Safe standing

When you take all the issues together it paints a picture of an oppressive organisation trying to throw its weight around.

If I wasn’t addicted to the club I’d stop going.
 
The last game we walked around the ground before entry to the North Stand. We had our tickets checked 4 times before we even reach the turnstile. A tad surprised as we both had AFCB tops on.
 
It’s because the main entrance area isn’t a home only area, so once you leave a home only area, say near the big screen, walk in front of the main entrance then walk towards the south stand you’ll have shown the ticket twice to enter those two areas.
 
It’s because the main entrance area isn’t a home only area, so once you leave a home only area, say near the big screen, walk in front of the main entrance then walk towards the south stand you’ll have shown the ticket twice to enter those two areas.

So you could just walk through the car park and show your ticket once if you felt that showing your ticket was such a hardship?
 
Just to be safe I am going to crawl up the stairs until I get to my seat on Saturday. It is in the safe standing but I am taking no chances.
 
You misunderstand nothing to do with me just a tweet I saw.

Ok then replace 'your mate' with 'the bloke who tweeted' and the same applies. You can understand why they might want to ban the guy standing in that scenario - he's stood on the stairs and blocking people behind him.
 
Someone I know has been in touch and said I could share their story.

This person wasn't standing at all during the game but also got the letter and a ban.

They managed to appeal the ban successfully but it does beg the question of what evidence was gathered for them to get the letter in the first place. Is the club simply sending these to whole sections on the assumption of guilt and then seeing who objects? There's no way there's any footage of this person standing and they were in the correct seat so how on earth did the club include them?

Does this mean there are people out there who stood very briefly (which should be ok, surely? Within reason) and also got bans who are assuming that's why they got the ban and so won't appeal?

This is starting to stink.

It's easy to put 2+2 together and get 9 so I don't want to assume it's somehow linked to the revenue raising and, for now, will give the club the benefit of the doubt on that. Hard to see an end-game there anyway but maybe I'm missing it.

Instead, someone needs to get hold of Mr Operations Team and tell him to wind his neck in a bit. Having a degree in something is nothing like having the people skills needed to do a job successfully in the same field. I know that after I graduated I was an arrogant **************** and it took time for me to be good at a job and with people, rather than just well qualified for a job. For some it comes naturally, for others it takes time...

I still don't understand why the SGSA are gunning for AFCB whilst praising Watford for the same thing. It doesn't seem likely or, if it's true, then the club should be on the side of our supporters and pushing the SGSA for answers rather than blanket banning swathes of our fans.

Plus, fans should have a right of reply before getting banned. The clue is in the stadium name... Dean Court. Not "Dean Go To Jail Go directly to Jail. Do not pass GO, do not collect £200."
Totally agree. ive heard similar stories. It suggests to me that the club do not have evidence to prove cases, but have been relying on stewards say so. So I would urge anyone charge who feels they've been unjustly targeted to ask for CCTV evidence.

I also dispute that this is being done for 'safety'. There has been no evidence of cascading fans leading to serious injuries at Dean Court or other stadiums. Indeed the left side of the North Stand stood for years.

Its so easy for the club to say they care about safety, as if noone else does. But if i'm crossing the road I look left and right beforehand. I don't give up ever crossing the road. What we are seeing is an overreaction to a 'problem' that has no real evidence of repeatedly occurring.

Where is the transparency in any of this? Its painful to admit, but it does appear that Watford have taken a sensible and proportionate approach to this issue.
 
Ok then replace 'your mate' with 'the bloke who tweeted' and the same applies. You can understand why they might want to ban the guy standing in that scenario - he's stood on the stairs and blocking people behind him.
Argument in a phonebox time again.

The person banned was standing because he couldnt see past the person on the stairs. He was let off on appeal BECAUSE he was trying to see past the person stood on the stairs.

Nothing says what happened to the real culprit who everyone would agree was wrong for .... STANDING ON THE STAIRS.

It is the equivalent of Lewis Cook getting booked because Ryan Christie pushed someone over.
 
Argument in a phonebox time again.

The person banned was standing because he couldnt see past the person on the stairs. He was let off on appeal BECAUSE he was trying to see past the person stood on the stairs.

Nothing says what happened to the real culprit who everyone would agree was wrong for .... STANDING ON THE STAIRS.

It is the equivalent of Lewis Cook getting booked because Ryan Christie pushed someone over.
Thats not correct. Sometimes people shouldnt comment when they dont know the scenario.

He was stood because the TV gantry is in the way and he can only see 40% of the pitch if sat down...unique to that seat but true.
 
Thats not correct. Sometimes people shouldnt comment when they dont know the scenario.

He was stood because the TV gantry is in the way and he can only see 40% of the pitch if sat down...unique to that seat but true.
If the seat is sold as resticted view then by buying the ticket he accepeted that he wouldnt see all the pitch. That is no excuse for restricting others view instead.

If it wasnt sold as restricted view then he should discuss that with the ticket offce as they sold him a ticket under false pretences.

In neither scenario is it right to make others stand.
 

;