Why Always Ste
Well-Known Member
Re: Ejections in 109
lol :D
He called us all names so :P
GStar said:
lol :D
He called us all names so :P
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.
Trouble in the East Stand??
- Thread starter Mad Eyed Screamer
- Start date
If this happens again next game get organised and be prepared to go and stand round the innocent victim in your hundreds in a close knit protective crush, refuse to move, and see if the dickhead stewards and their supporting cast of dibble truly want to incite a riot.
Just had a quick read through some of the comments left on the Showsec and GMP disgrace video on youtube. Nearly every comment states how disgusting this is, the fact alot of reds agree on there as well proves how bad it is.
Couple of posts from Everton fans made me laugh, they all start with "im an Everton fan and hate City but..." ha and theres me always beleiving the blue scousers were glad of our good fortune, they've never said ha.
Couple of posts from Everton fans made me laugh, they all start with "im an Everton fan and hate City but..." ha and theres me always beleiving the blue scousers were glad of our good fortune, they've never said ha.
Blue Mooner
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 25 Jun 2005
- Messages
- 3,133
Re: Ejections in 109
Frankly I suggest you are just making facts up to suit your argument I have never seen the club announce 109 as being a standing area. Show me one shred of official MCFC announcements letter, website etc that suggests that 109 is a standing area and that would completely change the debate - but we know that isn't the case.
The facts are that if people in front of you stand, you have to stand, whether you feel able to then say something to the person in front of you depends on who they are and how safe you would feel saying something. Personally, being a regular away traveller there are plenty of people who I would not dare say sit down to for fear of some kind of recrimination.
Tbh it simply indicates the mentality of the people in that block that they can't follow a simple instruction and would choose to have a fracas with a steward over simply sitting down. I suggest that stewards are getting aggressive simply because of the response they are getting.
There may well be a majority who go in that block who want to stand but if the rule is to sit, you sit, its no more complicated than that and if people followed the rule, guess what ? There would be none of this sh*t.
Simply saying that a majority want to stand is not a defence. That's like saying that a majority of people in a bar want to smoke so they should smoke. The law now states no smoking in a public place so if you break that law you suffer the consequences, it's no different here. This is simply understanding the rules and following them it's basic human decency.
To try and argue that Mr Fletcher is just out to do the opposite of what City fans want is ridiculous, quite frankly if that was the case do you 'really' think he would still be in a job ?<br /><br />-- Sun Oct 16, 2011 2:30 pm --<br /><br />
What that Showsec are Pseudo rags just trying to agitate for a fight. It's bullsh*t.
Its a sitting area and people are standing and acting in a confrontational manner that leads to trouble. Funny that I've never come across an aggressive 'showsec' steward in CB level 3.
Is it any wonder that there are people who would probably like to sit but don't feel able to say anything when people are trying to fight over being asked to sit down ?
I do not believe for a second that any steward would just go straight up to a City fan and be aggressive with no reason for being so.
These are aggressive troublemakers pure and simple spoiling for a fight. Some of the inflammatory remarks made on this thread simply prove that to be the case.
As I said I'm all for extending standing to add to the atmosphere but until that is officially the case then if people are in a designated seating area then they should sit.
Stevie B said:Blue Mooner said:I'm sorry but if people are asked to sit down and they refuse I would take down their seat numbers and after the game I would ban them from the stadium. That's the only way you are going to put a stop to this selfishness and get people to sit down in that block. I'm all for extending standing areas but until that happens then tough sh*t
How would they prove the person sat at that seat number disobeying orders is the person who bought the ticket?
Trust me I fully understand people wanting to stand BUT the fact is there is only certain areas designated as standing and 109 is not one of them. If you disobey the rules I fully support the club addressing the issue, particularly if they are bound by Manchester County Council. Its not hard numbnuts sit down and you won't have a problem.
We were told before the season started that Block 109 was a Standing Area, many people including myself specifically relocated here this season so we could stand, and were advised to go here by Box Office staff.
Of course they start with people at the front because it is those that cause the rest of the block to stand. You can't sit down if the poeple in front are stood up. I don't mind standing but looking round the ground on matchday there are a number of people who I would think twice about asking to sit down for fear of getting a volley of abuse back - that's why I'm pleased that Showsec are trying to do something about it to stick up for those who want to sit but aren't in a position to do so.
The old man wasn't at the front, he was about 6 rows back. they targeted him as an easy target. Bully boy tactics.
I've never been asked to sit down once - only by staff. There are young women, kids and so on all standing and they haven't been asked to sit by other fans.
This idea that there are people in 109 that want to sit is a complete myth.
No one knows how many people in that block actually want to sit but are forced to stand by the amount of selfish d*ckheads only concerned about themselves.
We do know, research was conducted and ignored by the club. Surveys were carried out, a large percentage of feedback was in favour of standing, the fans research went against what Fletcher spewed out in that many wanted to sit.
If you want to stand go in the designated areas d*ckheads and if you can't get a ticket there then that's just tough sh*t you have to sit and if you get manhandled and chucked out then there is only one person to blame YOU !
Again, 109 is a designated area, or atleast everyone who has relocated to 109 this season was told by mcfc staff that it is a area for standing this season, BEFORE we relocated... so we made the conscious decision to move there..... Dickhead
Frankly I suggest you are just making facts up to suit your argument I have never seen the club announce 109 as being a standing area. Show me one shred of official MCFC announcements letter, website etc that suggests that 109 is a standing area and that would completely change the debate - but we know that isn't the case.
The facts are that if people in front of you stand, you have to stand, whether you feel able to then say something to the person in front of you depends on who they are and how safe you would feel saying something. Personally, being a regular away traveller there are plenty of people who I would not dare say sit down to for fear of some kind of recrimination.
Tbh it simply indicates the mentality of the people in that block that they can't follow a simple instruction and would choose to have a fracas with a steward over simply sitting down. I suggest that stewards are getting aggressive simply because of the response they are getting.
There may well be a majority who go in that block who want to stand but if the rule is to sit, you sit, its no more complicated than that and if people followed the rule, guess what ? There would be none of this sh*t.
Simply saying that a majority want to stand is not a defence. That's like saying that a majority of people in a bar want to smoke so they should smoke. The law now states no smoking in a public place so if you break that law you suffer the consequences, it's no different here. This is simply understanding the rules and following them it's basic human decency.
To try and argue that Mr Fletcher is just out to do the opposite of what City fans want is ridiculous, quite frankly if that was the case do you 'really' think he would still be in a job ?<br /><br />-- Sun Oct 16, 2011 2:30 pm --<br /><br />
GazC said:Blue Mooner said:rickmcfc said:So what was the old man suppost to do, sit down and not see all on his own? Judging from the videos EVERYONE in that block was stood up so there was no need for anyone to sit down.
Err no that's why they ask the peope AT THE FRONT to sit down first !? Then in theory they can go row by row.
TBH it make my blood boil that people can be so selfish and self centred as to not obey a simple rule.
There are other areas of the ground where you can stand so go in there ! Its quite simply mob rule and for all you know there could be many many people in that block who do not wish to stand but are powerless to do anything about it.
How anyone can argue that it is OK to stand in a sitting section is quite simply selfish and braindead it's that simple.
Try reading the thread before commenting.
What that Showsec are Pseudo rags just trying to agitate for a fight. It's bullsh*t.
Its a sitting area and people are standing and acting in a confrontational manner that leads to trouble. Funny that I've never come across an aggressive 'showsec' steward in CB level 3.
Is it any wonder that there are people who would probably like to sit but don't feel able to say anything when people are trying to fight over being asked to sit down ?
I do not believe for a second that any steward would just go straight up to a City fan and be aggressive with no reason for being so.
These are aggressive troublemakers pure and simple spoiling for a fight. Some of the inflammatory remarks made on this thread simply prove that to be the case.
As I said I'm all for extending standing to add to the atmosphere but until that is officially the case then if people are in a designated seating area then they should sit.
rickmcfc
Well-Known Member
If this happens on Tuesady its quite simple "you never run and stand a fight your ground" Action has to be taken against the scumbag stewards.
A
A
Anonymous
Guest
Re: Ejections in 109
just made my hangover so much better, pissing my sides out here.
rickmcfc said:Pigeonho said:Every now and then a post will occur which makes me spit out my tea/coffee/beer/whatever all over my screen in laughter. This is one of those posts.blumoonrisen said:Well... aren't you a soft crying, grassing wuss of a fanny..
AHHHHHHHHHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
LMFAO!!
This is comment of the month for me, hilarious!!!
"Well... aren't you a soft crying, grassing wuss of a fanny"
just made my hangover so much better, pissing my sides out here.
PrestwichPeteMcfc
Well-Known Member
Re: Ejections in 109
Blue Mooner said:Stevie B said:Blue Mooner said:I'm sorry but if people are asked to sit down and they refuse I would take down their seat numbers and after the game I would ban them from the stadium. That's the only way you are going to put a stop to this selfishness and get people to sit down in that block. I'm all for extending standing areas but until that happens then tough sh*t
How would they prove the person sat at that seat number disobeying orders is the person who bought the ticket?
Trust me I fully understand people wanting to stand BUT the fact is there is only certain areas designated as standing and 109 is not one of them. If you disobey the rules I fully support the club addressing the issue, particularly if they are bound by Manchester County Council. Its not hard numbnuts sit down and you won't have a problem.
We were told before the season started that Block 109 was a Standing Area, many people including myself specifically relocated here this season so we could stand, and were advised to go here by Box Office staff.
Of course they start with people at the front because it is those that cause the rest of the block to stand. You can't sit down if the poeple in front are stood up. I don't mind standing but looking round the ground on matchday there are a number of people who I would think twice about asking to sit down for fear of getting a volley of abuse back - that's why I'm pleased that Showsec are trying to do something about it to stick up for those who want to sit but aren't in a position to do so.
The old man wasn't at the front, he was about 6 rows back. they targeted him as an easy target. Bully boy tactics.
I've never been asked to sit down once - only by staff. There are young women, kids and so on all standing and they haven't been asked to sit by other fans.
This idea that there are people in 109 that want to sit is a complete myth.
No one knows how many people in that block actually want to sit but are forced to stand by the amount of selfish d*ckheads only concerned about themselves.
We do know, research was conducted and ignored by the club. Surveys were carried out, a large percentage of feedback was in favour of standing, the fans research went against what Fletcher spewed out in that many wanted to sit.
If you want to stand go in the designated areas d*ckheads and if you can't get a ticket there then that's just tough sh*t you have to sit and if you get manhandled and chucked out then there is only one person to blame YOU !
Again, 109 is a designated area, or atleast everyone who has relocated to 109 this season was told by mcfc staff that it is a area for standing this season, BEFORE we relocated... so we made the conscious decision to move there..... Dickhead
Frankly I suggest you are just making facts up to suit your argument I have never seen the club announce 109 as being a standing area. Show me one shred of official MCFC announcements letter, website etc that suggests that 109 is a standing area and that would completely change the debate - but we know that isn't the case.
The facts are that if people in front of you stand, you have to stand, whether you feel able to then say something to the person in front of you depends on who they are and how safe you would feel saying something. Personally, being a regular away traveller there are plenty of people who I would not dare say sit down to for fear of some kind of recrimination.
Tbh it simply indicates the mentality of the people in that block that they can't follow a simple instruction and would choose to have a fracas with a steward over simply sitting down. I suggest that stewards are getting aggressive simply because of the response they are getting.
There may well be a majority who go in that block who want to stand but if the rule is to sit, you sit, its no more complicated than that and if people followed the rule, guess what ? There would be none of this sh*t.
Simply saying that a majority want to stand is not a defence. That's like saying that a majority of people in a bar want to smoke so they should smoke. The law now states no smoking in a public place so if you break that law you suffer the consequences, it's no different here. This is simply understanding the rules and following them it's basic human decency.
To try and argue that Mr Fletcher is just out to do the opposite of what City fans want is ridiculous, quite frankly if that was the case do you 'really' think he would still be in a job ?
-- Sun Oct 16, 2011 2:30 pm --
GazC said:Blue Mooner said:Err no that's why they ask the peope AT THE FRONT to sit down first !? Then in theory they can go row by row.
TBH it make my blood boil that people can be so selfish and self centred as to not obey a simple rule.
There are other areas of the ground where you can stand so go in there ! Its quite simply mob rule and for all you know there could be many many people in that block who do not wish to stand but are powerless to do anything about it.
How anyone can argue that it is OK to stand in a sitting section is quite simply selfish and braindead it's that simple.
Try reading the thread before commenting.
What that Showsec are Pseudo rags just trying to agitate for a fight. It's bullsh*t.
Its a sitting area and people are standing and acting in a confrontational manner that leads to trouble. Funny that I've never come across an aggressive 'showsec' steward in CB level 3.
Is it any wonder that there are people who would probably like to sit but don't feel able to say anything when people are trying to fight over being asked to sit down ?
I do not believe for a second that any steward would just go straight up to a City fan and be aggressive with no reason for being so.
You give the stewards too much credit.
These are aggressive troublemakers pure and simple spoiling for a fight. An old city fan sitting down pleading not to pushed around because of his heart problems is an aggressive trouble maker?Some of the inflammatory remarks made on this thread simply prove that to be the case.
As I said I'm all for extending standing to add to the atmosphere but until that is officially the case then if people are in a designated seating area then they should sit.
notts blue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 4 Jan 2010
- Messages
- 1,165
Cheeky heavy handed bastards!
Was dying to have a crack at one of the fuckers, unfortunately the coppers had it under control by the time I'd got up there from 107...
Tick tock show sec..
Was dying to have a crack at one of the fuckers, unfortunately the coppers had it under control by the time I'd got up there from 107...
Tick tock show sec..
Skashion
Well-Known Member
Re: Ejections in 109
A survey was taken, how many times must it be said. It was an internet survey so you can kiss goodbye to intimidation as well.
I agree it's not a defence that a majority want something, except, and get this, when two things can be done. Is there not enough room to accommodate another standing block? The areas of the stadium which are oversubscribed are the standing areas. Getting a ticket in these areas is much harder than in others. How does it make sense to carry on with this bullshit when we've got empty seats in the family stand every week? So here's my ingenious solution, relocate the tiny minority, who are so bothered about standing that they want to move, to another block, and let 109 be standing. Done. The people who want to sit can. Those who want to stand can. However, if, as you are doing, you want to make the argument that behaviour should be enforced on another, it should be the majority on the minority not the minority on the majority. But it doesn't need to be like that.
As for saying show me one announcement etc., it's a red herring. Show me one announcement saying that south stand and 110-111 are standing. They're not. They're advertised as vocal areas or singing sections, never standing. No, 109 is not included in that but it should be and unofficially was. I absolutely believe the people who stood in other sections and relocated to 109 in the hope of standing. It sounds absolutely plausible and correlates with the behaviour of the stewards from five games onwards into last season. They had appeared to have given up and let us stand. Nowhere before we renewed was this reassertion of the policy they had abandoned, stated. Only afterwards were those letters sent and even then only about half bloody got it. I read about it on here.
A survey was taken, how many times must it be said. It was an internet survey so you can kiss goodbye to intimidation as well.
I agree it's not a defence that a majority want something, except, and get this, when two things can be done. Is there not enough room to accommodate another standing block? The areas of the stadium which are oversubscribed are the standing areas. Getting a ticket in these areas is much harder than in others. How does it make sense to carry on with this bullshit when we've got empty seats in the family stand every week? So here's my ingenious solution, relocate the tiny minority, who are so bothered about standing that they want to move, to another block, and let 109 be standing. Done. The people who want to sit can. Those who want to stand can. However, if, as you are doing, you want to make the argument that behaviour should be enforced on another, it should be the majority on the minority not the minority on the majority. But it doesn't need to be like that.
As for saying show me one announcement etc., it's a red herring. Show me one announcement saying that south stand and 110-111 are standing. They're not. They're advertised as vocal areas or singing sections, never standing. No, 109 is not included in that but it should be and unofficially was. I absolutely believe the people who stood in other sections and relocated to 109 in the hope of standing. It sounds absolutely plausible and correlates with the behaviour of the stewards from five games onwards into last season. They had appeared to have given up and let us stand. Nowhere before we renewed was this reassertion of the policy they had abandoned, stated. Only afterwards were those letters sent and even then only about half bloody got it. I read about it on here.