New policy in Y26

[madreadingfan]

i just dont get why they dont make a new standing zone it will be so much easier and less hassle and peopel who want to stand can without someone telling them to sit down, or just go into the south stand instead of y26, i know for cup games they use all of the allocation sometimes but than we would just move back to y26 for cup games, i wold much prefer behind the goal next to the away fans in the south stand and for the people who say stand up for the excitement no one ever does anyway apart from y26, in the north stand the most you get is people on the edge of their seats, too many people are scared to stand up when theres attack just incase someone tells them to sit down!

[Dirk Gently]

i just dont get why they dont make a new standing zone .....

BECAUSE THE LAW WON'T LET THEM.

How many times does it have to be said????

The Football Spectators Act (1989) says "only seated accommodation shall be provided for spectators at a designated football match" and also "Spectators shall only be admitted to watch a designated match from seated accommodation."

The club's hands are completely tied on this matter - if they let people stand the FLA (Football Licensing Authority) will take away their licence. The same applies if they're not seen by the FLA and Reading Borough Council to be attempting to enforce the regulations as best they can.

[T.R.O.L.I.]

Ever feel like this, Dirk?

[rfcjoe]

Quick question, why don't we ask the club to put in a safe standing area? Seems like a flipping superb idea tbh!

[madreadingfan]

i just dont get why they dont make a new standing zone .....

BECAUSE THE LAW WON'T LET THEM.

How many times does it have to be said????

The Football Spectators Act (1989) says "only seated accommodation shall be provided for spectators at a designated football match" and also "Spectators shall only be admitted to watch a designated match from seated accommodation."

The club's hands are completely tied on this matter - if they let people stand the FLA (Football Licensing Authority) will take away their licence. The same applies if they're not seen by the FLA and Reading Borough Council to be attempting to enforce the regulations as best they can.

alright alright that time of the month for someone

[Big Foot]

But it's safer for fans in League 1 or below to stand than fans who follow a top 2 division side. Obviously.

[Dirk Gently]

It's also legal and "safe" to stand on a train that is travelling at 70 mph and also legal and "safe" to stand in exactly the same seat while watching a rugby match or a rick concert. You can also have a pint of beer in your hand at the same time.

I don't think anyone outside the FLA will argue about just how ludicrous the current regulations are - there's absolutely no doubt they're unworkable and unenforceable. But the crucial point is that the only way to change this is to get the law changed.

Shouting at the club and the stewards is utterly pointless - they are only doing what they have to do.

[The 17 Bus]

[Reading Til I Die]

Right, I've calmed down now so back to one of the original points raised for the Southampton game:

RFC decides to close ticket sales in Y26 meaning that the only way you can have a ticket for Y26 is if you had bought your ticket before the decision was made or you were a season ticket holder in Y26.

OK, so the decision didn't go down well or the reasonng behind the decision. However, on the Thursday or Friday night they decide to sell the remaining seats in Y26 even though the Safety Officer/Head Steward or whoever made the decision has stated that tickets are not to be sold there.

So it seems that the club has put ticket sales before fans safety. What happens for the Wolves, Brum, Cardiff, Bristol City games when the demand is potentially greater than the Southampton game?

Will the Safety Officer/Head Steward or whoever be overruled again for the sake of the club making more ticket sales? And surely there's a much higher risk of crowd disturbances against these sets of away fans compared to Southampton?

Is the club more concerned with fans safety/behaviour, or ticket sales?

[Hoop Blah]

It's also legal and "safe" to stand on a train that is travelling at 70 mph and also legal and "safe" to stand in exactly the same seat while watching a rugby match or a rick concert. You can also have a pint of beer in your hand at the same time.

I don't think anyone outside the FLA will argue about just how ludicrous the current regulations are - there's absolutely no doubt they're unworkable and unenforceable. But the crucial point is that the only way to change this is to get the law changed.

Shouting at the club and the stewards is utterly pointless - they are only doing what they have to do.

The clubs are the only ones with enough clout to do anything about it though Dirk.

At the moment they won't because they're quite happy to up the price for everything and attract the family money and push out the more traditional fan. In the meantime they can use the FLA regulations as a means to making it a more family environment.

Until it starts to hit clubs in the pocket they won't bother to do anything about it.

This latest policy is absolutely shambolic. Punish the offenders within these areas and clean it up that way, but don't try and say it's a safety issue and then sell the seats when the rest are sold out.

[Dirk Gently]

It's also legal and "safe" to stand on a train that is travelling at 70 mph and also legal and "safe" to stand in exactly the same seat while watching a rugby match or a rick concert. You can also have a pint of beer in your hand at the same time.

I don't think anyone outside the FLA will argue about just how ludicrous the current regulations are - there's absolutely no doubt they're unworkable and unenforceable. But the crucial point is that the only way to change this is to get the law changed.

Shouting at the club and the stewards is utterly pointless - they are only doing what they have to do.

The clubs are the only ones with enough clout to do anything about it though Dirk.

True-ish ... this whole subject is full of contradictions and paradoxes. One of these is that if you talk to DCMS (Dept. of Culture, Media & Sport - the body to whom the FLA answer) and to the Minister of Sport they say there is no demand in football for this to change, but patently there is demand from supporters for safe-standing areas, even amongst people who prefer to sit themselves.

But if you ask DCMS questions on any other subject to do with football (e.g. club governance) they say "Our policy is that football should govern itself and not have regulation imposed upon it by central government". Spot the contradiction! But slowly progress is being made on the political side, and one or two cracks are appearing in the sides of the dam.

There certainly are voices in football in favour of safe-standing - (several Tier 1 & 2 Safety -officers) and numerous Tier 3 & 4 Safety Officers, CEOs and Chairman) but while they are so heavily regulated by the FLA very few yet will break ranks and publicly say what they're thinking. One of the reasons for clubs to be in favour of safe-standing is that standing is the biggest area for conflict between supporters and stewards, so they want to side-step the whole issue and make grounds so much easier to steward. Also - and this mainly applies to new-builds of course - according to The Green Guide you can get 18 people standing in the space required for 10 people sitting. That's because people sitting need 10% more width when standing, but you can get two standing rows in the space needed for 1 standing row ("A row for the megs, a row for the bums!") So potentially capacity and income could be increased by 80%. Yes, to realise the extra income clubs need to be selling out, but the view of one Tier 4 Chairman is that if he had safe-standing areas he could reduce ticket prices and make attending football more attractive to younger people. Smart man!

Cardiff did want to build standing areas in their new ground but were not allowed, and I do know that at least 1 PL CEO would like to including safe-standing provision in a potential new ground but he knows he'd not be allowed under current regulations.

And that's one of the big problems - while the current rules exist, no grant money or FLA permission is allowed for any standing areas whatsoever - at any level of the league! So if Morecombe or Dagenham & Redbridge wanted to build a new stand it would have to be all-seater! Even more stupid is the fact that Bradford City - because they have been in Tiers 1 & 2 - now have to be all seater all the time, but Wycombe, because they have never been above Tier 3 are allowed to keep a standing terrace.

Let no-one ever kid you that it's a safety issue - the FLA's own published figures have been proven to be false and there is no justification on safety grounds! It's a control issue, pure and simple.

[rabidbee]

If the government were to permit safe-standing as option, it would then really put the onus on the clubs, who couldn't then claim that their hands are tied.

To introduce safe-standing on the German model would require new stands, though - and I can't see many clubs rebuilding existing stadia to incorporate them, so it could only really be an option at newly-built grounds anyway. Of course, there's no reason why the government couldn't permit "seating optional" sections in a ground, but I just see that happening.

[Dirk Gently]

Exactly - at the moment there's a status quo which suits the clubs because they have nice quiet, middle-class cathedrals full of nice, quiet, middle-class, middle-aged spectators, and it suits the government because it means they don't have to do anything or make any difficult decisions.

Plus, of course, it keeps the FLA inspectors in a job - the only reason for their existence is to oversee controls on safe-standing, so what's in it for them to accept any reform?

[rabidbee]

You'd still need licences, especially if seating remained compulsory in seated areas. They presumably also monitor other aspects of behaviour: violence, drunkeness, racism, damage inside and outside the ground, &c.

[AF1]

having not known about this legislation until i read this thread just now i feel the need to issue a few LOLS


lols @ the club, absolute shambles - we dont want people sitting there unless we cant flog them a seat elsewhere. So the casual supporter with only a few points decides to come to a big game and has to sit there and never comes back due to relentless standing, racism and football violence

I've had the pleasure of meeting Mr Doyle many times, away from RFC and whilst hes a perfectly nice chap hes not the brightest IMO so LOL @ the club giving the man this much decision making power.

the biggest lols however are reserved for STAR and those who continue to support it. £10 a year it seems for some kind of message relay service.

'STAR, i'd like to buy a ticket in Y26 and the club wont let me'

'Hang on, I'll send an email.......... Doyle says you can't so tough - that'll be £10 please'

when was the last time STAR did something proactive on behalf of the fans rather than 'spending their own precious spare time' handing out commerative badges to each other engaging in marathom mutual back slapping sessions?

[Reading Til I Die]

Personally I would like someone at the club, or one of the STAR reps to post on this thread and let the fans know why it was closed up until the Thursday/Friday and then opened just because the demand for seats was so high.

Health & Safety v Ticket sales?

Surely it can't be that hard to get an answer? Or shall I try to go to the Club direct and save myself £10 on STAR fee's!

[STAR Voice]

Can't be bothered to respond to Affer's wind-up post, except to say that they say ignorance is bliss. If that's true, Affers must be the happiest man in the world.

With regard to the RTID's query, I'll give my understanding of the situation - I wasn't at the meeting 2 weeks ago so don't know all of the details, but I'll do my best.

The situation as I understand it is that the club believes that a significant number of people in Y26 are only there for the purpose of interacting with away supporters - and when I say "interacting" I mean winding up, abusing, swapping insults, throwing coins, etc, etc. This includes both those who purchase tickets in Y26 for that purpose as well as people with tickets elsewhere in the East Stand who move to vacant seats there for the same reason. The club is determined to stop this, and to "calm down" this area as they say it is a potential flash-point with considerable conflict with stewards. They want people to be at the football to watch the football and support their team, and not to wind up away supporters or stewards.

That's why they have been very strict on checking that the people who are there do have tickets for that area, and also why they have not been selling tickets in advance. However, when STAR met the Club's Senior Management team last week we discussed this (once we'd finished swapping enamel badges, of course) and the club have made some changes to the away area configuration which, from their point of view, they hope will partly alleviate the problem.

As to the process of not selling Y26 until the rest of the stadium is sold, if you think about it this does achieve the club's objective pretty well. Their objective is to calm this area down and stop it being a flash-point. There are two ways of doing that - for the less well-attended games it's by not selling tickets in Y26 at all, and for the better-attended games it's selling that area to a cross-section of supporters, not particularly those who want to sit there for their own reasons. You might argue that that's poor for the "ordinary" supporters who find themselves in Y26, but the club would say that using that argument just supports their view that behaviour of some in Y26 is unacceptable.

I hope that gives a better idea of the issues and the facts, and please note that I have tried to report everything in an objective way, without stating any personal views or opinions, or by "taking sides" with either the club or those supporters who are unhappy about this. But just to remind everyone of the realities of life, Reading Football Club is not a democracy nor is it a club run by its supporters - as such, they have complete control, from a legal point of view, on which order they sell their tickets, which areas they open up and who they allow into the stadium.

STAR can communicate with them, give our opinion and frequently can influence their decisions (and we're actually much more successful at doing that than the vast majority of supporters' organisations) but at the end of the day it's the club's decision on things like this. They would probably say "So why do you want to sit in Y26 so much - why can't you enjoy watch a football match without being next to the away supporters?"

As for my personal opinion on this, I think this is a similar problem to that being seen at many grounds at the moment : one person's "banter" is another's "unacceptable behaviour". The line between what is acceptable and unacceptable is moving all the time, and is different for many people, and will always cause conflict.

[Jerry St Clair]

The club's hands are completely tied on this matter - if they let people stand the FLA (Football Licensing Authority) will take away their licence.

Dirk, are you aware of the FLA actually imposing any sanctions on clubs with persistent standers? I dimly recall Man Utd having their away allocation at Middlesbrough cut, but other than that all I ever seem to hear are empty threats from the FLA and local councils.

[Jerry St Clair]

Shouting at the club and the stewards is utterly pointless - they are only doing what they have to do.

Not quite.

The Dept of Culture Media and Sport state that in managing persistent standing in seated areas it is "down to professionals on the ground to........decide the best way of dealing with the issue of fans who persistently stand". There is huge scope for interpretation here and probably explains why the safety officers at Wigan and Bristol City (to name but two) have absolutely no intention of attempting to make fans sit down.

RFC seem to be taking an extremely zealous approach despite the room for manouver this policy appears to give them.

[Dirk Gently]

The club's hands are completely tied on this matter - if they let people stand the FLA (Football Licensing Authority) will take away their licence.

Dirk, are you aware of the FLA actually imposing any sanctions on clubs with persistent standers? I dimly recall Man Utd having their away allocation at Middlesbrough cut, but other than that all I ever seem to hear are empty threats from the FLA and local councils.

There are continual threats of reduced allocations, yes - not just at the clubs you mention but I think there have been several others, too. Manchester Utd have certainly had their away allocations reduced at several grounds, and this came really close to happening at Reading last year, too. Typically the reduction is 10% - to reflect the fact that standing fans take up 10% more width than seated ones, according to the Green Guide. The reduction hurts the home club financially and does nothing to affect the away fans, of course.

Also, a few years ago there were threats of closing a stand at The Boleyn that came to nothing once enough fans protested. I agree that these threats are utterly empty and completely counter-productive, but they are all the FLA have.