Fans in standing row - QPR RELATED

[SM1882]

Worst in the borough by a distance Saffa in home areas. Fulham have a problem with away fans standing but generally, Chelsea don't have an issue. The Matthew Harding Standing is very well stewarded and self policed by some of the fans down there.

You are one of THE posters that I look out for over the forums Nodge, so I won't question what you are saying

One thing I will mention though is that I was told (albeit a rumour) that THE CLUB were trying to eliminate all standing at Loftus Road. It was their idea to ban and fans that persistently stand, and this idea certainly didn't come from the council.

There were a few question marks over whether the club would actually pursue such an idea - then low and behold they threaten us in last weeks programme.

The council have wanted us to sit for a fair few seasons now, and nothing has came of it... just a couple of overzealous stewards occassionally, but this is now a different ball game altogether - and personally speaking I have no doubt whatsoever where the finger should be pointed.. and its not the council.

[Nodge70]

Pretty irrespective though isn't it?

Club have an all seater stadium and are required under the terms of the safety licence to ensure people are seated. It's not the council's role to instruct the supporters, the club have to do that.

Banning supporters for persistent standing following warnings isn't uncommon. Far easier to do when all tickets are sold to ST holders or members!

[SM1882]

Pretty irrespective though isn't it?

Club have an all seater stadium and are required under the terms of the safety licence to ensure people are seated. It's not the council's role to instruct the supporters, the club have to do that.

Banning supporters for persistent standing following warnings isn't uncommon. Far easier to do when all tickets are sold to ST holders or members!

I think it stems much further than that personally. It is yet another example of the club lying to supporters, and certainly alienating those fans that have stood by them through all the turmoil that they have dragged us through. Keep making warnings and 'efforts' to make us sit.. thats fair enough. But to start banding about threats of blocking ST's... which people have payed TOP TOP money for (in the middle of a recession!!!) does leave a bitter taste doesn't it?

Technically we should all be seated, but there are tons of things that should happen - but never do. There are plenty of rules that people are supposed to abide by (in all things, not just football), but I think at some stage common sense should prevail.

Providing that nobody is having their view blocked by standing, is it REALLY that big a health hazard? I don't think so. I just see it as another reason for fans to stay away, and with our dwindling attendances... thats the last thing we need.

[qpr4eva89]

still reckon we should organise a protest if this continues 2 happen and for people that say its the stadium rules and people are in there way and your not allowed 2 do it im talking about people at the back in the q,p and r blocks that choose 2 stand and are getting singled out

[SM1882]

Here are some bits on standing, from a LFC website:

In pretty much every ground in the country, apart from maybe Goodison and one or two others without a standing culture, there are large sections of home fans standing for 90 minutes, week in, week out. You then have the majority of away followings that stand for 90 minutes. West Ham have around 8000 standing every week, Tottenham around 7000, Arsenal about 2000, Man City around 4000, United around 4000, Chelsea around 1000, Newcastle around 800 - and the list goes on. We have 12,500 standing for our big games and European nights, yet when around 500 or so of us try and stand for bog standard league games at the back of the Kop, and try to create a bit of atmosphere, we're clamped down on and told to sit. It's pathetic.

Trafford Borough Council contacted Manchester United a few years ago, stating that they were in breech of their ground regulations and safety certificate, as they had fans persistently standing in the upper Stretford End. They issued the club with a threat to revoke their safety certificate and close the stand in question. United then said "see you in court".

In order for a stand to be closed, or any action of that kind to take place, the authorities must prove in court that the action being taken is in proportion to the risks involved. Something they will never be able to do. Fans have been standing persistently in all seater grounds for years, with constant threats of stand closures. Nobody has been injured and there is not one single piece of evidence to suggest standing it more dangerous than sitting. No way to prove that the proposed closure of the stand is in proportion to the risks. There are no evidence of risks to present!

Man City's safety manager - their Ged Poynton if you like - made a statement last summer, that the club have created a singing section in the lower tier next to the away fans, and he will NOT be asking stewards to enforce them to sit. They'll be left alone to stand, as there is no safety risk with standing in lower tiers. He is 100% correct. And every game this season, City fans have stood all game, every game with no hassle from stewards. There has been no closure of the stand or threat of that from the FLA. They know they can't win.

[qblockpete]

That might the issue. They cannot serously ask supporters to sit in the qblock, you would not be able to see a thing Literally !1

It is probably more focused on other areas of the ground, where people want to stand and get in the way of sitting supporters

[Modest Mouse]

Here in Sweden supporters stand up the entire game, jumping and dancing.
It´s seen as a positive thing that lifts the whole match experience.
If we were told to sit down for the whole match, there would be uproar.

[SM1882]

That might the issue. They cannot serously ask supporters to sit in the qblock, you would not be able to see a thing Literally !1

It is probably more focused on other areas of the ground, where people want to stand and get in the way of sitting supporters

On the basis that what they stated in the programme is correct, it doesn't matter where we are sat... and our ST's will be made void imminently.

Why the club can't just follow the lead of Man City (a club with a logical approach in this area) I don't know.

I think all of us would agree that the atmosphere has been poor this season, and all this talk of banning for trying to generate noise certainly won't help.

The club need to clarfify the situation here.

Personally I wish more supporters were up in arms about this, it's a disgrace.

[Nodge70]

Here are some bits on standing, from a LFC website:

In pretty much every ground in the country, apart from maybe Goodison and one or two others without a standing culture, there are large sections of home fans standing for 90 minutes, week in, week out. You then have the majority of away followings that stand for 90 minutes. West Ham have around 8000 standing every week, Tottenham around 7000, Arsenal about 2000, Man City around 4000, United around 4000, Chelsea around 1000, Newcastle around 800 - and the list goes on. We have 12,500 standing for our big games and European nights, yet when around 500 or so of us try and stand for bog standard league games at the back of the Kop, and try to create a bit of atmosphere, we're clamped down on and told to sit. It's pathetic.

Trafford Borough Council contacted Manchester United a few years ago, stating that they were in breech of their ground regulations and safety certificate, as they had fans persistently standing in the upper Stretford End. They issued the club with a threat to revoke their safety certificate and close the stand in question. United then said "see you in court".

In order for a stand to be closed, or any action of that kind to take place, the authorities must prove in court that the action being taken is in proportion to the risks involved. Something they will never be able to do. Fans have been standing persistently in all seater grounds for years, with constant threats of stand closures. Nobody has been injured and there is not one single piece of evidence to suggest standing it more dangerous than sitting. No way to prove that the proposed closure of the stand is in proportion to the risks. There are no evidence of risks to present!

Man City's safety manager - their Ged Poynton if you like - made a statement last summer, that the club have created a singing section in the lower tier next to the away fans, and he will NOT be asking stewards to enforce them to sit. They'll be left alone to stand, as there is no safety risk with standing in lower tiers. He is 100% correct. And every game this season, City fans have stood all game, every game with no hassle from stewards. There has been no closure of the stand or threat of that from the FLA. They know they can't win.

I know for a fact that they have and Manchester City have had a little visit from Manchester City Council, who, incidentally OWN that stadium.

A very one eyed version and nowhere near the truth. West Ham's section of the Bobby Moore where the majority of standing occurs doesn't hold 8000 and Spurs figure is way, way off. United didn't say "see you in court" and in fact, complied with what Trafford Borough Council asked them to do.

There is no safety risk if the situation is managed correctly, absolutely. But you can't blame the club for enforcing regulations that are there as part of their licence to operate and a legal requirement.

In Manchester City's case, if one, just one, supporter is injured as a direct result of Ged Poynton's alleged comment - singing section or not (this is hypothetically as that quote is taken so far out of context as to be irrelevant) - they would be deemed negligent, operating in direct and knowingly in contradiction of their safety licence and would, to quote the Life of Brian, be taken to the ####ing cleaners!

Don't get me wrong - I'd much prefer safe standing sections and after seeing how it works in Gelsenkirchen and Dortmund, would be great to have it reintroduced to the top two divisions in England.

I just think the is the wrong stick to beat the club with when their hands are tied by a very active and trunky council using the law of the land as their whip

Pete - re Q Block & H Block - they'll just take the seats out as they did in the School End or (unlikely) do something really radical and full of common sense by taking down that ridiculous fence that seperates home fans from home fans and putting up something more appropriate for the area of the ground.

[themodfather]

the kop at lpool stand all game, every game, they sit ...i sit
also if the players stop swearing, i will.
rules apply to ALL.

[Nodge70]

But the City of Liverpool don't issue the safety licence for Loftus Road.

Entirely different political situation.

[themodfather]

where does the POLITICS come into it?

good to see qpr hounding those q block noisy chaps, surgical castration THE ONLY ANSWER!
r block next and then, then THE WORLD!!

[Stanley]

Nodge, maybe rowdy fans that stand dont fit in with Flav's 'boutique' image he wants to create. Do you not think the club might be acting a tad disingenuous over this re council stipulations?

[loneranger]

cant keep the rowdies out

[Nodge70]

where does the POLITICS come into it?

good to see qpr hounding those q block noisy chaps, surgical castration THE ONLY ANSWER!
r block next and then, then THE WORLD!!

Can you realistically see or expect a Liverpool city councillor doing anything that could be construed as detrimental to LFC.

Like it or not, in the real world they operate in their own little republic outside the usual spheres of interference. Yep its unfair but that's the reality that we work with.

This isn't the club cracking down for fun or its own sake. Why would they unneccesarily want to **** of their own fans?

It's the council!