96 reasons why football must never go back

It is 21 years since Lord Justice Taylor's report recommended that terracing at football grounds should be outlawed, writes Kenny Dalglish.

The move was a direct response to the tragedy at Hillsborough, where 96 people went to a football match and never returned home.

The passing of time should not be allowed to diminish the reasons behind the introduction of all-seater stadiums, which is why I'm instinctively and deeply opposed to the reintroduction of standing areas at grounds.

The subject is back on the agenda with a fans' group setting up a petition supporting the idea and Sports Minister Hugh Robertson not wanting to appear dismissive, saying he will view it seriously.

I'm more in line with the Premier League stance that the benefits of all-seater stadiums far outweigh the advantages of having supporters standing in big crowds.

From where I'm looking, the introduction of all-seater stadiums has worked. To change it, even now, is an unnecessary risk, a view only strengthened when I remember what happened at Hillsborough and what the families of the bereaved have had to endure in the months and years since then.

For younger readers nationally who don't know the story, I was the Liverpool manager when many of our supporters were crushed to death after an area of terracing at Hillsborough became overcrowded before our FA Cup semi-final against Nottingham Forest in 1989.

Football has become a far safer sport for supporters since both terracing and fencing around the pitch were banished. There are fewer injuries and there is less hooliganism, too. It can't be wrong.

I've heard it argued that people are denied the right to make a choice between sitting and standing but if you asked people what the safer option would be, they would say sitting.

And safety is not something you should take for granted. If we are safer now, it is because the recommendations of the Taylor Report were acted upon.

The other point I've heard mentioned is that all-seater stadiums are bad for atmosphere. Even if that were true, would it not be right to sacrifice a little bit of atmosphere for safety? I don't think the argument about atmosphere is correct anyway. You can't deny that there have been some absolutely fantastic nights at Anfield since the stadium went all-seater.

Yes, the famous Saint Etienne European Cup game in 1977 when you could squeeze 26,000 into the old Kop was played in a marvellous atmosphere. But it was also extremely good against Olympiakos in 2004 when Steven Gerrard rattled one in to take Liverpool through against the odds.

People talk with some reverence about the 2005 semi-final against Chelsea when the noise and passion were incredible and sucked Luis Garcia's shot over the line. Remember, that was in an all-seater stadium.

It isn't just Anfield. I went to a Celtic-Rangers Old Firm game in the Scottish Premier League last month that Celtic won 3-0 and you couldn't tell me the atmosphere would have been any better had people all been standing and swaying on the terraces. Not a chance - it was fantastic as it was.

Maybe some other grounds don't have that old-fashioned atmosphere any more but if the reward is that mothers and fathers can take their children there in safety, that's surely not a bad thing. I'd certainly be more inclined to take my son or daughter - or grandchildren nowadays! - to a match where you sit rather than stand.

The one drawback about modern stadiums over the last 20 years which I have to accept is the increased cost in going to games.

I acknowledge that it would be fantastic to make it more affordable for the man in the street to go to matches with his kids. I don't agree a return to standing is the right way to do that but I do think we all have to find a way to make sure not every seat is expensive.

I know fans still stand in countries like Germany. But you can't compare their situation with ours. If Germany had endured a tragedy like Hillsborough, of innocent supporters dying because they went to a football match, they would have banned standing and they would not now be talking of reversing that decision.

Source: Daily Mail

This story has been reproduced from today's media. It does not necessarily represent the position of Liverpool Football Club.