Jump to content
IGNORED

Bristol R*vers dustbin thread


42nite

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Rich said:

They've never submitted a planning application to BCC for a new stadium. They did submit for a "redevelopment" at the rugby ground. Surprisingly, a lot of the councillors on the planning committee were replaced at the eleventh hour, by councillors supportive of the plans. The EP was actively supporting the plans and, had a Rovers supporter as the main reporter of those developments. She was later employed by Rovers as their press officer, I believe working closely with Dennis Payter (another Rovers supporter) who worked for the EP. The plan was passed, yet was expected to be refused, I wonder why? They never submitted plans for Severnside, they never submitted plans for Hengrove (stupid), the plans they did put together for Carson's Green (South Glos), were laughed at as it was on Greenbelt with no infrastructure improvements included and, the UWE (South Glos) got permission yet has never got off the ground, yet they constantly blame Bristol City Council, for not getting them a ground.

The thing is, the tentacles of the giant squid Lansdown reach into every nook and cranny and his life is dedicated entirely to thwarting them at every turn.

That`s what they believe anyway.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Lanterne Rouge said:

The thing is, the tentacles of the giant squid Lansdown reach into every nook and cranny and his life is dedicated entirely to thwarting them at every turn.

That`s what they believe anyway.

If that ever came to be true, he'd have the freedom of the city for ridding this city of a dreaded plague, just like the pied piper. In reality from what I've seen, they need no help at all. They make all their own decisions and get what they deserve.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rich said:

They've never submitted a planning application to BCC for a new stadium. They did submit for a "redevelopment" at the rugby ground. Surprisingly, a lot of the councillors on the planning committee were replaced at the eleventh hour, by councillors supportive of the plans. The EP was actively supporting the plans and, had a Rovers supporter as the main reporter of those developments. She was later employed by Rovers as their press officer, I believe working closely with Dennis Payter (another Rovers supporter) who worked for the EP. The plan was passed, yet was expected to be refused, I wonder why? They never submitted plans for Severnside, they never submitted plans for Hengrove (stupid), the plans they did put together for Carson's Green (South Glos), were laughed at as it was on Greenbelt with no infrastructure improvements included and, the UWE (South Glos) got permission yet has never got off the ground, yet they constantly blame Bristol City Council, for not getting them a ground.

hengrove and carsons green ? cant remember either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lanterne Rouge said:

I remember Hengrove vaguely - I believe we thought about building a new ground out that way a good few years back (80s maybe?)

Yep, wasn’t that gonna be on the old Whitchurch airfield? I thought that was a great idea, having a ground surrounded by Hartcliffe, Knowle West, Withywood, Whitchurch, Hengrove and Brislington .... away fans would have rated it as more horrible than a trip to the Den! It would defo have been a fortress! Can you imagine the ‘welcome’ any away fan would have received in the pubs around there back in the 80s?!?! 

Edited by BS4 on Tour...
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, BS4 on Tour... said:

Yep, wasn’t that gonna be on the old Whitchurch airfield? I thought that was a great idea, having a ground surrounded by Hartcliffe, Knowle West, Withywood, Whitchurch, Hengrove and Brislington .... away fans would have rated it as more horrible than a trip to the Den! It would defo have been a fortress! Can you imagine the ‘welcome’ any away fan would have received in the pubs around there back in the 80s?!?! 

I would have felt more nervous as a home fan than an away fan!

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, BS4 on Tour... said:

Yep, wasn’t that gonna be on the old Whitchurch airfield? I thought that was a great idea, having a ground surrounded by Hartcliffe, Knowle West, Withywood, Whitchurch, Hengrove and Brislington .... away fans would have rated it as more horrible than a trip to the Den! It would defo have been a fortress! Can you imagine the ‘welcome’ any away fan would have received in the pubs around there back in the 80s?!?! 

In addition to all of this can you honestly imagine a new Sag stadium slap bang in the middle of the south Bristol heartland of City support? How long would it have taken until some of our "less reputable" "followers" felt the irresistible temptation to "tamper" with the new home of the Blue Few?

Another absolutely ridiculous Blue Few "pie in the sky" notion that fell flat on its ass...

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BS3City said:

In addition to all of this can you honestly imagine a new Sag stadium slap bang in the middle of the south Bristol heartland of City support? How long would it have taken until some of our "less reputable" "followers" felt the irresistible temptation to "tamper" with the new home of the Blue Few?

Another absolutely ridiculous Blue Few "pie in the sky" notion that fell flat on its ass...

The same would happen if they moved down to the Fruit Market. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, wendyredredrobin said:

And their team if they did (442)

                    Turnip

Broccoli Swede Parsnip Cabbage

  Sprout Carrot Cauliflower Bean

               Lemon   Kale

That lot would put their current team to shame.

 

Surely they'd have a Leak in defence and more than one lemon up front? After each defeat, it would be sour grapes.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, pongo88 said:

What a bitter report, talk about entitled. What he fails to grasp is that we have always (the post 82 years aside) been able to pay for anything we`ve wanted to do whereas they expect someone else to stump up the cash and let them have the ground for nothing.

They really don`t get it and I suspect they never will.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Lanterne Rouge said:

What a bitter report, talk about entitled. What he fails to grasp is that we have always (the post 82 years aside) been able to pay for anything we`ve wanted to do whereas they expect someone else to stump up the cash and let them have the ground for nothing.

They really don`t get it and I suspect they never will.

Would it shock you to the core to find out that the person who wrote that piece was Jim Gwinnell, a Saghead who wrote for When Saturday Comes?

No, me neither.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, wendyredredrobin said:

And their team if they did (442)

                    Turnip

Broccoli Swede Parsnip Cabbage

  Sprout Carrot Cauliflower Bean

               Lemon   Kale

That lot would put their current team to shame.

 

I just think their whole team would be a bunch of cabbages...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Peter O Hanraha-hanrahan said:

Would it shock you to the core to find out that the person who wrote that piece was Jim Gwinnell, a Saghead who wrote for When Saturday Comes?

No, me neither.

Yeah. TBF he does make that clear in the intro as does the other guy, the Vale fan.

Of the two, it does seem Vale have been a bit shabbily treated, the s*gs, not so much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Lanterne Rouge said:

What a bitter report, talk about entitled. What he fails to grasp is that we have always (the post 82 years aside) been able to pay for anything we`ve wanted to do whereas they expect someone else to stump up the cash and let them have the ground for nothing.

They really don`t get it and I suspect they never will.

All they have ever wanted is for the council to identify a plot of land suitable for a stadium then for the council to donate said plot grant planning permission and donate funds for the build the lot of them are bitter and twisted that this has never happened thick as shite the lot of them newsflash you aint got none never had none and never will have any even if wally sold his really really expensive watch

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, pongo88 said:

What a load of Bollocks. When BRFC approached  the city council about Hengrove, they were told it wasn't a good idea because of it's location within the BCFC heartland. They never questioned that and never submitted an application. If they did, it would have had to be accompanied by a financial plan, end of application.

The Severnside plan as such was suggested by Rovers with them agreeing in principle to buy the council owned land for £1. They employed consultants to carry out a feasibility study, at a cost of £100k. At the end of that study, the "expert" consultants asked the environment agency if the site was suitable for a stadium due to the close proximity of chemical works and other industrial sites. The Environment Agency informed them that it was not a suitable site. Who's at fault for not asking that question first? According to BRFC, the council, end of application.

All they ever want to do is pass on the blame to somebody else, they always have done it's in their make up.

The difference with the two clubs is, we'd pay for our new ground, they want someone else to pay for their new ground.

As for the council, they bent over backwards and the rules to allow the development of the rugby ground for BRFC. As far as BCFC were concerned it appears they did their very best to hinder the clubs plans, from supermarket refusals to appointing QCs with a history of upholding TVG applications.  

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Lanterne Rouge said:

What a bitter report, talk about entitled. What he fails to grasp is that we have always (the post 82 years aside) been able to pay for anything we`ve wanted to do whereas they expect someone else to stump up the cash and let them have the ground for nothing.

They really don`t get it and I suspect they never will.

Actually, we haven't. Steve Lansdown has. 

Without him, we'd be... We'll, them..! 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Bar BS3 said:

Without him, we'd be... We'll, them..! 

Haha, no.

We've never been ‘them’ even before SL came along.

They often claim that the only difference between us and them is Steve Lansdown but it’s not, our mentality and ambition has always been on a different, much higher level than Rovers. That’s why we get the Dolmans and the Lansdowns and they get the Wallys.

 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Bar BS3 said:

Actually, we haven't. Steve Lansdown has. 

Without him, we'd be... We'll, them..! 

Only the recent developments. Lansdown had nothing to do with the Atyeo or Dolman stands, both still integral parts of our current stadium and more than BRFC have built in their lifetime.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Rich said:

What a load of Bollocks. When BRFC approached  the city council about Hengrove, they were told it wasn't a good idea because of it's location within the BCFC heartland. They never questioned that and never submitted an application. If they did, it would have had to be accompanied by a financial plan, end of application.

The Severnside plan as such was suggested by Rovers with them agreeing in principle to buy the council owned land for £1. They employed consultants to carry out a feasibility study, at a cost of £100k. At the end of that study, the "expert" consultants asked the environment agency if the site was suitable for a stadium due to the close proximity of chemical works and other industrial sites. The Environment Agency informed them that it was not a suitable site. Who's at fault for not asking that question first? According to BRFC, the council, end of application.

All they ever want to do is pass on the blame to somebody else, they always have done it's in their make up.

The difference with the two clubs is, we'd pay for our new ground, they want someone else to pay for their new ground.

As for the council, they bent over backwards and the rules to allow the development of the rugby ground for BRFC. As far as BCFC were concerned it appears they did their very best to hinder the clubs plans, from supermarket refusals to appointing QCs with a history of upholding TVG applications.  

Heartland....

Pretty much applies across Bristol these days.

A few pockets of more-gas-than-city dotted about, but even within those areas, you'll find a more than healthy contingent of City fans.

The days of a river dividing support is long gone.

Other than a match day, I don't think I have seen a Rovers shirt when out and about on Gloucester Road in the last few years. (Granted, a lot of people only wear their colours to games), but even in and around the pubs, very few pledge any allegiance to the Fewers, and when you do find one, generally they are delighted to be talking to another Bristol football fan, rather than an armchair Premier League fan who doesn't have a clue.

That's been my experience anyway.

 

  • Robin 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

Heartland....

Pretty much applies across Bristol these days.

A few pockets of more-gas-than-city dotted about, but even within those areas, you'll find a more than healthy contingent of City fans.

The days of a river dividing support is long gone.

Other than a match day, I don't think I have seen a Rovers shirt when out and about on Gloucester Road in the last few years. (Granted, a lot of people only wear their colours to games), but even in and around the pubs, very few pledge any allegiance to the Fewers, and when you do find one, generally they are delighted to be talking to another Bristol football fan, rather than an armchair Premier League fan who doesn't have a clue.

That's been my experience anyway.

 

I agree about their support and how it's gone in more recent years, however, my statement was referring to a time in the distant past, when there was a greater divide within the city boundaries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Rich said:

I agree about their support and how it's gone in more recent years, however, my statement was referring to a time in the distant past, when there was a greater divide within the city boundaries.

I remember those days well, grew up in Longwell Green, so Kingswood wasn't alien to me.

It just seems that bar a few unfortunate children who have been forced to go to Rovers out of family loyalty, there isn't that natural progression of kids being influenced by their classmates that Rovers are the way to go.

Can probably break that down to three key reasons.

1 - Sky. When I was growing up, live football on the telly happened a few times a season, FA Cup final being a 'big event' and if there was a British team playing a European game, you would watch it and hope that the British team won.

2 - Gaming. Kids these days seem to have so much access to football (see point 1 also) they have next to no interest in watching lower league cloggers playing hoofball, not when they have FIFA on the GamesBox and Football Manager on the XStation.

3 - City/Rugby/Cricket - we have done a lot better than they have for close to 20 years, we have facilities they do dream of by have yet to achieve, we have international players who have played for countries people have actually heard of, players with domestic European cup experience, and are playing in a league where Rafa might be the opposition manager, or Rooney might be playing for our opponents. Added interest. Add to that the Sky-hype around other sports and where are you going to go to watch live games? Ain't with Billy Smart, that we can be sure of.

My nephew loves the City, and they are his number one side. But he also likes sides in Spain, Germany and Italy. Because he'll watch anything and play anything.

Rovers are going through a long, drawn out, slow and painful death. And with each passing year, their chances of closing the gap (not just in terms of league football) but as an entire offering diminishes.

Their best chance was when they had the Rugby club with them, they could have done something together that would have been viable but they saw the rugby club as a necessary evil who paid a few quid and ruined the pitch, not as someone they could partner with.

Oh well. Shit happens.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing they don't seem to be able to grasp is that, even if they did stumble their way into the same division as us, they are unlikely to survive whereas we have the clout, facilities, crowds, and soon to be class 1 training facilities to have a go at getting to the highest level. They wouldn't stand a prayer at this level let alone the top table. They're an obsession that can never happen like I'll never smash the granny out of Dannii Minogue, I have the tools but not the opportunity, that, in essence, is the gas, a total dream!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Peter O Hanraha-hanrahan said:

Haha, no.

We've never been ‘them’ even before SL came along.

They often claim that the only difference between us and them is Steve Lansdown but it’s not, our mentality and ambition has always been on a different, much higher level than Rovers. That’s why we get the Dolmans and the Lansdowns and they get the Wallys.

 

Very well put. I`ve often said that while our ambition is to be the best we can be, their`s is to be one place better than us and they wouldn`t care if we were both in the conference when it happened (which it won`t!). They would happily give up any chance of success if, in return, it meant we had failed.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, TomF said:

They’d also have 3 years (assuming they stay up) to covert the ground to all seater...

Tents are us? It's not like they would get dispensation a la Brentford with their track record plus they would go down like a stone anyway. Imagine a Championship standard player seeing their 'facilities' and wages? He'd be gone like a shot!

I wonder what their capacity would be if they bolted seats to their existing terraces, 6K?

Edited by Ska Junkie
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Ska Junkie said:

Tents are us? It's not like they would get dispensation a la Brentford with their track record plus they would go down like a stone anyway. Imagine a Championship standard player seeing their 'facilities' and wages? He'd be gone like a shot!

I wonder what their capacity would be if they bolted seats to their existing terraces, 6K?

Still be more than enough for what they get.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Peter O Hanraha-hanrahan said:

Haha, no.

We've never been ‘them’ even before SL came along.

They often claim that the only difference between us and them is Steve Lansdown but it’s not, our mentality and ambition has always been on a different, much higher level than Rovers. That’s why we get the Dolmans and the Lansdowns and they get the Wallys.

 

The difference between us is that we want to be the best we can be. All they want is to be one place above us.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Lanterne Rouge said:

Whatever it was I think it was treated more as a suggestion rather than a regulation most of the time.

I appreciate that LR, just wanted to know the standing / seating ratio. Has to be what, 3 to 1?

According to wiki, their capacity is 12300 with 3000 seats so their all seater capacity would be 3000 + (9300/3)= 6100. Nowhere near enough to sustain Championship football.

Shame eh? 3 of our stand hold more than their entire stadium would hold and one's not far off double.

OTIB

Edited by Ska Junkie
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Ska Junkie said:

Anyone remember what the standing capacity of the old East end was? IIRC seated capacity was around 4K wasn't it? 

Don't know for sure  but in the 1st division days, we had a capacity of 37,000 with 7,000 seats. So 30k for the terraces. Not unreasonable to assume 10-11 K. Not sure they would all have a view.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, miser said:

Don't know for sure  but in the 1st division days, we had a capacity of 37,000 with 7,000 seats. So 30k for the terraces. Not unreasonable to assume 10-11 K. Not sure they would all have a view.

I was thinking around that figure miser. Mad to think we stood in a crowd of over 38,000 in the old Gate back in the day.

Backs up the 3 standing  to 1 seat I guess.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ska Junkie said:

Anyone remember what the standing capacity of the old East end was? IIRC seated capacity was around 4K wasn't it? 

Originally built for 15k in I believe 1923. It was tested and reduced to 12k in the old 1st div days and again down to 10k. The old uncovered end was set at 10k initially. I think eventually 7k.

They actually put 6,500 seats into the old EE including the corners but, about one thousand were useless  as they were at the back and too low, just as the terracing was.

So we had, 12k 10k, 7k enclosure, 5.500 Dolman and 2,500 Grandstand =37k. Briefly the capacity was increased with approx. 2,500 standing in front of the Dolman, this disappeared with the next assessment and safety cert.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Ska Junkie said:

The thing they don't seem to be able to grasp is that, even if they did stumble their way into the same division as us, they are unlikely to survive whereas we have the clout, facilities, crowds, and soon to be class 1 training facilities to have a go at getting to the highest level. They wouldn't stand a prayer at this level let alone the top table. They're an obsession that can never happen like I'll never smash the granny out of Dannii Minogue, I have the tools but not the opportunity, that, in essence, is the gas, a total dream!

You should be so lucky (Oh sorry, that was Kylie) 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Lanterne Rouge said:

Very well put. I`ve often said that while our ambition is to be the best we can be, their`s is to be one place better than us and they wouldn`t care if we were both in the conference when it happened (which it won`t!). They would happily give up any chance of success if, in return, it meant we had failed.

Definitely. I know a couple of Sags who are more interested in our result than theirs, when I questioned them and sais how bizarre it was I got the reply "yeah, but we know we're sh1t". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Swede said:

The 37 or 38,000 was for the early 70's. I believe the capacity was 31,990 in the First Division days.

How did we get 38K+ v Liverpool in the first division in 1977 then Swede? Not disputing it just wondered how they managed it? 

Edited by Ska Junkie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, miser said:

Don't know for sure  but in the 1st division days, we had a capacity of 37,000 with 7,000 seats. So 30k for the terraces. Not unreasonable to assume 10-11 K. Not sure they would all have a view.

The Leeds and Liverpool cup ties in '74 were all-ticket, and both had 37,000 crowds. I don’t know if the Liverpool game in the league in May '77 was all ticket - I'm thinking it wasn't - but the official attendance for that was 38 000 plus. More than should've been allowed in, maybe. Maybe, it was a bit of a melee that evening.

In his programme notes for the first home game the following season, in August '77, Alan Dicks informed us that the club had had to spend £100k on ground improvements over the summer to comply with the recent Safety of Sports Ground Act. He said that this had cut the ground capacity to 30,000. A big cut from 37 (or was it 38) thousand. 

However, a quick glance at the programme for Man United at the end of the 77/78 season, shows that we attracted two crowds during that season of more than 31,000! (v Forest and Liverpool).

Did we let more in than we were supposed to? Could we add up properly? Did Dicksy get his sums wrong? Did we - the club - know what was going on? Did we - the crowd - know what was going on?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Ska Junkie said:

How did we get 38K+ v Liverpool in the first division in 1977 then Swede? Not disputing it just wondered how they managed it? 

Rumour was that it was 41,000! 

‘Ramming’ was the method that achieved that number. 

Managed to get in earlyish,, so wasn’t too bad in that part of the East End I was stood. Late comers were the one’s who suffered I think. Know a few that were turned away when the gates were closed before the start of the match. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, RedRock said:

Rumour was that it was 41,000! 

‘Ramming’ was the method that achieved that number. 

Managed to get in earlyish,, so wasn’t too bad in that part of the East End I was stood. Late comers were the one’s who suffered I think. Know a few that were turned away when the gates were closed before the start of the match. 

For us kids it was so easy to sneak in in any part of the ground and 100's of us did regularly, that Liverpool game had far more in attendance than the official 37,000 sell outs of that era, gives me goose pimples just thinking about standing in the East/Park End during those big games

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, wood_red said:

Definitely. I know a couple of Sags who are more interested in our result than theirs, when I questioned them and sais how bizarre it was I got the reply "yeah, but we know we're sh1t". 

Yep, they’re actually proud of it.

No wonder they play their games in a ground made up of sheds and tents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, RedRock said:

Rumour was that it was 41,000! WOW, didn't know that!

‘Ramming’ was the method that achieved that number. 

Managed to get in earlyish,, so wasn’t too bad in that part of the East End I was stood. Late comers were the one’s who suffered I think. Know a few that were turned away when the gates were closed before the start of the match. 

I was in the enclosure, stood on my metal tube stool that dad made me, right by the wall of the tunnel. At one point dad said he put me on the wall but I can't remember that. It must have been stupidly rammed and i was there but can't remember it, the old man must have been aware of it though. I'll have to ask him.

Edited by Ska Junkie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Ska Junkie said:

I was in the enclosure, stood on my metal tube stool that dad made me, right by the wall of the tunnel. At one point dad said he put me on the wall but I can't remember that. It must have been stupidly rammed and i was there but can't remember it, the old man must have been aware of it though. I'll have to ask him.

Must have been about 5 yards away from you !

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, RedRock said:

Rumour was that it was 41,000! 

‘Ramming’ was the method that achieved that number. 

Managed to get in earlyish,, so wasn’t too bad in that part of the East End I was stood. Late comers were the one’s who suffered I think. Know a few that were turned away when the gates were closed before the start of the match. 

In my opinion the attendance was much higher than the official 38,000+.

It was bedlam that day.

The Police numbers were high, but insufficient to deter ticketless chancers from both clubs, many of whom got in one way or another, before or during couse of the game (when security eased off).

I was in the East End, which was packed to the rafters (literally!) Older members will remember the climbers who would shin up the steel girders and watch the game sat astride the cross-beams; usually getting nabbed by the Old Bill at the end of the game.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Peter O Hanraha-hanrahan said:

Yep, they’re actually proud of it.

No wonder they play their games in a ground made up of sheds and tents.

That must be sheeads then! 

They keep moaning on when things go wrong that it must be because we're in the crowd. That is slipping Bob the gateman a fiver. Obsessed or what.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Swede said:

That must be sheeads then! 

They keep moaning on when things go wrong that it must be because we're in the crowd. That is slipping Bob the gateman a fiver. Obsessed or what.

It does make you think what they would have to live for if, God forbid, we did go under.

Their sad lives would cease to have any meaning or purpose and they would have nothing to dream of in their empty lives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ska Junkie said:

I was in the enclosure, stood on my metal tube stool that dad made me, right by the wall of the tunnel. At one point dad said he put me on the wall but I can't remember that. It must have been stupidly rammed and i was there but can't remember it, the old man must have been aware of it though. I'll have to ask him.

I used to sit on the wall right next to the away dugout when I was a kid - mid 80s, with my old man and his mates about a third up the stand. There used to be a really loud kid who must have been about 10, that wasn't you was it..... I was there a few years and then went to eastend right behind the goal about half way up (when i was old enough to go with mates) - great times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, RedRock said:

Rumour was that it was 41,000! 

‘Ramming’ was the method that achieved that number. 

Managed to get in earlyish,, so wasn’t too bad in that part of the East End I was stood. Late comers were the one’s who suffered I think. Know a few that were turned away when the gates were closed before the start of the match. 

I remember reading that it was estimated at 41k, and that some gates were forced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Galway Red said:

For us kids it was so easy to sneak in in any part of the ground and 100's of us did regularly, that Liverpool game had far more in attendance than the official 37,000 sell outs of that era, gives me goose pimples just thinking about standing in the East/Park End during those big games

I am intrigued as to how you managed this.

I seem to recall there was something loose at the back of the East End, but only saw a few crawling under there on rare occasions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, wood_red said:

I used to sit on the wall right next to the away dugout when I was a kid - mid 80s, with my old man and his mates about a third up the stand. There used to be a really loud kid who must have been about 10, that wasn't you was it..... I was there a few years and then went to eastend right behind the goal about half way up (when i was old enough to go with mates) - great times.

No mate, I was 10 when we hit the top table and would have been in my late teens by the mid 80's! ;) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PHILINFRANCE said:

I am intrigued as to how you managed this.

I seem to recall there was something loose at the back of the East End, but only saw a few crawling under there on rare occasions.

In th EE it was either over the top of the gates at the back of EE or over the walls and under the barbed wire in either of the toilets, if that failed just speed through under the turnstile, we had other ways of getting into Dolman and Park End, it really was easy with stewards and OB not really bothered

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...