Safe standing

SlowDownDerek said:
Not really, I was answering his question. I think safe standing is a good thing and I don't think there was a way of implementing it without some people having to move so why not just get on with it? I don't necessarily agree with them enforcing the standing rules in this Draconian way so hopefully they are asked to justify this in the fans forum.
Click to expand...

My genuine question arises out of contradictions in what you write. You have just made another one! Compare these two sentences in the same paragraph:-

I think safe standing is a good thing and I don't think there was a way of implementing it without some people having to move so why not just get on with it?

and

I don't necessarily agree with them enforcing the standing rules in this Draconian way...

Can you see?
 
SlowDownDerek said:
I don't really get this. The only way it would have happened sooner is if they started the process sooner.
Click to expand...

You’re all over the place with this. Take a step back and have another look. My post about consultation said back in July. Safe standing wasn’t implemented until the end of February , supporters had less than a week to decide to stay or go with no options available.

There was a time to implement it better. There was time to ask supporters where safe standing would be best - avoiding the current scenario in block 15. Which anyone with any knowledge of the north stand would know. There was time to discover that it might not be wanted or needed to be across the whole stand and/or so deep down, or a bigger installation would be welcomed.

There was time to give the ticket office a chance to offer proper seat moves both in and out of the area.
 
Consultation gives people the chance to take a view but, more importantly, allows people to know what is planned and the reasons for it.

It’s about keeping people onside at the very least and avoiding the kind of bad feeling and resentment that we see regularly.

It costs nothing but the benefits are huge.

We have moved from a relationship with the club to a series of transactions. Very 2024. Not very community club.
 
ErikthViking said:
My genuine question arises out of contradictions in what you write. You have just made another one! Compare these two sentences in the same paragraph:-

I think safe standing is a good thing and I don't think there was a way of implementing it without some people having to move so why not just get on with it?

and

I don't necessarily agree with them enforcing the standing rules in this Draconian way...

Can you see?
Click to expand...

They are two different issues in my mind.

1) If we want safe standing, which I think most people do, then one way or another people are going to have to move.

2) They could possibly turn a blind eye to people standing if they wanted to - like most other clubs do. I don't know why they haven't.
 
DJ said:
You’re all over the place with this. Take a step back and have another look. My post about consultation said back in July. Safe standing wasn’t implemented until the end of February , supporters had less than a week to decide to stay or go with no options available.

There was a time to implement it better. There was time to ask supporters where safe standing would be best - avoiding the current scenario in block 15. Which anyone with any knowledge of the north stand would know. There was time to discover that it might not be wanted or needed to be across the whole stand and/or so deep down, or a bigger installation would be welcomed.

There was time to give the ticket office a chance to offer proper seat moves both in and out of the area.
Click to expand...

So there was time if they started the process earlier?

Is that not like saying "I wouldn't start from here" when asked for directions?
 
SlowDownDerek said:
So there was time if they started the process earlier?

Is that not like saying "I wouldn't start from here" when asked for directions?
Click to expand...

No, because that is when the process started. The SGSA released their enforcement approach for the new season and why clubs like Plymouth and others sent out the communication that they did.


I wasn’t reinventing the wheel, trying to be clever or only posting with the benefit of hindsight. It was just common sense, which is why fritter found an example so quickly and easily.
 
DJ said:
No, because that is when the process started. The SGSA released their enforcement approach for the new season and why clubs like Plymouth and others sent out the communication that they did.


I wasn’t reinventing the wheel, trying to be clever or only posting with the benefit of hindsight. It was just common sense, which is why fritter found an example so quickly and easily.
Click to expand...

That Plymouth example is just reiterating that you aren't allowed to stand it's not a consultation exercise. Besides, doesn't it imply that they are working on a club-by-club basis?

"If we cannot address this situation and show improvement then it is likely that the club will be forced to impose, or have imposed, stricter measures, including a potential capacity reduction.

Similar measures have been imposed at other stadiums previously and it is likely that others will also find themselves in the same situation as ourselves during the 23/24 season."
 
Hoof_It said:
There are more issues than that in your mind.

Next time you go to the Dr tell them you don't want a consultation just get them to go straight for surgery. The consultation only delays the process.

Will cut NHS waiting lists no end.
Click to expand...

You should have consulted someone about this analogy before going public with it tbh.
 
SlowDownDerek said:
That Plymouth example is just reiterating that you aren't allowed to stand it's not a consultation exercise. Besides, doesn't it imply that they are working on a club-by-club basis?

"If we cannot address this situation and show improvement then it is likely that the club will be forced to impose, or have imposed, stricter measures, including a potential capacity reduction.

Similar measures have been imposed at other stadiums previously and it is likely that others will also find themselves in the same situation as ourselves during the 23/24 season."
Click to expand...

The logistics of implementation would be done club by club because each ground would be different.

The process getting to that point is the same though, hence the guidelines and the points made to clubs to deal with it.

Which is what you posted…

Safe standing

I'm in favour and I sit in the NS and had the same seats since we moved to the new stadium. . It is not 90 minutes though. 2x 45 minute halves with extra time admittedly. Time to sit down at half time and also with breaks in play if really that difficult to stand for 45 minutes. . If we don't do...
bournemouth-forum.vitalfootball.co.uk
 
DJ said:
The logistics of implementation would be done club by club because each ground would be different.

The process getting to that point is the same though, hence the guidelines and the points made to clubs to deal with it.

Which is what you posted…

Safe standing

I'm in favour and I sit in the NS and had the same seats since we moved to the new stadium. . It is not 90 minutes though. 2x 45 minute halves with extra time admittedly. Time to sit down at half time and also with breaks in play if really that difficult to stand for 45 minutes. . If we don't do...
bournemouth-forum.vitalfootball.co.uk
Click to expand...

The process didn't start with that document though did they? Standing has been an issue prior to that which is presumably what Plymouth are referring to when they say that some clubs have already had measures imposed on them.

I suspect that dialogue is ongoing and that when it became clear safe standing was the way they would have to go they just got on with it. Clearly some people would rather have had the consultation that goes round the houses to get to the same point. I am not one of those people as you may have guessed.
 
SlowDownDerek said:
The process didn't start with that document though did they? Standing has been an issue prior to that which is presumably what Plymouth are referring to when they say that some clubs have already had measures imposed on them.

I suspect that dialogue is ongoing and that when it became clear safe standing was the way they would have to go they just got on with it. Clearly some people would rather have had the consultation that goes round the houses to get to the same point. I am not one of those people as you may have guessed.
Click to expand...

Anyone who has attended Dean Court at any stage over the past 20 years would know there were persistent standers and where. So it’s quite obvious AFCB could have taken the same stance as Plymouth with that document as the catalyst.

But as previously discussed, AFCB made no attempt to do the points you posted prior to installing safe standing. Or hold any kind of consultation with season ticket holders over it. I know you’re somewhat triggered by the word, but it doesn’t have to be a government held inquiry which takes years. Most of us could have told them that block 15 stand up from top to bottom whilst there are very few standers in blocks 10 and 11. It only needed to be a quick survey via email etc and phone calls to certain groups etc. Considering how much market research is championed to look at the numbers to ascertain information about hospitality and demand for tickets… sometimes it’s easier to just get the information from the horses mouth.

But instead, we install safe standing, seemingly annoy a section of the fan base, make them feel isolated and then send out correspondence about persistent standing… if this was done previously then the whole thing could have been implemented a lot smoother and maybe kept many more onside than how it’s been done.
 
DJ said:
Anyone who has attended Dean Court at any stage over the past 20 years would know there were persistent standers and where. So it’s quite obvious AFCB could have taken the same stance as Plymouth with that document as the catalyst.

But as previously discussed, AFCB made no attempt to do the points you posted prior to installing safe standing. Or hold any kind of consultation with season ticket holders over it. I know you’re somewhat triggered by the word, but it doesn’t have to be a government held inquiry which takes years. Most of us could have told them that block 15 stand up from top to bottom whilst there are very few standers in blocks 10 and 11. It only needed to be a quick survey via email etc and phone calls to certain groups etc. Considering how much market research is championed to look at the numbers to ascertain information about hospitality and demand for tickets… sometimes it’s easier to just get the information from the horses mouth.

But instead, we install safe standing, seemingly annoy a section of the fan base, make them feel isolated and then send out correspondence about persistent standing… if this was done previously then the whole thing could have been implemented a lot smoother and maybe kept many more onside than how it’s been done.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that they haven't warned fans that they shouldn't be standing until they decided to introduce safe standing out of the blue? I disagree.

Yes most people could have told them that whatever they do people are going to have to move if they introduce safe standing. Also that having people standing adjacent to seated blocks will affect the ability of some people to see properly.
 
Garbo said:
I got an email today and it claims that I persistently have been standing!…this is a blatant lie…I was filmed/photographed by a Steward at the Luton game recently when I admit to standing up more due to the game itself being so incredible…I did spot the Stasi sorry Steward taking notes and pointing a camera my way…I have signed the document but am going to seek proof that I have been persistently standing because I have people around who will vouch for me.
I was blocking no one’s view or causing any obstructions as the Safe Standing is the row behind me..
The club maybe flexing their muscles but as a former Steward myself why the hell didn’t the person taking evidence just initially ask me to sit down…which I’m sure is what I would have done rather than reporting it back to the club?
I am hacked off so much that I will not spend anything at DC apart from my ST in future AFCB can do one!
Click to expand...
This is a shameful approach from the club.
 
Only to be expected Rob with jobsworth no doubt involved. He looks a right Prat (you will have to get someone to explain that Jim) strutting around at Development games ar Wimborne full of his own self importance.

Liz Finney may have had her faults but she always entered into a dialogue with fans and had a good dose of common sense unlike jobsworth. Perhaps he ought to come on an away trip sometime and see how other clubs deal with security prematch despite the brollies other clubs do not consider a threat.
 
What constitutes "persistent" ?
Thrice, ten minutes in any 25 minute period, whenever a steward notices you, legs bent at less than a 75 degree angle, ...

Does before and after matches count ?
Half time ?

Are you allowed to stand to let people pass ?
Looking at all you early leavers (That's another chestnut).

Some sort of VAR required.
 
Hoof_It said:
What constitutes "persistent" ?
Thrice, ten minutes in any 25 minute period, whenever a steward notices you, legs bent at less than a 75 degree angle, ...

Does before and after matches count ?
Half time ?

Are you allowed to stand to let people pass ?
Looking at all you early leavers (That's another chestnut).

Some sort of VAR required.
Click to expand...

Exactly. You can stand at exciting times in the game. Some find things more exciting than others.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

;