Sunderland allocation. Reply from there safety officer

[Mad Eyed Screamer]

Usual bog standard bollcks.
If the risk of fans falling over from standing is so great, we wouldnt be allowed to jump up and celebrate but we would have to be strapped in wearing seat belts instead.

He says standing up is not safe - never been proved, other than the often cited statement that sitting is safer.....

Crap

 

[mayo31]

Re: Sunderland allocation issue

First, City say it's 2,100 tickets. Sunderland say it's 2,200. Why is there a difference of opinion in what is a factual issue?

Second, Sunderland say City would get 3,200 if City fans didn't stand throughout this game.

In previous seasons, Sunderland City Council has held a public meeting to determine the allocation of this game and fans have had a chance to say why the allocation should be higher.

It appears that meeting didn't take place this season.

What do people think about it?

Are you arsed? Should fans accept it? Are you angry that you might miss out on tickets? Do you want City to account for the extra 100 tickets and Sunderland to explain why there was no meeting? Or is it all irrelevant?

Edit: It seems the council did hold a meeting afterall.

For thos interested, the agenda item is number 4 here:

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.sunderland.gov.uk/committees/cmis5/Meetings/tabid/73/ctl/ViewMeetingPublic/mid/410/Meeting/7327/Committee/1438/Default.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.sunderland.gov.uk/committees ... fault.aspx</a>

I don't think the minutes have been published.

Forget the match after reading agenda item 5 i going there instead

i have a ticket for the game, i am staying up there for a few nights so will visit the black book establishment once i get the wife and kids settled with the friends we are visiting

it looks like they dont want us there when reading that report but that is there loss

 

[Corky]

How many will we get next year with these attitudes?

We will get the 1,500 or so we used to take there.

Come 2015 it will be Superibia only.

 

[bobmcfc]

Half their allocation and double the ticket price


Don't get mad get petty

 

[Mad Eyed Screamer]

Half their allocation and double the ticket price

A club can only charge away fans what the home fans are being charged in the same stand or a stand of similar standard.

 

[bobmcfc]

Half their allocation and double the ticket price

A club can only charge away fans what the home fans are being charged in the same stand or a stand of similar standard.

Can we half their allocation

 

[beehive_bob]

First, City say it's 2,100 tickets. Sunderland say it's 2,200. Why is there a difference of opinion in what is a factual issue?

Second, Sunderland say City would get 3,200 if City fans didn't stand throughout this game.

In previous seasons, Sunderland City Council has held a public meeting to determine the allocation of this game and fans have had a chance to say why the allocation should be higher.

It appears that meeting didn't take place this season.

What do people think about it?

Are you arsed? Should fans accept it? Are you angry that you might miss out on tickets? Do you want City to account for the extra 100 tickets and Sunderland to explain why there was no meeting? Or is it all irrelevant?

Edit: It seems the council did hold a meeting afterall.

For thos interested, the agenda item is number 4 here:

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.sunderland.gov.uk/committees/cmis5/Meetings/tabid/73/ctl/ViewMeetingPublic/mid/410/Meeting/7327/Committee/1438/Default.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.sunderland.gov.uk/committees ... fault.aspx</a>

I don't think the minutes have been published.

The club also have to complete a "Post Match Report" for each game which includes a persistent standing management plan. This information is in the public domain.

In our April 2008 game there, the report said that "surprisingly Man City fans stood and stewards had to be deployed. Significant amount of abuse to the stewards and 2 away fans ejected for persistent standing. Operation then ceased following risk assessment". So they're basically admitting that it's more of a risk trying to get 2000 fans to sit down than for 2000 fans to be persistently standing.

In the "Incidents Requiring Specific Note" section of the Report for our game, the section is blank.

Other Reports, for their games against Villa and Newcastle, state that their own fans adjacent to the away section only stood in reaction to the away fans standing. YCNMIU.

 

[salfordblues]

Anyone know how quickly these are selling?

 

[dansyb]

as every injury has to be reported someone should do a bit of research and find out how many injuries have occurred in all seated stadiums as a direct result of standing during a game in say the last ten years. My guess it would be very low but it will not happen as the authorities want everybody to believe the only safe way to watch football is sat down ( chained to your seat for your safety)

 

[Corky]

as every injury has to be reported someone should do a bit of research and find out how many injuries have occurred in all seated stadiums as a direct result of standing during a game in say the last ten years. My guess it would be very low but it will not happen as the authorities want everybody to believe the only safe way to watch football is sat down ( chained to your seat for your safety)

It happened in Hamburg after our early goal. Quite a few fell onto the row in front.