MCFC BOB
Well-Known Member
Didn't go.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Points of Blue Meeting - Wed 09.11.2011
- Thread starter mancmackem
- Start date
Plenty of discussion around moving away fans to the Top Tier. No decision has been made contrary to what people were saying.
No Vicky Kloss due to other commitments (Tevez Saga)
Showsec main chief was there.
Danny Wilson
Steve Sayer
Peter Fletcher
No Vicky Kloss due to other commitments (Tevez Saga)
Showsec main chief was there.
Danny Wilson
Steve Sayer
Peter Fletcher
JoeMercer'sWay
Well-Known Member
Points of Blue Meeting 09/11/11-JMW's Notes
As I did last time I have written notes on the PoB meeting tonight. A note before I begin however. These notes are not guaranteed to be the absolute full contents of the meeting as it is actually impossible to take down what everybody says and some of it just isn't worth writing down, they are(I hope) detailed enough. If I have missed anything I'm sure mancmackem(who I think gave me a funny wink and grin) and bluebird(who talked to me politely after sussing out my hint but then took interest in the older folk-sigh) will be happy to correct me/add anything. If you were there and I missed out something you said, please post it.
Right here we go:
The 2 main items of the meeting were persistent standing in 109 and general stewarding & the possible relocation of the away fans to EL3.
Club representatives were: Danny Wilson, Peter Fletcher & Steve Sayer.
Showsec Director Mark Logan also attended.
Persistent Standing & Stewarding
A general statement was made by Steve Parish(organiser) asking Peter Fletcher to explain the background and details on stewarding policy and the issue of safe standing at the ground.
PF: When we moved to COMS it was clear there was a large section of City supporters who wanted to stand. There were battles with the council over the issue as it is against the rules to stand, there were various discussions with them about the time that John Wardle was chairman. He, and various other colleagues believed the club could tolerate standing in the South Stand(from here on SS), provided a series of measures were introduced, such as extra stewards to ensure clear aisles for evacuation and as it is the focal point of supporter banter due to the nearby away fans. Half a dozen supporters who didn't want to stand were relocated. This was a 1 season trial but was continued as there was "suprisingly" no council objection. The club decided to extend this to the Singing Section quadrant which was also successful.
However, there has to be a cut off point and it is club policy that 109 is this cut off point. Standing is not a club policy but is tolerated due to a lack of objection from the council, this is not guaranteed to last, particularly if there are complaints about it. Standing breaks ground regulations. The problem is that it is spreading and there has to be a cut off point. There are a considerable number of people in 109 who want to sit, they have sat there for years and the club admit they did not address as they should have last season. It is the first block of EL1 and is not part of the South Stand. The approach of the club to tackle the issue is right with stewards going in to eject people unwilling to obey the request to sit. Letters have been sent out to all seat holders in 109 to explain that it is a SEATING block.
The danger is that the local authority get involved and order that the tolerance to any standing in the ground be terminated, and that would cause inconvenience to a lot of other supporters.
What about those fans who bought season tickets on the basis that they were told at season ticket renewal that they could stand in 109?
SS: A few fans have claimed that this is the case, it may or may not be true, it's impossible to know at this point. There is nothing official about this claim however, it is not club policy. Accepts that this leads to inconsistency and confusion and creates aggrovation, but he says the vast majority have not bought seasoncards on that basis.
DW: Fans who wish to stand at games can email him or call up to request a relocation to a standing tolerated zone, there are limited seats but he'll try and make it work.
Now onto the bloke attacked at the Villa game:
PF: The man was not targeted, people are asked to sit and the majority do so when asked. When asked to sit down the guy point blankedly refused, saying that he would not do so until the whole South Stand was sat down. He was adamant he would not sit down.
SS: The club looked at the case via CCTV, FSF were involved in a meeting between the man and the club as an objective party, a mutual agreement was the conclusion.
PF: There is a clash in the block, ground regulations do not permit standing and there has to be a line. Problems arise when there are groups of fans who want to stand and there are only a small number of stewards to communicate the policy. The incident was an unfortunate chain of events and there is a review into the way they deal with such incidents(I think that's right).
DW: Have to remember that in 119 there are disabled supporters at the back so that has to be a consideration, as well as fans in other blocks not being able to see the goal.
Staff being rude in 109? Violence/Children Crying/OAP's fainting/People won't go to games anymore/Showsec targeting vulnerable people/Ejection of carers/Various other points
PF: The number of ejections is 109 is less than 10. It should be less but when people refuse to sit there has to be action taken.(On the issue of people who are asked to sit when people in front are standing)Stewards go from bottom to top, and now fans who refuse to comply will be written to and their ticket disabled as forceful ejection has not worked. In terms of fans fainting/being upset, 1 girl was upset by the incident so was relocated to the Family Stand with her father. If there is any misconduct/assaults by any steward whether Showsec or not REPORT IT to the club and more importantly to the police. All stewards have ID numbers to identify them.
ML: The credibility of the company relies on staff conduct. If there is any negative behaviour report it.
NB: Incident of steward punching fans to be dealt with as an individual issue post-meeting with fans who wish to talk about it.
PF: First case of assault at this game reported to him, all assaults are investigated properly and thoroughly, all the stewards, whether MCFC or outside sourced have a responsibility to uphold the reputation of the organisation they represent.
ML: Regarding people feeling unsafe/uncomfortable around unpleasant Showsec stewards, he will take that feedback back to his staff, he wans to build bonds with the fans and for there to be a rapport(as does PF) and there has to be a mutual respect there.
No comment on whether fans at concerts are treated differently to fans at matches.
PF: There are 350 MCFC Stewards, 200 Showsec Stewards and others from G4S(For disabled and some corporate) and IOS for carparking and extra stewarding in the SS. All stewarding groups try to work to the same standards, to respect fans, talk to them and uphold the City Promise. All stewards are strictly briefed on this. If any steward said they were a United fan(from the dark side in PF's words), they would never work for the club again, it would be unacceptable.
A quality assurance team goes round each stand to assess the work of the stewards on duty. The 109 issue has to be settled down, people who stand will face sanctions. He says...Regarding the youtube videos, 1 of the stewards in that video was not on duty that day, so he believes the video was edited
Will fans be allowed to submit video evidence without being reprimanded for breaking ground regulations?
Club: Yes, and all of these issues have been discussed at the very highest level of the club.
Away fans and Standing
PF: Not the club's priority, they're here for 1 game and are surrounded by people who stand on either side. He fills out risk assessment forms every game and says there are 2 safety officers now.
Away fans who persistently stand on L2 cause reduced allocations for the clubs so the Safety Advisory Group don't take action against the club and so the club looks pro-active against standing.
Away Fan Relocation to East Level 3
DW: The club have received plenty of emails on the subject. There have been meetings with possible solutions and options put forward over the years. There are a lot of constaints with moving the fans to do with cost, legislation and the local authorities, as well as safety. They created visuals and eventually came down to 3 options.
1) Maintain it as it is.
2) Relocate away fans to EL3.
3) Wait for any POSSIBLE stadium expansion to re-jig the whole stadium to provide a suitable place for away fans.
In the last 3-4 months atmosphere has been the hot topic. The club reached the point of trialling the EL3 setup for the Villarreal game, it wasn't ideal as there weren't many away fans. There were problems logistically and for EL2 users, 1 tower had to closed and used for just away fans, not ideal.
There were differing views on the atmopshere, obviously the early goal conceded didn't help, over 50% said they would like to see it trialled again and that the atmosphere was slightly better, it will be trialled again for the Bayern game, fans who would end up sitting near the Bayern fans will be offered relocation.
There is NO commitment to this setup full time, there are cost issues, more turnstiles, new toilet configurations and plenty of other considerations. The club respect the EL3 users views, and the perks they receive for their seat ie. good views. Any decision will not be taken lightly, no move is guaranteed due to the aforementioned problems and the status quo is a very real option.
Big IF over stadium expansion, no timeline, SS did mention 15-20,000 extra seats(off the wall remark?)
What about moving the away fans into the Singing section corner?
Club: Plenty of problems with that, no facilities in that corner, not as safe as current setup, would cost millions and millions of pounds to make it a reality.
The club has learnt from the Family Stand fiasco and is going to be more transparent and have a lot more consultation with fans through surveys and (hopefully as it was raised) further meetings. The perception of the surveys by some fans is wrong, they are not loaded nor are they what the club use to make decisions, they are just one of many guides for them to make their decision.
Isn't the opinion of EL3 users much more important than other fans?
Club: The understand that and their views carry a much heavier weight to them, however any decision made will not be a democratic vote. They want to respect long standing fans and respect that they not only sit with people they've know for years but that also there are minimal options to relocate to an equivalent seat. They don't underestimate this at all.
How about delaying an away fans move till expansion?
No specific answer, points made above.
PF: Safety for all fans is paramount, he has his view on the issue but has to keep his powder dry. The current setup is perfectly safe, probably the safest in the league, and any alternative isn't as safe. Things like chucking stuff at users of L2 and L1(a guy mentioned Galatasaray fans causing a riot and chucking bottles of piss at EL2 users), He says that everyone should let the trial run its course and then sit down and chat, there are a mass of obstacles including build new spirals, facilities including toilets.
The club also fully understand that the results of Bayern will not reflect fairly the extent to which the trial has worked as it is a big game and the atmosphere will naturally be better.
It gets a bit jumbled from here, bear with me:
58% of the 6-7,000 fans who replied to the last survey felt that the atmosphere was slightly better. The club feel that this was quite mixed and that that was the whole point, that the issue does polarise opinion and that no decision will be taken lightly, it's a data collection to look at for next season, there are lots of probems, including expenditure as the budgets of the non-footballing departments of the club are being cut to try and comply with FFPR.
We then move onto the problem of fans being relocated due to UEFA extra ticketing at games, only for their seats not to be taken and to be resold to other fans:
This was an issue, UEFA allocated 650 in EL2, didn't take the allocation so seats were re-sold to City fans. Fans can specify which stands they sit in but not seats, it's impractical at that point in the process, and are allocated seats in that stand to the best of the club's ability. There were a number of technical issues with the Napoli game that have now been resolved.
Next season's ticket prices have not been confirmed.
Smoking in City Square
Although the Etihad Campus is technically non-smoking, it is club policy that this is not enforcible in City Square. It is up to the council to enforce their policy, it is illegal in toilets, different in City Square. The club policy is that City Square is not a "non-smoking" area as they will not enforce a policy that it is the responsibility of the council to enforce. It is not a police matter as it is not a criminal offence. Designated non-smoking areas in City Square could be a possibility.
Feedback
Thank you for the free parking for the Derby @ City Square.
Away Games
No choice of where to sit/no seat plans of away grounds so you know where you sit.
DW: Club operates on a best available basis. Online works that way and the ticket office should do also, but acknowledges that sometimes it's "what we have in the draw". Acknowledges that some fans have difficulty buying groups of tickets due to tickets being sold block by block and sometimes the system doesn't get updated quickly enough. The policy regarding going down to the ground and buying for a friend has changed as fans were using other people's numbers to fraudulently buy extra tickets, security checks in place now. The order of sale is also an issue, as some away grounds like Everton refuse to give the upper tier if the lower tier isn't sold out.
Gremlins in the system that seperated fans at the Bolton game were resolved for the Spurs game. 25% of tickets sold online, club encourages it to be more and Danny in particular wants feeback on whether fans prefer online or picking up tickets from the ticket office after the option was removed for a Derby game at Wembley.(Fans responded that it depends on the postman).
Online system not linking friends to your account properly to buy them tickets.
Club: will be looked into.
Why do members with less points get priority over fans with more points for away cup games just because they signed up to the scheme?
Club: to encourage fans to attend poorly attended home cup games, it has worked, the setup was made clear.
Why is there no option to buy disabled tickets online?
Club are working towards a solution, there were problems where adults can buy a disabled ticket at a cheaper price and as a disabled ticket shows as an adult ticket at the turnstile it could be exploited.
The waiting times over the phone are a disgrace, and via email to, shouldn't have to contact specific members of staff to get a request dealt with.
DW: Accepts that it was disgraceful before the Napoli game. The waiting times have been reduced to a couple of hours by email and a couple of minutes by phone, various problems with Napoli including Italians trying to buy tickets in the home end, Blue membership postage being delayed to fulfill season ticket backlog, the standards were appalling. The club accept it's not perfect and accept it should be easier to give feedback and get queries dealt with both online and via the phone, introducing various things on the website including a more detailed FAQ.
Why do students get cheaper prices at the Student Union than student season card holders?
A small number of Students from the union do get tickets for games at a cheaper price to entice them to the ground, normally seats that can't be sold. Looking at passing benefits over to current students(both young and mature).
Prices of food at City Square going up, portions smaller as season goes on.
SS: Prices across the board have gone up but not aware of any portion reductions, will look into it.
**End of meeting**
Hope that covers it, as I said mancmackem or bluebird can add or correct anything.
As I did last time I have written notes on the PoB meeting tonight. A note before I begin however. These notes are not guaranteed to be the absolute full contents of the meeting as it is actually impossible to take down what everybody says and some of it just isn't worth writing down, they are(I hope) detailed enough. If I have missed anything I'm sure mancmackem(who I think gave me a funny wink and grin) and bluebird(who talked to me politely after sussing out my hint but then took interest in the older folk-sigh) will be happy to correct me/add anything. If you were there and I missed out something you said, please post it.
Right here we go:
The 2 main items of the meeting were persistent standing in 109 and general stewarding & the possible relocation of the away fans to EL3.
Club representatives were: Danny Wilson, Peter Fletcher & Steve Sayer.
Showsec Director Mark Logan also attended.
Persistent Standing & Stewarding
A general statement was made by Steve Parish(organiser) asking Peter Fletcher to explain the background and details on stewarding policy and the issue of safe standing at the ground.
PF: When we moved to COMS it was clear there was a large section of City supporters who wanted to stand. There were battles with the council over the issue as it is against the rules to stand, there were various discussions with them about the time that John Wardle was chairman. He, and various other colleagues believed the club could tolerate standing in the South Stand(from here on SS), provided a series of measures were introduced, such as extra stewards to ensure clear aisles for evacuation and as it is the focal point of supporter banter due to the nearby away fans. Half a dozen supporters who didn't want to stand were relocated. This was a 1 season trial but was continued as there was "suprisingly" no council objection. The club decided to extend this to the Singing Section quadrant which was also successful.
However, there has to be a cut off point and it is club policy that 109 is this cut off point. Standing is not a club policy but is tolerated due to a lack of objection from the council, this is not guaranteed to last, particularly if there are complaints about it. Standing breaks ground regulations. The problem is that it is spreading and there has to be a cut off point. There are a considerable number of people in 109 who want to sit, they have sat there for years and the club admit they did not address as they should have last season. It is the first block of EL1 and is not part of the South Stand. The approach of the club to tackle the issue is right with stewards going in to eject people unwilling to obey the request to sit. Letters have been sent out to all seat holders in 109 to explain that it is a SEATING block.
The danger is that the local authority get involved and order that the tolerance to any standing in the ground be terminated, and that would cause inconvenience to a lot of other supporters.
What about those fans who bought season tickets on the basis that they were told at season ticket renewal that they could stand in 109?
SS: A few fans have claimed that this is the case, it may or may not be true, it's impossible to know at this point. There is nothing official about this claim however, it is not club policy. Accepts that this leads to inconsistency and confusion and creates aggrovation, but he says the vast majority have not bought seasoncards on that basis.
DW: Fans who wish to stand at games can email him or call up to request a relocation to a standing tolerated zone, there are limited seats but he'll try and make it work.
Now onto the bloke attacked at the Villa game:
PF: The man was not targeted, people are asked to sit and the majority do so when asked. When asked to sit down the guy point blankedly refused, saying that he would not do so until the whole South Stand was sat down. He was adamant he would not sit down.
SS: The club looked at the case via CCTV, FSF were involved in a meeting between the man and the club as an objective party, a mutual agreement was the conclusion.
PF: There is a clash in the block, ground regulations do not permit standing and there has to be a line. Problems arise when there are groups of fans who want to stand and there are only a small number of stewards to communicate the policy. The incident was an unfortunate chain of events and there is a review into the way they deal with such incidents(I think that's right).
DW: Have to remember that in 119 there are disabled supporters at the back so that has to be a consideration, as well as fans in other blocks not being able to see the goal.
Staff being rude in 109? Violence/Children Crying/OAP's fainting/People won't go to games anymore/Showsec targeting vulnerable people/Ejection of carers/Various other points
PF: The number of ejections is 109 is less than 10. It should be less but when people refuse to sit there has to be action taken.(On the issue of people who are asked to sit when people in front are standing)Stewards go from bottom to top, and now fans who refuse to comply will be written to and their ticket disabled as forceful ejection has not worked. In terms of fans fainting/being upset, 1 girl was upset by the incident so was relocated to the Family Stand with her father. If there is any misconduct/assaults by any steward whether Showsec or not REPORT IT to the club and more importantly to the police. All stewards have ID numbers to identify them.
ML: The credibility of the company relies on staff conduct. If there is any negative behaviour report it.
NB: Incident of steward punching fans to be dealt with as an individual issue post-meeting with fans who wish to talk about it.
PF: First case of assault at this game reported to him, all assaults are investigated properly and thoroughly, all the stewards, whether MCFC or outside sourced have a responsibility to uphold the reputation of the organisation they represent.
ML: Regarding people feeling unsafe/uncomfortable around unpleasant Showsec stewards, he will take that feedback back to his staff, he wans to build bonds with the fans and for there to be a rapport(as does PF) and there has to be a mutual respect there.
No comment on whether fans at concerts are treated differently to fans at matches.
PF: There are 350 MCFC Stewards, 200 Showsec Stewards and others from G4S(For disabled and some corporate) and IOS for carparking and extra stewarding in the SS. All stewarding groups try to work to the same standards, to respect fans, talk to them and uphold the City Promise. All stewards are strictly briefed on this. If any steward said they were a United fan(from the dark side in PF's words), they would never work for the club again, it would be unacceptable.
A quality assurance team goes round each stand to assess the work of the stewards on duty. The 109 issue has to be settled down, people who stand will face sanctions. He says...Regarding the youtube videos, 1 of the stewards in that video was not on duty that day, so he believes the video was edited
Will fans be allowed to submit video evidence without being reprimanded for breaking ground regulations?
Club: Yes, and all of these issues have been discussed at the very highest level of the club.
Away fans and Standing
PF: Not the club's priority, they're here for 1 game and are surrounded by people who stand on either side. He fills out risk assessment forms every game and says there are 2 safety officers now.
Away fans who persistently stand on L2 cause reduced allocations for the clubs so the Safety Advisory Group don't take action against the club and so the club looks pro-active against standing.
Away Fan Relocation to East Level 3
DW: The club have received plenty of emails on the subject. There have been meetings with possible solutions and options put forward over the years. There are a lot of constaints with moving the fans to do with cost, legislation and the local authorities, as well as safety. They created visuals and eventually came down to 3 options.
1) Maintain it as it is.
2) Relocate away fans to EL3.
3) Wait for any POSSIBLE stadium expansion to re-jig the whole stadium to provide a suitable place for away fans.
In the last 3-4 months atmosphere has been the hot topic. The club reached the point of trialling the EL3 setup for the Villarreal game, it wasn't ideal as there weren't many away fans. There were problems logistically and for EL2 users, 1 tower had to closed and used for just away fans, not ideal.
There were differing views on the atmopshere, obviously the early goal conceded didn't help, over 50% said they would like to see it trialled again and that the atmosphere was slightly better, it will be trialled again for the Bayern game, fans who would end up sitting near the Bayern fans will be offered relocation.
There is NO commitment to this setup full time, there are cost issues, more turnstiles, new toilet configurations and plenty of other considerations. The club respect the EL3 users views, and the perks they receive for their seat ie. good views. Any decision will not be taken lightly, no move is guaranteed due to the aforementioned problems and the status quo is a very real option.
Big IF over stadium expansion, no timeline, SS did mention 15-20,000 extra seats(off the wall remark?)
What about moving the away fans into the Singing section corner?
Club: Plenty of problems with that, no facilities in that corner, not as safe as current setup, would cost millions and millions of pounds to make it a reality.
The club has learnt from the Family Stand fiasco and is going to be more transparent and have a lot more consultation with fans through surveys and (hopefully as it was raised) further meetings. The perception of the surveys by some fans is wrong, they are not loaded nor are they what the club use to make decisions, they are just one of many guides for them to make their decision.
Isn't the opinion of EL3 users much more important than other fans?
Club: The understand that and their views carry a much heavier weight to them, however any decision made will not be a democratic vote. They want to respect long standing fans and respect that they not only sit with people they've know for years but that also there are minimal options to relocate to an equivalent seat. They don't underestimate this at all.
How about delaying an away fans move till expansion?
No specific answer, points made above.
PF: Safety for all fans is paramount, he has his view on the issue but has to keep his powder dry. The current setup is perfectly safe, probably the safest in the league, and any alternative isn't as safe. Things like chucking stuff at users of L2 and L1(a guy mentioned Galatasaray fans causing a riot and chucking bottles of piss at EL2 users), He says that everyone should let the trial run its course and then sit down and chat, there are a mass of obstacles including build new spirals, facilities including toilets.
The club also fully understand that the results of Bayern will not reflect fairly the extent to which the trial has worked as it is a big game and the atmosphere will naturally be better.
It gets a bit jumbled from here, bear with me:
58% of the 6-7,000 fans who replied to the last survey felt that the atmosphere was slightly better. The club feel that this was quite mixed and that that was the whole point, that the issue does polarise opinion and that no decision will be taken lightly, it's a data collection to look at for next season, there are lots of probems, including expenditure as the budgets of the non-footballing departments of the club are being cut to try and comply with FFPR.
We then move onto the problem of fans being relocated due to UEFA extra ticketing at games, only for their seats not to be taken and to be resold to other fans:
This was an issue, UEFA allocated 650 in EL2, didn't take the allocation so seats were re-sold to City fans. Fans can specify which stands they sit in but not seats, it's impractical at that point in the process, and are allocated seats in that stand to the best of the club's ability. There were a number of technical issues with the Napoli game that have now been resolved.
Next season's ticket prices have not been confirmed.
Smoking in City Square
Although the Etihad Campus is technically non-smoking, it is club policy that this is not enforcible in City Square. It is up to the council to enforce their policy, it is illegal in toilets, different in City Square. The club policy is that City Square is not a "non-smoking" area as they will not enforce a policy that it is the responsibility of the council to enforce. It is not a police matter as it is not a criminal offence. Designated non-smoking areas in City Square could be a possibility.
Feedback
Thank you for the free parking for the Derby @ City Square.
Away Games
No choice of where to sit/no seat plans of away grounds so you know where you sit.
DW: Club operates on a best available basis. Online works that way and the ticket office should do also, but acknowledges that sometimes it's "what we have in the draw". Acknowledges that some fans have difficulty buying groups of tickets due to tickets being sold block by block and sometimes the system doesn't get updated quickly enough. The policy regarding going down to the ground and buying for a friend has changed as fans were using other people's numbers to fraudulently buy extra tickets, security checks in place now. The order of sale is also an issue, as some away grounds like Everton refuse to give the upper tier if the lower tier isn't sold out.
Gremlins in the system that seperated fans at the Bolton game were resolved for the Spurs game. 25% of tickets sold online, club encourages it to be more and Danny in particular wants feeback on whether fans prefer online or picking up tickets from the ticket office after the option was removed for a Derby game at Wembley.(Fans responded that it depends on the postman).
Online system not linking friends to your account properly to buy them tickets.
Club: will be looked into.
Why do members with less points get priority over fans with more points for away cup games just because they signed up to the scheme?
Club: to encourage fans to attend poorly attended home cup games, it has worked, the setup was made clear.
Why is there no option to buy disabled tickets online?
Club are working towards a solution, there were problems where adults can buy a disabled ticket at a cheaper price and as a disabled ticket shows as an adult ticket at the turnstile it could be exploited.
The waiting times over the phone are a disgrace, and via email to, shouldn't have to contact specific members of staff to get a request dealt with.
DW: Accepts that it was disgraceful before the Napoli game. The waiting times have been reduced to a couple of hours by email and a couple of minutes by phone, various problems with Napoli including Italians trying to buy tickets in the home end, Blue membership postage being delayed to fulfill season ticket backlog, the standards were appalling. The club accept it's not perfect and accept it should be easier to give feedback and get queries dealt with both online and via the phone, introducing various things on the website including a more detailed FAQ.
Why do students get cheaper prices at the Student Union than student season card holders?
A small number of Students from the union do get tickets for games at a cheaper price to entice them to the ground, normally seats that can't be sold. Looking at passing benefits over to current students(both young and mature).
Prices of food at City Square going up, portions smaller as season goes on.
SS: Prices across the board have gone up but not aware of any portion reductions, will look into it.
**End of meeting**
Hope that covers it, as I said mancmackem or bluebird can add or correct anything.
Northwichdave
Member
- Joined
- 31 Oct 2011
- Messages
- 12
JMW I think that covers it well.
I would say that it was said that 7000 replies were received from 35 000 sent out for the South stand survey. 68% of respondents suggested another trial i.e. 4760,
That is only 13.6 % of those surveyed, and only 11.2% of the 42 326 reported attendance. No wonder they used the 68% of respondents line.
I would say that it was said that 7000 replies were received from 35 000 sent out for the South stand survey. 68% of respondents suggested another trial i.e. 4760,
That is only 13.6 % of those surveyed, and only 11.2% of the 42 326 reported attendance. No wonder they used the 68% of respondents line.
BillCarlisle
Well-Known Member
Northwichdave said:JMW I think that covers it well.
I would say that it was said that 7000 replies were received from 35 000 sent out for the South stand survey. 68% of respondents suggested another trial i.e. 4760,
That is only 13.6 % of those surveyed, and only 11.2% of the 42 326 reported attendance. No wonder they used the 68% of respondents line.
Excellent report JMW - many thanks for that.
Interesting stats, NorthwichDave. Just about confirms what I suspected.
Out of 35,000 or so regular City supporters only 4,760 registered a 'YES' to moving Away Fans to EL3. You can bet your life that the great majority of these came from the South Stand.
Most of the remaining 2,240 'No's probably came from the SS end of EL3. That would be before the rest of EL3, and no doubt some fans in EL2, realised that one way or another moving all Away Fans up there would also affect them.
It would be interesting see what would happen in a straight vote between the whole of the East Stand and the whole of the South Stand.
Comments from the Club are also interesting, and consistent with what Danny Wilson told me last week over the phone re: the logistics. Hopefully the Club has underestimated the depth of feeling by EL3 fans and will think again after the Bayern game.
LongsightM13
Well-Known Member
Cheers for the report JMW. So would it appear there is a cover-up regarding the Showsec goon who was arrested for throwing punches at fans? Did they refuse to discuss it at all except on a private basis? Or is the matter sub-judice?
SWP's back
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 89,064
Great report, thanks JMW
gaudinho's stolen car
Well-Known Member
Cheers JMW.
JoeMercer'sWay
Well-Known Member
LongsightM13 said:Cheers for the report JMW. So would it appear there is a cover-up regarding the Showsec goon who was arrested for throwing punches at fans? Did they refuse to discuss it at all except on a private basis? Or is the matter sub-judice?
no, Peter and Mark seemed genuinely unaware of the situation as Peter made clear that the CCTV was focusing on the man who was receiving treatment after the attempt to eject him. After a lengthy debate about what "went on", Peter asked the people making the complaint to come to him at the end and discuss it with him to get more details, and he said that this was the first person who'd specifically brought it up to him. Mark said he'd also wanted a chat because he wanted as much detail as possible about this steward so he could try and find him, and this is where the ID numbers came in so that you can identify misbehaving stewards and complain about them specifically.
If you have any info about the steward throwing punches including a physical description of him then forward it to the club.
I will say Peter did come across as genuine and far more decent than last time, there is still a feeling of "I blindly believe my stewards" with regards to ejections, but on everything else he was very cool.
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
This is absolute & utter lies & bullshit. I was hoping to get there last night but couldn't make it in the end, which is a pity when I read they said this as I was one of the very few that witnessed the arrest.JoeMercer'sWay said:LongsightM13 said:Cheers for the report JMW. So would it appear there is a cover-up regarding the Showsec goon who was arrested for throwing punches at fans? Did they refuse to discuss it at all except on a private basis? Or is the matter sub-judice?
no, Peter and Mark seemed genuinely unaware of the situation as Peter made clear that the CCTV was focusing on the man who was receiving treatment after the attempt to eject him.
The guy I believe was the ShowSec steward was arrested soon after the start of the second half, not while the incident was ongoing. A youngish guy with dark hair and glasses, wearing a suit, waistcoat and tie, came down the steps talking into a walkie-talkie. He has to have been a club employee (one of the safety officers?) and he walked down the aisle between 109 & 110. A couple of minutes later he walked up with another guy (no one else) and handed him over to two or three police officers who were waiting just on the concourse. This guy had distinctively shaved hair. They turned him around and handcuffed him but it was all very gentle and jovial. It all struck me as very strange at the time as almost invariably any fan arrested is taken out of their seat by a posse of police and hauled up the aisle.
This all suggests to me that there's a big cover-up and I can only guess that ShowSec (and the club) have something to hide over this. Who was the guy arrested and what were the circumstances? Tell us Fletcher.