iv seen it mentioned in a tiny paragraph somewhere in the programme before. Its come up for a few teams. Newcaslte and man united the first year we played them are the only ones i can recall, but im sure there were other. Of course, that didnt stop them at all the next year around.SpaceCruiser wrote:Didn't we warn another club that if their fans persist with standing, they would be allocated fewer tickets next time?Dirk Gently wrote:Agreed, in theory, but in reality it's never going to happen.Royal Lady wrote:Well "tango" man did a lot of standing up throughout the game, and he certainly wasn't ejected at half time, nor were his mates who were all around him.
I completely understand about the "no standing" ruling - however, time and again, we see the away supporters seemingly getting away with standing for prolonged periods, whilst the stewards "pick on" some of our fans - and these are the ones who are already at the back and not getting in people's way. Some parity with the treatment of both sets of fans would be welcome.
Always remember that the club don't actually want to enforce the "no standing" rule - it causes hassle and conflict an makes it unpleasant for both supporters and stewards. They are forced to be seen to be enforcing these rules by the outside agencies already mentioned.
These outside agencies accept that the club has no effective way of making away fans sit if enough of them decide to stand, so the club are able to cut them some slack. But they know that the club do have leverage with home supporters, because those home supporters have member cards and want to come back.
So as the club have to be seen to be doing something to enforce the rules, it's a no-brainer for them to be doing this in the way which is the most visible and the most effective, as required by RBC and the FLA.
The real mystery is why it's different at away grounds - I supsect it's because our supporters have such a good reputation and because so few stand or misbehave that they are easily dealt with.
We didn't, no, but were made to by the FLA. It's one of the tactics that they are currently using, despite that fact that it never, ever works as a threat - the supporters who stand today won't be the 10% who lose out next time - even if the clubs are in the same division. RFC hate this sanction and will fight very strongly against it - primarily because the only ones who actually suffer because of it are the club themself, who lose revenue by the reduction in away capacity for that game.SpaceCruiser wrote:Didn't we warn another club that if their fans persist with standing, they would be allocated fewer tickets next time?Dirk Gently wrote:Agreed, in theory, but in reality it's never going to happen.Royal Lady wrote:Well "tango" man did a lot of standing up throughout the game, and he certainly wasn't ejected at half time, nor were his mates who were all around him.
I completely understand about the "no standing" ruling - however, time and again, we see the away supporters seemingly getting away with standing for prolonged periods, whilst the stewards "pick on" some of our fans - and these are the ones who are already at the back and not getting in people's way. Some parity with the treatment of both sets of fans would be welcome.
Always remember that the club don't actually want to enforce the "no standing" rule - it causes hassle and conflict an makes it unpleasant for both supporters and stewards. They are forced to be seen to be enforcing these rules by the outside agencies already mentioned.
These outside agencies accept that the club has no effective way of making away fans sit if enough of them decide to stand, so the club are able to cut them some slack. But they know that the club do have leverage with home supporters, because those home supporters have member cards and want to come back.
So as the club have to be seen to be doing something to enforce the rules, it's a no-brainer for them to be doing this in the way which is the most visible and the most effective, as required by RBC and the FLA.
The real mystery is why it's different at away grounds - I suspect it's because our supporters have such a good reputation and because so few stand or misbehave that they are easily dealt with.
Yes they do check - a certain times in the season there are FLA and at other times local authority people at the stadium to check - you may find these are the times when the stewards are the most active in chasing up the continual standing. There have certainly been times when speaking to various staff before the game I have heard that the council or the FLA are at the ground, and I don't necessarily hear of every occasion so I would think it is fairly often.Rev Algenon Stickleback H wrote:Does anybody really check?Dirk Gently wrote: Always remember that the club don't actually want to enforce the "no standing" rule - it causes hassle and conflict an makes it unpleasant for both supporters and stewards. They are forced to be seen to be enforcing these rules by the outside agencies already mentioned.
Given that there have been people standing in Y25/Y26 at pretty much every game since the stadium opened, and nobody yet seems to have complained, I don't get the impression we are in imminent danger of having any punishment imposed on us because a couple of dozen fans stand up up a bit too much.
Staring? Are you OK now? I don't know if I'd be able to ever go to football again if I was subjected to such treatmentDeathy wrote:Making a point of staring up at the top of Y25
Only joking about rumble sticksDeathy wrote:F**k off newbie
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 54 guests