st century Britain. As with all things nostaglic, we only remember the desirable elements - the cameraderie, the atmosphere, the p*ssing in each other's pockets (!) - and blot the undesirable bits from our memeory banks - bits that almost killed the game, and indeed did kill it as family entertainment.

No, I'm sorry, we need to find a better way of rekindling the atmosphere without reintroducing the relic of a murky past that is best left consigned to the dust-bin of our social history.

-- Anonymous, March 11, 2001

Clarky, if you're talking about unrestricted access to terracing, I'd have to agree. However, with limited access in (relatively) small areas of the grounds, I believe it could work.

Leaving "Big Boy" Gibbo's problems asside, I believe it could work very well for a family enclosure (aka Paddock). Access would be limited to adults accompanied by a junior. This would do two things - increase capacity of the ground (no idea by how many tho) and allow greater access to the bairns - the future lifeblood of the club.

It may also be possible to have "selective" access to an "adult only - no not that sort - area. Clearly it would need to be controlled to avoid the sort of problems you were alluding to. But with smaller areas, the crowd hysteria and troubles of the past could be avoided.

Back to the problems at OT and the like. As any of us who have been to an away game, it is rare to actually use the seats for their intended purpose, apart from perhaps the short interval between disappearing to the bog at halftime and the commencement of the second half. Unless heavy handed stewarding is introduced (or closure as threatened at OT), I can't see an easy way of stopping fans standing. So, like it or not, various sections of the crowd will stand up, like it or not. Why not do something to try to accommodate it rather than turn it down flat?

-- Anonymous, March 11, 2001

Those 'trafficators' still working OK on your Morris Oxford, Screach?

BTW, it's the bairns who wouldn't be able to see past Gibbo!

-- Anonymous, March 11, 2001

Screacher,

What do you perceive to be the motive for wanting to rip expensively-provided seats out of our rebuilt stadiums to provide standing space? I find it all rather curious, possibly reactionary.
You don't expect to stand when you go the cinema or theatre do you? If you had to I doubt anyone would go.

I also happen to think you're likely to find that for every person who wants to stand at away games, there will be at least 5-10 who don't, but have to entirely because of the awkward squad who insist on standing.

I would certainly think it is unsafe for masses of people - who are simply being awkward - standing in seated areas. Call me authoritarian, but safety must be the paramount consideration, and if people won't follow the safety regulations, and give due consideration to the safety of others, then I'd hoy 'em oot - they have a choice after all.

I simply can't see any sound reason for making what I regard as a retrograde step in crowd safety, and feel we are in danger of losing sight of the fundamental reasons why standing was expensively eliminated in the first place.

-- Anonymous, March 11, 2001

Trafficators?? Nah - I still use handsignals, especially when somebody cuts me up or disagrees with me ;-)

you ask what would be the motive "to rip expensively-provided seats out of our rebuilt stadiums to provide standing space?". Well, I can think of three - money, fans preference, easier access for those who can't afford the Sky Of course, to fill this additional capacity, the team would have to turn out performances which Geordie Public would want to pay to see (perhaps therein lies the flaw in my argument!).

You say that for every 1 standing fan at away matches there are about 5-10 who would prefer to sit. Not in my experience (but I've only been to a "handful" of away games this season). The atmosphere at away matches is far, far better than at SJP (and indeed the same for most, if not all teams and their home support). I know that I for one, and I'm sure many others, would go to more away games if they were more affordable. If the majority is going to stand, why not provide greater capacity at lower prices? Yes - again it would have to be "managed" and I can see the potential problems, but rather an area designed for standing than one desigend for seating which is used for standing. As for the bairns, didn't you ever go to the Family Paddock when you were a bairn? Or even just on the Popular Side? The little 'uns were at the front and the big 'uns (like Gibbo) were behind. I'm sure many Mams & Dads would take their bairns if this sort of facility was made available again, and in turn, those bairns would go for the seats where us owd bu99ers are now ;-)

And finally, I don't believe it was just providing seats for seats' (or should that be bums'?) sake. The whole infractructure has changed at gounds like SJP. Older grounds like The Valley, The Dell and their like did just have seats installed. IMHO, some of them are just as antiquated as the old facilities they superseded. It's not just what is on view but what's behind it all which goes into providing a safe environment. Massed terraces like The Kop, The Leazes and Leppings Lane End should never return as they encouraged "mass surge". An area like the front of the Lower East Stand or the Lower Milburn could IMHO be turned back into standing accommodation - indeed at SJP, probably all the lower stand facilities. It couldn't happen at all grounds, but it could at a modern one.

Reactionary, me?

-- Anonymous, March 11, 2001

1. Standing is nor per se dangerous 2. seating IS safer than standing 3. Hillsoborough was a policing issue, in the biggest sense of poiling attitude to fans 4. Bradford fans who died in the fire were originally seated 5. Seating in more comfortable for all than standing 6. If you'restanding it's easier to move your viewing position, i.e. my Ben seated behind 6 6 Gibbo is stuck in position 7. Atmosphere is an attitude thing, 52000 standing at SJP but pissed off with performance aren't any more use to the side than 52000 seated and pissed off with the persormance 8. ALL of us have been to game that hav ehad no atmosphere whether standing or sitting 9 I hate Sunderland and Man U, and I'd vote to get rid of Anthea altough the wee knockers were quite fetching (in comparison to the rest of her)

-- Anonymous, March 11, 2001

Screach, your article mentions a "German model".

Has anyone passed her phone number on to LR?

-- Anonymous, March 11, 2001

Nah - he's far more interested in Italians - models or not!

-- Anonymous, March 11, 2001