Talk:Heysel Stadium disaster
|Heysel Stadium disaster received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.|
|A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on May 29, 2010, May 29, 2012, and May 29, 2014.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 Need Attribution of Quotes
- 2 Opening Paragraph
- 3 Cause of deaths?
- 4 2005 Juventus vs. Liverpool tie
- 5 Historiography
- 6 Inquiries
- 7 Article is worse now
- 8 Names
- 9 Grammar in opening sentence
- 10 ROMA-LIVERPOOL
- 11 "Reds Animals" Banner
- 12 fans of clubs to be members to get tickets
- 13 Factual Error
- 14 Bradford
- 15 Teams affected by the ban
- 16 Aftermath has a confusing entry
- 17 UEFA's role in thhis mash-up
- 18 Why did only Italians die and not a single English "fan"?
- 19 There was no english club involved in the 2010 Final
- 20 Thirty-nine Juventus supporters ?
- 21 Missing controversy on Belgian authorities
- 22 Brussels Mayor
Need Attribution of Quotes
"Liverpool players and fans later said that they were shocked at the abject conditions of the ground, despite reports from Arsenal fans that the stadium was a "dump" when the Gunners played there a few years earlier." Is this part of the citation in the sentence immediately following? Or is it from another source? This needs attribution. Zminer (talk) 16:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
"...The disaster is one of the most high profile and one of the worst cases of football hooliganism in European and world football..." - Says who? Surely this kind of statement needs to be cited? Andy86 (talk) 14:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Cause of deaths?
I've seen a few edits now that state that the main cause of death was suffocation from being trampled on. I have reverted the edit in question as it was not sourced, and neither have I ever read this from a reputable website. Could someone please point me to the relevent source, if indeed there is one? Cheers, aLii 23:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm the one who stated that the cause of the disaster was not a wall collapsing on top of the crowd but rather the immense pressure from a fleeing crowd that caused a wall to collapse, most victims suffocated in the crowd crush that caused the wall to collapse. So in fact most of the deaths had already occurred when the wall gave in. I'm from Belgium and know rather well what happened there. If one goes to the Dutch Wikipedia page on the same subject you will find that I am in fact correct as the facts stated there are the same as what I said. Unfortunately there is little chance you actually speak dutch. But I have come to realize, in search of a reputable source, that US articles on the disaster usually misstate the facts. The wall did not collapse on top of them. The victims were either trampled to death or suffocated from compression asphyxiation. Please contact the administrators on the Dutch Wikipedia for a translation of the article they have. That gives a far more complete and correct representation of the disaster.  --Marjolijn 15:16, 11 Oktober 2007 (CET)
- I found this video in which one can clearly see the accident as it happens. Especially the crowd crush that caused the deaths. I apologize for using an Italian spoken video, which I know is against Wikipedia policy. But the words aren't important. I which to use the images to clarify the events that occurred. This one simply had the best angles and quality and most full depiction of the tragedy. WARNING FOR EXTREMELY GRAPHIC IMAGES. Pay attention to the crushing crowd on the left side of the screen. You can clearly see the people trapped against the wall on the left and against the fences bordering the playing field on the bottom of the screen. Suffocating (gasping for breath and bluish lips and skin) and clearly in distress. They are pinned down and cannot escape unless pulled free. The wall has not collapsed yet on these images. But it is clear that the wall did not and never did collapse on the crowd. The crowd is pinned up against it. It eventually fell down onto a lower level (clear of crowd) and most importantly it fell away from the crowd. Again I warn for Graphic images. But this gross error should be corrected. It's a disgrace to the memory of the victims and survivors.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 21:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
The article mentions tha the Stadium was of poor maintenance, but still we call a such statement as a "citation needed". For some reason, it had a status as a National Stadium, but anyone at that time with the least concern of safety, would stay clear of that stadium. That is without mentioning who were going to play at this venue. A high number of casualties does not belong to hooliganism in it's own capacity. I am just watching a documentary on hooliganism in Krakow. Please don't tell Gazza that he looks like a hippie.(220.127.116.11 (talk) 23:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC))
2005 Juventus vs. Liverpool tie
I still don't understand why mention of match details is particularly relevant to the Heysel Stadium disaster? Sure mention the final score, but goal-scorers, and bad refereeing decisions seem to be taking it a bit too far.
- Friendship gestures and how they were received by Juventus fans is relevant.
- Crowd violence is relevant, as this is an article about crowd violence.
- The score is relevant, seeing as the match is mentioned.
Could you please explain why "although there was controversy since Juventus were disallowed a legit goal" is relevant? I can't even remember that a goal was disallowed. All I remember of the tie was that Liverpool won deservedly, and that Juventus were surprisingly poor in the match in Turin — neither of which are mentioned, and rightly so. aLii 19:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- you can read the link I supplied (Guardian transcript). Del Piero scored a perfectly legitimate header and the goal was disallowed. This is a fact that happened (not a question of memory I believe). The small relevance is because this goal was crucial for the final result. The BIG relevance is because controversy is mentioned about the original match in Heysel. What's the relevance that the penalty was supposedly undeserved to the disaster ? None. None of the riots happened because of the result... the riots were before the match , and there doesn't seem to be any relevance between the disaster and the alleged controversy in the heysel match. So as I see it, to remain WP:NPOV here, there are two choices. Either remove the criticizm over the penalty in heysel, or include this controversy as well - it shows that Juventus did not earn unjustly and that Livperpool eventually gained from a bad referre decision as well, all this in context of Juve Liverpool relations (there might have been hostile feelings over both results because of the bad referrering, and this might affect the future too) . Amoruso 21:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- I've taken out the two NPOV bits, which I found distasteful as well as unencyclopedic. --Guinnog 21:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- Fair enough, removing both is probably the correct thing to do. I can't say I wrote that bit, and I've never seen the 1985 game, so can't comment, but like Guinnog implies; Who cares about the (1985) match? It can be written up in a match article if someone does. aLii 00:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
- I've taken out the two NPOV bits, which I found distasteful as well as unencyclopedic. --Guinnog 21:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
The standard historiography is that it was Juventus fans who caused Liverpool fans to surge towards the Juventus congregation. Juve started the throwing material from the stadium, rubble, terrace poles, etc.
Liverpool fans moving towards Juve fans caused pressure on an aging wall, this wall collapsed, as the pressure of the Juve fans against it.
The article needs a great deal of attention as it is heavily biased, and flies in the face of the standard historiography. Londo06 05:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- The article is pretty well sourced, can you provide some sources to back your version of events? May I also point out that most Italians that visit this article this that this version is biased towards Liverpool. aLii 14:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- How about from those who were actually there? I was right in the thick of things in Block Z and I remember Heysel as if it were yesterday. Reading some of the posts on there make me wonder if I reading about another football disaster other then the one that I was at. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MalcolmSm1th (talk • contribs) 16:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I feel the article does not go deeply enough into the accepted version of events, being the cyclical series of events, Juve - Liverpool - Juve. That is accepted, and proved by television footage. Alexsanderson83 09:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't watch the match on TV, and have seen no (good) sources that claim to know such a definitive version of what happened, and who started what. I've read that Liverpool fans started the disruptions. I've also read that Juve fans started it. I've seen no definitive proof either way, hence the vagueness of the article. If someone can find such proof, then it can be added to the article. aLii 10:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Accepted version is that Juve fans instigated the problems, Liverpool fans fought back, and were forced back, this pushed the Liverpool fans towards another section of Juve fans. The end result a wall collapsing on Juve fans. Juve fans dead, meant that the initial UEFA stance was one sided. This is the view of academics and authorities alike. No group of fans blameless, but Juve fans, be the extreme elements or not, did start the problems. Liverpool fans reacted, no doubt. But the accepted academic viewpoint is that Juventus fans were more at fault than the Liverpool fans, the deciding factor was that Juve fans died. Londo06 11:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
" the accepted academic viewpoint is that Juventus fans were more at fault than the Liverpool fans"..... by who? not the Liverpool supporting Rogan somebody or other is it? I think it is ithe reverse, most sources I've seen hold that Liverpool fans were far more culpable, considering the Scouse gits knocked the wall down! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 06:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, lets go through the various sources already cited on the page;
- The Times: Our day of shame: A Liverpool fan recalls how events spiralled out of control
- "on the terraces there was an exchange of missiles"
- LiverpoolFC.tv - Liverpool FC official website
- "both sets of fans baited each other through a segregating fence made from chicken wire. After a sustained period of missiles raining down on the Reds end, some Liverpool fans charged at their Italian counterparts and as chaos took over"
- The Times: Night of mayhem in Brussels that will never be forgotten
- "Italians in that section pelted the Liverpool supporters with missiles. In response, the English charged at them and breached the fence."
- The Guardian: Liverpool still torn over night that shamed their name
- "Many accounts, including the club's version on its website, cite missile throwing by Italian fans as the spark for violence, a claim contested by other eye-witnesses, but the broad facts are uncontested."
- The Guardian: Lost lives that saved a sport
- "As the kick-off drew nearer, Liverpool fans began to shower the 'Italian' fans with beer cans, stones, with whatever came to hand. When the 'Italians' responded in kind, the enraged Liverpool fans stormed the no mans' land and the fencing and found, to their surprise, they had free rein."
- The Guardian: The Witnesses
- Otello Lorentini (Juve fan): "I was relaxing, reading a newspaper, when I saw a single English hooligan. He jumped over a small fence and came charging towards us. Then, many more followed. They had lumps of terrace concrete, Coke bottles, beer bottles, rocks and even knifes. Everyone panicked."
- Simone Stenti (Juve fan): "When the Liverpool players came out to greet their fans before the game, I could not believe what I saw. A rocket was fired into our sector and two Liverpool players applauded. I thought they were appreciating the fans’ enthusiasm. But, then a second rocket was fired at us and the same two players clapped. I have my father to thank for my life. When the first Liverpool supporter charged into the sector, my father said: ‘Let’s go.’ I did not want to, because this was the European Cup final. I said: ‘Don’t worry, the police will arrive and it will be fine.’
- Giancarlo Galavotti (Italian journalist): "The riot police were outside the stadium, those inside the sector ran once the Liverpool fans started to attack them, and at one point those on the pitch actually prevented people from escaping over the fencing."
- Bill Sergeant (Detective Chief Inspector, Merseyside police): "There have been suggestions that the trouble was initiated by a single fan, but I am rather sceptical of that." "In my opinion, the tragedy resulted from a drink-fuelled aggressive response by Liverpool ‘fans’ to what they felt was unacceptable behaviour by Juventus supporters. They did not believe the Belgian police were protecting them."
- The Times: Our day of shame: A Liverpool fan recalls how events spiralled out of control
- So, we can safely say that some English say that the Juve fans started it, but some don't, and also that the Italians say that the Liverpool fans started it. aLii 14:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- As you can see there is not good justification for stating that the trouble was started by Juventus fans. You should both read through Wikipedia:Attribution. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a publisher of original thought. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true. Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. In general, the most reliable sources are books and journals published by universities, mainstream newspapers, and magazines and journals that are published by known publishing houses. Hope this helps you to understand where I'm coming from, aLii 14:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Londo, seeing as you have provided zero sources to back your claims, I'm afraid I'm going to remove your tag again. Please state exactly which parts of the article you are in disagreement with, and then state exactly which source refutes it, and how it does. Note: that the journal articles are not viewable to me. Free sources should be available if it the completely "accepted version is that Juve fans instigated the problems." Cheers, aLii 15:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Article wants to go further for the blame. Hardcore Juve fans started throwing stadium material, Liverpool retaliated, Juve and Liverpool regulars both caught in the middle. The considered outcome is that the harcore Juve were more to blame than the Liverpool, and that the regular Liverpool did more than Juve fans. Will find sources to corroborate the facts, to which the academic community and the football community at large ascribe to. 22.214.171.124 13:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
The stuff written above is right, but I'm not sure there is much out there on the internet. There is loads on the written word front that basically tells it like it is; Juve Ultras -> Liverpool hardcore retaliate -> Juve and Liverpool fans clash and the result was dead Italians. Initial outlook meant for a whitewash. Following investigations show the standard explanation of events, once again as written above. 126.96.36.199 22:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Got journal articles and published works, just struggling to find free online accreditation. Stuff that can be accessed online requires my details. Will continue to look for the historically accepted version of events that are available for free on the internet. Probably have a good look one day this month. 188.8.131.52 19:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
The article sounds even worst since the last few edits. Sounds even more biased. Suggest someone find a free journal site to sort this page out. Londo06 19:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Whereas I'm still not even sure which way you are saying that the article is biased! Do you believe that it is biased against Liverpool fans? Or do you believe it is biased against Juventus fans? aLii 19:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- The insertion that was removed (or possibly earlier) made it even more biased against Liverpool.
All the internet journals that are out there are pay-only, and therefore not free. There is a common position - the accepted history that I and others have said. Londo06 19:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Accepted by whom? The English? I suggest that you read through the "bias problems" that this page has from the Italian perspective, see Talk:Heysel Stadium disaster/Archive 1. I'll list a few examples:
- Seriously, this article needs a complete rewrite. It's one of the worst examples of bias I've encountered on Wikipedia, and I've read quite a few (thousand). Well, I guess sh** happens if you write an article based on English newspapers covering an indicent caused by English hooliganism.
- I am on the opinion you mention the facts of Rome just to justify the terrible behaviour of the hooligans.
- It is not mentioned that the habitude of the English hooligans of “taking a curve” was absolutely unknown in Italy, so that most of the people simply had no idea about what was going on.
- The description“ The second leg in Turin was played against a backdrop of crowd trouble as Juventus fans clashed with police, attacked Liverpool supporters and threw missiles” does not represent what actually happened.
- The article also neglects to mention that Liverpool fans kept stabbing juventus supporters after the wall fell down. The article is biased and it wants people to think that it's all neutral, this is a trend ever since then.
- some of the criticism against officials for not investigating further does come off protective of the Liverpool fans.
- the author makes too much effort to lay blame on part of the Italian fans while minimising British hooligans involvement.
- You really should read through the whole Archive though. You'll notice that it was me that was arguing for Liverpool. I am a local Liverpool fan after all. I agree with the Italians that this article should be as unbiased as possible though, and laying blame where there is no proof will not help anyone's cause or standing. aLii 07:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Surprised no-one has mentioned the claim by Liverpool FC after the event, that it was National Front and Chelsea fans who were to blame, not Liverpool fans. It was a completely laughable excuse (not suprising to anyone who knows how Liverpool constantly try and blame everyone else for everything) but many Liverpool fans tried to spread this falsehood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 06:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
"UEFA, the organizer of the event, the owners of Heysel Stadium and the Belgian police were never investigated for culpability. There was no official inquiry into the causes of the disaster" is to the best of my knowledge not accurate. There was a parlementary inquiry in Belgium where heavy blame was put on the police and it was reorganised after this and other affairs. As far as UEFA is concerned, sporting organisations always seem to regard themselves as being above the law, so probably that is true. --Maarten1963 01:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Interesting. Got any belgian links to back that up? I (shamefully) only speak English. aLii 12:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Unfortunately I can't find the text of their report online anywhere, let alone an English version. For what it's worth here are a couple of sites in Dutch referring to it and the police reorganisation in particular that followed Heysel and Marc Dutroux:   A Belgian court case following Heysel is mentioned (in English :-) here:  --Maarten1963 17:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Article is worse now
Reads very differently from the current understanding of the events. The lack of free journal articles on the internet have seen this article become a bastardised version of events. Many scholars and academics would see this as a very limited examination of the events that led to the 39 deaths. Alexsanderson83 15:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- So improve it then. aLii 16:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
If the two frenchmen dead in Heysel are "Jacques François" and "Claude Robert", I must add that their names sound extremely common, too much I'd say. I sound like those name were invented just to preserve anonymity of their families. What are the sources ? 220.127.116.11 (talk) 15:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Grammar in opening sentence
"The Heysel Stadium disaster occurred owing to football hooliganism in which a retaining wall of the Heysel Stadium in Brussels collapsed on 29 May 1985 before a football match between Liverpool F.C. from England and Juventus F.C. from Italy."
Grammatically, that's not very good. Since when is hooliganism about walls collapsing? I know what you mean, because I know about the event, but if I didn't, I'd be scratching my head. The sentence is also overly long. The opening sentence is crucial. --Dweller (talk) 12:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
The Roma-Liverpool European Cup Final happened in 1984 in the city of Rome. Liverpool, the underdogs defeated Roma. Liverpool fans were victimised by disgruntled fans, public and police alike. There was resentment, or even a need to exact revenge amongst a small proportion of Liverpool fans. The ECF of 1985 had a sense of tension about it - Liverpool fans expecting a confrontation with Italian fans again. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 23:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)22.214.171.124 (talk) 23:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC) So it's definitely relevant.
I hate Liverpool but this article is a joke. The "background" portion should be heavily expanded as it once was!!!! The italians were horrendous to English fans in the streets after the 1984 final. So bad there were reports of fans taking refuge in the British Embassy. I don't agree with Liverpool's fans behavior at the 1985 final. But can you blame them for desire to stand up for themselves at Heysel against the true animals, the italian fans????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 16:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
The Liverpool fans had been drinking for days, and they were looking for a confrontation. I was in Rome in 1984 and the story about Romans beating up on the Brits is simply not true. There too the British fans were drunk out of their minds looking for confrontation and harassing the Italians. In Brussels the people in sector Z were families, expatriates wanting to have a family day cheering on an Italian team, like is done in Italy where families go to the stadium all the time. A lot of the deaths were caused by crushing, but some were caused by the Brits beating the Italians and worst. Also, the reason the Italians were fleeing up against the wall was because the Belgian police had blocked the way to the field. Had they not done that most of the deaths would have been prevented. However, the main point I wanted to make is to somehow try to equate the level of violent intention and action of the Italians to the British is rewriting history and completely inaccurate. If you do not believe me look up the level of drinking and violence in British football stadiums at the time and Italian ones during the regular season. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pearl2525 (talk • contribs) 02:29, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
"Reds Animals" Banner
In the midst of the tragedy when the wall had collapsed and bodies were being carried away on makeshift stretchers, some Juventus fans unfolded a long banner with the words "REDS ANIMALS" emblazoned on it. Such a banner was made prior to the match. It illustrated the tension between sections of both sets of supporters prior to the game, adding to it's volatility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 18:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
fans of clubs to be members to get tickets
This is, quite frankly, complete rubbish, at no English club is this applicable, it is however in the Netherlands. This article is poorly written, and poorly researched. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 12:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Please detail where it states in UK Law where fans had to become members of clubs to obtain tickets?
In section 4.3 "Teams affected by the ban", in the second table, it says that Arsenal missed out on the 1993-4 Cup Winners' Cup. Not only did they compete that year, they won it.220.127.116.11 (talk) 16:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Do you have a source to back this up?Drew Smith What I've done 05:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Is it worth mentioning somewhere how soon this happened after the Bradford fire disaster? I know the causes were different, but the conjunction of the two disasters made for a very dark time in English football. Rachel Pearce (talk) 08:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Teams affected by the ban
This table in this article claims that in the first three years of the UEFA ban on English clubs that five teams from the country would have entered the UEFA Cup each season. This is nonsense, under normal circumstances the maximum number of teams who could enter the UEFA Cup from one country was four. The only way in which a country could have five teams was if the winners of the UEFA Cup did not re-qualify for the following years tournament through their own domestic league, in which case they were allowed to re-enter the tournament to defend it along with the other four qualifiers from that country. England did have five teams in the 1984-85 UEFA Cup, but that is the explanation for this, Tottenham had won the 1984 UEFA Cup but only finished eighth in the First Division so re-entered as holders. The League Cup winners such as Norwich City were not additional fifth entrants either, they would take the fourth UEFA Cup spot. Chelsea would not have contested the 1985-86 UEFA Cup and they shouldnt be listed there, and there are similar errors for the following two seasons as well. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 19:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I noticed this as well, I was wondering where England's magically inflated UEFA Cup entries were coming from for those two seasons. Seems nothings getting done about it though. Seems somebody just took a look at the leagues tables for each year and just made it up from there. Who says Wikipedia is unrealible eh? 22.214.171.124 (talk) 07:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Aftermath has a confusing entry
One of the lines in Aftermath says: "source Date: 20/05/2005 Section : SPORTS Section: SPORTS Sous Section : FOOTBALL Sub Section: FOOTBALL www.dhnet.be/dhjournal/archive" I have no clue what this is trying to say, or if its a broken reference/citation. Can anyone clean it up? Coradon (talk) 09:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
UEFA's role in thhis mash-up
Are we being PC for not mentioning UEFA's decissions? Liverpool was very critical for the standards of this stadium, and wanted a different stadium. Calling Heysel a National Stadium is a request for trouble.
- UEFA's decisions should be mentioned yes but I have no idea why you regard the term "neutral supporters" as "PC". The term refers to supporters in the stadium who support neither club involved in the game but who have simply gone along to watch the match out of interest. This is nothing unusual, there are such spectators at every cup final of every kind, the FA for instance keep a large of number of tickets back for neutrals for the FA Cup final, 200 are sent to each of the 92 football league clubs every year. European Cup finals were always attended by a large number of locals simply interested in watching such a big final when it was staged on their doorstep. Some people just like to watch football. If you doubt that search for Heysel on the web and you'll find plenty of recollections of neutral Belgians who were at the game. In fact one of the people killed was an Englishman who was a neutral, he wasn't a Liverpool fan, he happened to be living in Brussels and just bought a ticket for the game. The problem at Heysel was a large number of tickets for the neutral section were actually sold to Juventus fans on the day of the game so there was a sizable Juventus contingent next to the Liverpool fans, which wasn't supposed to happen. In fact it was a major contributing factor in the disaster. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 07:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Why did only Italians die and not a single English "fan"?
The answer is simple and clearcut: All excuses and stupid apologizes such as " the stadium was not suitable for a European Cup final" are typical British politeness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 20:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Try reading the article (in English or any other language). The Belgians themselves stated that the stadium was not suitable for a European Cup final. Put away your xenophobia and learn something instead. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 14:04, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Sorry,but the answer is NOT 'simple and clearcut' I was at the game and the stadium was a complete joke. It was in extremely poor state of repair...fans were entering the stadium ticketless through holes in the wall and ticket checking at the gate was limited to say the least. I have attended better organised non-league games. Secondly 'the English were the aggressors and killed the Juve fans' shows a simplicity beyond belief. This flies in the face of accepted facts. Yes, English fans DID charge at Juve fans that I do not dispute but there are many conflicting reports as to WHY they did. But what is clear is what actually killed the Italian fans was the crush that led to the wall collapsing. As an additional point,police had been goading and provoking Liverpool fans the previous night for no readily apparent reason, with many fans (including myself and my companions) to take shelter from their swinging batons in local bars and businesses.
Perhaps the Belgian police were "harassing" the Liverpool fans the night before because they were drunk and loud. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pearl2525 (talk • contribs) 02:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
As far as it is right now, this article is a total disgrace. Is shallow, incomplete, a piece of disinformation which fails to address anything that is a bit more complex and does everything possible to try to convince that Liverpool fans had no blame to this. One who doesn't know about this before reading the article will even wonder why English clubs were punished so heavily if nothing serious happened, according to this piece of rubbish. The role of the authorities and the stadium conditions played little or even no part on this. The lack of information, background, possible causes, aftermath, is even rare in the major articles at Wikipedia. Just look at the Hillsborough Disaster article, a similar event with a proper decently written article, and compare to the size of this, which would be even smaller if it wasn't for two useless lists of the names of the people who died and the English clubs who missed European competitions in the forthcoming years who seem to be there just to disguise the small amount of information contained in this. I visited this page one year ago and this page was much more complete and less biased, but looks like a Liverpool fan here came and edited it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 08:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
There was no english club involved in the 2010 Final
There is a section titled "Consequences for football in England".
The last sentence says: "Further, English sides reached the final for 6 consecutive seasons between 2004/05 and 10/11 – Liverpool in 2005 and 2007, Arsenal in 2006, Manchester United in 2008, 2009 and 2011, and Chelsea in 2008." It' simply not true, because there was no english club in the 2010 UEFA Champions League Final.
He never said there was a english team at 2010 UEFA Champions league final :-s i think he has just misused the word "consecutive" as he goes on to state the years the english teams reached the finals and does not mention 2010.
Thirty-nine Juventus supporters ?
I thought it had been established that not all of those who died were Juventus supporters, or Italian. Shouldn't this be reflected in the text of the article? Gwladys24 (talk) 19:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Of the 39 dead 32 were Italians, 4 Belgians , 2 French and 1 Irish, so yeah 7 were not Italian. Give me a break.
As of today, the article contains statements as plain as "It concluded that blame should rest solely with the English fans.". I find the article too much one-sided. As conclusive as reports were on blaming the english, still belgian authorities are to blame for their failure to foresee the disaster, and their slow response to it. Authorities are always expected to be smarter than fans, you know. But don't take my word for it - take the facts. Controversy about belgian authorities behavior _did_ exist. I remember the english ministry speaking before the Commons, showing them a copy of a letter sent in advance to belgian authorities offering cooperation to avoid precisely this type of conflicts - an offer for cooperation which was said to be ignored. I watched this on spanish TV news on 1985, on the days following the disaster. So even tough afterwards official reports focused the blame on english fans (hooligans, I heard they are called), at the first moment it was belgian authorities who were widely criticised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ignacio.Agulló (talk • contribs) 18:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
I am quite sure that Freddy Thielemans was not the Brussels Mayor at the time of the disaster. In my recollection, Hervé Brouhon was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 14:33, 10 July 2014 (UTC)