[Archived] Will You Show The Fla A Yellow Card?

[tashor]

Anyone who smokes should be shot.

This would prevent many avoidable diseases....

.....and help solve the pensions crisis.

[Tony Diamond Inc]

You make some good points there Phil. The opposition to standing could be directly linked to the increased difficulty 'big brother' would have in monitoring people.

[Tony Diamond Inc]

Anyone who smokes should be shot.

This would prevent many avoidable diseases....

              .....and help solve the pensions crisis.

How???!

By cutting out tobacco taxes?

Edited October 15, 2004 by Tony Diamond Inc

[Ossyrob]

The sining seemed to die with the introduction of the Drummer,,Seemed like people just wanted to end with a little chant after a few drum beats,

[Ossyrob]

Also the singing lol.I do wish i could afford a new keyboard

[Ewood Spark]

Apart from the decent reasons Colin highlighted , it'll never happen precisely because we live in a nanny state , particularly with this control freak Gov't we have at present . How the hell will our wonderful stewards for example, who seem particularly fascistic about enforcing all petty rules , get to and eject people who smoke or swear or wear burberry etc ... This is a risk free country and this Gov't will never allow its subjects to take risks . Expect more rules and regulations , not less !

Rather than bleating inane empty rhetoric concerning the current government's policies perhaps you could remind us which political party that 'stumpy' nemesis of the football fraternity Colin Moynahan represented.

[MCMC1875]

One thought has stayed with me ever since I was forced to sit down.

It is not attractive in this climate to sit on a cold plastic seat to watch a Winter sport.

This above all is why I would rather stand.

[Jan]

Haven't read all of this.

Wouldn't stand if YOU paid ME!

Stood at Hampden in the early 80s with lots of barriers etc. When Scotland scored (seems like a long time ago that happened) got the legs taken from under me by celebrating numpties and fell UNDER the barriers down the terracing into a post, and hurt quite badly.

Standing is a mugs game. Keep it banned

[MCMC1875]

Haven't read all of this.

Wouldn't stand if YOU paid ME!

Stood at Hampden in the early 80s with lots of barriers etc.  When Scotland scored (seems like a long time ago that happened) got the legs taken from under me by celebrating numpties and fell UNDER the barriers down the terracing into a post, and hurt quite badly.

Standing is a mugs game.  Keep it banned

Jan

No one is advocating compulsory standing.

Fans just want to be able to choose.

Was seating banned after the Bradford fire? Not a chance.

Don't force your views on everyone else.

There will still be seats for doom mongers like you.

PS

At the time of your visit, in the early 80's, it is possible that Hampden Park was not yet designated under The Safety Of Sports Grounds Act and barriers were sparse then (Hampden had an extremely bad reputation due to the condition of the stadium). This contradicts your '...lots of barriers etc.' Compare this with the old Darwen End before demolition with its endless new barriers. If the work had been completed, the safety certificate would have permitted a capacity of 10,000 for this area.

BTW, pay for yourself.

Edited October 15, 2004 by MCMC1875

[Billinge End Blue]

We are not going to get 'proper' terraces back at Ewood Park easily but a bit of leeway as regards standing in certain seating sections is surely a valid compromise. The club's recent draconian stance with steward intervention and letters to season ticket holders is surely not the way forward.

On another hobbyhorse I have, apparently unreserved seating areas have to have a 10% reduction in capacity...if this is indeed the case, it would require 500 empty seats in the Blackburn End lower tier so that is a potential stumbling block to what I saw as the best way of getting the vocal fans together (for another thread, I know). One way round it might be to include the Family Stand Upper tier in the calculation as there are increasingly large gaps there (as we Riversiders can see).

As I requested earlier, anybody know if the Fans Forum and the club are seriously considering any initiative on any of these matters or will the status quo prevail and the decline in atmosphere and attendance be allowed to continue?

[SIMON GARNERS 194]

The club haven't the ###### to do anything pro-active about it.Its up to the fans to make (pardon the pun) a stand against this now enforced

sit down,dont move or breathe shyte.It would appear the clubs only interest is bowing to the corporate cash cow.

If the whole bottom tier of the Blackburn end stood in unison to make a point there would be nothing the bumbling stewards could do about it just like the away fans in the Darwen End.

Back in the day, the old Ewood with 8,000 fans on created a better atmosphere than at present.... its vertually non-existent now.We dont want f'kin drums and stupid inflatable plastic footballers when we score

I'm slowly losing interest to be honest and it pains me to say that,tomorrows game holds no expectancy for me,another run of the mill game played infront of a home crowd who have had their passion literally kicked out of them by their own.

YAWWWNNNN!!!How very,very boring this clubs 'matchday experience ' has now become.

Edited October 15, 2004 by SIMON GARNERS 194

[blue phil]

Apart from the decent reasons Colin highlighted , it'll never happen precisely because we live in a nanny state , particularly with this control freak Gov't we have at present . How the hell will our wonderful stewards for example, who seem particularly fascistic about enforcing all petty rules , get to and eject people who smoke or swear or wear burberry etc ... This is a risk free country and this Gov't will never allow its subjects to take risks . Expect more rules and regulations , not less !

Rather than bleating inane empty rhetoric concerning the current government's policies perhaps you could remind us which political party that 'stumpy' nemesis of the football fraternity Colin Moynahan represented.

Sorry , Sparky , but as legislation would have to be brought in if all seaters are to go , then surely it is relevant as to what the policies are of the current Gov't .

Moynahan was a Tory if I remember correctly but what relevance that has to me or this debate is a mystery ....Unless for some stupid reason only you can comprehend you think I'm a Tory....

[colin]

I don't think it's really about "Nanny State." That's too simplistic.

Hillsborough was a watershed on how we, as a society, treat ourselves. Do we allow ourselves to be treated like sheep and herded so that 96 people die, or do we say "this is not right, we need to look after ourselves with more respect and dignity.

To this end I might quote (say) drink driving laws. Perhaps that was "nanny state" in its time. I doubt if anyone would take that line today.

Similarly some health & safety laws at (for example) building sites. Most people will have seen the classic photos of the workers building the Empire State Building sat own on the end of a girder 400 feet up eating their butties. Great photography, but how many of those workers died?

Crash helmets & seat belts? Fine, if you want to kill yourself or put yourself in a coma or be a drain on society for the rest of your life, you go ahead. Just don't expect the rest of us to look after you, nor the health service to have to scrape you up off the road or dis-entangle your brains from your steering wheel.

I think we all have a right to go about our daily lives without being endangered or in threat of death or injury.

If this involves inconvenience to some, then tough.

If this involves someone having to sit down to watch a football match instead of standing, up so be it.

Society is moving on and will continue to do so. I'm happy to be restricted and controlled if it means that my children are no longer allowed to work in coal mines or sweep chimneys. I'm happy that there are trout and salmon in the Mersey due to regulation.

I could go on. But I'll stop there.

[American]

Colin, just show us the proof that standing in areas with seats gets people hurt and put a drain on society...

All of the problems that have happened have been because there was nothing to stop people from pushing into the people in front of them. When you go to a concert, do you sit in your seat the whole time? At sporting events and concerts here in the states all the time, people stand at their seats with no problems or injuries. Show me the proof that it is dangerous to stand in front of your seat. You can't.

Spoken like a true liberal. Lots of bluster with no facts to back up your arguement.

Edited October 15, 2004 by American

[ABBEY]

col,its all well this health and safety but I never heard of anyone trying to ban horse riding after that woman no idea of her name died at the snobby horse trial thingy a few weeks ago

[Billinge End Blue]

<<Society is moving on and will continue to do so. I'm happy to be restricted and controlled.....>>

Tony Blair must love you, Col!

I wish you had carried on....equating sending children up chimneys and down the pit with the barbaric practice of watching sport standing...still progress isn't all beneficial....the sticklebacks in the puddle on the Riverside running track when the pitch drainage was worse 20 years ago have long gone....perhaps it's linked to global warming?!

Let's say a prayer or two for all those poor unfortunates at lower league football grounds and rugby grounds this weekend, let's hope they endure their hideous misfortune attending live sporting events with only minor casualties (perhaps a burnt tongue on a hot bovril?)

[stuwilky]

Apart from the decent reasons Colin highlighted , it'll never happen precisely because we live in a nanny state , particularly with this control freak Gov't we have at present . How the hell will our wonderful stewards for example, who seem particularly fascistic about enforcing all petty rules , get to and eject people who smoke or swear or wear burberry etc ... This is a risk free country and this Gov't will never allow its subjects to take risks . Expect more rules and regulations , not less !

Rather than bleating inane empty rhetoric concerning the current government's policies perhaps you could remind us which political party that 'stumpy' nemesis of the football fraternity Colin Moynahan represented.

Sorry , Sparky , but as legislation would have to be brought in if all seaters are to go , then surely it is relevant as to what the policies are of the current Gov't .

Moynahan was a Tory if I remember correctly but what relevance that has to me or this debate is a mystery ....Unless for some stupid reason only you can comprehend you think I'm a Tory....

Im not too sure about this.

The Football Spectators Act sayd something along thelines of that that licensing authority have the power to insist on seats being a condition of a license being issued. (not a direct quote)

OF course the aboce act was illthough out anyway. It also refers to a "NAtional Membership Scheme" all football members would have to join this to attend football games. Vanished almost as quickly as it arrived, unfortunately, the seating part didnt.

[colin]

Colin, just show us the proof that standing in areas with seats gets people hurt and put a drain on society...

American,

I've no need to try and prove that because I didn't say it. Please read my post again.

col,its all well this health and safety but I never heard of anyone trying to ban horse riding after that woman no idea of her name died at the snobby horse trial thingy a few weeks ago

Abbey, it wasn't the event that was the risk. If she had been on her horse and there had been fireworks and a bunch of Hooray Henrys driving around in their Land Rovers chucking empty champers bottles at the Van Nistelroys, then something should have been done. But this didn't happen. Your point is similar to saying that as that City player (Mark Vivian Defoe?) died playing football then football should be banned.

Tony Blair must love you, Col

Billenge, I deeply and sincerely hope not

My point in introducing these other examples was simply to try and exemplify the point that over a number of years measures have been taken to keep us all safer. The bigger picture. The Bovril doesn't count. The seat-belts and the breathaliser probably do.

Cheers

Edited October 16, 2004 by colin

[Billinge End Blue]

Breathalysers at the turnstiles and seatbelts on the Blackburn End - that'll make the stewards task a lot more straightforward! Fingers on lips etc.

Keith Lard lives and breathes!

[Amanda]

www.standupsitdown.co.uk

We are to meet with the FLA in January to discuss our proposals. An

summary of the meeting will follow.

We have written again to several people from within the game who we know are supportive of what we wish to achieve asking that they back our objectives and speak out.

Derby County Supporters Trust have placed on the record that they feel that supporter groups should now lobby for safe standing. Tottenham's and Millwall's Trust are speaking to their members to see if they wish their respective Trusts to officially support us. We are hoping other Trusts will follow suit and have also contacted Supporters Direct asking for their support.

We have compiled dossier of supporter feedback on issues surrounding

safe standing. Comments very supportive of our aims and many critical about seating arrangements at various grounds. For example, from a seated position at many grounds you cannot see the whole pitch.

We are awaiting result of survey carried out by Football Fans Census. Early indications are that the results are in our favour with only 10% of respondents against seperate standing areas.

We still need to boost our membership and number of signatures on our

petition. The more people respond, the more weight we carry.

Further details may be found at www.standupsitdown.co.uk and if you have any questions, I may be emailed at [email protected]

Edited November 19, 2004 by Paul

[Ben-2000]

Good luck!

[Al]

Good luck as long as it is separate areas for standing.

Standing in seated areas can never work.

[BRFC4EVA]

Good luck as long as it is separate areas for standing.

Standing in seated areas can never work.

Seconded.

Riverside to a safe terrace.

[thenodrog]

Riverside to a safe terrace.

Whilst I know where you are coming from I fear the majority of people that wish to stand throughout a game would want to do it from behind the goals whilst either standing sideways and taunting the opposition supporters, or facing the back trying to start some appallingly tuneless chant about low wages / Burnley / or 'getting into em'.

[Amanda]

Campaign

Stand Up Sit Down now has 1800 members and almost 4000 signatures on our online petition, from supporters of 140 clubs. West Ham are the largest single club comprising 15% of members, and others from whom many have joined include Sunderland, Newcastle, Manchester United, Brighton, Bristol Rovers, Bristol City, Reading, Dunfermline, and Aberdeen. It is interesting that generally clubs from outside the Premiership have the most members in relation to the size of their support. A few clubs however have far fewer members than would be expected for their size; notably Chelsea.

We have written to fifty clubs, and our letter was discussed at a meeting of Premiership clubs, where most agreed not to reply. Leicester City and Crewe however wrote expressing their support, and several other clubs contacted us, saying they supported our objectives, but did not wish to be quoted. Leicester City FC and Leicester Tigers RFC, who are hoping to share the Walkers Stadium, have said that they would like to introduce standing areas for both sets of supporters. Norwich recently held a meeting with 150 supporters who voted overwhelmingly in favour of standing areas and the club have now said that they will pledge their support to standing pressure groups.

Privately several club safety officers have told us that they have no objection to standing in some parts of their grounds, but are unwilling to be quoted. It is our understanding that a significant number of safety officers share this view. A senior safety official within a local authority has told us that he considers it safe to stand in some parts of grounds, that music concerts are more dangerous than standing at football, and in the time honoured phrase, ‘the law is an ass’.

We met with the Premier League and Football Leagues, and whilst we believe that our proposals were viewed with interest, neither organisation was happy for us to publicise what was said.

The Police have said that the issue of standing at football grounds is not a criminal offence and as such is not enforced by them. They say they only get involved when there is reason to believe a steward may be at risk in tackling fans who are standing.

We have written to all major political parties. The Minister for Sport said that Government policy remains that the top two divisions should be all seated, and that our proposals amount to re-introduction of standing without the safeguards. We understand however that Government policy makers in Downing Street may be more flexible.

The Shadow Sports Minister said that he sees no real cause to reconsider the recommendations of the Taylor Report, but gave some encouragement by saying that it is now incumbent on the relevant football clubs to demonstrate ways in which they would maintain or improve safety at grounds. Angela Watkinson MP has advised that an incoming Conservative government would have no objections in principle to the reintroduction of standing areas, provided that they enjoyed the full support of the club involved, police & the FA. The Liberal Democrat Sports Spokesman said that he was a strong supporter of the right of football supporters to be able to stand, and that within his party we have strong support. A number of individual MPs have stated their support for our proposals, including former Sports Minister, Kate Hoey.

We recently met with the FLA, presenting a 300 page dossier outlining our case. The FLA consider that any standing in seated areas, even those of low rake is a safety risk due to the possibility of supporters falling and a cascade effect occurring. We will cover this very interesting meeting in a future article, but currently are trying to get the FLA to agree our written account of what was said, so there can be no suggestion of misquotes. Strangely they have accepted the notes, but consider that the summary, which largely outlines stated FLA policy, seriously misrepresents them.

It is the duty of the FLA, Local Authorities and football clubs to ensure ‘reasonable safety’, and it should be noted that Lord Taylor said that 100% safety could only be achieved in an empty stadium. Stand Up Sit Down considers that in seeking to stop standing in areas of very low risk, such as gently sloped lower tiers, that the FLA are going beyond the definition of reasonable safety.

On many occasions the actions of the authorities in attempting to stop standing has caused more problems than those presented by the actual standing. We have highlighted a number of examples of conflict caused by heavy handed or unfair stewarding, such as differences in the treatment of home and away fans.

The FLA have said that they believe spectators are at greater risk if they are already standing prior to a goal celebration. Many supporters have commented on this, and all have the opposite view. We consider that people are less likely to be involved in collisions if they are already standing, so that our proposals would improve safety.

The FLA have said that where an area has been designed for seated spectators, those who stand will not get a clear view of the pitch. Supporter’s opinions have been canvassed and none agreed with the FLA. Why would they stand if they could not see?

We have taken up the issue of seats which for reasons of design or view, cause supporters to tend to stand. One of the recommendations of The Guide to Safety at Sports Grounds is that design should ensure that spectators are encouraged to remain seated and do not have to stretch or strain to view an event. Our members have highlighted a number of examples where this recommendation does not appear to be met, the worst example being the School End Upper Tier at Loftus Road, where it is not possible to see the end of the pitch and part of the goal whilst seated. We have taken this up with QPR, sending comments from many West Ham supporters, but their Safety Officer has been far from helpful. We have therefore written to Hammersmith Council, suggesting that if they consider that the seats from which it is necessary to stand in order to see goalmouth action constitute a safety risk, they either instruct QPR to move the pitch forward, or to close the stand.

Conclusion

It is our belief that the proposals put forward by Stand Up Sit Down represent the best opportunity for a resolution of the standing issue for the benefit of all concerned. They are well supported by those who watch football, and we believe many within the administration of the game see them as a good compromise solution, but for various reasons are unwilling to say so publicly. The more members we have the harder it will be for the authorities to ignore us. If you have not already done so please join us at www.standupsitdown.co.uk.