PDA

View Full Version : Heysel



SteveHFC
29-05-2010, 04:18 PM
R.i.p

ynwa

Hibs On Tour
29-05-2010, 10:09 PM
Rip

blackpoolhibs
29-05-2010, 10:22 PM
Granada reports down here, rewriting history tonight. Apparently these people died because of a wall that fell down.:bitchy:

Sas_The_Hibby
29-05-2010, 10:58 PM
Granada reports down here, rewriting history tonight. Apparently these people died because of a wall that fell down.:bitchy:

IIRC, the trouble was caused by fans but so many died because a wall collapsed, under pressure from retreating Juventus fans, many of whom were then crushed, with other fans falling onto them. It's not to excuse what happened but it is true to say that the collapsing wall was a vital factor.

Sylar
30-05-2010, 08:06 AM
Liverpool thugs charged at the Juventus fans looking for a fight. As the Juve fans tried to flee over a wall, it collapsed under the pressure, crushing many more innocent Juventus fans on the other side.

It was THIS incident which lead to the barriers being put into football stadia, which would eventually lead to the consequences of Hillsborough.

I recall Liverpool playing Juve in the Champions League a few years back and the Liverpool fans had a banner which read "In memory and friendship", which was unveiled during a minutes' silence - the Juventus fans mostly either turned their backs to the pitch, gave it a traitional salute or booed/jeered it.

blackpoolhibs
30-05-2010, 08:29 AM
IIRC, the trouble was caused by fans but so many died because a wall collapsed, under pressure from retreating Juventus fans, many of whom were then crushed, with other fans falling onto them. It's not to excuse what happened but it is true to say that the collapsing wall was a vital factor.

I think the vital factor was the liverpool thugs attacking the juventus fans. The wall was fine until that happened, the wall would not have collapsed under normal circumstances. The reason these people died was the liverpool thugs.

hibsbollah
30-05-2010, 08:34 AM
I think the vital factor was the liverpool thugs attacking the juventus fans. The wall was fine until that happened, the wall would not have collapsed under normal circumstances. The reason these people died was the liverpool thugs.

:agree: The 'shared grief' thing that Liverpool tried to do with Juve was tasteless to the extreme IMO. Can you imagine if it was the other way around? We'd never hear the end of it from The Sun etc.

Oscar Lomax
30-05-2010, 08:44 AM
The very reason I hate Liverpool F.C. I remember sitting down to watch this game as a child and witnessing events which will be with me forever. I dont think I could go to a game for weeks after that. Drunken Liverpool thugs. They cant get out of it as its all on camera....

blackpoolhibs
30-05-2010, 08:44 AM
:agree: The 'shared grief' thing that Liverpool tried to do with Juve was tasteless to the extreme IMO. Can you imagine if it was the other way around? We'd never hear the end of it from The Sun etc.

:agree: While hillsbourgh was terrible, a real tragedy, the way the media down here are trying to rewrite history with heysel is shocking.:bitchy:

Luna_Asylum
30-05-2010, 09:16 AM
Liverpool thugs charged at the Juventus fans looking for a fight. As the Juve fans tried to flee over a wall, it collapsed under the pressure, crushing many more innocent Juventus fans on the other side.

It was THIS incident which lead to the barriers being put into football stadia, which would eventually lead to the consequences of Hillsborough.

I recall Liverpool playing Juve in the Champions League a few years back and the Liverpool fans had a banner which read "In memory and friendship", which was unveiled during a minutes' silence - the Juventus fans mostly either turned their backs to the pitch, gave it a traitional salute or booed/jeered it.

Barriers were put into grounds as a result of countless incidents in the 70's & 80's
Numerous fences and barriers had been put in place prior to Heyel.

What happened at Hillsborough is detailed in the Taylor report but from what you have written you would most likely prefer the sun's version.

Sylar
30-05-2010, 10:51 AM
Barriers were put into grounds as a result of countless incidents in the 70's & 80's
Numerous fences and barriers had been put in place prior to Heyel.

What happened at Hillsborough is detailed in the Taylor report but from what you have written you would most likely prefer the sun's version.

It was certainly the triggering reason for the installation in England was it not? I recall watching a couple of documentaries on footballing stadia disasters (more from an engineering standpoint than anything else) and they suggested it was the actions at Heysel which lead to the widespread installation of fences in English stadia?

I resent your second comment to be honest - any rational person can see the vile natured reporting in the Sun article ref: Hillsborough. Because I blame the Liverpool fans for what happened at Heysel (not exactly a shocking opinion, as it's pretty universal), you're suggesting I also agree that they were responsible for Hillsborough?

In an indirect manner, yes, I do believe they were partially responsible for Hillsborough, as the actions of a large portion of English football fans at home and abroad (inclusive of Liverpool fans, and reaching a climax at Heysel) was the reason for these pens/barriers. Blame from the day itself, no, but considering the bigger picture, it was a tragic situation all-round.

TheEastTerrace
30-05-2010, 11:14 AM
I think the vital factor was the liverpool thugs attacking the juventus fans. The wall was fine until that happened, the wall would not have collapsed under normal circumstances. The reason these people died was the liverpool thugs.

The stadium was a crumbling wreck and was never fit for purpose. That's no excuse for the behavior of Liverpool fans though, but Heysel was falling to pieces and should have never been chosen to hold the final.

There was a Liverpool fan's account of that day on The Times website round about the time they played Juventus in the UCL recently. He said that it felt like an army going to war as they came off the trains in their thousands. A number of Liverpool fans were hellbent on getting even with the Italians as a result of the treatment they suffered in Rome after the previous year's final against Roma. Many were stabbed and hospitalised. He said the booze had sold out in Brussels by mid afternoon and the atmosphere was seriously aggro before the stadium was even opened.

houston1875
30-05-2010, 11:21 AM
i was at the pool quarter final at Anfield few years ago,i was a Pool fan in the Juventus end

plus was it liverpool thugs at heysel,i thought it was thugs fae a lot of other clubs who caused that night of shame,not saying no pool fans were involved before a get a power of abuse?

plus a thought police were at fault a wee bit for hillsboro no?

Luna_Asylum
30-05-2010, 11:29 AM
i was at the pool quarter final at Anfield few years ago,i was a Pool fan in the Juventus end

plus was it liverpool thugs at heysel,i thought it was thugs fae a lot of other clubs who caused that night of shame?

That theory is covered in this excellent article (paragraph in bold):

The basic facts have never really been up for debate. The 1985 European Cup Final was held in Brussel’s decrepit Heysel Stadium. The Liverpool end of the stadium contained a section (block Z) designated for neutral fans. In practice, quite a few Juventus fans, many of them casual, middle class, and middle aged fans who were merely taking the opportunity to be present for a big occasion, rather than ultras, were able to acquire tickets from locals, and ended up in this section, which was only separated from Liverpool fans by a feeble, chicken wire fence. After antagonism between segments of the two sets of fans, Liverpool fans breached the wire fencing and charged into the neutral section. Fans uninvolved in the original antagonism fled the onrushing violence, and attempted to leave the section by climbing over a concrete retaining wall. The wall collapsed under the weight of the fans, injuring nearly 500 and killing 39.

From there things get fairly muddled. Because the crumbling stadium (the pre-kickoff antagonism involved the two groups of fans hurling missiles at each other; these missiles were pieces of the stadium itself), woeful organization, and inadequate policing all contributed to the disaster, there appears to be an ongoing contest between UEFA and Liverpool supporters to cast the other as the main villain of the piece.

For their part, UEFA concluded that the Liverpool fans were solely to blame for the loss of life. The organizational failures shouldn’t be ignored. Even though, in an ideal world, it would be possible for fans at a major football match to comingle, as they do in other sports, that obviously isn’t the case. If the European Cup Final had been organized by people with little or no prior knowledge of football and the attendant culture, the lax preparations might be chalked up to inexperience and naivety. That the main governing body of the sport in Europe was responsible for the conditions surrounding the tragedy could be considered grossly negligent. The ‘on the other hand’ of this situation is that planning for a riot to occur might have been considered a stretch even for veterans of the game.

I am personally inclined to side with the ‘on the other hand’ perspective on this issue. To put such a great deal of focus on the condition of the stadium does, to some extent, ignore the fact that Heysel was hardly the only stadium in Europe that could be considered a dump. Lots of matches are played in substandard stadiums and grounds without a major loss of life taking place. If you remove the charge through block Z from the equation, Heysel becomes a crappy venue that UEFA should have been embarrassed to have their biggest match of the season at, but not a death trap waiting to happen, like Bradford or Hillsborough.

While UEFA simply laid the entirety of the blame at the feet of Liverpool supporters, the attempts by some Liverpool fans to shift blame for what happened are more varied. Obviously, insisting that the conditions were the main cause is the same approach that UEFA took, with a different conclusion. Many of the other excuses are ‘yes, but’ qualifiers.

One factor often cited is the previous year’s European Cup Final in Rome. After Liverpool defeated Roma in a penalty shoot out, Liverpool fans were apparently attacked by some of Roma’s ultras upon leaving the stadium. The memory of the previous year’s violence supposedly contributed to some Liverpool fans taking a more ‘guarded’ approach to the entirely different set of Italian fans. I have never understood why this could remotely serve as an excuse when it seems closer to an admission. Unless the exact same individuals that attacked Liverpool fans in Rome were present in Brussels, they were two completely unrelated things. By applying some vague notions of vigilance or vengeance to the Juventus fans, simply because they also happened to be Italian, all this attitude did was make an already confrontational traveling fan culture even more hostile.

Another popular claim is that the Liverpool supporters were infiltrated by ‘cockneys,’ National Front attached Chelsea, Millwall, and West Ham supporters, and the infiltrators were responsible for the actual violence. I believe this theory is mostly based on the fact that organized hooligan firms, like the Chelsea Headhunters for example, weren’t attached to football in Liverpool. As far as I know, there has never been any serious evidence in support of this theory. It might easily be waved away as desperation, except that it has proved quite a persistent myth, and, as Dave Hill wrote in Out of His Skin, the club itself offered this theory as an explanation of what happened.

A more plausible qualifier in the Liverpool fan’s defense is that English hooliganism was at its apex during this era, and that any other English club could have just as easily caused this disaster. Nick Hornby, in Fever Pitch, wholly agreed with this sentiment. Given the propensity of other English fans to single Liverpool out, especially in the form of partisan banter, I think this is a fair objection to the treatment of the tragedy. In 1985, the atmosphere surrounding English football was at its most poisonous and violent (the Kenilworth Road riot, which caused Luton Town to completely ban away fans for a number of years, also took place during 84-85), and Liverpool were hardly the first English club to cause trouble on the continent. Just a couple of other notable examples: Leeds were banned from European competition after their fans rioted after their 1975 European Cup Final defeat to Bayern Munich, and during the 70s and 80s Manchester United’s Red Army routinely rampaged through whatever city was unfortunate enough to host them. So yes, the implication that Heysel was a unique set of circumstances caused by Liverpool fans, rather than Heysel was the inevitable consequence of an unchecked culture of violence is an unfair view to take. Of course, this does nothing to alter the fact that Liverpool was the club in Belgium and their fans were responsible for the violence on that particular night.

Ultimately, Liverpool as a club has gotten better over the years about accepting blame. The club actually unveiled a permanent memorial to the victims outside of Anfield earlier this week. The fans, as you would expect when discussing any large and varied group of people, tend to offer mixed views. Though there appears to be an outspoken minority who persist with excuses or denials, it seems that many fans are realistic and frank about Heysel. I think Brian Glanville summed up the post-Heysel recriminations and shame ideally when he pointed out that they weren’t taking place because a group of hooligans ran amok, but because 39 people died for no reason.

blackpoolhibs
30-05-2010, 12:07 PM
The stadium was a crumbling wreck and was never fit for purpose. That's no excuse for the behavior of Liverpool fans though, but Heysel was falling to pieces and should have never been chosen to hold the final.
The same crumbling wreck that had hosted many many games without people being killed????

There was a Liverpool fan's account of that day on The Times website round about the time they played Juventus in the UCL recently. He said that it felt like an army going to war as they came off the trains in their thousands. A number of Liverpool fans were hellbent on getting even with the Italians as a result of the treatment they suffered in Rome after the previous year's final against Roma. Many were stabbed and hospitalised. He said the booze had sold out in Brussels by mid afternoon and the atmosphere was seriously aggro before the stadium was even opened.

They certainly got even, maybe even won? Did the wall have any intention of causing trouble?

--------
30-05-2010, 12:41 PM
That theory is covered in this excellent article (paragraph in bold):

The basic facts have never really been up for debate. The 1985 European Cup Final was held in Brussel’s decrepit Heysel Stadium. The Liverpool end of the stadium contained a section (block Z) designated for neutral fans. In practice, quite a few Juventus fans, many of them casual, middle class, and middle aged fans who were merely taking the opportunity to be present for a big occasion, rather than ultras, were able to acquire tickets from locals, and ended up in this section, which was only separated from Liverpool fans by a feeble, chicken wire fence. After antagonism between segments of the two sets of fans, Liverpool fans breached the wire fencing and charged into the neutral section. Fans uninvolved in the original antagonism fled the onrushing violence, and attempted to leave the section by climbing over a concrete retaining wall. The wall collapsed under the weight of the fans, injuring nearly 500 and killing 39.

From there things get fairly muddled. Because the crumbling stadium (the pre-kickoff antagonism involved the two groups of fans hurling missiles at each other; these missiles were pieces of the stadium itself), woeful organization, and inadequate policing all contributed to the disaster, there appears to be an ongoing contest between UEFA and Liverpool supporters to cast the other as the main villain of the piece.

For their part, UEFA concluded that the Liverpool fans were solely to blame for the loss of life. The organizational failures shouldn’t be ignored. Even though, in an ideal world, it would be possible for fans at a major football match to comingle, as they do in other sports, that obviously isn’t the case. If the European Cup Final had been organized by people with little or no prior knowledge of football and the attendant culture, the lax preparations might be chalked up to inexperience and naivety. That the main governing body of the sport in Europe was responsible for the conditions surrounding the tragedy could be considered grossly negligent. The ‘on the other hand’ of this situation is that planning for a riot to occur might have been considered a stretch even for veterans of the game.

I am personally inclined to side with the ‘on the other hand’ perspective on this issue. To put such a great deal of focus on the condition of the stadium does, to some extent, ignore the fact that Heysel was hardly the only stadium in Europe that could be considered a dump. Lots of matches are played in substandard stadiums and grounds without a major loss of life taking place. If you remove the charge through block Z from the equation, Heysel becomes a crappy venue that UEFA should have been embarrassed to have their biggest match of the season at, but not a death trap waiting to happen, like Bradford or Hillsborough.

While UEFA simply laid the entirety of the blame at the feet of Liverpool supporters, the attempts by some Liverpool fans to shift blame for what happened are more varied. Obviously, insisting that the conditions were the main cause is the same approach that UEFA took, with a different conclusion. Many of the other excuses are ‘yes, but’ qualifiers.

One factor often cited is the previous year’s European Cup Final in Rome. After Liverpool defeated Roma in a penalty shoot out, Liverpool fans were apparently attacked by some of Roma’s ultras upon leaving the stadium. The memory of the previous year’s violence supposedly contributed to some Liverpool fans taking a more ‘guarded’ approach to the entirely different set of Italian fans. I have never understood why this could remotely serve as an excuse when it seems closer to an admission. Unless the exact same individuals that attacked Liverpool fans in Rome were present in Brussels, they were two completely unrelated things. By applying some vague notions of vigilance or vengeance to the Juventus fans, simply because they also happened to be Italian, all this attitude did was make an already confrontational traveling fan culture even more hostile.

Another popular claim is that the Liverpool supporters were infiltrated by ‘cockneys,’ National Front attached Chelsea, Millwall, and West Ham supporters, and the infiltrators were responsible for the actual violence. I believe this theory is mostly based on the fact that organized hooligan firms, like the Chelsea Headhunters for example, weren’t attached to football in Liverpool. As far as I know, there has never been any serious evidence in support of this theory. It might easily be waved away as desperation, except that it has proved quite a persistent myth, and, as Dave Hill wrote in Out of His Skin, the club itself offered this theory as an explanation of what happened.

A more plausible qualifier in the Liverpool fan’s defense is that English hooliganism was at its apex during this era, and that any other English club could have just as easily caused this disaster. Nick Hornby, in Fever Pitch, wholly agreed with this sentiment. Given the propensity of other English fans to single Liverpool out, especially in the form of partisan banter, I think this is a fair objection to the treatment of the tragedy. In 1985, the atmosphere surrounding English football was at its most poisonous and violent (the Kenilworth Road riot, which caused Luton Town to completely ban away fans for a number of years, also took place during 84-85), and Liverpool were hardly the first English club to cause trouble on the continent. Just a couple of other notable examples: Leeds were banned from European competition after their fans rioted after their 1975 European Cup Final defeat to Bayern Munich, and during the 70s and 80s Manchester United’s Red Army routinely rampaged through whatever city was unfortunate enough to host them. So yes, the implication that Heysel was a unique set of circumstances caused by Liverpool fans, rather than Heysel was the inevitable consequence of an unchecked culture of violence is an unfair view to take. Of course, this does nothing to alter the fact that Liverpool was the club in Belgium and their fans were responsible for the violence on that particular night.

Ultimately, Liverpool as a club has gotten better over the years about accepting blame. The club actually unveiled a permanent memorial to the victims outside of Anfield earlier this week. The fans, as you would expect when discussing any large and varied group of people, tend to offer mixed views. Though there appears to be an outspoken minority who persist with excuses or denials, it seems that many fans are realistic and frank about Heysel. I think Brian Glanville summed up the post-Heysel recriminations and shame ideally when he pointed out that they weren’t taking place because a group of hooligans ran amok, but because 39 people died for no reason.


:top marks First class. Can't add a thing to that. :agree:

TheEastTerrace
30-05-2010, 01:39 PM
They certainly got even, maybe even won? Did the wall have any intention of causing trouble?

What's your point here? Or are you just being a facetious arse for the sake of it?

If you read my post, I said that there was no excuse for LFC fans' behaviour, but it shouldn't go unreported that the stadium was ill-equipped for the game as well.

It was plainly obvious that the ground was not up to standard for hosting a European Cup Final between two of the biggest club sides in Europe. The fans were throwing pieces of the stadium at each other, and the segregation was bloody chicken wire. So are you saying that Heysel was fit for purpose?

Also, I'm only regurgitating what I've read from supporter accounts in regards to some of their fans' attitudes towards the Italians. Liverpool fans were angry about their treatment in Rome the previous season. I don't in any way offer that as an excuse or condone it. People lost their lives and that is wrong.

blackpoolhibs
30-05-2010, 01:56 PM
What's your point here? Or are you just being a facetious arse for the sake of it?

If you read my post, I said that there was no excuse for LFC fans' behaviour, but it shouldn't go unreported that the stadium was ill-equipped for the game as well.

It was plainly obvious that the ground was not up to standard for hosting a European Cup Final between two of the biggest club sides in Europe. The fans were throwing pieces of the stadium at each other, and the segregation was bloody chicken wire. So are you saying that Heysel was fit for purpose?

Also, I'm only regurgitating what I've read from supporter accounts in regards to some of their fans' attitudes towards the Italians. Liverpool fans were angry about their treatment in Rome the previous season. I don't in any way offer that as an excuse or condone it. People lost their lives and that is wrong.

My only real point was the media down here, the tv to be exact, ignoring what happened to cause these poor people to die, and blaming it on a wall collapsing. Everyone can blame what and who they like, i saw with my own eyes those liverpool fans, with liverpool scarfs, running and striking the italians with lumps of wood, punching and kicking them. The media down here seem to be ignoring this for some reason, and blaming the wall, Why?

Posh Swanny
30-05-2010, 02:53 PM
My only real point was the media down here, the tv to be exact, ignoring what happened to cause these poor people to die, and blaming it on a wall collapsing. Everyone can blame what and who they like, i saw with my own eyes those liverpool fans, with liverpool scarfs, running and striking the italians with lumps of wood, punching and kicking them. The media down here seem to be ignoring this for some reason, and blaming the wall, Why?

Stating that the wall falling down caused the deaths is, in itself, not inaccurate - had the wall remained in-tact, people wouldn't have died. Failing to mention Liverpool fans rioting at all would certainly put it into the "mis-leading" category though.

blackpoolhibs
30-05-2010, 03:47 PM
Stating that the wall falling down caused the deaths is, in itself, not inaccurate - had the wall remained in-tact, people wouldn't have died. Failing to mention Liverpool fans rioting at all would certainly put it into the "mis-leading" category though.

:agree: Living in the north west as i do, you soon realise its brushed over, ignored. Yet mention sheffield and its shouted from the rooftops, just who was to blame.

Boris
30-05-2010, 06:02 PM
[QUOTE

:agree: Living in the north west as i do, you soon realise its brushed over, ignored. Yet mention sheffield and its shouted from the rooftops, just who was to blame.[/QUOTE]


Bit of a generalisation that. I lived in Liverpool for many years & I know lads that never went back to a match after Heysel & other lads that through the FSA made moves to start trying to repair the damage caused almost immediately. I can remember a group of people from Turin being brought over to Liverpool within a few weeks of Heysel.

None of the people I knew - and I knew a lot of people from all walks of life when I lived there - ever tried to gloss over the fact that hooliganism led to the crush in the corner & the subsequent collapse of the wall.

Bottom line was that a lot of Liverpool fans travelled to Brussels with memories of Rome 84 in mind - I was one of them. It wasn't pretty after that game - believe me. Yes I know, Roma ain't Juventus, but Italian fans in general had a reputation. And there were more than a few Juve fans went to Heysel ready to take on the English make no mistake. They were looking to start it at the ground when they were there in numbers early on when Liverpool fans were still in the city centre. I saw it having made my way to Heysel early looking for programmes & souvenirs. Think of their "ultra leader" in the ground with a pistol - as shown on tv. Doesn't excuse for one second what happened but paints a picture.

It has never been much publicised - in the way that the aftermath of Rome 84 was - but there was also a bit of history between Liverpool & Juve fans from just a few months before Heysel. In January 1985 the European Super Cup was played as a one-off game at Turin's Stadio Communale. Because of the harsh weather the game was in doubt almost right up to kick-off. Liverpool had only a small number of fans there - I'd say no more than 100, most of them on the offical club charter with the team. The Juve fans were allowed to bombard the Liverpool fans throughout the game with the police happy to do nothing. After the match, the handful of Liverpool fans that had made their own way quite literally had to fight for their lives to get away from the ground in one piece. Not just hearsay - I was one of them.

Again, no excuse for what happened at Heysel but just trying to paint a balanced picture.

Heysel was a disaster waiting to happen the way football was back in the late 70's & ealy 80's. Again, no excuse for what unfolded that night but if Liverpool had of been allocated the whole end as was pleaded with UEFA before the game instead of creating a "neutral" zone for Italians based in Belgium.........