Statement from an Official of LCFC re Fosse Boys

[Guest Bilo]

What's most annoying about this isn't the sheer stubbornness of the club or even the hypocrisy, it's the fact that they're prepared to drag the club's name through the mud and be made a laughing stock among every other club when the negative press escalates, as it surely will, for something that is clearly a non issue. There is no health and safety risk. There is no infringement of enjoyment of the match for other fans in the Kop. There is no security threat. Anyone who undertakes even a minute's research on the group and our aims can see that quite clearly.

It seems to me that Barclay misjudged the group and its aims from the very start, taking the ignorant and uneducated view that Ultras always mean trouble, the view lifted straight from the equally uneducated and ignorant tabloids. As a result, he decided the group must be clamped down upon. Rather than taking the time to research such groups (we even cited the example of Crystal Palace's Holmesdale Fanatics in our first contact with the club) he decided to treat the group like some sort of hooligan fringe. The negative publicity that has gone national, the involvement of FSF and the council have made him shit himself and he probably realises deep down that he's wrong on this issue. The thing now is whether he's intelligent or brave enough to admit it, and realise that the fall-out from maintaining such a heavy handed stance will be far worse than simply losing face. One could damage his ego, the other could seriously damage the club's reputation as a whole.

If he does still believe he's right, he's a seriously deluded and arrogant man and one hopes that his days at the club are numbered if that is the case, because his bullish stance is only going to damage the club.

Fans will turn away from the club because of the negativity and this could lead to all manner of financial damages as a result if his stance does not change. Should his stance change, he may lose face and look a little silly, but that's nothing compared to what could happen if the full weight of the FSF, council and press are brought down upon him. The embarrassment and negative consequences could be far, far greater if that were to happen both to him and the club.

[Fossegirl]

Good call. It may be useful for the Birch, for example, to meet with the Fosse Boys.

Get Mr Lineker to mention us on Match of the Day if anyone knows him well enough.

[stripeyfox]

Afraid not.

I will make it clear though that I am not an employee of the club (anymore), dont have any inside info on the club and have no bias toward the club or the Fosse Boys.

Basically i'm a fan of LCFC and I am disgusted at the alleged treatment of the Fosse Boys and other supporters so I have arranged the meeting to hear what the club has to say with my own ears.

SO how is that not revealing in what capacity you have a meeting?

[Fossegirl]

Afraid not.

I will make it clear though that I am not an employee of the club (anymore), dont have any inside info on the club and have no bias toward the club or the Fosse Boys.

Basically i'm a fan of LCFC and I am disgusted at the alleged treatment of the Fosse Boys and other supporters so I have arranged the meeting to hear what the club has to say with my own ears.

So they are willing to meet individual fans or is it cause you used to be employed there and know some of them

[bettso]

SO how is that not revealing in what capacity you have a meeting?

I'm not revealing the 'official' reason for my meeting is.

Not sure why you're asking me to justify myself or my posts.

[Houdini Logic]

I'm not revealing the 'official' reason for my meeting is.

Campaigning for half price tickets for dyslexics?

[stripeyfox]

I'm not revealing the 'official' reason for my meeting is.

Not sure why you're asking me to justify myself or my posts.

I'm not asking you to justify anything. Just seemed like you said "I can't say why" and then specified the nature of your meeting. Bit contradictory I thought. But maybe twas just the way I read it.

Fair play if you've got a meeting with Mr Barclay.

And another thing - why the hell does Kevin Barclay's name keep cropping up? Anyone would think he was our new striker the amount his name gets mentioned. What is he? Some security officer who probably hasn't got the first frigging clue about real issues but probably has a great CV which got him the job in the first place.

[bettso]

So they are willing to meet individual fans or is it cause you used to be employed there and know some of them

If you want to meet anyone at the club you can. It's just really a case of how you go about it.

Anyway, I hope the meeting on Friday goes well. They'll probably try and intimidate you with talk of legislation, laws and bylaws etc. Just remember that the majority of what they say will probably be bullshit. They will just expect you to believe what they say.

[Joe.]

If you want to meet anyone at the club you can. It's just really a case of how you go about it.

Anyway, I hope the meeting on Friday goes well. They'll probably try and intimidate you with talk of legislation, laws and bylaws etc. Just remember that the majority of what they say will probably be bullshit. They will just expect you to believe what they say.

And the fact they allow it to happen in other areas of the stadium. They haven't got much of a leg to stand on with this given all the opposition of how they're going about this.

[bettso]

I'm not asking you to justify anything. Just seemed like you said "I can't say why" and then specified the nature of your meeting. Bit contradictory I thought. But maybe twas just the way I read it.

Fair play if you've got a meeting with Mr Barclay.

And another thing - why the hell does Kevin Barclay's name keep cropping up? Anyone would think he was our new striker the amount his name gets mentioned. What is he? Some security officer who probably hasn't got the first frigging clue about real issues but probably has a great CV which got him the job in the first place.

Hahahaha!!

Trust me, his CV aint that great. He's a good example of it's not what you know it's who you knkow (in ode to dyslexyaaaaaaaa)

Goodnight all..

[Ultra]

What's most annoying about this isn't the sheer stubbornness of the club or even the hypocrisy, it's the fact that they're prepared to drag the club's name through the mud and be made a laughing stock among every other club when the negative press escalates, as it surely will, for something that is clearly a non issue. There is no health and safety risk. There is no infringement of enjoyment of the match for other fans in the Kop. There is no security threat. Anyone who undertakes even a minute's research on the group and our aims can see that quite clearly.

It seems to me that Barclay misjudged the group and its aims from the very start, taking the ignorant and uneducated view that Ultras always mean trouble, the view lifted straight from the equally uneducated and ignorant tabloids. As a result, he decided the group must be clamped down upon. Rather than taking the time to research such groups (we even cited the example of Crystal Palace's Holmesdale Fanatics in our first contact with the club) he decided to treat the group like some sort of hooligan fringe. The negative publicity that has gone national, the involvement of FSF and the council have made him shit himself and he probably realises deep down that he's wrong on this issue. The thing now is whether he's intelligent or brave enough to admit it, and realise that the fall-out from maintaining such a heavy handed stance will be far worse than simply losing face. One could damage his ego, the other could seriously damage the club's reputation as a whole.

If he does still believe he's right, he's a seriously deluded and arrogant man and one hopes that his days at the club are numbered if that is the case, because his bullish stance is only going to damage the club.

Fans will turn away from the club because of the negativity and this could lead to all manner of financial damages as a result if his stance does not change. Should his stance change, he may lose face and look a little silly, but that's nothing compared to what could happen if the full weight of the FSF, council and press are brought down upon him. The embarrassment and negative consequences could be far, far greater if that were to happen both to him and the club.

Well said.

It's notable, and somewhat distressing, that every so often at our club, someone emerges on the admin side who has an inflated (deluded?) view of their own importance.

Barrie Pierpoint was a classic example, as was Jo Bucci (remember her?).

Certain people currently on the payroll should contemplate the fate of those two individuals before making their next move.

[lcfc_jme]

And another thing - why the hell does Kevin Barclay's name keep cropping up? Anyone would think he was our new striker the amount his name gets mentioned. What is he? Some security officer who probably hasn't got the first frigging clue about real issues but probably has a great CV which got him the job in the first place.

Kevin Barclay - the head of matchday security and H&S supremo at LCFC. Lovely bloke, couldn't really ask for more from him to be honest.

If you want to meet anyone at the club you can. It's just really a case of how you go about it.

Anyway, I hope the meeting on Friday goes well. They'll probably try and intimidate you with talk of legislation, laws and bylaws etc. Just remember that the majority of what they say will probably be bullshit. They will just expect you to believe what they say.

The chances of the club pulling a fast-one on the members at the meeting may well end up being slimmer than they expect. People have done research.

[davieG]

And the fact they allow it to happen in other areas of the stadium. They haven't got much of a leg to stand on with this given all the opposition of how they're going about this.

They don't allow standing so they wouldn't want to be seen to be breaking the Ground Regulations.

[Katy]

I am seriously thinking of jacking Leicester City FC in, 32 years of supporting them and I've never felt like this before. The lies, the complete lack of regard for fans thoughts and feelings and just how shit the whole 'experience' is these days. This thing with the Fosse Boys has underlined everything I hate about the modern game and I truly hope they can get through to these clowns who run the club.

I just hope there are still some fans there to appreciate it.

[Fossegirl]

If you want to meet anyone at the club you can. It's just really a case of how you go about it.

Anyway, I hope the meeting on Friday goes well. They'll probably try and intimidate you with talk of legislation, laws and bylaws etc. Just remember that the majority of what they say will probably be bullshit. They will just expect you to believe what they say.

I can promise you there will be one person at the meeting who will not be intimidated with talk of no existant legislation, health and safety law, criminal law or good old bullshit.

[stripeyfox]

Kevin Barclay - the head of matchday security and H&S supremo at LCFC. Lovely bloke, couldn't really ask for more from him to be honest.

Lovely bloke he may be - my point is that if is name is being bandied around forums like this, he must be doing something wrong. Security staff and the like should be behind the scenes, the unsung heroes if you like - keep you and me safe from morons and danger at the match. Seen but not heard maybe?

[Joe.]

Lovely bloke he may be - my point is that if is name is being bandied around forums like this, he must be doing something wrong. Security staff and the like should be behind the scenes, the unsung heroes if you like - keep you and me safe from morons and danger at the match. Seen but not heard maybe?

Think you missed the slight sense of irony in Jamie's post....

[unreachable]

Kevin Barclay - the head of matchday security and H&S supremo at LCFC. Lovely bloke, couldn't really ask for more from him to be honest.

The FSF rep who will be attending will be fully experienced at dealing with all of the legal claptrap I'd imagine, so the chances of the club pulling a fast-one on the members at the meeting are slimmer than they may be expecting.

That'll be interesting. From what I can see from the FSF website they only support "safe standing" in segregated parts of the ground.

[z-layrex]

Does stuff like this happen at other clubs or is it just a Leicester thing?

[Fossegirl]

The FSF rep who will be attending will be fully experienced at dealing with all of the legal claptrap I'd imagine, so the chances of the club pulling a fast-one on the members at the meeting are slimmer than they may be expecting.

Another attendee might have a few low ballers for them as well if they try it on.

[stripeyfox]

Think you missed the slight sense of irony in Jamie's post....

I did suspect sarcasm but thought I'd err on the side of caution. Just in case KB is something of a people's champion. Or really hard, and lives across the road from me!

[Cheese Me]

Just a suggestion but I think the term 'ultras' probably isn't doing any favours. It has really negative connotations. certainly when I first heard of the idea to recruit a bunch of LCFC ultras my first thought was 'oh no, I don't want organised hooligans at the club I support'.

Since then I've obviously learned more about what you're trying to do and support it and have added my name to the petition but I have a bit of a suspicion that others might have reacted the way I did initially and that could be part of the reason for the nonsense now going on. First impression is ultras means trouble, for example a quote from the first paragraph on this on Wikipedia:

'Consistently rivals with opposing supporters, ultras groups are often identified with their respective team. The actions of ultra fan groups can occasionally be overly extreme and are sometimes influenced by racial violence, political ideologies... The term is seldom used in England, but could be applied to hardcore fans, or hooligans.'

There's a lot of small mindedness out there and a lot of people jump to conclusions without fully realising all the facts. Might be more helpful not to band the term around too much.

[Guest Bilo]

Just a suggestion but I think the term 'ultras' probably isn't doing any favours. It has really negative connotations. certainly when I first heard of the idea to recruit a bunch of LCFC ultras my first thought was 'oh no, I don't want organised hooligans at the club I support'.

Since then I've obviously learned more about what you're trying to do and support it and have added my name to the petition but I have a bit of a suspicion that others might have reacted the way I did initially and that could be part of the reason for the nonsense now going on. First impression is ultras means trouble, for example a quote from the first paragraph on this on Wikipedia:

'Consistently rivals with opposing supporters, ultras groups are often identified with their respective team. The actions of ultra fan groups can occasionally be overly extreme and are sometimes influenced by racial violence, political ideologies... The term is seldom used in England, but could be applied to hardcore fans, or hooligans.'

There's a lot of small mindedness out there and a lot of people jump to conclusions without fully realising all the facts. Might be more helpful not to band the term around too much.

Take your point but that's a very unbalanced and generalised view of the scene.

It would be naive to say no Ultras cause trouble at games, and if the Fosse Boys were anything like some of the uglier groups in Europe I wouldn't be anywhere near them but the vast majority of Ultras simply want to support their team in a colourful, loud and passionate manner. The same article on Wiki says this quite clearly.

The fact is that most countries in Europe have a thriving Ultra scene and we only get to hear the horror stories from the press of hooliganism in Italy (where the game is frankly fucked and has been for years), and far-right monkey chanting pissbags in Eastern Europe (where societal problems with racism run far deeper than football). They don't mention the incredible support that Ultras offer in Germany and Scandinavia, where families can get involved. Yes, families. You don't have to sit down in a non-swearing, half-empty stand with pictures of the club mascot in the concourse for families to enjoy themselves. Ultras are an overwhelmingly good thing and should be welcomed into this country.

There's absolutely no reason for us to be ashamed of the tag, and what we aim to do is change perceptions of what it is to be an Ultra. Perhaps the authorities are scared that when fans find out the truth about Ultras, it might just take off.

[leftsideoverhere]

As an official on behalf of the club I would like to make clear the following points and correct some misinformation that has been published.

In July 2010, Leicester City Football Club officials met with representatives from supporters' group, the Fosse Boys and discussed their aspirations to create an improved matchday atmosphere within the Walkers Stadium.

The club was, and remains, in full support of the efforts of the Fosse Boys and is keen to assist in improving the atmosphere and matchday experience for all Leicester City supporters.

This initial meeting led to an agreement that the Fosse Boys could bring banners and flags in to the ground, without poles, and that their vocal support of the team throughout the game would be encouraged. However, the club stated to the group that persistent standing would not be allowed, as per stadium regulations. In return for this, Leicester City pledged to allow the Fosse Boys to relocate to SK1, for a trial basis of four matches.

The Fosse Boys attended the Sunderland pre-season friendly and complied with the club's request, apart from persistently standing during the first half. The group did sit down in the second half when asked to do so.

Prior to the Middlesbrough game on Saturday August 14th, the club reiterated its position on persistent standing and asked for reassurance from the group that they would refrain from standing. No response to this request was received and the Fosse Boys subsequently stood throughout the majority of the game.

Further to this, Leicester City Football Club would like to clarify that no supporters were refused entry to the Reading game on Saturday August 28th. However, a small group of eight supporters were relocated from SK1 to LK section.

The club has never prevented the Fosse Boys from either singing, supporting the team, waving scarves, or displaying banners. In fact, the club is in support of new initiatives to help improve the matchday atmosphere. The re-recording of club anthem, 'When You're Smiling', close to the end of last season, is one example of how the club has tried to improve the atmosphere. Leicester City sees the Fosse Boys as a welcome addition towards the diverse mix of our supporter base, which will hopefully continue to help in creating an improved atmosphere at the Walkers Stadium.

Firstly, credit where it is due, I'm impressed that the club has made the effort to register on the site and post this statement, assuming of course that it genuinely is an official statement, which I don't have any way of knowing. That they would bother to do so represents something of a step forward in the situation whereby fans (many fans, not simply those associated with the Fosse Boys) feel that the club is interested only in a one-way communication with them, urging them to buy more products (tickets, shirts, 'hospitality' and so on) but unwilling to enter into any kind of dialogue. Hopefull the 'LCFC official' will be monitoring the responses to the statement and will be willing to engage with fans further through the medium of Foxes Talk.

That said, some questions spring to mind from this statement. Some of the following may well have been raised by others commenting on this statement, as I've not read through the whole thread at this point, just the official statement, as I wanted to be clear about the issues before reading on.

1. When you say the "club re-iterated its position on persistent standing" prior to the Middlesborough game, what method of communication was used? If there is a letter or email, could a copy of it be produced, since the Fosse Boys have been pretty clear throughout this episode that they've received no direct communication from the club and the only communication they've had (apart from in response to their initial request for a meeting) has been via telephone conversations with a third party, which is clearly not an effective method of communication.

2. Why did you pick on "a small group of eight supporters" to forcibly relocate them to L/K? In fact, two questions: firstly, if persistent standing is not to be tolerated by the club, what difference could it possibly make where these eight people were 'relocated' to? And secondly, why did you only 'relocate' eight supporters, when the Fosse Boys group is significantly bigger than this?

3. The statement makes no reference to having received complaints from other fans about the Fosse Boys group or their behaviour. Were any such complaints received, and if they were, how did the club respond?

4. Why, if the club had reached agreement with the Fosse Boys to site themselves in the rear rows of SK1 for a trial basis of four matches, was this agreement reneged on by the club without any attempt to resolve whatever the issues were which led the club into this premature and unilateral act?

5. Why, if 'persistent standing' is the central issue which led to you withdrawing from the four match trial which you had agreed with the Fosse Boys, do you allow persistent standing at every game, not only by the L/K block but more significantly by essentially the entire away fan allocation at pretty much every game? And how do you account for the fact that at almost every away game I have attended in the last three seasons I have been able to stand without having stewards of the relevant club threaten me with ejection from the game?

6. Can you verify whether the stewards who threatened the Fosse Boys with "citizen's arrests" after the Reading game were acting on the authority of the club in their capacity as club employees when they made those threats? If they were, on what possible basis could the club authorise such a ludicrous approach to resolving an evidently peaceful protest? If they were not acting on the authority of the club, how was it possible for them to make such a woeful misjudgment without seeking, or receiving, instructions from the senior stewards in charge on the day? And what action does the club intend to take in order to ensure that stewards don't overstep the boundaries of their authority in such an intimidatory way in future?

As I've said above, your statement is a welcome step forward, but it leaves many things unclear. I'm sure many fans would welcome answers to the questions I've outlined above. Perhaps, after that, we would be able to get back to the real business of supporting Leicester City.

As an aside to the Fosse Boys themselves, can I suggest that you take a print out of this 'official statement' along to your meeting on Friday, and seek verification that it genuinely is an attempt by the club to engage with the criticism it has received on this forum over its treatment of the Fosse Boys? It would be good to know for sure. You might also, if you were so inclined, take along my list of questions if they've not been answered in the meantime.

[stripeyfox]

Firstly, credit where it is due, I'm impressed that the club has made the effort to register on the site and post this statement, assuming of course that it genuinely is an official statement, which I don't have any way of knowing. That they would bother to do so represents something of a step forward in the situation whereby fans (many fans, not simply those associated with the Fosse Boys) feel that the club is interested only in a one-way communication with them, urging them to buy more products (tickets, shirts, 'hospitality' and so on) but unwilling to enter into any kind of dialogue. Hopefull the 'LCFC official' will be monitoring the responses to the statement and will be willing to engage with fans further through the medium of Foxes Talk.

That said, some questions spring to mind from this statement. Some of the following may well have been raised by others commenting on this statement, as I've not read through the whole thread at this point, just the official statement, as I wanted to be clear about the issues before reading on.

1. When you say the "club re-iterated its position on persistent standing" prior to the Middlesborough game, what method of communication was used? If there is a letter or email, could a copy of it be produced, since the Fosse Boys have been pretty clear throughout this episode that they've received no direct communication from the club and the only communication they've had (apart from in response to their initial request for a meeting) has been via telephone conversations with a third party, which is clearly not an effective method of communication.

2. Why did you pick on "a small group of eight supporters" to forcibly relocate them to L/K? In fact, two questions: firstly, if persistent standing is not to be tolerated by the club, what difference could it possibly make where these eight people were 'relocated' to? And secondly, why did you only 'relocate' eight supporters, when the Fosse Boys group is significantly bigger than this?

3. The statement makes no reference to having received complaints from other fans about the Fosse Boys group or their behaviour. Were any such complaints received, and if they were, how did the club respond?

4. Why, if the club had reached agreement with the Fosse Boys to site themselves in the rear rows of SK1 for a trial basis of four matches, was this agreement reneged on by the club without any attempt to resolve whatever the issues were which led the club into this premature and unilateral act?

5. Why, if 'persistent standing' is the central issue which led to you withdrawing from the four match trial which you had agreed with the Fosse Boys, do you allow persistent standing at every game, not only by the L/K block but more significantly by essentially the entire away fan allocation at pretty much every game? And how do you account for the fact that at almost every away game I have attended in the last three seasons I have been able to stand without having stewards of the relevant club threaten me with ejection from the game?

6. Can you verify whether the stewards who threatened the Fosse Boys with "citizen's arrests" after the Reading game were acting on the authority of the club in their capacity as club employees when they made those threats? If they were, on what possible basis could the club authorise such a ludicrous approach to resolving an evidently peaceful protest? If they were not acting on the authority of the club, how was it possible for them to make such a woeful misjudgment without seeking, or receiving, instructions from the senior stewards in charge on the day? And what action does the club intend to take in order to ensure that stewards don't overstep the boundaries of their authority in such an intimidatory way in future?

As I've said above, your statement is a welcome step forward, but it leaves many things unclear. I'm sure many fans would welcome answers to the questions I've outlined above. Perhaps, after that, we would be able to get back to the real business of supporting Leicester City.

As an aside to the Fosse Boys themselves, can I suggest that you take a print out of this 'official statement' along to your meeting on Friday, and seek verification that it genuinely is an attempt by the club to engage with the criticism it has received on this forum over its treatment of the Fosse Boys? It would be good to know for sure. You might also, if you were so inclined, take along my list of questions if they've not been answered in the meantime.

you could probably do a lot worse than get these questions answered (or at least attempt to) on Friday.