Heysel: An insiders view from someone who was there

Status
Not open for further replies.

sammsky1

Pochettino's #1 fan
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
32,821
Location
London
I recently came across an excellent account of the Heysel tragedy from 1985 and thought it was worth sharing, especially as it was so long ago and so either most people were not around or the memory of what happened has hazed from the memory.

Its really worth taking the time reading this piece. Sure, some of it is biased as its written by a Liverpool fan but it describes an era in football that seemingly no longer exists ... and IMHO, if that means such people have been replaced by the 'prawn sandwich' brigade, then I say thats a great result.

I considered whether its wise to post such an article on a United forum and concluded that posters here are not c+nts who glory and revel in the death of other people .... please resist the urge to make a cheap jibe ... its not funny and I know the mods will ban you from the cafe for doing so.

If you do read, do post opinions, it would be great to have a sensible and informed debate on this
.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




This is an abridged version of the final chapter of From Where I Was Standing, Chris Rowland’s tale of the trip to Brussels with his usual collection of match-going mates, and how events, after a care-free journey, took a turn for the worse.


Heysel, 25 Years On – Book Extract | The Tomkins Times | Paul Tomkins' blog about Liverpool Football Club (LFC)



Chapter 10

IN CONCLUSION



In the days and weeks that followed, Heysel continued to dominate the news. From the newspapers to TV chat shows to the House of Commons, it was just about the only topic of debate. A few days later, British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher pressured the FA to ban all English clubs from Europe indefinitely. Our own Football Association had pre-empted them by withdrawing our clubs from the following season’s European tournaments pending UEFA’s announcements. Two days later she was granted her wish as UEFA banned all English sides for what they stated was “an indeterminate period of time”. Liverpool received an additional ban of “indeterminate plus three years”, or more precisely, three further years in which Liverpool qualified for European competition. If they didn’t, the ban would roll on until they did. Given Thatcher’s previously stated dislike of the city of Liverpool –– probably because of its left-wing politics and strong opposition to her government and philosophy –– and her very apparent dislike of football and football supporters generally, we hardly expected any help from her. It was the excuse she and her cronies had been looking for to put the boot into football just the way they had with the miners.

She and the Queen issued formal apologies to the people of Belgium and Italy. That must have helped. Liverpool Football Club itself would have been justified in feeling harshly treated; it had done all within its powers to control its own supporters, and sold no tickets for the ill-fated Block Z. It was not the club’s fault that some other agency fatally did so, nor that some of its supporters could not resist a punch-up. Liverpool FC also had no part in the decision to stage a major match at Heysel in the first place; indeed Liverpool’s secretary Peter Robinson urgently requested that UEFA move the final to a more suitable and safer venue, but his plea was ignored. Neither was the club responsible for the appalling condition of the Heysel Stadium, the inadequate supervision outside it or the supine inertia of the authorities inside it. Above all, Liverpool FC had good reason, based on precedent, to trust its supporters.

In the end, the ban on English clubs competing in Europe ran for five years, with Liverpool’s extra three years reduced by two. As English clubs had dominated the European Cup in the eight seasons before Heysel, winning it seven times (Liverpool in 1977, 1978, 1981 and 1984, Nottingham Forest in 1979 and 1980, and Aston Villa in 1982), this left a considerable hole in Europe’s most prestigious football competition. It took until 1999 for an English club to win it again, with Manchester United’s victory in Barcelona. That long gap was Liverpool’s fault too, apparently, because all our clubs had to catch up again after the ban that Liverpool caused.

So Liverpool’s “punishment” was only an extra season’s ban beyond that of the other English clubs that qualified for European football. But in truth the ban was the bill English football had to pay not only for Heysel but for over a decade of violence by English football followers, in which Liverpool’s supporters actually played very little part. Incomprehensibly, the English national team, the epicentre of more exported hooliganism than all the individual clubs put together, was never banned, and was still allowed to participate in international football in Europe. So the very same fans, the very same individuals, whose clubs were banned had only to trade their club colours for their country to be able to roam the continent freely and legitimately following England. The inconsistency of UEFA’s decisions extended to the remarkable leniency shown to Juventus for the considerable part played by their supporters in the disturbances at Heysel. Their ”punishment” was to begin the defence of the trophy they won in Brussels by playing their home European Cup games the following season behind closed doors. Hardly hard line. The point was made that Juventus’ fans had no particular ‘previous’ before Heysel; true, but neither did Liverpool’s.

But such was the prevailing terrace culture of the mid-’80s, with violence endemic in and around football grounds throughout England, and such was the level of antagonism surrounding English football at the time, that a major crowd disaster was bound to happen somewhere, sometime. In Fever Pitch, Nick Hornby puts it this way:
‘The kids’ stuff that proved murderous in Brussels belonged firmly and clearly on a continuum of apparently harmless but obviously threatening acts –– violent chants, wanker signs, the whole, petty hardact works –– in which a very large minority of fans had been indulging for nearly 20 years. In short Heysel was an organic part of a culture that many of us, myself included, had contributed towards.’

A series of goodwill gestures and well-intentioned wound dressing between the two clubs and cities followed –– memorial services in Liverpool and Turin, exchange visits between the two cities, the possibility of a friendly match in Turin between the clubs. British and Belgian police forces swapped intelligence and photographs ad infinitum –– you couldn’t pick up a newspaper or switch on the TV without seeing a circled “wanted” face. The Belgian government creaked under the weight of questioning and accusations of gross incompetence, and, fatally holed below the waterline, eventually sank. Meanwhile its British counterpart, Thatcher’s hang ‘em flog ‘em brigade, maintained a continuous stream of anti-football, anti-Liverpool invective, threatening draconian crowd control measures, the introduction of identity cards and probably the reintroduction of National Service and the death penalty, the compulsory sterilisation of Liverpool mothers or the ritual slaughter of their first-born. Scapegoats were in huge demand, and the slavering tabloid press led the hunt voraciously, revelling in its self-appointed role as the Voice of Reason whilst displaying absolutely none, and the licence Heysel appeared to give it to rant unchecked in an orgy of self-righteous bigotry. Balance and reason, it seemed, had no part in this public “debate”.

A series of increasingly bizarre and surreal conspiracy theories began to emerge in the wake of Heysel; there were reports of extremist right-wing groups having been present, claims that swastika flags and banners and far-right propaganda had been found amongst the debris. There were some suggestions that these may have belonged not to British but Italian fascists who had been there to agitate. It would certainly be difficult to imagine stonier ground for right-wing dogma than the vast bulk of Liverpool supporters, whose red allegiance was not confined to football. Their politics, and the city they come from, inclined sharply towards the left.

The very day after the disaster, UEFA’s chief observer, Gunter Schneider, stated, “Only the English fans were responsible. Of that there is no doubt.” He said ‘English’ fans, not solely Liverpool fans, because several Juventus supporters who were at the game had claimed that there were supporters from many British clubs, including Chelsea. Not quite as unfeasible as it may sound; Chelsea stood to gain from a Liverpool victory –– or a Liverpool ban –– as they themselves would then qualify for European football the following season. Besides, a European Cup Final in Brussels would make an attractive, possibilities-packed Bank Holiday week alternative for a Londoner, just a short and easy hop across the water and barely further than Brighton, Southend or Margate.

The lack of ticket control at the ground certainly made it impossible for the authorities to know who was in the ground and where; here’s an account from a football website –– though not a Liverpool one:

“It was impossible for police to weed out known troublemakers, and easy for pockets of hard core hooligans to assemble wherever they wished. As a result, two hours before kick off, perhaps the most malevolent assembly of football supporters ever seen in one place had gathered, and as far as they were concerned, it was payback time (for Rome 1984). It should be understood that not just Liverpool hooligans were present. There were contingents from a great many firms all over the country, from Luton MIGS to Millwall Bushwackers, West Ham ICF and Newcastle Toon Army. After the events in Rome, club rivalries had been put aside: Juventus were to catch the full fury of the English hooligan elite. There was a score to settle.”

The Heysel disaster’s capacity to fire the imagination reached its nadir when, in April 1986, nearly a year later, a typed, unsigned letter bearing a Los Angeles postmark was received by The Guardian newspaper in London, claiming that the whole tragedy of Heysel had been a “mafia-inspired conspiracy” to blacken the name of soccer and so further the worldwide expansion of American football. “Italian Americans,” it said, “mingled with the Juventus supporters to provoke trouble; Liverpool fans, and English soccer in general, took the rap.” Well the last bit was undeniable; but the theory sounded more like a plot for a paperback and the product of an over-fertile imagination.

All I can say is that none of these things were witnessed by any of us. Although it did not feel quite like the usual Liverpool crowd that fateful evening in Brussels, and much as though we would love to be able to shed some of the responsibility and have it shared by Chelsea or any other club’s fans, right-wing extremists or the Mafia, the fact is that when twenty six names to be charged with manslaughter were released, most had Merseyside addresses.

The release of those names triggered a protracted period of legal jousting and bumbling as the process leading to their extradition degenerated towards farce. It wasn’t until late in 1987 that the accused were finally taken to Belgium to face trial, after over two years of waiting to have their fates decided. It seemed that everything connected to the Heysel, even afterwards, had to be tainted by incompetence.

The ‘Official Reports’ season duly began. Firstly, the Popplewell Report on crowd safety and control at sports grounds, already commissioned by the UK Government pre-Heysel, had its remit widened to incorporate a specific study of Heysel. Published in January 1986, it acknowledged that the first crowd disturbances at Heysel had in fact occurred at the other end, where the main body of Juventus supporters stood, as they clashed with police. This, the report stated, led to English fans firing flares and throwing stones into the mostly-Italian crowd in Block Z –– an observation so at odds with what the ranters in Government and media preferred to believe that they ignored it completely. The report went on:

“Between 7.15 and 7.30pm, English fans charged Block Z. There were three charges, the third resulted in the Italian supporters in Block Z, who were seeking to escape, being squashed and suffocated. Everyone knows that those guilty of the violence, those responsible for the deaths of the victims, are the violent groups amongst the English supporters.”
 
[continued ... 2]

the report acknowledged the poor condition of the stadium and the failure of the police to intervene quickly enough or take adequate action, and added, with masterly understatement, that “a ban on the sale of alcohol outside the ground was not enforced”. Indeed it wasn’t.

By november 1986, after an 18-month investigation, the dossier of top belgian judge mrs marina coppieters was finally published. In sharp contrast to the one-sided version of events on this side of the channel, it concluded that perhaps blame should not rest solely with the english fans, but instead should be shared by the police and football authorities. Several top officials were incriminated by some of the dossier’s findings, including police captain johan mahieu, who had been in charge of security on may 29th 1985 and was now charged with involuntary manslaughter.

That bears repeating: The police captain who had been in charge of security at the heysel stadium was charged with involuntary manslaughter. How many anti-liverpool ranters over heysel are aware of that? Then again, many of them weren’t even born at the time, but just accepted their own club’s fans’ warped view of it.

We had known all along that without significant other factors, there would have been no deaths, no major news story, just a minor routine pre-match skirmish followed by a game of football. That somebody somewhere had finally acknowledged it brought huge relief.

There is no doubt that events at heysel stadium amounted to a disaster without parallel for european football. Neither the ibrox or bradford disasters that preceded it, nor hillsborough that was to follow, though all involved loss of life, had crowd violence at their core. In football terms they were also purely domestic affairs, with no pan-european dimension.

It has become the accepted version of events that the heysel stadium disaster was solely the result of hooliganism and rioting by liverpool fans. Yet none of the 39 victims lost their lives as a result of being beaten, kicked, stoned or stabbed. And none who fought and sought to intimidate and subjugate did so with murder in mind or with even the faintest notion of what was about to follow.

Perhaps only an architect or engineer could have foreseen those. Even describing the skirmishes at heysel as ‘rioting’ would be misleading. Judged by the standards of the time, or indeed any time, what heysel actually witnessed was nothing more than a token bout of territorial terrace ritual involving some fist-flailing and air-punching during which few blows were actually landed and from which few injuries resulted. On any other day it would have led to nothing more than the odd bloody nose or black eye, a bit of tut-tutting from onlookers and commentators, with the whole episode of minor scale pre-match disturbance completely forgotten and unreported as soon as the game got underway. Some missiles were thrown –– in both directions –– and several charges across the terracing occurred. Threatening and unpleasant behaviour, but wholly unexceptional at that time, and only possible because it was made possible. Nowadays it wouldn’t be.

But then a wall collapsed and changed everything. Ultimately, what converted an unremarkable skirmish into a fatal tragedy, what transported heysel from the mundane to the extraordinary, was not the scale or degree of savagery but decaying cement, a structural defect, the final executioner not hooligans but the crumbling, decomposing perimeter wall of block z. The wall, no more than four feet high and twenty feet long, was more than 50 years old, its cement cladding crumbling away from the rotting brickwork. Its obscene result was 39 fatalities.

Hooliganism was only the penultimate link in a long chain that stretched right back to our first sight of the match ticket, in that coventry pub on a monday evening a full nine days before the match, when we first saw that portentous blob overprinted across the letter z. To us, it clearly signified that block z would be either empty or occupied by neutrals, for crowd segregation purposes. That’s how it always was in england and europe at the time, for every single game, with rival fans segregated and empty buffer zones between them.

But instead, 5,000 supposedly “neutral” tickets for block z were placed on open sale in brussels. On the morning of the day that they went on sale, they were all gone. Inevitably and utterly predictably, most found their way towards brussels’ substantial local italian population or to juventus supporters back in italy, after large blocks of tickets had been bought up by italian travel agents and ticket touts, with very few falling into neutral local belgian hands. The open sale was halted when this became apparent, but too late. They were sold or sold on to the people who were to die. That was the first link in the chain, and when the tragedy of the heysel stadium really began. The belgian football union, which organised the match, had taken the decision to sell those tickets rather than allocate them to the two finalist clubs, to increase its profits from the game. Anyone involved with football would have known what was going to happen to those tickets beforehand, it was blindingly obvious. As the popplewell report confirmed:

“… some organisations bought large quantities of tickets … by using their employees to take it in turns to go to the ticket windows. A large number of tickets for block z came into the hands of juventus fans.”

so the stadium management and presumably uefa and the local police, knew in advance that block z, the block immediately adjacent to the main body of liverpool supporters, would be neither empty nor neutral, but occupied by rival supporters. They already knew that. You don’t have to be a genius to work out the potential danger of such an arrangement. So wouldn’t you reasonably expect, given this advance knowledge, that block z would be strongly policed and segregation rigidly enforced? Instead there was no gap at all between the two sets of supporters, no empty buffer zone, and just a flimsy stretch of chest-high chicken wire between them, unable to withstand any attempt to breach it and guaranteed not to deter one. And the police presence in that area of the ground? When the exchanges between the rival sets of fans began, there were “five policemen and two dogs” separating the crowds, which would sound laughable if the consequences hadn’t been as they were.

Even then, after those initial exchanges, when the potential problems had made themselves all too clear, there was still no response, either from the handful of police present in that area or more tellingly, from the police control (i use the term loosely) operation at the stadium. That would have been the obvious time and opportunity to send in numbers, restore order and separate the two sets of fans with an armed human barrier. It certainly would have happened in england. It later transpired that that the police in block z had been poorly trained, strictly third division, ‘the bottom of the basket’ as the french phrase has it. Nor was there a police command centre in the heysel stadium to coordinate response, and besides, police radios weren’t working anyway, to compound their inability to react to the situation. Furthermore, the officer in charge of policing had not attended any of the planning meetings before the european cup final. In short, the police operation was an utter shambles, which explains why the officer in charge received the involuntary manslaughter charge.

In summary, none of the usual factors to prevent or discourage confrontation was in place. As british police forces responsible for crowd control at english football matches will confirm, these are basic precautions. The control and planning at heysel fell shamefully short of the most elementary requirements, and amounted to a dereliction of responsibility that made effective crowd segregation impossible. The then secretary of liverpool fc, peter robinson, said:

‘from day one i was concerned about this neutral area. I argued all along that we should have one end and juventus the other. We suggested there should be a meeting between the two clubs but the belgian authorities said no. There were serious planning mistakes. That doesn’t excuse what happened, but the problems would not have occurred if it had been done in a different way. It could all have been avoided.”

short of withdrawing from the match because of their concerns, there was little more that the club itself could have done either before, during or after heysel.

Long before the day of the game, many concerns had been expressed that the ground was unsafe. When arsenal had played there several years previously, their supporters had complained about how dilapidated the stadium was. Built in the 1920s, the heysel stadium was quite possibly the worst venue in the world to host such a volatile encounter. The game was due to be the last match ever played at the ground, as it had been condemned many years previously for failing to meet modern standards of safety and design. As a result, little money had been spent upon it, and large parts of the stadium were crumbling.

When ordered by the judge to survey the disaster scene, leading belgian architect joseph ange concluded:

“… areas reserved for standing room [including the ill-fated block z] remain as they were at the time of their construction in 1930. They are in an advanced state of decay. Only the hand-rest remains on most of the handrails, most are unstable and several on the point of collapse. The handrails were quickly and easily destroyed by the pressure of the crowds, which had no proper means of escape. Concrete terracing was eroded and, crucially, neither the barrier between blocks y and z nor the wall in block z were strong enough to resist crowd pressure.”

a london council surveyor sent to the stadium after the tragedy confirmed that there was no way in which it would have been allowed to operate under british regulations. Hans bangerter, then general secretary for uefa, criticised the police, though not uefa themselves of course:

“the disaster would not have happened if our specific instructions on security had not been so badly disregarded by the brussels police and especially the gendarmerie. The english vandals would not have been able to perform such terrible deeds and create such misery if they had not been helped by the frightful incompetence of the belgian security forces.”

nor if your organisation had selected an appropriate venue in the first place and not ignored advice and even pleas to switch it, mr. Bangerter.

This article appeared in the news on sunday on july 12 1987:

“i went to the heysel stadium in the autumn of 1984 –– about six months before the disaster –– for a world cup qualifying match. I remember only too well the reaction of myself and my friends upon entering the stadium; it was an absolute disgrace. Rickety safety barriers, crumbling walls, ancient terracing, non-existent facilities: A recipe for disaster if ever i saw one. Of one thing i am certain; if basic safety checks had been made and proper segregation been enforced, that wall would not have collapsed and those people would still be alive now. That stadium would have been unfit for a women’s institute convention, never mind a european cup final. And as far as the received wisdom that all the trouble was caused by liverpool fans –– i remember vividly the italian thugs with their fascist flags and their ‘reds are animals’ banner, the guy with the gun, the stick-throwing mobs … and above all, i remember the total impotence and incompetence of the belgian authorities who stood by while a full scale riot took place, completely and utterly unprepared. A number of englishmen, not all from liverpool, behaved like evil scum. They should be extradited and dealt with in the severest possible manner by the belgian authorities. But it is my contention that the blame should be shared by the italian thugs, and by the belgians themselves.

We should never forget what happened in brussels. But it’s time we threw off the guilt, which is not all ours by any means.”
 
[continued .. 3]

it was also reported that

“… while it is true that the stadium was in abject condition, that juventus’ supporters found their way into a supposedly neutral section at the liverpool end, and that local police inflamed the situation, the fact is that without these antagonistic charges, nobody would have died.”

well, you could just as easily turn that around. Had the stadium not been in abject condition, had juventus’ supporters not found their way into a supposedly neutral section at the liverpool end, had local police not inflamed the situation, nobody would have died either. It took all those factors to be present for the tragedy to occur, you can’t just highlight one over another because it suits your purposes.

Yet despite all the concerns about the heysel stadium’s unsuitability as a venue for a match of such magnitude, and the ticking time bomb of ticket distribution in section z, uefa still refused to amend their decision that this outdated and universally condemned stage was suitable and safe for europe’s showpiece football match between two of europe’s most passionately-followed teams. In doing so they were taking a dangerous and highly irresponsible risk. They gambled and lost, and blamed somebody else.

Poor crowd control and segregation and a stadium in appalling condition is a potentially lethal combination. As a result of the ticket selling arrangements and the decision to overlook the ground’s poor condition, 50,000 people were in danger without realising it, before they even left home. These elements were already swirling in the ether long before the day of the game itself; all it would take for the final link in the chain to be joined was a couple of other factors, notably the failure to enforce an alcohol ban and the presence of forged tickets in circulation. It just left the hooligans to deliver the coup de grâce.

Nobody from uefa, european football’s governing body, has ever been truly called to account for the tragic events in brussels, and for their disastrous decision to stage the game at this shambles of a stadium. Uefa has never had the decency to admit to its culpability, to its significant part in what happened. Liverpool’s hooligan fringe kept the authorities out of the spotlight where they really belonged, right alongside them.

Over the years, much of the worst of football violence has occurred outside the stadia, in surrounding streets and town centres. Where crowd trouble has occurred inside football grounds, two factors have routinely been present; inadequate crowd segregation and alcohol. By may 1985, there was every reason to expect that the football authorities and police everywhere had learnt those lessons. Alcohol had long been banned inside grounds and on organised transport to matches, and fans had long come to accept that bars near to grounds would be closed. Indeed, finding a bar or pub open and trading normally near a ground would almost be an insult to a hooligan, as though he had been deemed not worthy of special measures, not dangerous enough, his presence not acknowledged, thus providing every motivation to prove them wrong. A town shuttered and boarded up whilst its residents cower behind locked doors and hold their breath is enough to make any hooligan burst with macho pride. It is possible, even commonplace, for a city to impose a fairly effective, if not cast-iron, alcohol curfew. Rome had certainly got close to it twelve months before heysel. Of course it is an imposition upon the normal lives of the local population, and of course it isn’t fair. Of course it cannot be justified just because some english can’t control themselves after a few beers. But it can be done.

In brussels, however, it was harder to find a bar that was closed, even in the vicinity of the heysel stadium itself, including one right opposite the main approach to the stadium for liverpool supporters. We witnessed with rising disbelief (and it must be said, delight) how easy it was to buy beer. For the bars of brussels it was business as usual, and they did a lot of business that hot sunny day. The carrot was dangled, and taken voraciously. It meant many liverpool fans arrived in varying stages of intoxication –– that is beyond doubt. But there was another, less obvious effect of the bars remaining open: It sent a signal that today lads, all your usual rigorous match day disciplines and impositions are suspended. This cultural remission made it feel like being on holiday; the end of wartime rationing; a prisoner finding his cell door wide open and nobody about. A tone was set, and an underswell of recklessness, lawlessness and anarchy developed: We don’t have to behave today. Some football supporters don’t need any second invitation, but they got one nonetheless.

If any confirmation was needed that normal rules had been suspended for the day, the casual laissez faire attitude of the police and the flimsy security checks outside and inside the ground provided plenty. In another major departure from convention, few fans were stopped and searched at the turnstiles, or had their tickets checked on the approaches to the stadium. In paris in 1981, fans had been required to show their tickets at several concentric rings of steel before reaching the stadium. Without a valid match ticket, that was as close as you were ever going to get. At heysel, although there was no shortage of police and barking dogs and metal barricades, it appeared as though they were there for a separate event entirely; they didn’t intervene in our lives in any way.

A similar absence of familiar basic procedures prevailed at the decrepit, archaic turnstiles. Had there been stewards or police immediately beyond the turnstiles to deter people from either trying to break in without tickets or from using fakes, it would have paid great dividends. Again, that was the custom at home. Instead, a sea of forgeries swept through unchecked and unnoticed, some fans just offered cash or pushed through, and the word spread rapidly that tickets may not be entirely necessary to get in to this match. Our precious tickets that we had sweated to get hold of were relegated to optional extras. Once again, the message seemed to be “do as you please, we have no control, no idea and quite frankly no interest”. Like children given too much freedom and not enough discipline, that freedom was abused by some.

Once inside the shambolic stadium, the ineffective control over ground admission, the apparent lack of expertise in handling a crowd and the magnitude of the occasion led to the inevitable result: Utter chaos. More supporters were crammed into blocks x and y than there was room for.

By 7pm on match day, all of these factors conspired to leave many thousands of liverpool supporters shoehorned into a shabby, sweltering, over-crowded terrace under a warm sun, with a collective air of indiscipline and the temporary suspension of usual match day patterns. An industrial quantity of alcohol had fired imaginations, deadened inhibitions and further fuelled the brooding undercurrent. And there, just a few feet away in the adjoining section of terrace beyond some flimsy chicken wire, was block z, not empty or neutral but occupied by rival supporters. That football fans will partake liberally if bars are open is one of life’s constants. Their refusal to tolerate rivals in their midst is another. Football supporters are nothing if not territorial, and this was after all our end of the stadium. To some amongst the liverpool supporters –– those who have ingrained within them that dismal primal instinct for violence –– the italian proximity was inflammatory and, as the us military might put it, an intolerable violation of their territorial integrity. And block z, as yet by no means full, also held the blissful prospect of the extra space that our section so clearly lacked. And what was to stop us laying claim to it? –– a handful of ill-trained police and a flimsy stretch of chicken wire.

Could you ever devise a more volatile cocktail at a football match? There was motive, opportunity, and no apparent deterrent –– the conditions were perfect. In the circumstances, the only surprise would have been a trouble-free evening. And given an identical set of circumstances, there can be little doubt that had any other mass-supported major english club reached that final instead of liverpool, their fans would have behaved exactly as liverpool’s did, if not worse. There would still have been confrontation, the ground would still have been a ruin, the wall would still have collapsed, and the same history would have been made.

Proper ticket allocation, good ticket control at the stadium approach and access points, effective crowd segregation inside, adequate policing and security arrangements, appropriate facilities and strictly enforced alcohol bans or restrictions: All these actions would have denied the opportunity for violence. ‘controlling the controllables’, in business jargon. In failing so transparently in every single one of those basic areas, the authorities handed on a plate to the small thug element amongst liverpool’s contingent the sort of opportunity which they had properly been denied at home for years, and which in all honesty they never expected to see again. And when they saw it, a depressing handful tucked in like a beggar at a banquet.

And yet, and yet, even then, even at that late stage, after virtually everything that could have been done wrongly had been, the tragedy could still have been averted. All that was needed was for the police, inadequate in numbers and training though they were, to be quicker to recognise the blindingly obvious warning signs and take decisive action to separate the rival sets of fans and defuse the inflammatory, simmering eyeball-to-eyeball proximity, by forming a human barrier between the rival supporters and creating a buffer zone. It was the custom then, in england and almost everywhere else. They could then have maintained the buffer zone throughout the match, with the aid of reinforcements, or had the option of leading the italian supporters out of block z to the other end of the ground where their own supporters were (and where they would have preferred to be anyway), which would also have allowed the liverpool contingent to overflow into block z to ease the congestion. Instead, they became paralysed by indecision as the situation worsened, and when what a belgian eyewitness in block z later described as “the incomprehensible panic of the italians” took hold, the police merely herded the fleeing italian fans at baton point back towards the trouble they were seeking to escape. The pressure on the flimsy, crumbly perimeter wall grew and grew, and finally, disastrously, proved too much, leaving the police to watch on helplessly as the results of their indecision swelled to monstrous proportions.
 
[continued .. 4]

liverpool in particular, and english football in general, took all the blame and responsibility. In the dock of public opinion, liverpool’s supporters stood alone, guilty without the need for a trial. But alongside them, shoulder to shoulder, belonged a host of others: The uefa officials who nominated a venue unfit to host anything more tumultuous than a whelk stall; the heysel stadium management who knowingly, willingly and openly sold tickets for the liverpool end of the ground to italian supporters; the bar owners who against their better judgment, police advice and all known precedent remained open and serving alcohol throughout the day; the police, who displayed a complete lack of awareness or urgency in the face of blatant warning signs, and incomprehensible inertia when clear decisive action could still have saved the day; and the juventus supporters who carried inflammatory flags and banners to the match, as well as at least one firearm (a starting pistol, as it turned out, but who was going to know that from a distance?), who destroyed perimeter fencing, fought with police and launched an attack on liverpool’s supporters from the running track around the pitch, yet somehow emerged with their reputations intact.

Weighed down by collective guilt, liverpool’s mass of genuine supporters felt utterly let down by the behaviour of the few at heysel, whose lack of self-control brought appalling consequences for the italian victims, but also besmirched their own club’s proud name across europe and brought shame, disrepute and universal vilification to each one of us that we have still not shaken off. For many years it deprived club and supporters of the most exciting, uplifting experience available –– involvement in european football. As individuals we felt as though we had paid the price many times over. Every liverpool supporter i know and have ever met was sickened that innocent people, fellow football fans there for the same reason as us, died at a football match, and that a small minority of our own fans had a large part to play in it. I don’t know any liverpool supporter who seeks to deflect responsibility for the actions of some of our supporters that night. But i still believe that the accusation that liverpool’s supporters killed 39 people that night is narrow and over-simplistic. As i said at the start, i didn’t think the story had been properly told. Heysel is unfinished business.

The deaths at the heysel were wholly and easily preventable. They were the obscene consequences of gross negligence, stupefying incompetence, criminal lack of forethought and a whole succession of people –– from the decision to use the apology for a stadium to the ticket selling arrangements to the policing –– failing to do their jobs properly.

Had they done so, ugly primitive tribal aggression would have been properly denied its stage, and the chain would have broken.

Tragically, it held.
 
That was a really good read, although Im usually amongst the first to throw stones at LFC Heysel could really have happened to any english club at the time. Football was so intertwined with Hooliganism at every level it was unavoidable. Plus given how many times since and before Heysel we have seen Italian clubs given little to no punishment for the behaviour of lack of, from their supporters I would have to say I do feel some symathy with the Scousers on this one.
 
Hooliganism really deserves it (the ban and everything that follows, not heysel), have a look at your league now, it's all done in the orderly manner where people can enjoy football match without fear, order was restored in the all seater stadium.

Some old guards would probably cursed the all seater plan, but take a look at the brighter side, England was a problem at that time, and probably enough is enough. The loss of lives is a tragedy, but from there England have moved on to a better state (fan wise). I wouldn't even think of bringing my child / wife / bird / mum and dad to a football match at that era, I would now.
 
Hooliganism really deserves it (the ban and everything that follows, not heysel), have a look at your league now, it's all done in the orderly manner where people can enjoy football match without fear, order was restored in the all seater stadium.

Some old guards would probably cursed the all seater plan, but take a look at the brighter side, England was a problem at that time, and probably enough is enough. The loss of lives is a tragedy, but from there England have moved on to a better state (fan wise). I wouldn't even think of bringing my child / wife / bird / mum and dad to a football match at that era, I would now.

Great post. Yes, I really empathised with the point that this could have happened to nay team at that time, all the major teams including United had major 'firms' and all were organised, dangerous and unlawful.

My dad took me to a few games when i was young and I was always scared. i hated the way grown men swore at each other and players on the pitch. And supporting England was just an embarrassment. I remember every single tournament would always include England fans rioting. No country ever started it, it was always England fans who provoked and set set about creating carnage of the city they were in.

Looks like all the intensive efforts made by the Government and governing bodies has worked as English football hooliganism is happily a thing of the past.

Question still begs .... where has that violent streak gone .... perhaps its just gone from stadiums and now to the streets ....
 
I've mentioned this on here before; this game was the first and last game my ex-brother has been to. He was in the US navy. His dad is Italian and a Juve fan. He's on shore leave from wherever his boat was parked. He gets a free ticket to the game and he went on his own on the train.

He didnt really talk about it much when I talked to him about it, he did say he was shit scared and horrified by what he saw. He said he saw random violence and vandalism the whole evening. I told him he should write down his account of the day but I don't think he wanted to. He said he'll never go to another game though.
 
Great post. Yes, I really empathised with the point that this could have happened to nay team at that time, all the major teams including United had major 'firms' and all were organised, dangerous and unlawful.

My dad took me to a few games when i was young and I was always scared. i hated the way grown men swore at each other and players on the pitch. And supporting England was just an embarrassment. I remember every single tournament would always include England fans rioting. No country ever started it, it was always England fans who provoked and set set about creating carnage of the city they were in.

Looks like all the intensive efforts made by the Government and governing bodies has worked as English football hooliganism is happily a thing of the past.

Question still begs .... where has that violent streak gone .... perhaps its just gone from stadiums and now to the streets ....

I take my hat off to you Sammsky1 for taking the time & trouble in putting this on a Manchester United forum. It was a lengthy read. But as someone who was at Heysel, I found myself continually nodding in agreement at the contents of the article. I'm disappointed, not to say surprised, that your work hasn't received a greater response on here. It's generally a subject that brings about a lot of opinions - I suppose with England playing yesterday. Plus the amount of time needed to read the OP. I imagine most people had more pressing issues to attend to. Without resorting to the usual sort of inane stuff the normally follows a Heysel thread. I'd be interested to read the thoughts of the younger posters on here. Has the article changed your perception in any way ?. Has it given you a clearer understanding of English hooliganism during this period ?. Even given the safer stadia, & better policing, do you feel there still a bubbling undercurrent of violence that could one day explode at a big football match ?.

My personal opinion on your point about the violence having gone from the terraces to the streets, is one of agreement. There has always been, & always will be, a propensity for young men to fight. Throughout the ages, this has generally come about through wars regarding religion, invasion, etc. Since the end of the 2nd World War, the vast majority of young men have stayed at home, safe on these shores. However, the 'need' to fight has still been there. This manifested itself in many different guises. Such as Teddy Boys, Mods, Rockers, Skinheads. In a way, all the aforementioned formed their own little armies, seeking out a battle with anyone who was not in line with their particular culture. Then in the early 70's, football became the latest vehicle to carry the violent aspirations of many young adult males. The Heysel tragedy, in this country anyway, brought about a swift end to a culture that had gotten way out of control. The 'beast' was put to sleep for a while. But you only have to go out to many towns & cities on a Friday & Saturday night. Plus read about the violent & malevolent actions of young people nowdays, to realise, the beast is not only well & truly awake, but it's grip is as strong as it's always been.
 
I take my hat off to you Sammsky1 for taking the time & trouble in putting this on a Manchester United forum. It was a lengthy read. But as someone who was at Heysel, I found myself continually nodding in agreement at the contents of the article. I'm disappointed, not to say surprised, that your work hasn't received a greater response on here. It's generally a subject that brings about a lot of opinions - I suppose with England playing yesterday. Plus the amount of time needed to read the OP. I imagine most people had more pressing issues to attend to. Without resorting to the usual sort of inane stuff the normally follows a Heysel thread. I'd be interested to read the thoughts of the younger posters on here. Has the article changed your perception in any way ?. Has it given you a clearer understanding of English hooliganism during this period ?. Even given the safer stadia, & better policing, do you feel there still a bubbling undercurrent of violence that could one day explode at a big football match ?.

My personal opinion on your point about the violence having gone from the terraces to the streets, is one of agreement. There has always been, & always will be, a propensity for young men to fight. Throughout the ages, this has generally come about through wars regarding religion, invasion, etc. Since the end of the 2nd World War, the vast majority of young men have stayed at home, safe on these shores. However, the 'need' to fight has still been there. This manifested itself in many different guises. Such as Teddy Boys, Mods, Rockers, Skinheads. In a way, all the aforementioned formed their own little armies, seeking out a battle with anyone who was not in line with their particular culture. Then in the early 70's, football became the latest vehicle to carry the violent aspirations of many young adult males. The Heysel tragedy, in this country anyway, brought about a swift end to a culture that had gotten way out of control. The 'beast' was put to sleep for a while. But you only have to go out to many towns & cities on a Friday & Saturday night. Plus read about the violent & malevolent actions of young people nowdays, to realise, the beast is not only well & truly awake, but it's grip is as strong as it's always been.

It is a long read .... but I do think its worth reading as its very well written and gives such a deep insight into something that is misunderstood by alot of people .... so will continue to 'bump' the thread for a few days to keep it on the radar, please do the same!

I have often thought about the seemingly direct correlation with the end of football hooliganism with the increase in urban violence and disorder. In the 1970s/80s football matches were priced so that they could be regularly attended by 14-18 years olds. I was never exposed to hooliganism and gangs but know boys from my area who were and they got there fix of violence from visiting football fans. And when is dodgy parts of town, you were always wary of older men in their late 20s as they were typically the dangerous ones who might mug or rob you. The 1970s/80s had much less petty and urban crime than nowadays and people in London and Manchester really did leave their front doors ajar and unlocked.

And yet nowadays that Im older, someone remarked that if your walking the streets at night and come across a bunch of young teens on the street, avoid them at all costs .... teenager hoodies are suddenly the source of violent crime.

There is no easy in answer to this part of the debate post heysel but it does strike me that the powers that be did not think holistically enough about this issue and as you so eloquently put, 'the beast' ha simply been moved from one place, a controlled and isolated place, and into the lives of all society.

There are so many sides to the Heysel debate that are interesting though. When one reads this account, its hard not to feel abject sympathy for Liverpool fans .... it was a horrific tragedy waiting to happen and if what is written is true, Liverpool are not really at fault. But that wold have been an extremely difficult position to argue at the time given what had happened. Time is the only thing tat could clear the fog and show what really happened.
 
It's an excellent read and there is definitely some blame to go to UEFA and the police, but it's ultimately down to the choice of the Liverpool fans to charge the Juventus fans and cause mass panic that led to people dying.

It's like a guy on a murder charge saying 'there were no police around and the gun had just been left out for me to grab, and I'd had access to cheap drugs earlier that day so when I shot that geezer it was simply inevitable'

The choice to not be drunken, violent arseholes always existed but it wasn't exercised and people died as a result. I do agree that if any other major English club had been in the final then the same thing probably would have happened.
 
Good read Sammsky. Cheers for that. I can't imagine what it must have been like.
 
It's an excellent read and there is definitely some blame to go to UEFA and the police, but it's ultimately down to the choice of the Liverpool fans to charge the Juventus fans and cause mass panic that led to people dying.

It's like a guy on a murder charge saying 'there were no police around and the gun had just been left out for me to grab, and I'd had access to cheap drugs earlier that day so when I shot that geezer it was simply inevitable'

The choice to not be drunken, violent arseholes always existed but it wasn't exercised and people died as a result. I do agree that if any other major English club had been in the final then the same thing probably would have happened.

You're right about that I agree. But its very hard to pin down at an individual level. In that crowd, the dynamics of the mob would have been what caused the charge. And a mob makes decisions in very strange ways, always the decisions are made by unelected leaders and then once a certain tipping going is reached, there is no going back.

I've often wondered about huge flocks of birds .... just which of them decides that they should fly off in 100s at a particular moment. Likewise, when in the sky, which one leads? Who gives that bird the permission and how come all the rest blindly follow? Its that same with all animals. Human Beings behave in much the same way when in large groups.

So there would have been perhaps 2 or 3 people who very early on set the tone and very quickly carnage followed and you were part of it whether you wanted to be or not. I wonder if those few people know it was them. I wonder if they were charged. if not, I wonder how they live with themselves everyday since.
 
As promised Sammsky I found the time to read your thread. Surprised there hasn't been more posts. Maybe the size of the post, posting on a United forum and the danger of stirring the heysel pot have stopped more comments.

Have to say I found it a bit one sided and almost gave up after the first paragraph. It appears that only with his concluding paragraph that he admits some Liverpool fans were in some way culpable. I stuck with it and learnt a couple of things I didn't know so it was interesting. There is no doubt that the stadium and police tactics were appalling and turned a nasty event into a disaster. What I struggle with is the usual excuse (by all football fans at the time - not just Liverpool) that rioting at and near football grounds was defendable. As Grinner has said it is a choice to get pissed and then to go looking for trouble. I watched a lot of non-league football in the early 80's and for big games we would get some 'big club' supporters who seemed determined to start a fight. When sometimes it did kick off they were amazed the cops didn't come and help them out. There was an assumption that the police were only there to referee and help out with any trouble. The Liverpool supporter in this piece says the same - all it needed was the police to form a barrier between the fans. It seemed a mentality at the time to start trouble but to ignore the consequences.

The only good that came from that terrible night was the changes that led to the safe stadiums we use today. Maybe it has gone too far but I wouldn't have taken my small kids to a United game in the 80's.
 
As promised Sammsky I found the time to read your thread. Surprised there hasn't been more posts. Maybe the size of the post, posting on a United forum and the danger of stirring the heysel pot have stopped more comments.

Have to say I found it a bit one sided and almost gave up after the first paragraph. It appears that only with his concluding paragraph that he admits some Liverpool fans were in some way culpable. I stuck with it and learnt a couple of things I didn't know so it was interesting. There is no doubt that the stadium and police tactics were appalling and turned a nasty event into a disaster. What I struggle with is the usual excuse (by all football fans at the time - not just Liverpool) that rioting at and near football grounds was defendable. As Grinner has said it is a choice to get pissed and then to go looking for trouble. I watched a lot of non-league football in the early 80's and for big games we would get some 'big club' supporters who seemed determined to start a fight. When sometimes it did kick off they were amazed the cops didn't come and help them out. There was an assumption that the police were only there to referee and help out with any trouble. The Liverpool supporter in this piece says the same - all it needed was the police to form a barrier between the fans. It seemed a mentality at the time to start trouble but to ignore the consequences.

The only good that came from that terrible night was the changes that led to the safe stadiums we use today. Maybe it has gone too far but I wouldn't have taken my small kids to a United game in the 80's.

Whenever the Heysel tragedy is debated, there is a tendency, from those who were not there, to overlook the part that Juventus fans played in the awful events of that night - When my mates & I entered the ground, we stood about 10 metres away from the fence. There was quite a large contingent of Juve supporters already gathered at the fence, throwing missiles, ramming wooden poles through at Liverpool fans, & generally being quite aggressive in their behaviour. What followed, is that we, along with many other supporters, moved away from the trouble. Whereas the actions of the hooligans on the other side of the fence, attracted the attention of the hooligans on our side. So when you talk about choice. Surely that cuts both ways. & those Juventus fans who acted as a catalyst for the ensuing tragic events had the choice not to behave in the hostile way they did. They had the choice not to turn & run when the Liverpool supporters broke through. After all, their behaviour suggested they were up for a punch-up. They had the choice not to write an inflammatory, anti-Liverpool message, on their flags.

As a club, 1985 had seen us complete 21 successive years in European competition. Prior to Heysel, those 21 years in Europe had come & gone without even the merest hint of trouble from Liverpool supporters. There would have been plenty of opportunities during that period for our hooligans to cause mayhem. The fact that they 'chose' to wait for over 2 decades might back-up my point that there is more than just one side to this story.
 
Whenever the Heysel tragedy is debated, there is a tendency, from those who were not there, to overlook the part that Juventus fans played in the awful events of that night - When my mates & I entered the ground, we stood about 10 metres away from the fence. There was quite a large contingent of Juve supporters already gathered at the fence, throwing missiles, ramming wooden poles through at Liverpool fans, & generally being quite aggressive in their behaviour. What followed, is that we, along with many other supporters, moved away from the trouble. Whereas the actions of the hooligans on the other side of the fence, attracted the attention of the hooligans on our side. So when you talk about choice. Surely that cuts both ways. & those Juventus fans who acted as a catalyst for the ensuing tragic events had the choice not to behave in the hostile way they did. They had the choice not to turn & run when the Liverpool supporters broke through. After all, their behaviour suggested they were up for a punch-up. They had the choice not to write an inflammatory, anti-Liverpool message, on their flags.
As a club, 1985 had seen us complete 21 successive years in European competition. Prior to Heysel, those 21 years in Europe had come & gone without even the merest hint of trouble from Liverpool supporters. There would have been plenty of opportunities during that period for our hooligans to cause mayhem. The fact that they 'chose' to wait for over 2 decades might back-up my point that there is more than just one side to this story.


So why did they choose to wait 20 years?

I'm sorry if I've read that wrong but the inference is that "Juventus hooligans started it" and if they'd stood and fought the tragedy would not have occured
 
I have a major issue with that article, and I am afraid its going to sound unpalatable, but here goes.

My problem is, that you can almost word for word take that article and apply it to the situation at Hillsborough, and later on in Athens where further problems occured.

Even more recently we've seen Liverpool fans in incidents at the Emirates, and yet again, its down to poor design, poor policing, bad ticket control..

Everytime there are problems where Liverpool fans are concerned we get the same old spiel..

Blame it on the police
Blame it on the ground
Blame it on the authorities.

But nowhere do Liverpool fans take a look at the one common denominator in all of it, the fact that its their fans stuck in the middle of it every time.

I am the most fervent supporter of the Justice for the 96 campaigner, because what happened at Hillsborough was totally and utterly deplorable, and their fans were blamed wrongly. Those who would try linking the two incidents are completely vacant of the facts. Hillsborough was nothing like Heysel, but its the protestations by the Liverpool fans that the blame for the incidents are indentical make it very hard for people not to compare the two.

The hypocrisy of saying that people should be accountable for their actions, then trying to pass the blame off when its clearly your own fault, only makes people look and think "well they just blame everyone else for Heysel, so isnt this just another case of them trying to blame others for Hillsborough"

What is clear in that article, and its been mentioned by many liverpool fans over the years. They had problems in Rome the season before, and therefore it was payback time. They set out with the intention of trouble in mind, and boy did they get it. The fact there werent enouth police, or the ground was old makes no difference, when you've got your heart set on trouble before you even get there.

Incidentally, no Liverpool fan has ever been able to explain to me why they felt the need to attack Juventus fans for what happened the year before. Juventus fans werent even there.

United fans had trouble in Rome themselves recently. It doesn't justify us turning up at the San Siro and waging holy jihaad against Milan fans because of what the police did inside the ground in Rome.

If we did, and 39 fans die as a result of it, then its not the ground thats the problem, its not the police thats the problem. Its the fault of the morons who stupidly think that they can seek revenge against a team, just because they come from the same country.

In general I found that article to be like all articles written by Liverpool fans about Heysel. Its a pure deflectionary piece, meant to somehow excuse the behaviour of Liverpool fans.

The problem is, those same reasons for deaths are used for Hillsborough, and because people dont believe what they say about Heysel, they struggle to beleive the same about Hillsborough, which is a travesty, because the fans at Hillsborough deserve better than being linked with the morons running amock in Belgium.

That article is just a feeble attempt to whitewash over the fact that they went with the intention of trouble, and then when it went further than they thought it would, they sought to find someone to blame. Be it Chelsea fans, the police, UEFA, whoever..

Liverpool fans want the truth about Hillsborough to be told, and it should be told.. All of it.

They want the police to admit what they did was wrong, and that there were no scapegoats to be had. It was simply a case of the police fecked up, and their actions caused the deaths of 96 fans.

They cannot go around doing exactly what the police in Sheffield did, and try passing the buck, and blaming it on someone else. If they want the truth to come out, and people to be honest, they likewise have to come out, and stop trying to blame others for Heysel, but face up to their actions and take responsibility.. Just like the police in Yoirkshire should.
 
Whenever the Heysel tragedy is debated, there is a tendency, from those who were not there, to overlook the part that Juventus fans played in the awful events of that night - When my mates & I entered the ground, we stood about 10 metres away from the fence. There was quite a large contingent of Juve supporters already gathered at the fence, throwing missiles, ramming wooden poles through at Liverpool fans, & generally being quite aggressive in their behaviour. What followed, is that we, along with many other supporters, moved away from the trouble. Whereas the actions of the hooligans on the other side of the fence, attracted the attention of the hooligans on our side. So when you talk about choice. Surely that cuts both ways. & those Juventus fans who acted as a catalyst for the ensuing tragic events had the choice not to behave in the hostile way they did. They had the choice not to turn & run when the Liverpool supporters broke through. After all, their behaviour suggested they were up for a punch-up. They had the choice not to write an inflammatory, anti-Liverpool message, on their flags.

As a club, 1985 had seen us complete 21 successive years in European competition. Prior to Heysel, those 21 years in Europe had come & gone without even the merest hint of trouble from Liverpool supporters. There would have been plenty of opportunities during that period for our hooligans to cause mayhem. The fact that they 'chose' to wait for over 2 decades might back-up my point that there is more than just one side to this story.


So lets get this right.. The fans running away had a choice.. They could have stopped where they were and faced the rampaging Liverpool fans....

Do you realise how stupid that sounds...

And for the record, the fans that died were at the far end of the compound, and were trying to get out of the compound. They were not the people who were supposedly throwing bricks and prodding you with poles, whilst you all sat their quietly and said "would you mind awfully not doing that.. we are jolly decent citizens and we don't approve of your neanderthal actions"

Given that your fans were already looking for trouble after Rome, is it beyond the realms of all possibility that your fans were equally as guilty, if not the perpertrators of the trouble, and that they were simply responding in kind to what an element of your fans had already intended to do before they got there.

The ones who died were the innocent ones. To say they had a choice not to run away is crass beyond all belief. The likelihood is not one of the 39 who died threw a single item, or even made any contact with Liverpool fans.

They werent given a choice. They retreated because they had to.

To suggest that those fans who died wouldnt have died if they hadnt ran away, is the most laughable crock of shite I've ever read, and it proves exactly what I have said in my previous post. You are clutching at straws to try and deflect the blame.

To say those 39 fans killed themselves is no more turthful than saying those 96 had a choice to stand on the terrace and could easily have gone into the seats and therefore by choosing to stand on teh Leppings Lane they killed themselves.

Oh and fair play to you for being a good football fan and moving away from the trouble.. Just like every other Liverpool fan did.

I've yet to meet a scouser that has hte balls to stand up and admit they were one of those that charged..
 
They had the choice not to write an inflammatory, anti-Liverpool message, on their flags.

You are seriously kidding me right ??

What about the "RONS ATKINSONS WHORE IS A SLUT" banner that was pride of place in the middle of your fans at the very same game we are talking about.

What about "dont bomb iraq.. Nuke Manchester"

What about "Harold Shipman is our hero"

What about the banners your lot have had celebrating Munich.

Have you forgotten the nice little reminders you left at Old Trafford when you played Chelsea in the FA cup semi final...

Of all the fans to sit complaining about insulting messages, yours are the last ones who should be claiming the moral high ground.
 
fredthered - spot on..... as much as I have every sympathy for all those involved at the Hillsborough tragedy and tragic loss of innocent victims ......

I'm afraid Heysel does'nt compare and Liverpool fans have to stand up and be counted and accept the lion' share of blame for those 39 deaths.

To somehow state that the outcome would have been the same had any other English club been involved is another passing of the buck......

Quite simply, we know the stadium was'nt suitable, it is clear the Police did'nt have the resources or organisation , it is clear security was insufficient, however, nobody poured the strong Belgian beverages down supporters throats, nor requested that they resort to violence.
 
Quite simply, we know the stadium was'nt suitable, it is clear the Police did'nt have the resources or organisation , it is clear security was insufficient,

The fact that the scosuers also seem to ignore, is that this was the case for almost every football ground in Europe at that time.

Only days before 50 fans died in a raging inferno at Bradford when poor ground maintenance, poor stewarding and poor planning were prevalent.

The big difference between Heysel and the other two major disasters connected with English football, is that in the other two the fans were not the cause of the incidents, merely innocent victims. Unless you want to be really really insensitive ( or stupid ) and claim that whoever dropped the lit cigarette and the fans who walked through gate C at Hillsborough were somehow to blame.

The problems at Bradford and Hillsborough were caused by the poor ground and poor safety systems that treated fans like animals.

The problems at Heysel were compounded by the poor ground, the poor policing etc however unlike the other two cases, they were not the direct cause.

This is what the scousers seem unable to grasp.

Nothing the fans did or didnt do at Hillsborough or Bradford would have made one iota of difference. They were quite simply tragedies that would have happened no matter who was there. Regardless of what actions the fans took.

Heysel wasnt like that.. The result occured because the fans took specific actions, and did so with a specific intent. You dont charge fans en masse and not expect to hurt or injure someone.

OK they never intended killing 39 people, but they charged those italians with the intent of at least hurting someone. WHen you do that, you cannot then say "but if the ground had been safer then our charge into them wouldnt have killed them".

If I take my motor car and plough into a group of schoolkids at 90mph it is wholly wrong to then claim the crossing shouldnt have been there, and the lollipop lady wasnt doing her job properly because the kids are in the road.

That is what the scousers are doing, and like I said before, sadly they are using the same excuses for Heysel as they use for Hillsborough, and people automatically then link the two.

The Scousers themselves are as gulty of it too. When you hear them talk of United fans they always say "but they sing about Hillsborough and Heysel, they are sick for celebrating death".

Singing about Hillsborough is indeed celebrating death, and the is utterly utterly disgusting, and any United fan singing about it is the lowest of the low and a disgrace to our club. I'd stand beside any scousers shoulder against a United fan who sings abotu Hillsborough. The anger I feel when I see fans doing it cannot be expressed highly enough.

However singing about what they did at Heysel isnt celebrating death. Its reminding them of what they, as a set of fans did, and what they caused.

I feel mortally sorry for Liverpool fans over Hillsborough ( and I despise them with a passion, so that should tell you something ). I wouldnt wish that on my worst enemy.

However I have not one iota of sympathy for them over Heysel. For me that night, they showed why we should despise them, as sick cowards, and ironically, the very fact they are running around trying to get everyone to believe that they somehow were the victims in it all, just adds more fuel to the fire.

For what they did that night I wish them a lifetime of being reminded what they caused.
 
Singing about Heysel is also deplorable.

If you were singing it to Italians, then yes I would agree.

However you are doing it to the perpertrators not the victims.

If Liverpool fans were to sing "murderers" to the South Yorkshire Police it would be completely different to singing about Munich to United fans. The former being justified, because thats precisely what the South Yorkshire Police were.. They caused the deaths of 96 fans.

Its not celebrating the deaths of the 96, its a reminder of what the South Yorkshire Police are responsible for.
 
fredthered - spot on..... as much as I have every sympathy for all those involved at the Hillsborough tragedy and tragic loss of innocent victims ......

I'm afraid Heysel does'nt compare and Liverpool fans have to stand up and be counted and accept the lion' share of blame for those 39 deaths.

To somehow state that the outcome would have been the same had any other English club been involved is another passing of the buck......

Quite simply, we know the stadium was'nt suitable, it is clear the Police did'nt have the resources or organisation , it is clear security was insufficient, however, nobody poured the strong Belgian beverages down supporters throats, nor requested that they resort to violence.


an argument that states that the deaths only happened because the stadium was not fit to accommodate our rioting needs is the tail wagging the arse of the dog if ever I heard it.
 
The big difference between Heysel and the other two major disasters connected with English football, is that in the other two the fans were not the cause of the incidents, merely innocent victims. Unless you want to be really really insensitive ( or stupid ) and claim that whoever dropped the lit cigarette and the fans who walked through gate C at Hillsborough were somehow to blame.

The problems at Bradford and Hillsborough were caused by the poor ground and poor safety systems that treated fans like animals.

The problems at Heysel were compounded by the poor ground, the poor policing etc however unlike the other two cases, they were not the direct cause.

This is what the scousers seem unable to grasp.

Nothing the fans did or didnt do at Hillsborough or Bradford would have made one iota of difference. They were quite simply tragedies that would have happened no matter who was there. Regardless of what actions the fans took.

Heysel wasnt like that.. The result occured because the fans took specific actions, and did so with a specific intent. You dont charge fans en masse and not expect to hurt or injure someone.




Singing about Hillsborough is indeed celebrating death, and the is utterly utterly disgusting, and any United fan singing about it is the lowest of the low and a disgrace to our club. I'd stand beside any scousers shoulder against a United fan who sings abotu Hillsborough. The anger I feel when I see fans doing it cannot be expressed highly enough.

However singing about what they did at Heysel isnt celebrating death. Its reminding them of what they, as a set of fans did, and what they caused.

I feel mortally sorry for Liverpool fans over Hillsborough ( and I despise them with a passion, so that should tell you something ). I wouldnt wish that on my worst enemy.

For what they did that night I wish them a lifetime of being reminded what they caused.


Some fantastic points here about the difference between the two events. Heysel was horrific and blame should have been accepted for that along time ago. Hard to say that "it could have been anyone"... as the piece points out English clubs enjoyed a golden period during this era. That means Forrest and Villa enjoyed deep runs in the Old European cup, or for that matter United or sides like Spurs, Everton, even City would have all had extended runs in European matches (in the CWC or the UEFA cup) during the 70-80's... you don't hear about 39 deaths at a Forrest or Villa match or any of the others for that matter... even thought their fans would have been subjected to the same levels of abuse and hostility the Scousers use as an excuse. The exception here is Leeds, and there is a big difference between trashing a stadium and killing 39 people... although I'll concede the intent may have been the same.

But you are SPOT on about Hillsborough. But for a wrongly disallowed Brain McClair goal vs Forrest in the 6th Round, it would have been United vs Liverpool @ Hillsborough that day and the flip of a coin would have determined the end each side would have been assigned. Clearly I am glad our supporters were spared such a horrible fate. But I am aware that but for the grace of god it so easily could have been us, and I empathise with the Scousers loss on this day... these people died a tragic death supporting their club. Singing about it now cheapens us, and I have always thought so. I love our rivalry with Liverpool... there is more passion and bitterness between the two clubs, thats what makes it so great - it really matters to people... but sometimes this passion and bitterness spills over and becomes too much... Hillsborough sadly often becomes this point.

Others on here have made great points on the socio-economic ramifications of supporting football. I think the days of wild west hooliganism are a thing of the past, and I don't really look back on them with great nostalgia... but at the same time I'm not all that thrilled with the "prawn sandwich" brigade who have become the norm at most football grounds. Ticket pricing and the money involved in the game now has taken something from the core of the game, not only on the pitch, but more obviously in the stands. I would love to see a move towards the middle of that spectrum with the passion of an earlier era, and the comfort and safety of todays stadia. I think todays grounds are better places for children to attend matches (and I don't think thats such a bad thing)... but there are far too many glory hunters, hangers on, corparate jackasses who care little for the game and are just looking for a way to use the game for their own benefit without contributing anything positive.
 
So lets get this right.. The fans running away had a choice.. They could have stopped where they were and faced the rampaging Liverpool fans....

Do you realise how stupid that sounds...

And for the record, the fans that died were at the far end of the compound, and were trying to get out of the compound. They were not the people who were supposedly throwing bricks and prodding you with poles, whilst you all sat their quietly and said "would you mind awfully not doing that.. we are jolly decent citizens and we don't approve of your neanderthal actions"

Given that your fans were already looking for trouble after Rome, is it beyond the realms of all possibility that your fans were equally as guilty, if not the perpertrators of the trouble, and that they were simply responding in kind to what an element of your fans had already intended to do before they got there.

The ones who died were the innocent ones. To say they had a choice not to run away is crass beyond all belief. The likelihood is not one of the 39 who died threw a single item, or even made any contact with Liverpool fans.

They werent given a choice. They retreated because they had to.

To suggest that those fans who died wouldnt have died if they hadnt ran away, is the most laughable crock of shite I've ever read, and it proves exactly what I have said in my previous post. You are clutching at straws to try and deflect the blame.

To say those 39 fans killed themselves is no more turthful than saying those 96 had a choice to stand on the terrace and could easily have gone into the seats and therefore by choosing to stand on teh Leppings Lane they killed themselves.

Oh and fair play to you for being a good football fan and moving away from the trouble.. Just like every other Liverpool fan did.

I've yet to meet a scouser that has hte balls to stand up and admit they were one of those that charged..

I'm not really sure what I can add to my previous post regarding the behaviour of the Juventus fans in the build-up to the charge. Because like most United fans, & Liverpool haters, your mind is well & truly closed to the possibility that there was more to the Heysel tragedy than a large contingent of 'drunken' Liverpool fans being hell-bent on causing mayhem.

It is quite possible the incidents in Rome the previous year had some bearing on what happened in the stadium. However, when you consider that thousands of Liverpool & Juventus fans spent the day together drinking in the same bars, & pretty much occupying the same areas of the city. It begs the question: why didn't things kick-off well before the 2 sets of fans actually entered the ground ?. This merely compounds my account of the events, & the fact that 'some' culpability should rest on the shoulders of some of those so-called Juventus supporters in section Z. This is not deflection, or straw-clutching, it's simply a statement of fact.

10 years after the Heysel tragedy, I worked for a company that dealt with the sales & marketing of foreign newspapers in & around the tourist areas & universities of Britain & Ireland. One of the papers we handled, was the well-respected Italian newspaper, La Repubblica. The Circulation Director of the aforemetioned title was/is a Juventus supporter. & he too, was at Heysel. We often talked about football, & as you can imagine, Heysel was frequently discussed. Angelo (the Circulation Director), was scathing in his attack on the part that his clubs own fans played that night. He told me that the vast majority of the Italian press were equally as scathing. So don't think me too disrespectful when I side with the sensible view of those who were actually there that night, & not with someone who would rather chop off his own head than give any benefit of doubt to the supporters of a club he detests with a passion.
 
You are seriously kidding me right ??

What about the "RONS ATKINSONS WHORE IS A SLUT" banner that was pride of place in the middle of your fans at the very same game we are talking about.

What about "dont bomb iraq.. Nuke Manchester"

What about "Harold Shipman is our hero"

What about the banners your lot have had celebrating Munich.

Have you forgotten the nice little reminders you left at Old Trafford when you played Chelsea in the FA cup semi final...

Of all the fans to sit complaining about insulting messages, yours are the last ones who should be claiming the moral high ground.

All aimed at our hated Mancunian rivals if I'm not mistaken. That's not to say I'm condoning such things of course. But why would a Juventus supporter want to take it upon himself to write derogatory stuff about a club, that up until then, had nothing in common with regards to rivalry - I don't suppose this could possibly give you an insight into the mindset of some of the Juve supporters that night ?
 
I'm not really sure what I can add to my previous post regarding the behaviour of the Juventus fans in the build-up to the charge. Because like most United fans, & Liverpool haters, your mind is well & truly closed to the possibility that there was more to the Heysel tragedy than a large contingent of 'drunken' Liverpool fans being hell-bent on causing mayhem.

It is quite possible the incidents in Rome the previous year had some bearing on what happened in the stadium. However, when you consider that thousands of Liverpool & Juventus fans spent the day together drinking in the same bars, & pretty much occupying the same areas of the city. It begs the question: why didn't things kick-off well before the 2 sets of fans actually entered the ground ?. This merely compounds my account of the events, & the fact that 'some' culpability should rest on the shoulders of some of those so-called Juventus supporters in section Z. This is not deflection, or straw-clutching, it's simply a statement of fact.

10 years after the Heysel tragedy, I worked for a company that dealt with the sales & marketing of foreign newspapers in & around the tourist areas & universities of Britain & Ireland. One of the papers we handled, was the well-respected Italian newspaper, La Repubblica. The Circulation Director of the aforemetioned title was/is a Juventus supporter. & he too, was at Heysel. We often talked about football, & as you can imagine, Heysel was frequently discussed. Angelo (the Circulation Director), was scathing in his attack on the part that his clubs own fans played that night. He told me that the vast majority of the Italian press were equally as scathing. So don't think me too disrespectful when I side with the sensible view of those who were actually there that night, & not with someone who would rather chop off his own head than give any benefit of doubt to the supporters of a club he detests with a passion.

Firstly, that so called statement of fact isnt actually a statement of fact. The only people who are claiming they were provoked are Liverpool fans. The enquiry found no conclusive evidence of Juvenus fans heing any more volatile than you would expect at a match of that magnitude.

Which is ironic because the author of that piece goes to great lengths to suggest that what went on at the game was really no different to what you would see at any other football match of that era.. Just precisely how many times did Liverpool fans en masse charge at opposing fans on the terraces in response to "average" football banter, which is what the author goes to great pains to explain what it was.

Just because someone says something is a fact, it doesnt make it true. Ask Kelvin McKenzie, I am sure he likewise likes to consider what he says to be factual, but we all know that sometimes people do lie, expecially when faced with the consequences of their actions.

Secondly, I would like to draw your attention to a website that explains some of the fans sentiments about the day. I will post a few snippets from it, which contradict totally the notion that up till the game, all was peaceful.

We felt very uneasy sitting outside the ground, as did my mates and we decided that basically, for safety, we would go into the ground If everything was peaceful why would they feel it was unsafe ?

About an hour before the scheduled kick-off time tempers became frayed inside the ground, both sets of fans baited each other through a segregating fence made from chicken wire Am admission that Liverpool fans were equally as guilty about baiting the opposition.

I mean everyone I think was so wound up by the attitude of the police. I mean the lad with me, he got in and he had a gun pulled on him by one of the police! He had a ticket, but because he ducked away from being hit with over the head with the truncheon that happened And there you have it.. THe Liverpool fans were "wound up".. Would it be more truthful to suggest that Liverpool fans feeling aggrieved at the attention of the police set out on a course of action that had nothing in reality to do with Juventus fans.

You say you would rather take notice of people who were there.. Yes you would say that wouldnt you.. Given that you were one of them.. If you repeat something enough times, eventually you can convince yourself that what you are saying is the truth..

The only real truth I am bothered about is that the Liverpool fans charged, and 39 fans died as a result.. That is the truth. Paint over it all you like, blame who you like, but the fact is without your fans charging that wall would not have collapsed, unfit ground, bad policing or not.. It was YOUR actions that caused it.
 
All aimed at our hated Mancunian rivals if I'm not mistaken. That's not to say I'm condoning such things of course. But why would a Juventus supporter want to take it upon himself to write derogatory stuff about a club, that up until then, had nothing in common with regards to rivalry - I don't suppose this could possibly give you an insight into the mindset of some of the Juve supporters that night ?

What did they say ? Liverpool fans are scum ? Oh bless your cotton socks.. Hardened football hooligans and because they print a nasty banner you get all uppity about it. By your rational the next time we play you, then our fans are entttled to run into your end, cause 39 of fans to die, and if anyone asks why, we'll say "they made up a nasty flag about us so blame them.. not us"


And what if they did post derogatory remarks.. If they didnt think it before the night, they sure as helll had enough evidence afterwards.
 
Fredthered I just don't understand how you can 'hate' other teams footie fans. I just find it small minded and well, sad.


United fans and Liverpool fans, much like Mancs and Scousers in general are ridiculously similar. I don't think any other major two cities in the UK hsave such similar cultures.
 
Some fantastic points here about the difference between the two events. Heysel was horrific and blame should have been accepted for that along time ago. Hard to say that "it could have been anyone"... as the piece points out English clubs enjoyed a golden period during this era. That means Forrest and Villa enjoyed deep runs in the Old European cup, or for that matter United or sides like Spurs, Everton, even City would have all had extended runs in European matches (in the CWC or the UEFA cup) during the 70-80's... you don't hear about 39 deaths at a Forrest or Villa match or any of the others for that matter... even thought their fans would have been subjected to the same levels of abuse and hostility the Scousers use as an excuse. The exception here is Leeds, and there is a big difference between trashing a stadium and killing 39 people... although I'll concede the intent may have been the same.
But you are SPOT on about Hillsborough. But for a wrongly disallowed Brain McClair goal vs Forrest in the 6th Round, it would have been United vs Liverpool @ Hillsborough that day and the flip of a coin would have determined the end each side would have been assigned. Clearly I am glad our supporters were spared such a horrible fate. But I am aware that but for the grace of god it so easily could have been us, and I empathise with the Scousers loss on this day... these people died a tragic death supporting their club. Singing about it now cheapens us, and I have always thought so. I love our rivalry with Liverpool... there is more passion and bitterness between the two clubs, thats what makes it so great - it really matters to people... but sometimes this passion and bitterness spills over and becomes too much... Hillsborough sadly often becomes this point.

Others on here have made great points on the socio-economic ramifications of supporting football. I think the days of wild west hooliganism are a thing of the past, and I don't really look back on them with great nostalgia... but at the same time I'm not all that thrilled with the "prawn sandwich" brigade who have become the norm at most football grounds. Ticket pricing and the money involved in the game now has taken something from the core of the game, not only on the pitch, but more obviously in the stands. I would love to see a move towards the middle of that spectrum with the passion of an earlier era, and the comfort and safety of todays stadia. I think todays grounds are better places for children to attend matches (and I don't think thats such a bad thing)... but there are far too many glory hunters, hangers on, corparate jackasses who care little for the game and are just looking for a way to use the game for their own benefit without contributing anything positive.

Liverpool played a hell of a lot more European games than any English club during the 70's & up until the mid-80's. Played when footballing stadia was at it's worse, & hooliganism was at it's peak. Yet prior to Heysel, we were never involved in any trouble away from these shores. This is more than can be said for a lot of English clubs. United themselves were forced to play down in Plymouth because of your hooligan element causing havoc over in France in 1977. So are you implying, that all things considered, it was only Liverpool fans who could have been involved in the deaths of other football supporters during this same period ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.