Paul Barber's programme article about standing

[birthofanorange]

Yes, I sat in them as a kid - until I became a North stand reject and stood up.

 

[HovaGirl]

Yes, I sat in them as a kid - until I became a North stand reject and stood up.

When were you a kid?

And by North Stand reject I mean people like my brother and my son, who sat respectively in the West and East, (having rejected the North for various reasons) but really rather wishing they were in the North. Now, they both scream from the North. (Brother stands, son sits, but nowhere near each other.)

 

[bring_zamora_home]

All the palace fans were standing and from half way up you could'nt even see the stairs which is a massive no no at any other ground and I'm sure brakes a lot of rules maybe sort the away fans out first and leave the home fans that pay all the money alone

 

[westy]

OK, remind me. Were there seats at The Goldstone in the 1970s? (I didn't go to matches for years after that because I was raising the children.)

West upper, South rear.

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

Just got around to reading it. Very fair and reasoned comments. Basically he is saying SIT DOWN and giving all the reasons why it is necessary.

So the message to our North Stand fans is clear, and I thoroughly endorse it:
- Sit Down
- Stop assaulting stewards ... what kind of scummy Albion fans assault our own stewards?

I was always 100% for standing for games, but you know what, I've got used to sitting and it doesn't lessen my enjoyment of the game.

I guess you North Standers who won't sit down need to piss off and find another club to support. Crawley is just up the A23, Worthing to the west, Lewes to the east. Go and watch their brand of football and you can stand for the entire game. But please don't continue to stand at the Amex, assault our stewards, endanger our safety certificates and cost the club unnecessary money.

You might not like it, but unfortunately you're going to have to accept that this is the way it's going to be.

you're either ON A FISHING TRP OR A BELLEND which one is it
regards
DR

 

[goldstone]

Barber did address the issue of away fans standing saying something along the lines of them not being expected to know the rules at our stadium, whereas home fans do (or should) know the rules.

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

Barber did address the issue of away fans standing saying something along the lines of them not being expected to know the rules at our stadium, whereas home fans do (or should) know the rules.

simple simon says
regards
DR

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

Hovagirl has come out with this same old rubbish on the safe standing threads. Even though other posters blow her arguments out of the water, she continues with this same old rhetoric. I am genuinely confused as to her motives.

WOMEN AT FOOTBALL
regards
DR

 

[goldstone]

The best way for the standing community to get their wish to stand for most of the game is to ask Gus to play a more attacking brand of football. If we scored a goal every 10 minutes and you were able to stand for three minutes after every goal that would at least get you standing for 30 minutes!

 

[drew]

I wonder what would happen if the noise coming from the north stopped?
If for a few games the North did a sort of singing strike. All just sat down and didn't sing, I wonder if that would change people's minds about letting them stand. Then I bet barber wouldn't enforce the sitting anymore.

As others have said or implied, you need to get over yourself. This perpetual idea that the ground would be like a morgue if wasn't for the good souls in the NS who sing is getting beyond a joke.

I think like many fans I prefer to stand at a game rather than sit but until safe standing is introduced at stadiums it can be very selfish to persistently stand. Sunday was a prime example for me, I had to move to the west corner for health reasons and many people were standing for long periods, it was fine from my point of view but the old boy next to me, probably in his late seventies and with a walking stick missed large chunks of the game for me this is massively unfair.

This for me is why us fans need to lobby the FA and the club to open dialogue on the issue, as unfair it is to make fans sit when it is perfectly safe to we need to respect those less able and those who have a preference to sit.

I agree with this but unfortunately I don't think that some of those that are so vociferous about their perceived rights understand how more effective it would be to get the law changed rather than persist with a confrontation with the club.

WSU was good on Sunday but generally it got louder when alot of you lot are standing.
Also all this licence stuff is nonsense. Do Leeds, Old Trafford, lose their licence? Do they enforce sitting, no.
So why is Barber banging on about this when he doesn't have to?
Similarly, why does it bother others that don't go in the north? It's not your problem.

I think someone else alluded to the licence issue, ie that the Albion don't need to comply with the authorities in Greater Manchester or in Leeds! Also, it does affect other supporters. If the safety certificate is withdrawn or we don't have enough stewards to allow the match to proceed just because idiots in the NS take it out on them then the rest of us suffer.

You do realise there is a minimum number of stewards required to allow a match to go ahead don't you ? If that isn't hit then the match can't be played. On at least two occasions at Withdean the club came within one steward of having to have the match called off.

Captain Sensible take note. Or maybe you can ignore this as it does nothing to validate your arguments!!!!

[MENTION=268]Superphil[/MENTION] Fair enough, but sometimes when there is a lull in the atmos, the North keeps it ticking along until the rest of the ground starts singing. When the west is in full voice it blasts everything away, including noisey away fans.

Anyway for an end to this argument, see Trigaar's post. If Barber were to adopt this it would solve all the problems.

You continually ignore all the rules or requirements of the safety certificate.

No, no there isn't.

That is probably the biggest myth that is continually perpetuated about standing at football.

The Department for Culture, Media and Sport: "At no point has it been argued that the individual spectator commits a criminal offence by standing in a seated area"

It is only law the clubs (in the top 2 divisions) must supply a seat for all spectators. The law does not state that fans have to sit on them.

Semantics though really isn't it? The law requires the club to provide seating for all spectators and the safety certificate is on the basis that there is no persistent standing which itself then forms part of the ground regulations.

This whole dispute could have easily been avoided if the club had never stated when originally selling season tickets for the Amex we will turn a blind eye to people standing in the last 4 rows of the North Stand which they should never have done or state the travel tax as separate to a season ticket price.

Hindsight is of course and exact science. I agree with what you say and no doubt the club would not have said that had they been aware of what the demand would have been for tickets but of course they were (or so we were told) budgeting for much smaller crowds.

The police would tell the club to get stuffed as there is no law and, as such, it has nothing to do with the police at all. It's a civil matter between the fan and the club relating to the contract between the club and the fan that is formed when a ticket is purchased. Adherence to the Ground Regulations, which are devised and written by the club, are a term of that contract.

But, and as we have seen, if supporters don't adhere to the ground regulations and then abuse or assault the stewards, the Police can get involved in ejecting the fan. You also state the club devise and write the ground regs which suggest it is all their fault rather than the fact that a lot of the ground regs relate to laws and/or the conditions of the safety certificate issued by the local authority. A bit like saying that you're not allowed to smoke at work just because your employer put up a no smoking sign and not that they are required to do so by legislation!!!

Some good probing by you on this thread. It is strange how inarticulate the responses you have received about why people prefer to stand or why they think they're incapable of sitting and singing at the same time.

I agree in so much as I'm pro-safe standing and believe that it is inevitable that safe standing comes to championship football.

However, it won't appear at the Amex for a number of years to come. The club has paid for some very ice, comfy (and presumably expensive) seats and there isno waywe can afford to waste that money tripping them out and installing ss-seats. When the ground becomes old and tatty and due a refit the we might get it.

Also, the argument of more people per sq foot and therefore more money for the club (or lower prices) is completely invalid. The capacity of the ground is driven by structural features other than the number of seats (toilets, exits, etc) without which the club could increase capacity by shaving the gap between seats slightly and squeezing an extra seat or two onto every row. But the club doesn't because we can't afford the other things!!

I find the lack of comprehension of these two basic facts hard to fathom. Yes, we are a football club and are supporters not customers, but BHA is also a business and must operate as a successful Business or else we have no club to support. You may not like it but it is the cold hard reality that PB is faced with and whining over something that he cannot change is pathetic and not at all productive.

Throw your weight behind a national campaign to get changes at a national level, but know that the price of a nice new shinny stadium is it will stay as it is until it's an old tatty stadium!!

Well said. Unfortunately the likes of Captain Sensible can't accept this.


http://fsf.org.uk/assets/Uploads/Legalities-of-standing.pdf

As for the link to the FSA they very cleverly twist the words to suit their argument for safe standing.

-‘The Secretary of State may, by order, direct the licensing authority to include in any licence
to admit spectators to any specified premises a condition imposing requirements as respects
the seating of spectators at designated football matches at the premises; and it shall be the
duty of the authority to comply with the direction.’

Surely the phrase relating to 'the seating of spectators' means arranging for spectators to be seated rather than just providing 'seating'.

Also, it refers to the fact that the local authority who issue the licence must ensure fans do not persistently stand but then ignores this by saying it is up the club how they deal with it. So the club turn a blind eye to anyone anywhere in the ground standing then what happens when the safety licence isn't renewed by the authority.

Rather than using NSC to try and galvanise a confrontational approach with club perhaps the energy would be better served by taking it up with your MP, or, like the Falmer campaign, forming a political party to fight local elections and having a say on the councils that issue the safety cert in the first place. But what we see are people getting abusive to stewards, geting thrown out and/or banned and then bleating on here about the injustice of it all.

 

[Giraffe]

Only if the club choose to go down that route, is my understanding. We've all been to countless grounds where the host club seem to display a far more flexible and pragmatic approach to this.

As I said at the outset of this thread this is the nub of it for me. If in every single ground in Britain standing was not allowed I wouldn't have an issue with this but frankly it's bollocks. Nearly every ground I have been to this season I have seen a large part of the ground standing, and clearly being allowed to without any objections at all. Bristol, Leicester, Cardiff, Palace, just off the top of my head.

 

[Brovion]

Barber did address the issue of away fans standing saying something along the lines of them not being expected to know the rules at our stadium, whereas home fans do (or should) know the rules.

Ah, so only at the Amex are you expected to sit down. So THAT'S why the away fans all stand because they do it at their own grounds! I understand now, thanks, that explains a lot.

 

[Giraffe]

And also, I would add to the mix everyone knew that the North Stand was likely to be standing so why sit there if that is likely to bother you. There are 22,000 other seats to chose from.

If they just left the North Stand alone to do as it pleases it would soon sort itself out no problem.

 

[Doctor Crawley]

Just got around to reading it. Very fair and reasoned comments. Basically he is saying SIT DOWN and giving all the reasons why it is necessary.

So the message to our North Stand fans is clear, and I thoroughly endorse it:
- Sit Down
- Stop assaulting stewards ... what kind of scummy Albion fans assault our own stewards?

I was always 100% for standing for games, but you know what, I've got used to sitting and it doesn't lessen my enjoyment of the game.

I guess you North Standers who won't sit down need to piss off and find another club to support. Crawley is just up the A23, Worthing to the west, Lewes to the east. Go and watch their brand of football and you can stand for the entire game. But please don't continue to stand at the Amex, assault our stewards, endanger our safety certificates and cost the club unnecessary money.

You might not like it, but unfortunately you're going to have to accept that this is the way it's going to be.

Please don't palm off your unwanted riffraff in the direction of the mighty Broadfield.
It wont be welcome,thanks very much.
CTFC is building a great reputation as a family club within the community.
Any talk of thuggery being sent our way is not welcome as it would undermine all the positive hard graft that's put us in the position we are in now.
Broadfield has a 'safe' vibe about it with pretty much all the louts that once followed the club banished from the premises permanently.We would like to keep it that way.

 

[HovaGirl]

As others have said or implied, you need to get over yourself. This perpetual idea that the ground would be like a morgue if wasn't for the good souls in the NS who sing is getting beyond a joke.



I agree with this but unfortunately I don't think that some of those that are so vociferous about their perceived rights understand how more effective it would be to get the law changed rather than persist with a confrontation with the club.



I think someone else alluded to the licence issue, ie that the Albion don't need to comply with the authorities in Greater Manchester or in Leeds! Also, it does affect other supporters. If the safety certificate is withdrawn or we don't have enough stewards to allow the match to proceed just because idiots in the NS take it out on them then the rest of us suffer.



Captain Sensible take note. Or maybe you can ignore this as it does nothing to validate your arguments!!!!



You continually ignore all the rules or requirements of the safety certificate.



Semantics though really isn't it? The law requires the club to provide seating for all spectators and the safety certificate is on the basis that there is no persistent standing which itself then forms part of the ground regulations.



Hindsight is of course and exact science. I agree with what you say and no doubt the club would not have said that had they been aware of what the demand would have been for tickets but of course they were (or so we were told) budgeting for much smaller crowds.




But, and as we have seen, if supporters don't adhere to the ground regulations and then abuse or assault the stewards, the Police can get involved in ejecting the fan. You also state the club devise and write the ground regs which suggest it is all their fault rather than the fact that a lot of the ground regs relate to laws and/or the conditions of the safety certificate issued by the local authority. A bit like saying that you're not allowed to smoke at work just because your employer put up a no smoking sign and not that they are required to do so by legislation!!!





Well said. Unfortunately the likes of Captain Sensible can't accept this.


http://fsf.org.uk/assets/Uploads/Legalities-of-standing.pdf

As for the link to the FSA they very cleverly twist the words to suit their argument for safe standing.

-‘The Secretary of State may, by order, direct the licensing authority to include in any licence
to admit spectators to any specified premises a condition imposing requirements as respects
the seating of spectators at designated football matches at the premises; and it shall be the
duty of the authority to comply with the direction.’

Surely the phrase relating to 'the seating of spectators' means arranging for spectators to be seated rather than just providing 'seating'.

Also, it refers to the fact that the local authority who issue the licence must ensure fans do not persistently stand but then ignores this by saying it is up the club how they deal with it. So the club turn a blind eye to anyone anywhere in the ground standing then what happens when the safety licence isn't renewed by the authority.

Rather than using NSC to try and galvanise a confrontational approach with club perhaps the energy would be better served by taking it up with your MP, or, like the Falmer campaign, forming a political party to fight local elections and having a say on the councils that issue the safety cert in the first place. But what we see are people getting abusive to stewards, geting thrown out and/or banned and then bleating on here about the injustice of it all.

I don't know how you do that multi-posting malarky, but well said on all counts.

 

[HovaGirl]

West upper, South rear.

Fair enough. Not my territory. Only ever in North Stand in those days, so didn't notice any seats.

 

[birthofanorange]

Fair enough. Not my territory. Only ever in North Stand in those days, so didn't notice any seats.

How could you not notice them? They were equally visible when I moved over to stand in the North.

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

Barber did address the issue of away fans standing saying something along the lines of them not being expected to know the rules at our stadium, whereas home fans do (or should) know the rules.

The rules and ground regulations that are the same at every all seater stadium ?

 

[Acker79]

I don't know how you do that multi-posting malarky, but well said on all counts.

To the right of 'reply with quote' is a small blue or black square with a " and a +, if you click that it changes to note it has been selected. Once you've selected all the posts you want, click 'reply to thread' at the bottom (just above the quick reply box).

 

[HovaGirl]

How could you not notice them? They were equally visible when I moved over to stand in the North.

Probably because I was drooling over my then boyfriend (now HovaBoy) and watching the pitch. Otherwise, I've simply forgotten them and should go and get myself tested to see if I have Alzheimer's, like my Mum. Mind you, she remembers the past like there's no tomorrow. She just can't remember 10 seconds ago.