North stand stewards AGAIN

[Dirk Gently]

So if the SoS is insisting, then surely it is enforcable?

Therein lies the paradox - it is unenforceable and everyone knows it. Small groups of people can be made to sit, but a large group (especially of away fans) who are determined to stand cannot be made to do so. But safety officers have to be seen to try to do so .... and it leaves them in an invidious position and just leads to endless conflict.

All of this just further supports the case for safe-standing areas .... and one of the main beneficiaries of safe-standing areas will be people who don't want to stand themselves.

 

[Superphil]

Why bother. We want the best atmosphere we can at the Amex. No-one is in danger. Anyone who wants to sit behind a goal can move to the South. The North Stand drives the atmosphere - let them get on with it.

In principal I 100% agree with every sentiment around standing at football matches, I would want a safe standing area in the 1901 section if it became allowed in the English game. However, for now, that is not the case, and there is no point people getting on high horses about the club trying to enforce the Act. Behaving like they are at the moment is only going to make the stewards get more officious, and the club more pissed off, thus escalating the problem further. The club has to get these planning applications through, there will be many people objecting, and trying to find any excuse to derail the process, anything the club can do to prove the Amex is 100% in line with regulations and the Act is a good thing.

We all know the stewards won't tell you to sit down during exciting parts of the match, and we have plenty of them at the Amex, and there has been tolerance of the back 4 rows standing.

That is tolerance, something that should be a two-way thing.

The persistence of standing, and the refusal to comply with requests, as well as the recent escalation of standing in front of the back 4 rows, and the general barracking and baiting aimed at the stewards does you no favours.

A bit of decorum, some appreciation of what the Club has to do to meet its obligations, and some common sense should make it a win-win situation, at the moment, those in danger of being thrown out or banned will be winning nothing.

 

[Storer 68]

The Football Spectators Act 1989, I though that is a law, if not then I stand corrected. The legislation around standing derives from the Football Spectators Act, under which the Secretary of State has the power to insist that certain grounds are all-seated. Initially, all Football League stadia were to be included; this was amended to include just the top two divisions.

So if the SoS is insisting, then surely it is enforcable?

Sorry Phil, but its now the Football Spectators and Sports ground act 2008. Follwed on from the Football (Disorder) Act 2000.

 

[Storer 68]

Therein lies the paradox - it is unenforceable and everyone knows it. Small groups of people can be made to sit, but a large group (especially of away fans) who are determined to stand cannot be made to do so. But safety officers have to be seen to try to do so .... and it leaves them in an invidious position and just leads to endless conflict.

All of this just further supports the case for safe-standing areas .... and one of the main beneficiaries of safe-standing areas will be people who don't want to stand themselves.

Bigger clubs than us (including Manchester United) have had parts of their grounds closed because of persistent standing.

Safe standing areas take up too much space (because they would need to be converted to seating for any UEFA designated game such as the Kombi system) and are quite expensive to install, compared to just bypassing the issue by istalling seats..

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

In principal I 100% agree with every sentiment around standing at football matches, I would want a safe standing area in the 1901 section if it became allowed in the English game. However, for now, that is not the case, and there is no point people getting on high horses about the club trying to enforce the Act. Behaving like they are at the moment is only going to make the stewards get more officious, and the club more pissed off, thus escalating the problem further. The club has to get these planning applications through, there will be many people objecting, and trying to find any excuse to derail the process, anything the club can do to prove the Amex is 100% in line with regulations and the Act is a good thing.

I doubt the fact that more rows are standing than the Club said they will tolerate is going to derail anything. It looks like scare-mongering.

And I am in the East - and very happy to be there. No problems with the stewards in the Respect stand. I just look across and wonder why the Club are forcing conflict when at the end of the season it can all be easily resolved. It looks madness to me.

 

[Dirk Gently]

Bigger clubs than us (including Manchester United) have had parts of their grounds closed because of persistent standing.

Safe standing areas take up too much space (because they would need to be converted to seating for any UEFA designated game such as the Kombi system) and are quite expensive to install, compared to just bypassing the issue by istalling seats..

Not sure home stands have been closed (although it's been threatened many times) - the main targets have been redcuing away allocations, and that has happened many times and still happens.

But safe-standing areas allow 1.8 times the number of supporters standing rather than sitting (according to Green Guide specifciations). So while, yes, you lose 20% capacity in every European match, you gain 80% capacity in every other match. Saying they "take up too much space" sounds like the tail wagging the dog to me......

Installation cost isn't that high - especially in a ground where you're not converting but are installing from new in previously unused areas.

 

[c0lz]

Well those who want to risk match bans by continually standing up good luck, we all new that the club would allow the last four rows in the north would be able to stand when purchasing our seasons tickets but this offer by the club is now being abused by to many fans thinking its there right to now stand.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

we all knew that the club would allow the last four rows in the north would be able to stand when purchasing our seasons tickets but this offer by the club is now being abused by too many fans thinking its their right to now stand.

Did you really think only the last four rows of the North Stand would stand ?

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Well those who want to risk match bans by continually standing up good luck, we all new that the club would allow the last four rows in the north would be able to stand when purchasing our seasons tickets but this offer by the club is now being abused by to many fans thinking its there right to now stand.

It will be interesting to see how many people come on here moaning when they get a seasons ban for standing.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

It will be interesting to see how many people come on here moaning when they get a seasons ban for standing.

Oh how we'll laugh .................

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Oh how we'll laugh .................

Laugh ? Probably not. Instead we could consider what a prized plonker they must be to get a ban because of their inability to sit on their backside for a few minutes when asked.

 

[rippleman]

On stewarding...........

The Forest stewards at least seemed to get it the right way around! They totally ignored the standing home fans and instead tried to grief the life out of us visiting supporters.

At the Amex, the stewards appear to have taken to griefing our own fans whilst making no attempt to seat the visiting supporters!

I'm personally all for standing; I'd not care if I never saw another seat in a football stadium ever again. But that isn't the way it is, or is going to be.

Like it or not we have to sit (apart from back four rows in the North Stand where there appears to be a quasi-official dispensation), and if that is the clubs dictat, then the stewards must enforce it. But I can't believe the club has issued an instruction to enforce sitting in the North Stand but has also told the stewards that the away fans can do exactly as they please!

The stewarding will continue to be an issue until they are -seen- to be enforcing sitting down by the away supporters.

Could I please ask the stewards who post on here whether they have received official instruction not to police the away fans, or if they have just decided themselves to ignore the constant and persistent standing in the South Stand.

One policy - universally and consistently enforced. Is that too much to expect?

 

[Dirk Gently]

See the above posts. It's impossible to force large numbers to sit down if they don't want to. Even more so if they are away fans where you don't have the weapons of clubs bans, etc. Clubs would love to stop away fans standing - but can't. Forest is a case in point, where to acheive what they did there was significant grief and confrontation.

And that's the way life is. If you're going down the motorway at 70 and someone zooms past you at 100 mph, does that legitimise you doing 100 too?

 

[NMH]

They could also conceivably draw a softer line and simply turn a blind eye. Like they do to the away fans, and like they do to the back four rows. Like other clubs do.

The stadium has been a massive success. Permission to get more seats is not going to hang on whether more rows than the Club originally said they would tolerate are standing up. The only way it will be an issue is if the Club make it one.

So to lay some guilt trip on the North Stand makes your argument look weak.

Not many people (other than apparently you) give a flying f*** whether you were a steward. I just want a happy, lively stadium, where we create a good atmosphere to support the team. The stewarding had been excellent, and everything has been working. Why change it ? Particularly when those that want to sit behind a goal will be able to do so.

Everybody wants a happy lively stadium and you can bet that a lot of people including me would be quite pleased for an allowed standing area!
Yeah, I'd probably like to watch from a designated standing section too sometimes (perhaps not always, but that's personal preference).
You can rag on all you like about stewards or one in particular or whatever, but since the ground rules require seating in an all seater stadium - it doesn't bloody matter if one group gets away with more standing than another, people just need to go with the rules as set out, as and where asked. Stewards don't have a load of jolly 'fun' repetitively asking fans to sit, and especially not if they adopt a nose-thumbing attitude.
As has been said by others as well, playing ball with the stewards isn't like going like sheep to the slaughter, it's a wiser compromise to just find a common ground that works with all the rules and the flexibility they might allow for (such as rising for the exciting moments, then sitting when the ball is just being worked around the midfield etc).

You ask about the club "why instigate a battle?" while several others are asking the same of the supporters. There have been some concessions made in our new home (i.e. the standing in back four rows), but now you are saying "well that was never going to work!"
It's a no win, talking to people like you who will always take a stance like that.

As much as some (including me) would like there to be designated standing - there isn't designated standing. Figure it out, try to think.

 

[NMH]

See the above posts. It's impossible to force large numbers to sit down if they don't want to. Even more so if they are away fans where you don't have the weapons of clubs bans, etc. Clubs would love to stop away fans standing - but can't. Forest is a case in point, where to acheive what they did there was significant grief and confrontation.

And that's the way life is. If you're going down the motorway at 70 and someone zooms past you at 100 mph, does that legitimise you doing 100 too?

Yes, I want to do 100mph if someone else is doing it. The other guy doing it will be my excuse if I get pulled over.
And when there's an accident, I want to blame the local authorities - see them held responsible and punished by their overseeing bodies.

 

[Tooting Gull]

The Forest stewards at least seemed to get it the right way around! They totally ignored the standing home fans and instead tried to grief the life out of us visiting supporters.

?

Same at Middlesbrough this season.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

There have been some concessions made in our new home (i.e. the standing in back four rows),

As much as some (including me) would like there to be designated standing - there isn't designated standing.

and

Figure it out, try to think.

Hard to imagine someone so patronising dealing with the general public.

 

[NMH]

and

Hard to imagine someone so patronising dealing with the general public.

Shall I type slower for you as well?
There is not DESIGNATED standing. There were some 'concessions'. Is that still difficult?
Yes, patronising dealing with your response, and patronising here. I am not on here to win you over, just as you will never be to win me over. YOU won't even admit to anything or concede anything anyone says that doesn't suit your stance on the matter.

I also teach

 

[Superphil]

There were no concessions to standing, only tolerance, which seems to have been rather one-sided.

Some poeple are also ignoring the clubs requests not to park in Coldean or Moulscoomb. Oh well, let's just hope none of this ever comes back to bite us

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

Shall I type slower for you as well?
There is not DESIGNATED standing. There were some 'concessions'. Is that still difficult?
Yes, patronising dealing with your response, and patronising here. I am not on here to win you over, just as you will never be to win me over. YOU won't even admit to anything or concede anything anyone says that doesn't suit your stance on the matter.

I also teach

You know nothing about me. I have no idea why you think I could never be persuaded. I am happy to be persuaded on issues by sound argument and explanation of issues and aspects I may have misunderstood or not appreciated.

Funnily enough - if I am told to "try to think" or somone tells me they are going to type slower it tends to make me think they do not have the strongest argument and in fact have not really thought through what they are saying.

Anyway thanks to those like Superphil and westdene who can discuss an issue in a civil manner.

I am sure the issue will all be sorted. The club get more things right than otherwise.