Trouble in the East Stand??

[cyberblue]

Re: City Spokesman sides with showsec

How embarrasing ,the spokesman(unnamed) said the elderly man was extremley abusive (witnesses say he wasnt) he also said the stewards had complaints about him (from who) everyone round him seemed to be supporting him ,The club encorages the "Poznan" which involves thousands of fans not only standing but bouncing up & down .but one old bloke stands up & world war 3 breaks out

What was this on, mate?

MEN website

 

[BlueMoonRisin’]

The incident was 30ft diagonally lower to my left so couldn't see what was happening, but one thing is clear, these showsec bullies target the 'weak and
'infirm' amongst us in there.

Last season i and many others were relocated from the North stand and i purposely chose 109 for a better atmosphere and a chance to stand up.
However, many blues didn't know 109 is mostly up for standing and in the first few matches of last season, there were a few minor problems in certain fans asking others to sit down. This season those who complained and wanted to sit have relocated allowing others to take their place and stand.

Something needs to be sorted regarding Showsec's bullyboy tactics soon as their is a powder keg situation brewing to bursting point, and unless these threatening 'Easter Island headed' stewards see sense and calm down it surely will blow with more innocent people getting hurt.

 

[Why Always Ste]

LoL BBC Manc just saying we plan on having a protest,but when he asked me about it I just said there was a few ideas thrown about for a protest, but nothing properly organised.

Making it sound like we're gonna all en masse march down alan turing way

 

[bringer678]

The club need to make a call, allow 109 to be a standing block, or insist it's seating only.

Once they make this call (some might say they already have), then they need to enforce whatever decision they make.

However the METHOD of enforcement is clearly not working, and in my opinion, is the incorrect one to use.

IF City have decided there is to be no standing in block 109 then the only way to sensibly enforce it is, again in my opinion, the following:-

1 - Send a letter out to everyone in block 109 stating it's a seated only block. Explain the repercussions should you refuse to sit.

2 - On match days, reiterate the message from the letter, that 109 is seating only.

3 - Get the stewards to politely, but firmly, from the front row and working backwards, ask the fans to sit down.

4 - For anyone who refuses to sit down, take a note of their seat number and row.

5 - After the game, but prior to the next home match, send out letters to all those who refused to sit. Inform them that, for the next home game, their ticket has been deactivated and they may not attaend the game (only 1 match).

6 - Should people persistently offend increase the match bans, to 2 games, 3 games etc.

7 - Eventually, should someone still refuse to sit, remove their seasoncard completely.

Now, I'm not saying I agree with the decision to make people sit, I actually have no strong dfeelings one way or the other, I'll do what those around me do. I'm lucky in respect that I sit so far back in 109 that I never get asked to sit down. What I am saying is that IF the club have made the decision they need to enforce it sensibly, and safely. The method they use at present, which seems to be a mix of intimidation, force and ffan removals, isn't working, causes as many issues as it prevents, and is demonstratively dangerous.

An even more sensible thing would be to leave everyone alone!

And that would enforce the clubs decision how exactly?

As has been demonstrated by the smoking in the loos behind 109/110, asking nicely with virtually no enforcement will result in fans simply ignoring the request and doing whatever they want. If the club are truly committed to making 109 sitting only then they need to enforce it, otherwise people will stand regardless.

As I said, I don't really care one way or the other regarding the sitting/standing debate, my comments were purely explainign how enforcement SHOULD be used to be safe, and effective.

The man was de-arrested and didn't even break the law. The steward were being dicks for their own amusement. I can't imagine anyone complaining about 1 man in thousands can you!? Unless they were planning to eject about 7 thousand people this is fine. The club don't want this to be seated as much as you make out as it is still advertised as a standing area(even some stewards say this). These reports about not being able to see come from people who can't be arsed locating and would rather a load of trouble to happen to others than them moving their lazy arse.

These reports are made to Showsec and go to the infamous peter fletcher. These letters that only went to some people from 109, days after the 1st game(!) would have been as a result of fletcher(prick). If the club were desperate to do it(don't see why they would like to eject their own paying fans) then it would have been far more organised and it would have been made clear before the purchase of ST's and still would be made clear by the club now(which it isn't).

NOTHING BAD WOULD HAVE HAPPENED IF IT WASN'T FOR THE STEWARDS.

how would leaving the fans alone not have helped? everyone's happy then(except some showsec who want a battle)

 

[bluelol]

It strikes me that there are not many witnesses willing to step forward on this man's behalf. Perhaps through fear of losing their own season ticket or just plain apathy. If the the moral outrage of the majority on here is to be believed then why is no-one stepping up to the plate to speak to the press ?

Why would you want to involve the press, (Don't we get enough negative press already) when the correct manner would be to notify the club itself, because it's obviouse that a urgent enquiry of the incident is required to protect all concerned.

The stuards have a responsibility to provide health and safety and also posess the ability to approach people in a responsible manner but juging by the vidio footage would seem to have been contravened and could quite easily be seen as a enticement to cause a riot, thank god this did not turn out to be case.

As with all walks of life there is always be bad apples in the bunch, this being the responsibility of our head of safety to identify when training or on general observations, and if proven to be then surely the club has the responsibility to deal with it.

Lets hope this gentleman is ok and a correct conclusion is obtained for all our sakes.

City is on the up, it would be a shame to have a bad spoke in the wheel or encourage any more bad press.

 

[JoeMercer'sWay]

It strikes me that there are not many witnesses willing to step forward on this man's behalf. Perhaps through fear of losing their own season ticket or just plain apathy. If the the moral outrage of the majority on here is to be believed then why is no-one stepping up to the plate to speak to the press ?

Why would you want to involve the press, (Don't we get enough negative press already) when the correct manner would be to notify the club itself, because it's obviouse that a urgent enquiry of the incident is required to protect all concerned.

The stuards have a responsibility to provide health and safety and also posess the ability to approach people in a responsible manner but juging by the vidio footage would seem to have been contravened and could quite easily be seen as a enticement to cause a riot, thank god this did not turn out to be case.

As with all walks of life there is always be bad apples in the bunch, this being the responsibility of our head of safety to identify when training or on general observations, and if proven to be then surely the club has the responsibility to deal with it.

Lets hope this gentleman is ok and a correct conclusion is obtained for all our sakes.

City is on the up, it would be a shame to have a bad spoke in the wheel or encourage any more bad press.

because this side of the club is corrupt and fuck all ever gets done about it.

 

[M18CTID]

Or sort it now, make 109 all standing?

The club need to make a call, allow 109 to be a standing block, or insist it's seating only.

Once they make this call (some might say they already have), then they need to enforce whatever decision they make.

However the METHOD of enforcement is clearly not working, and in my opinion, is the incorrect one to use.

IF City have decided there is to be no standing in block 109 then the only way to sensibly enforce it is, again in my opinion, the following:-

1 - Send a letter out to everyone in block 109 stating it's a seated only block. Explain the repercussions should you refuse to sit.

2 - On match days, reiterate the message from the letter, that 109 is seating only.

3 - Get the stewards to politely, but firmly, from the front row and working backwards, ask the fans to sit down.

4 - For anyone who refuses to sit down, take a note of their seat number and row.

5 - After the game, but prior to the next home match, send out letters to all those who refused to sit. Inform them that, for the next home game, their ticket has been deactivated and they may not attaend the game (only 1 match).

6 - Should people persistently offend increase the match bans, to 2 games, 3 games etc.

7 - Eventually, should someone still refuse to sit, remove their seasoncard completely.

Now, I'm not saying I agree with the decision to make people sit, I actually have no strong dfeelings one way or the other, I'll do what those around me do. I'm lucky in respect that I sit so far back in 109 that I never get asked to sit down. What I am saying is that IF the club have made the decision they need to enforce it sensibly, and safely. The method they use at present, which seems to be a mix of intimidation, force and ffan removals, isn't working, causes as many issues as it prevents, and is demonstratively dangerous.

The problem with the standing regulation is it is open to so many interpretations which makes it unenforceable.
Standing up during the game is permitted. The trouble is around the word ''persistantly''.
The Football Licensing Authority (FLA) will tell you themselves that standing up ''at moments of excitment'' is permitted. But how do you define what is exciting and what isnt. This will vary from person to person. For many fans, the whole game is exciting! Is getting a corner exciting enough to warrent getting on your feet? (it was when Stuart Pearce was manager!!)
Liverpool had this issue in the Kop a few years ago and the fans group organising a standing 'zone' met with safety officers and came to an agreement that they could remain doing what they were doing as long as every now and then a steward would walk up past the section and the fans had to sit down ''for a few moments'' (assuming they didnt score during that time) - just to break up that ''persistant'' standing tag. This worked and satisfied both the safety officers requirements and fans desires.

Great post - there are too many grey areas around the regulations regarding standing in all-seater stadia. As such, a commonsense approach should ensue but commonsense all too often doesn't come into it as we saw on Saturday yet on the flip side the example you cite of what they do on the Kop at Anfield shows that commonsense can work. Of course, the scenario Prestwich cites of one person persistently standing up and getting reprimanded for it because hundreds of others around them are sat down is a good one. However, when you get an area of the ground where the majority like to stand then it will lead to big problems if the stewards employ the wrong tactics.

 

[bringer678]

Interesting quote from RAWK

My girl friends old man is one of the fire stewards there and he said it was a disgusting. However, he did say that the control room were insisting stewards removed anyone who insisted on standing. But the fact they targeted a vulnerable old man is bollocks.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Re: Re: Trouble in the East Stand??

Why would you want to involve the press, (Don't we get enough negative press already)

I agree people are sometimes too quick to run to the press when they should be giving a chance to the club to sort it out.

But the safety of fans is far more important than anything else. Anyone in 109 will tell you it was a hairsbreadth from kicking off on Saturday. Plus the club statement made it clear where they stood and that lost them the opportunity to be given the chance to investigate.

 

[bluelol]

It strikes me that there are not many witnesses willing to step forward on this man's behalf. Perhaps through fear of losing their own season ticket or just plain apathy. If the the moral outrage of the majority on here is to be believed then why is no-one stepping up to the plate to speak to the press ?

Why would you want to involve the press, (Don't we get enough negative press already) when the correct manner would be to notify the club itself, because it's obviouse that a urgent enquiry of the incident is required to protect all concerned.

The stuards have a responsibility to provide health and safety and also posess the ability to approach people in a responsible manner but juging by the vidio footage would seem to have been contravened and could quite easily be seen as a enticement to cause a riot, thank god this did not turn out to be case.

As with all walks of life there is always be bad apples in the bunch, this being the responsibility of our head of safety to identify when training or on general observations, and if proven to be then surely the club has the responsibility to deal with it.

Lets hope this gentleman is ok and a correct conclusion is obtained for all our sakes.

City is on the up, it would be a shame to have a bad spoke in the wheel or encourage any more bad press.

because this side of the club is corrupt and fuck all ever gets done about
it.

I SIncerley hope you are wrong about that Joe surley Vicky is not in that mold however as I stated, what good would come out of it by involving the press.