Paul Barber's programme article about standing

[father_and_son]

No it wouldn't. It would be a limited section, and those who were not in it, through choice or capacity, would still stand if they wanted to and they could justify it as "they're standing so why can't we?".

The reality is that the AmEx is a new stadium and so there is going to be closer scrutiny of their adherence to the rules than in other stadia which have been around for many years. Perhaps not fair, but the continued "they do it over there so why can't we do it over here?" argument (not yours, I know) is just purile.

Also, the approval of the safety certificate is, I believe, done at local level not national. So if, for example, the Chief Constable and Fire Safety Chief of South Yorkshire are particularly lenient compared to their counterparts in Sussex then different levels of compliance are necessary at Leeds than at the Amex.

Perhaps those berating our club, stewards and chief exec should turn their anger to Sussex Fire Service and the Sussex Constabulary instead?

 

[rippleman]

Consistency!

That's what it's all about surely?

If the stewards enforced the "ground regulations" in the same way, every game and THROUGHOUT the stadium, we haven't really got an argument have we? But they don't! I have even had a PM from a SS steward saying that they deal with ejections "differently" to the NS stewards! Why would that be?

I don't think I have been to a game at the Amex where the SS stewards have even attempted to make the away support sit throughout a match. Why should they be allowed free reign to stand when the home support in the NS are being ejected for standing? Surely the stewards can understand that if they enforce sitting in the away seats then it weakens the argument of those standing in the NS?

We then have the issue that even on a game-by-game basis the NS stewards are totally inconsistent. Versus Arsenal I didnt see one steward even attempt to get one fan in the NS to sit at any time during the match. Then v Huddersfield that got all heavy and aggressive and slinging fans out for standing. Then on Sunday we were back to the stewards not even attempting to enforce sitting. Is it any wonder we get so confused?!!!

Consistency is the key. Enforce sitting by both home AND away fans for EVERY match. If you don't apply the "rules" fairly, equitably and consistently this issue is just going to run and run.

Rips

 

[HovaGirl]

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.

They turned a blind eye to the people standing in the top 4 rows, but that has been abused by the selfish infants who want to play little macho power games with the club, to show the club who is boss by disobeying the law of the land.

Sit down. Shut up.

 

[HovaGirl]

Did they ask the North to sit down against Palace? I didn't see it once.
So it's all a load of bollocks. Wish barber would just leave it as; The north stands. That's it end of, if you wanna sit, sit in the other 85% of the stadium.

When people are made to sit, they do go quiet. It's just the way it is. So by enforcing a rule (it's not a law), the Atmos suffers. Most clubs dont enforce it, There's no getting away from that.

So get used to singing while sitting. I manage it and so do most of my comrades in ESU and over there in the West. (And it is the law, not a rule.) "Most clubs" are probably having as much trouble as the Albion is in trying to get its more juvenile-minded population to sit down.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

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.

Actually a levy not a tax ( which is somewhat less emotive )

A levy is an extra amount that is charged on things like fuel ( and in our case stadium admission ), but as a surcharge on top of the cost whereas a tax is a percentage of the total amount which is paid over.

 

[HovaGirl]

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.

There wouldn't be much difference because the other stands would just carry on singing. The North Stand Choir isn't as important as it thinks it is and isn't as loud as it thinks it is, so it doesn't actually generate all the singing anyway. From where I sit in the centre of ESU, the Away Choir often sounds much louder than the NS Choir, even when there are fewer of them. It's the acoustics, ye know.

 

[LamieRobertson]

Dunno? Do you know something about this... do tell. If the club have to make certain noises and do certain things in order to get the certificate, whilst accepting that as soon as the certificate is granted they can relax a bit and stop trying to enforce sitting in the North, well then that sounds promising.

Nope I have no sources ..it's just a thought merely that .. But surely has to be considered? Maybe I'm being naive

 

[LamieRobertson]

There wouldn't be much difference because the other stands would just carry on singing. The North Stand Choir isn't as important as it thinks it is and isn't as loud as it thinks it is, so it doesn't actually generate all the singing anyway. From where I sit in the centre of ESU, the Away Choir often sounds much louder than the NS Choir, even when there are fewer of them. It's the acoustics, ye know.

Have to agree .. I'm in ESU fairly central and at times find the away louder thn north ...having said all that away support this year hasn't been tht loud this year and west has SEEMED quieter overal ..so North has been important to the atmosphere more than any other stand ..whether they've been standing or sitting ..I imagine alcohol consumption has had a bigger impact

 

[HovaGirl]

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.

Because standing in the North Stand will encourage standing in the rest of the ground, among the North Stand rejects. The standers should realise there are children, old people and many others in the ground, including in the North Stand, who cannot stand for one health or age reason or another, and that if those in front of them stand up, then those non-standers will not be able to see the game for which they have paid a hefty price for their ticket.

 

[Billy the Fish]

Wind up merchant, goldstone is now NSC's biggest fisherman since ROTR has gladly ****ed off.

Best to ignore this crap and let it drop off through front page

 

[HovaGirl]

This is why if there was an area in the North where standing was tolerated and in the rest of the stadium it was enforced, it would end situations like the one you describe.

Safe standing area would end this argument for good.

No, it wouldn't. The club permitted a form of "safe standing" in the top 4 rows of the North Stand, but that tolerance has been abused, and it spread throughout the stand.

 

[westy]

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.

Tis a good point

 

[Herne Hill Seagull]

(And it is the law, not a rule.)

then:

The club permitted a form of "safe standing" in the top 4 rows of the North Stand...

They can't both be true, and they're not. It's ground regulations, not the law (see my earlier link on the specific legalities).

If I may speak for Captain Sensible, I suspect he was referring to a nationally agreed, formalised 'safe standing' like the Germans have, rather than just the club tolerating it. In which case it would work, because the law could then, if necessary, be changed to compel people not in that section to stay in their seats. If there's a formal standing area, people who want to stand will go there and those who don't won't. You only have to go to Barnet, for example, or any other ground which still has terracing, to see that in action.

 

[Guinness Boy]

They turned a blind eye to the people standing in the top 4 rows, but that has been abused by the selfish infants who want to play little macho power games with the club, to show the club who is boss by disobeying the law of the land.

Sit down. Shut up.

It's not the law of the land. How much of the thread did you actually read before piling in? (answer - too little)

 

[Triggaaar]

Wind up merchant, goldstone is now NSC's biggest fisherman since ROTR has gladly ****ed off.

Best to ignore this crap and let it drop off through front page

Of course the OP is a wind up, but there's still plenty here that we're interested in, and a debate that needs to be had.

 

[westy]

Just found this too, worth a read maybe?
http://fsf.org.uk/assets/Uploads/Leg...f-standing.pdf

"It is widely believed that this practice is illegal. This is not the case, even within Premier
League and Championship grounds. The law only provides that these clubs should provide
seats for all supporters, not that supporters must sit on them.
- The point is confirmed by 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’ (Source: Letter to Football Supporters Federation, 2008)"

 

[Herne Hill Seagull]

Page 3 of thread, post 52, westy, old boy.

 

[HovaGirl]

It's not the law of the land. How much of the thread did you actually read before piling in? (answer - too little)

I've read the whole thread including Bozza's comments re the law. The implication in having non-standing all-seater grounds, is that people will be expected to sit on the seats. Bozza's comment reminds me of the Greek law about motorcycle helmets. It is law in Greece that a motorcyclist must wear a helmet while riding his motorcycle. But because the law does not specify that the helmet should be worn on the head, the Greeks wear them on their arms instead, which was plainly not the intention.

 

[HovaGirl]

then:



They can't both be true, and they're not. It's ground regulations, not the law (see my earlier link on the specific legalities).

Can't do the double quote thing. Note the operative words in my post which you quoted: "Turn a blind eye", that is, pretend not to see.

 

[Herne Hill Seagull]

I noted the operative words in your other post: "The club permitted a form of "safe standing" in the back 4 rows". If the law of the land says otherwise, the club would be acting illegally in doing so. My contention was only that your two posts contained an inherent contradiction, nothing more.