Leicester City Away Fans

[lcfc"weasel"]

Its a strange one.

When you see (particulary lower down the divisions) a couple of hundred fans sharing a huge away end, do they group together like in other countries?....nope, they choose to distance themselves from their fellow fans and so you get a few to the left a few to the right a few at the front and a few at the back, the result? A terrible atmosphere, I've always found that odd.

I've never noticed that but don't dispute it however, it would make much more sense for those fans to group together as surely more noise will be made, apply that to people that want to stand and sing at Leicester games and we might get somewhere. Basically, like-minded people should sit/stand with other people that want to sit/stand creating the ideal environment for eveyone. Seriously is annoying when one person who wants to sit ruins the whole game for a fair few people.

[Bert]

There's some massive hypocrites in here.

[davieG]

That more dangerous that designated standing areas though, in my experience of unreserved seating anyway.

At Sheff Utd away this season that was unreserved seating, and everyone piled into the same area, IF there was a serge it would have been messy, people would be hurt and injured.

Safe standing, or designated standing area from what I understand would have rails infront but plots as you do seats, everyone has a plot minus a seat, Obviously this isn't an ideal option - it'd cost unthinkable amounts of money for clubs to do this in their stadiums, but unreserved seating is dangerous and i'm surprised it hasn't been banned really.

Well it worked perfectly well in the Kop at Filbert St, and how is it any worse than reserved seating that is ignored and where people end up fighting amongst themselves. People pile into one area when it's reserved seating and surge forward. At least if it was unreserved then people would have the chance of getting in early and claiming the seats at the back if they want to stand.

As for safe standing we're nowhere near getting it.

[davieG]

Isn't every game unoficially unreserved seating anyway? Surely, If you want to stand move to the back and vice verse if you want to sit, this makes everybody happy, no?

No, because people are stupidly defensive of the numbers that form their ticket. So if you dare occupy a person's space, be prepared for an argument.

Tickets very often state as do the ticket office that games are strictly reserved seating making it impossible for people to move to the back. If I remember last year the ticket office actual issued a directive saying that all games would be reserved seating.

[purpleronnie]

Tickets very often state as do the ticket office that games are strictly reserved seating making it impossible for people to move to the back. If I remember last year the ticket office actual issued a directive saying that all games would be reserved seating.

How strictly is it enforced? I guess the problem arises when someone really wants to sit where their tickets states rather than moving elsewhere.

[unreachable]

There's some massive hypocrites in here.

After the Taylor Report following the Hillsborough disaster the general consensus was that all seated stadia were the safest form of stadia. I'm reading John Motson's autography at the moment and the section concerning the Hillsborough disaster comes to mind where those already in the stadium weren't dispersed due to there being no seats in the particular area. I appreciate there were other factors such as the Police opening gates causing a rush into the ground. Why do all the standing enthusiasts think that standing should be the default position? Seating should be the default position.

The human rights of those who abide by the law and sit (and not have their views obstructed) should be respected. Why do those who stand think that their alleged right to do so cancels out the right of those who wish to sit for whatever reason (health, comfort etc.) and who also abide by the Ground Regulations?

Simples

[davieG]

How strictly is it enforced? I guess the problem arises when someone really wants to sit where their tickets states rather than moving elsewhere.

Inconsistently and there in lies part of the trouble, if you knew for certain it was going to be enforced rigorously then the onus would be on the fan to request seats at the back if they want to stand but it isn't so people don't bother and then get all uppity when it's enforced.

You also get the situation where some people think/know it's not being enforced and others don't and that's often the cause of arguments.

[LCFC-ARAB]

I havn't sat in my allocated seat since Sheff Utd away and i got kicked out because there was 7 of us trying to get into 4 seats because people who were informed it was unreserved seating sat there

and we were in the middle with people sitting down

and i dont intend to sit in my allocated seat anytime soon

but i am more than happy to shuffle along if people dont like us in their seats and won't even think of starting an argument with someone who wants to stand in their allocated seat

[davieG]

After the Taylor Report following the Hillsborough disaster the general consensus was that all seated stadia were the safest form of stadia. I'm reading John Motson's autography at the moment and the section concerning the Hillsborough disaster comes to mind where those already in the stadium weren't dispersed due to there being no seats in the particular area. I appreciate there were other factors such as the Police opening gates causing a rush into the ground. Why do all the standing enthusiasts think that standing should be the default position? Seating should be the default position.

The human rights of those who abide by the law and sit (and not have their views obstructed) should be respected. Why do those who stand think that their alleged right to do so cancels out the right of those who wish to sit for whatever reason (health, comfort etc.) and who also abide by the Ground Regulations?

Simples

Too many people being put into too small a space that was restricted by fencing at the pitchside therefore allowing no outlet was the most significant cause, if there had been seating in there the problems would have been the same.

Standing itself is not dangerous if it's set up correctly otherwise why allow standing at Rugby and other sports venues. People in their 1000's have stood up for years at football grounds with no problems at all.

[lcfc"weasel"]

How strictly is it enforced? I guess the problem arises when someone really wants to sit where their tickets states rather than moving elsewhere.

I've never seen it being enforced I always move to the back, unless its a sell-out as that would just be dangerous, and no-one has said anything.

[davieG]

I've never seen it being enforced I always move to the back, unless its a sell-out as that would just be dangerous, and no-one has said anything.

You've not been to some of the games I've been to then.

[unreachable]

Too many people being put into too small a space that was restricted by fencing at the pitchside therefore allowing no outlet was the most significant cause, if there had been seating in there the problems would have been the same.

Standing itself is not dangerous if it's set up correctly otherwise why allow standing at Rugby and other sports venues. People in their 1000's have stood up for years at football grounds with no problems at all.

Grounds cannot legally be "set up correctly" so, logically, grounds cannot be safe. I don't follow your position. The fact remains that those who prefer to sit are deterred from going to away games and I don't think that that is fair.

[purpleronnie]

I've never seen it being enforced I always move to the back, unless its a sell-out as that would just be dangerous, and no-one has said anything.

Do you get fellow fans asking why you're in their seats?

[lcfc"weasel"]

Do you get fellow fans asking why you're in their seats?

It's never happened to me, but the person above has had the experience, sadly.

[LCFC-ARAB]

Grounds cannot legally be "set up correctly" so, logically, grounds cannot be safe. I don't follow your position. The fact remains that those who prefer to sit are deterred from going to away games and I don't think that that is fair.

they do it in germany legally so why not in this country??

and the fact doesnt remain about sitters being deterred because we still get 50% and more sitting at the majority of away games

just curious but when was your last away game?

[unreachable]

they do it in germany legally so why not in this country??

and the fact doesnt remain about sitters being deterred because we still get 50% and more sitting at the majority of away games

just curious but when was your last away game?

Crystal Palace Away. Forced to stand at the back very close to where red flare went off.

I did not say that it could not be done legally. I said that it cannot legally be done at this moment in the UK.

[LCFC-ARAB]

Crystal Palace Away. Forced to stand at the back very close to where red flare went off.

I did not say that it could not be done legally. I said that it cannot legally be done at this moment in the UK.

Why were you forced to stand??

there was plenty of empty seats near the front

[davieG]

Grounds cannot legally be "set up correctly" so, logically, grounds cannot be safe. I don't follow your position. The fact remains that those who prefer to sit are deterred from going to away games and I don't think that that is fair.

Well of course they can't at the moment because of a law that discriminates against football fans.

The fact remains that those who prefer to stand are also deterred from going to away games and I don't think that's fair.

I prefer to stand if the option's available and ask for tickets at the back but I also sometimes choose to sit and I've never had a problem finding a seat or been intimidated by those standing I just ask for a seat near the front or if it's not reserved seating find a seat where the majority are sitting.

[Guest]

Well it worked perfectly well in the Kop at Filbert St

It worked because the Kop was restricted to 90% capacity, which I've been told you need to do in order to offer unreserved seating. The current attitude, certainly for home games, is that the club wants the potential to make revenue from 100% capacity.

There are also other concerns in that it is far easier to get from one part of the WS to another. If a section of the ground was allocated unreserved, the club would not be able to control people buying tickets for an area that has not sold out, should the unreserved bit be sold out, from migrating once inside the stadium. The easiest area to have unreserved area is the North Stand, where you would just need to block the section in the West Stand corner, however the SAG would not agree to this move.

What other teams do with their away sections isn't for our club to decide.

After the Taylor Report following the Hillsborough disaster the general consensus was that all seated stadia were the safest form of stadia. I'm reading John Motson's autography at the moment and the section concerning the Hillsborough disaster comes to mind where those already in the stadium weren't dispersed due to there being no seats in the particular area. I appreciate there were other factors such as the Police opening gates causing a rush into the ground. Why do all the standing enthusiasts think that standing should be the default position? Seating should be the default position.

The human rights of those who abide by the law and sit (and not have their views obstructed) should be respected. Why do those who stand think that their alleged right to do so cancels out the right of those who wish to sit for whatever reason (health, comfort etc.) and who also abide by the Ground Regulations?

Simples

First of all, most people advocating the return of terracing appreciate the right of others to sit at games. Hence the campaign group StandUpSitDown. At the moment, both types of supporters are unhappy. The aim is to introduce safe standing areas so that those who want to sit can do so, in peace (not a dig at their support).

Secondly, human rights are there to prevent fundamental principles that encapsulate society. They do not protect any right, perceived or real, to stand or sit at a football game. It's like those stupid stories that only ever make the front pages of certain papers when a prisoner stupidly argues their right to a PS3, or whatever. We never hear the outcome of the court case, and that's because they are thrown out of court (the argument, not the prisoner).

Thirdly, the Hillsborough Disaster was caused by a number of factors. Tragic as it was, it happened at a time when the authorities were looking for a way of controlling football fans, and one of the easiest is by using all seater stadia (apparently). I am pretty certain that the Taylor Report referred to this, I do remember reading something along those lines at the time.

[unreachable]

they do it in germany legally so why not in this country??

and the fact doesnt remain about sitters being deterred because we still get 50% and more sitting at the majority of away games

just curious but when was your last away game?

You obviously take a different view to the Taylor Report. I would rather enjoy a game in relative comfort than be jostled and have my view obstructed. I'm old and decrepit.

[unreachable]

It worked because the Kop was restricted to 90% capacity, which I've been told you need to do in order to offer unreserved seating. The current attitude, certainly for home games, is that the club wants the potential to make revenue from 100% capacity.

There are also other concerns in that it is far easier to get from one part of the WS to another. If a section of the ground was allocated unreserved, the club would not be able to control people buying tickets for an area that has not sold out, should the unreserved bit be sold out, from migrating once inside the stadium. The easiest area to have unreserved area is the North Stand, where you would just need to block the section in the West Stand corner, however the SAG would not agree to this move.

What other teams do with their away sections isn't for our club to decide.

First of all, most people advocating the return of terracing appreciate the right of others to sit at games. Hence the campaign group StandUpSitDown. At the moment, both types of supporters are unhappy. The aim is to introduce safe standing areas so that those who want to sit can do so, in peace (not a dig at their support).

Secondly, human rights are there to prevent fundamental principles that encapsulate society. They do not protect any right, perceived or real, to stand or sit at a football game. It's like those stupid stories that only ever make the front pages of certain papers when a prisoner stupidly argues their right to a PS3, or whatever. We never hear the outcome of the court case, and that's because they are thrown out of court (the argument, not the prisoner).

Thirdly, the Hillsborough Disaster was caused by a number of factors. Tragic as it was, it happened at a time when the authorities were looking for a way of controlling football fans, and one of the easiest is by using all seater stadia (apparently). I am pretty certain that the Taylor Report referred to this, I do remember reading something along those lines at the time.

My use of the expression "human rights" encompasses common courtesy to people who find it uncomfortable to stand. I wasn't advocating instructed lawyers and going to the European Court of Human Rights.

I repeat why should the right of those who sit and abide by the law and Ground Regulations be overriden. I haven't heard a decent argument yet.

[LCFC-ARAB]

You obviously take a different view to the Taylor Report. I would rather enjoy a game in relative comfort than be jostled and have my view obstructed. I'm old and decrepit.

The taylor report actually says that standing at football isnt dangerous

i am 21 years old, i like a drink, i like getting a bit loud and lairy obviously we are going to have differnet ideas of enjoying a football game

that is why everyone on here is saying that we should seperate the 2 types of fans

it really is common sense

you must be able to see that

[unreachable]

The taylor report actually says that standing at football isnt dangerous

i am 21 years old, i like a drink, i like getting a bit loud and lairy obviously we are going to have differnet ideas of enjoying a football game

that is why everyone on here is saying that we should seperate the 2 types of fans

it really is common sense

you must be able to see that

I did the same at your age. I am not arguing against designated seating and standing areas but until they exist in law then my point remains that those who sit should have their rights respected.

[lcfc"weasel"]

I did the same at your age. I am not arguing against designated seating and standing areas but until they exist in law then my point remains that those who sit should have their rights respected.

They do don't they? People sit at games without any trouble, don't they?

[Matt]

My use of the expression "human rights" encompasses common courtesy to people who find it uncomfortable to stand. I wasn't advocating instructed lawyers and going to the European Court of Human Rights.

I repeat why should the right of those who sit and abide by the law and Ground Regulations be overriden. I haven't heard a decent argument yet.

I find it uncomfortable to sit, I'm quite tall have long legs, quite horrible for my leg to be cramped behind seats, at the WS I sit on the edge of the row so can swing my legs out.

Surely it's my "human rights" encompasses common courtesy to people who find it uncomfortable to sit.