Trouble in the East Stand??

[Flixton blue]

Re: Ejections in 109

I don't know anyone in 109 who wants to sit. I have never once been asked to sit in 109 by a fellow City fan. Quick straw poll. Does anyone on here who 'sits' in 109 want to sit or has been asked to sit by the person behind them?

Oh, and I didn't get a letter either. Nor should they have sent them out after we renewed. Unfortunately we can't argue breach of contract because technically nobody's allowed to stand but we stood last season as the club well know and we renewed presuming we'd be able to again this year. Anyone who wanted out could have got out during the summer to one of the many more seated areas. Standers don't really have a choice. I'm not there for the views. Sitters can go pretty much anywhere else in the entire stadium so why they're attached to a piece of plastic with a number on is beyond me.

Take your point on going with the majority of 109 but not sure your straw poll is going to be reliable. People who post on bluemoon tend to be younger and want to stand. You've got to remember that bluemoon only represents the views of a minority of fans. A lot of people in 109 will just stand and accept it cos they don't want to kick up a fuss.

Would be much simpler if safe standing was brought back. This would cut out the uncertainty which i agree is a big problem with the current situation.

 

[leithblue]

Re: Ejections in 109

Fuck off city!!! your just as bad as 'Feltcher' for letting him work at the ground!! we're not all middle class fucking yuppies who wanna sit down all game. I think you'll find the majority of fans want to stand.

Maybe, but the law says seating is compulsory.

That's what it is. If you want to change the law then there are numerous avenues to go down that are far more helpful than having a tantrum. Peter Fletcher is doing his job, he cannot just shrug and allow fans to stand - even if you and some feel his methods aren't great. That he and the club do tolerate some standing shows that they are sympathetic to standing, but they simply cannot just keep adding standing sections.

Personally I would prefer standing sections - and happy to join any campaign.

 

[Bibinho]

Re: Ejections in 109

this is a article from last year from the gaudian a very good read and something needs to be done i think.....

Football supporters have called for their clubs to be allowed to reintroduce terracing to stadiums.

The Liberal Democrat MP Don Foster has tabled a private member's Bill seeking freedom for clubs to construct standing areas within stadiums at all levels of the game, giving renewed impetus to an issue that brings together fans of all clubs from Manchester United downwards.

Stadiums in the top two divisions in England have to be all-seated, a requirement that came out of the Taylor report into the Hillsborough disaster in 1989. But there is a groundswell of support for change, headed by the Football Supporters' Federation. Of their 180,000 members, 90 per cent are in favour, while in Scotland a survey produced by another fans' group returned a similar level of support.

The Liberal Democrats have been in favour of allowing the reintroduction of standing for the last two years, and their involvement in the Coalition has raised supporters' hopes. Mr Foster is a long-term backer of the move, and he claims that such areas would now be safe, secure, allow more fans into grounds and lead to cheaper tickets.
His views have been endorsed by the FSF and Independent Manchester United Supporters Association (Imusa). Malcolm Clarke, chairman of the FSF, said: "All the evidence is that a large number of fans want it. It is possible to have modern standing areas that are completely safe and give fans choice. It is a customer care problem. It is about choice. Large numbers of people are standing and that shows the level of demand."

Mark Longden, chairman of Imusa, is also a firm believer. He said: "It was one of the founding reasons for our organisation in the first place. We have won all the safety arguments. Now the authorities are saying it is about security, but CCTV can work on standing areas.

"It is a massive issue and has been one for years and years. If they do it in Germany it must be safe. Eventually the authorities will get the hang of it."
The Westfalenstadion in Dortmund has the largest terrace in Europe, holding 24,454 fans for matches in Germany's Bundesliga. For European games (standing is banned in Uefa competitions) seats are installed, which takes a couple of days. Schalke, who play in Gelsenkirchen, also have a terrace that has a barrier on each step in which flip seats are installed. The barriers prevent crushing. It means more fans can get into grounds and the clubs charge lower prices – it costs £7.50 to stand at a Schalke game.

The Premier League is happy with the status quo, pointing to the increase in numbers attending games in the top flight in England since all-seater stadiums were introduced, and a greater diversity among spectators, too.
In response to Mr Foster's urgings, the Sports minister has written to the football authorities to canvass opinion, but in a debate in Westminster Hall yesterday Hugh Robertson did little to raise hopes of a change in the law.
He told MPs: "I am not convinced at this stage that a compelling case has been made to change the policy on standing areas.
"There is a balance to be struck. We are in the process of collating football authorities' responses. I am keeping an open mind, but to be honest there is no groundswell of opinion from the football authorities in favour of a change.
"I think that they are just as scarred by the Hillsborough experience as many of us who are or have been in government. That is a powerful backdrop and should always be so. There is considerable nervousness about moving, given that backdrop."

The Culture, Media and Sport Committee will consider the issue next year as part of a wide-ranging inquiry into the governance of football.
Proponents of the move suggest that the new systems being used in places like Germany, Austria and North America ensure that it would be safe to stand. "We do not want a return to large unsafe areas of terracing," said Mr Clarke. "We don't want to return to anything. This is about moving forward with new designs."

Mr Foster's Bill is unlikely to lead to a change in the law, but this is an issue that strikes a chord with large numbers of supporters. "We just need one big player to break ranks," said Mr Longden. "It is catering for what customers want, and isn't this government supposed to be all about choice?"

 

[goater1978]

Re: Ejections in 109

Fuck off city!!! your just as bad as 'Feltcher' for letting him work at the ground!! we're not all middle class fucking yuppies who wanna sit down all game. I think you'll find the majority of fans want to stand.

Maybe, but the law says seating is compulsory.

That's what it is. If you want to change the law then there are numerous avenues to go down that are far more helpful than having a tantrum. Peter Fletcher is doing his job, he cannot just shrug and allow fans to stand - even if you and some feel his methods aren't great. That he and the club do tolerate some standing shows that they are sympathetic to standing, but they simply cannot just keep adding standing sections.

Personally I would prefer standing sections - and happy to join any campaign.

You can't just say its the law and thats it, as the club already flouts the law in other blocks. The club have made a rod for their own back by saying this block can stand but this block can't.

 

[leithblue]

Re: Ejections in 109

Fuck off city!!! your just as bad as 'Feltcher' for letting him work at the ground!! we're not all middle class fucking yuppies who wanna sit down all game. I think you'll find the majority of fans want to stand.

Maybe, but the law says seating is compulsory.

That's what it is. If you want to change the law then there are numerous avenues to go down that are far more helpful than having a tantrum. Peter Fletcher is doing his job, he cannot just shrug and allow fans to stand - even if you and some feel his methods aren't great. That he and the club do tolerate some standing shows that they are sympathetic to standing, but they simply cannot just keep adding standing sections.

Personally I would prefer standing sections - and happy to join any campaign.

You can't just say its the law and thats it, as the club already flouts the law in other blocks. The club have made a rod for their own back by saying this block can stand but this block can't.

The club has gone way beyond other clubs and stuck its neck out to accommodate standing. If you want to stand then get a ticket in a block the club tolerates, if you can't get one then tough.

It just seems strange to me to get hysterical about the club coming down hard on standing when in reality we are very lucky that they go as far as they do. We should be grateful that they do flout the law in that case.

 

[gingerthai]

Re: Ejections in 109

Fuck off city!!! your just as bad as 'Feltcher' for letting him work at the ground!! we're not all middle class fucking yuppies who wanna sit down all game. I think you'll find the majority of fans want to stand.

Maybe, but the law says seating is compulsory.

That's what it is. If you want to change the law then there are numerous avenues to go down that are far more helpful than having a tantrum. Peter Fletcher is doing his job, he cannot just shrug and allow fans to stand - even if you and some feel his methods aren't great. That he and the club do tolerate some standing shows that they are sympathetic to standing, but they simply cannot just keep adding standing sections.

Personally I would prefer standing sections - and happy to join any campaign.

Thats the thing though, your saying its the law for compulsory seating and he cant just shrug and allow fans to stand. Then you commend him and the club for allowing standing sections. Does that add up to you? If it was such an important law no one would be allowed to stand.

 

[goater1978]

Re: Ejections in 109

Maybe, but the law says seating is compulsory.

That's what it is. If you want to change the law then there are numerous avenues to go down that are far more helpful than having a tantrum. Peter Fletcher is doing his job, he cannot just shrug and allow fans to stand - even if you and some feel his methods aren't great. That he and the club do tolerate some standing shows that they are sympathetic to standing, but they simply cannot just keep adding standing sections.

Personally I would prefer standing sections - and happy to join any campaign.

You can't just say its the law and thats it, as the club already flouts the law in other blocks. The club have made a rod for their own back by saying this block can stand but this block can't.

The club has gone way beyond other clubs and stuck its neck out to accommodate standing. If you want to stand then get a ticket in a block the club tolerates, if you can't get one then tough.

It just seems strange to me to get hysterical about the club coming down hard on standing when in reality we are very lucky that they go as far as they do. We should be grateful that they do flout the law in that case.

Its not "tough" that I can't get a ticket in one of the official standing blocks as I have a ticket in 109 and in over 2 years have stood for every game. Even with these new annoying stewards that are not going to be able to enforce seating. They will give up in a couple of games, they get minimum wage and frankly could probably do without the hassle

 

[leithblue]

Re: Ejections in 109

No, you're right, its not a good situation. But it is a hell of a lot better a situation than other fans find themselves in.

Clearly the club/Peter Fletcher don't fully agree with the law - which is why they go as far as they feel they can with the tolerated sections and this is what I commend them for. I'm sure they can see for themselves the strange position they are in when they have to enforce rules they don't particularly agree with.

But I'd prefer this almost hypocritical arrangement to an all or nothing approach.

 

[Matty]

Re: Ejections in 109

This isn't a post about the rights and wrongs of standing, nor is it an aim to express my own opinions on whether I agree with standing at the football or not. This is a statement of the facts.

It's a fact that standing in the "singing section" is tolerated.

It's a fact that standing in the other areas, regardless of what happened in the past, is not now tolerated.

It's a fact that City sent out letters to the people in the relevant blocks requesting that they sit down rather than stand (whether these were sent out at the appropriate time is a different matter).

It's a fact that people at the front of section 109 were asked to sit.

It's a fact that, for whatever reason, the vast majority refused.

We may, or may not, agree with the actions of individual stewards but what is unavoidable is the facts, we are not allowed to stand in 109, we were told prior to the game that we weren't allowed to stand, and we were told during the game we weren't allowed to stand. It's not hard to grasp that standing isn't allowed based on all those things. If you persist in standing the City will react to that. It might involve throwing you out, but it also might involve writing to you and banning you from the ground.

I can't see City backing down on this matter. It wouldn't surprise me to see the first 3 or 4 rows of 109 all receive a letter banning them from the next home match for persistant standing, and those rows be covered with netting. Again, not saying I agree, but that could well be the way City go with this.

I never got a letter about sitting im in 109 1 seat away from 110

I also am the next seat across from 110 and never got a letter and neither did my brother!

Why City would have issued letters to some in 109 and not others is a mystery, if true. I sit in 109, 3 seats away from block 110, and I received a letter, as did my father. As I sit very far back in the block I wasn't asked to sit down on Monday, based I assume on the fact that if I did sit down I would see zero football as the 30-odd rows in front of me were stood up!

 

[Vic]

Re: Ejections in 109

I think what I'd like to do is assemble a basketball team (all minimum 6' 8") and stand them in front of all those demanding the right to stand....