Standing in the North Stand

[Dick Knights Mumm]

do you really think the club can or will just ignore the law for the benefit of a very few fans? That surely is pompous.

Turning a blind eye would be the sensible approach and seems to have worked up to now.

The problem is the few fans are forcing the club to respond in accordance with the legal situation. If they shut up and carried on there would be no pressure to react but by making a loud nouse on the issue the club's hands have been forced. Laughable really.

There was no loud noise on the issue before the ejections. The Club would do well to step back on this.

Unless - as you seem to think - our league membership will be revoked. Is that really going to happen ?

 

[severnside gull]

Every club in the Premier League and the Championship are in the same position of having their safety certificate withdrawn or league membership revoked for persistent standing but it will never happen.

as long as clubs make reasonable efforts to abide by the regulations there is no problem which is why all clubs have periodic crack downs on abuse by fans. That is exactly what is happening here prompted by a few fans stated intent to stand regardless playing into Hebberd's hands. Having met the man (and not being a fan of his) he must be laughing his tits off at this

 

[BBassic]

Precisely. It may be 'wrong' and you may not like it, but it happens at every single ground every single game.

But it IS allowed! I'm well aware of the regulations, and likewise you should be aware that there are a large proportion of fans that ignore them (like doing 80mph on a motorway but not so dangerous). The proportion is so large that the regulations cannot be enforced, ergo standing is allowed.

You literally don't comprehend how laws work do you?

"You're guilty of murdering twenty-four people"
"But everyone else was doing it!"
"Oh! Really!? Shit, you best be off then"

 

[Brovion]

You literally don't comprehend how laws work do you?

"You're guilty of murdering twenty-four people"
"But everyone else was doing it!"
"Oh! Really!? Shit, you best be off then"

Oh jeez another one. See post #45 for a rebuttal of the "other people have murdered so it's ok for me to do it" line of 'reasoning' (I use the term loosely). And it's not a 'law' either.

 

[Seagulltonian]

The week after the "Standing in the North Stand" debate kicked off, during the West Ham v Chelsea game, both sets of fans stood for most of that match, and the stewards backed off and didn't wade in to try and get supporters to sit.

Tomorrow's game is possibly going to be the largest attendance this season so far at the Amex, and will the stuff that's been going on recently, I feel, and this is a personal opinion, the stewards will be told to get tough tomorrow and they will rigidly enforce the no standing rule in the lower rows of the North Stand. I really think it could turn nasty tomorrow. I just hope sensible behaviour from fans and stewards prevail, and we have a great match to get behind the team.

 

[RedSteve65]

Excatly, hence my point that standing IS allowed, and all those who say it isn't are wrong. And this situation isn't going to improve/change until the regulations are evenly enforced or the authorities recognise and accept the de facto situation (i.e. by introducing safe standing)

That is simply incorrect. Standing may be tolerated but it is not "allowed". Ever since the Taylor report standing is not allowed in all seater stadiums. It may be tolerated by some but that is an entirely different argument.

 

[Bozza]

the no standing rule in the lower rows of the North Stand.

I believe there's a "no standing" rule in all of the North Stand, where "standing" means to do so persistently and indefinitely.

"Stand when stuff is happening, and then sit down again" is where this is heading I think.

 

[BBassic]

Oh jeez another one. See post #45 for a rebuttal of the "other people have murdered so it's ok for me to do it" line of 'reasoning' (I use the term loosely). And it's not a 'law' either.

Hate to break it to you but you're using the same 'reasoning' fella.

Also:

The Football Spectators Act (1989) contained a regulation requiring football grounds to become all-seated as directed by the Secretary of State.[13] This was to be overseen by the Football Licensing Authority [14] (now the Sport Grounds Safety Authority). In July 1992, the Government announced a relaxation of the regulation for the lower two English leagues (known now as League One and League Two). The Football Spectators Act does not cover Scotland, but the Scottish Premier League chose to make all-seater stadia a requirement of league membership.[15] In England and Wales all-seating is a requirement of the Premier League [16] and of the Football League for clubs who have been present in the Championship for more than three seasons.[17]

"Law" may not be the right term but the message is the same.

 

[Return of the Rev]

The week after the "Standing in the North Stand" debate kicked off, during the West Ham v Chelsea game, both sets of fans stood for most of that match, and the stewards backed off and didn't wade in to try and get supporters to sit.

Tomorrow's game is possibly going to be the largest attendance this season so far at the Amex, and will the stuff that's been going on recently, I feel, and this is a personal opinion, the stewards will be told to get tough tomorrow and they will rigidly enforce the no standing rule in the lower rows of the North Stand. I really think it could turn nasty tomorrow. I just hope sensible behaviour from fans and stewards prevail, and we have a great match to get behind the team.

Another reason to be above it all in esu home of the elite

 

[ditchy]

that is simply incorrect. Standing may be tolerated but it is not "allowed". Ever since the taylor report standing is not allowed in all seater stadiums. It may be tolerated by some but that is an entirely different argument.

this

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

I believe there's a "no standing" rule in all of the North Stand, where "standing" means to do so persistently and indefinitely.

"Stand when stuff is happening, and then sit down again" is where this is heading I think.

I think it is heading back to the Withdean Fans v Stewards. And a nasty atmosphere. And for what reason I am not sure.

 

[HawkTheSeagull]

I believe there's a "no standing" rule in all of the North Stand, where "standing" means to do so persistently and indefinitely.

"Stand when stuff is happening, and then sit down again" is where this is heading I think.

I was sold my ST in the North being told that standing rules are relaxed for where my seat is (row U) so I was allowed to stand. That's going back on what I pay my money for. I can understand having the front 3/4 of the stand sitting, but us at the back arent affecting anyone and are trying to create an atmosphere. Sitting down the whole match will reduce it.

The other thing is that if they are to make us at the back sit the whole match - then would they make the away section sit too ? If not its a case of 1 rule for them, 1 rule for us.

 

[Brovion]

That is simply incorrect. Standing may be tolerated but it is not "allowed". Ever since the Taylor report standing is not allowed in all seater stadiums. It may be tolerated by some but that is an entirely different argument.

The nub of the issue is the undeniable fact that you are allowed to stand for ninety minutes despite the existence of regulations saying you can't. That is the de facto situation. I don't really want to get into a semantic argument as to whether the stewards 'allow' it or 'tolerate' it, I quite accept that it is against the arcane regulations.

Hate to break it to you but you're using the same 'reasoning' fella.

.

You 'hate to break it to me' because you're wrong, I'm not using the same reasoning. You're applying a Reductio ad absurdum argument and I'm not.

 

[Bozza]

I was sold my ST in the North being told that standing rules are relaxed for where my seat is (row U).

I think that is correct - rules are more relaxed for the back few rows of the North. I don't think that relaxed means "You can stand for 90 minutes."

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

but us at the back arent affecting anyone and are trying to create an atmosphere. Sitting down the whole match will reduce it.

That is the daft thing - the North Stand in full voice makes the match experience better for everyone.

 

[Bozza]

The other thing is that if they are to make us at the back sit the whole match - then would they make the away section sit too ? If not its a case of 1 rule for them, 1 rule for us.

The day that Albion fans when travelling away, sit down because the home fans are, is the day we can start using that line.

 

[HawkTheSeagull]

I think that is correct - rules are more relaxed for the back few rows of the North. I don't think that relaxed means "You can stand for 90 minutes."

That's the problem, it isn't clear. If the club is going to clamp down, can they clearly communicate with its "customers" ? As said in a few posts back, a letter is being sent to all North STHs, hopefully it's cleared up in that, though I doubt it.

 

[c0lz]

You literally don't comprehend how laws work do you?

"You're guilty of murdering twenty-four people"
"But everyone else was doing it!"
"Oh! Really!? Shit, you best be off then"

Since when has murder been a civil matter ?

 

[Gazwag]

How about notes in a programme?

I have made the decision not to purchase a programme anymore to save £80 odd a season which I can spend on pies and beer. Unless the club provide the programme for free or hand every supporter a flyer as they enter the ground then they cannot use this as an argument.

 

[Guinness Boy]

I have made the decision not to purchase a programme anymore to save £80 odd a season which I can spend on pies and beer. Unless the club provide the programme for free or hand every supporter a flyer as they enter the ground then they cannot use this as an argument.

I've NEVER bought a programme at the Amex apart from the Donny game. They just used to end up cluttering the house a quarter read when I did used to get them.