Statement from an Official of LCFC re Fosse Boys

[Cheese Me]

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 fooked 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.

I agree with you, I've learned more about it since, I'm just saying what my initial reaction was to the term when it was first mentioned and trying to be helpful if I can because i support what you boys are doing. May be that officials at LCFC reacted the same way and haven't bothered to learn more about it since. I think if you can convince them that there's no chance of any significant trouble (i.e. racism, hooliganism, violence) you'll get a much easier time of it. Just have a sneaky suspicion that all this talk about standing and so on is a bit of a smokescreen because they can have a go about that when in reality they're more worried about something else.

[leftsideoverhere]

I see. Recent posters think that wearing badges and scarfs mean that they support the Fosse Boys whereas I doubt they would wear them if they knew that the club had never allowed "persistent standing".

Actually, pretty much everyone on this forum apart from you understand that the club would have to say to the Fosse Boys that they would not allow "persistent standing". That phrase is, as others have pointed out to you, on every ticket that they sell, including to those who stand all game, every game in L or K, and to away fans, who pretty much all stand, every game. It is also printed on every ticket I've bought for away games (excepting those, like Hereford or Peterborough where they have a standing terrace) over the last three seasons (probably much longer, but I can't be arsed to check) despite the fact that at almost all of those games I've been able to stand throughout the game without let or hindrance by the club stewards.

It's a rule that every club pays lip service to, so there's no way the club could be expected, by the Fosse Boys, by me, by you or by anyone else, to actually say in a meeting, or in writing, that a group of fans can go ahead and stand up all game. But it's a rule that is honoured more in the breach than the observance, as the saying goes, at pretty much every club in the country. Watch Match of the Day on any Saturday night, and find me a premiership ground where everyone sits down for 90 minutes. You won't be able to. At the most what happens is stewards make a half-hearted effort to ask people to sit down, and they either don't bother or they sit for ten seconds until the steward's back is turned and then they stand up again, and everyone is happy: the fans get to stand, and the club get to say (if anyone were to ask) that the standing wasn't "persistent" because the fans sat down when asked, even if only for a few moments. See?

What this all boils down to is that the validity of the Fosse Boys complaints about their treatment by the club has never been about what was or wasn't said in the initial meeting, but about the fact that the club's refusal to allow "persistent standing" is never enforced against away fans, L block, K block, those (like me) who stand on the back rows of the kop, but was ruthlessly enforced against the Fosse Boys at their very first match, and followed up with indirect threats and eventually forcible denial of admission to the seats they had paid for. Everyone else gets this, why are you so unwilling to get it too? Your repeated attempts to suggest that all the supporters of the Fosse Boys feel somehow misled over this is the product only of your own imagination. Let it go.

[unreachable]

Have any of the Fosse Boys' representatives at the July 2010 meeting with LCFC posted in this thread?

[stripeyfox]

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.

Ok so far

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.

Ok

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.

This is the first "selective" statement. On the face of it this is spot on, but it fails to mention the key issue of standing elsewhere. Obviously the club are not going to mention this, but it is fair that we point it out as an omission

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.

This is open to debate, based on what I have read on here. But even if it is true, it demonstrates an example of the overall non confrontational attitude of the Fosse Boys

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.

As already mentioned, who was this statement made to and how?

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.

This also seems ambigous depending on your definition of "refused entry".

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.

Bur did take measures to disrupt their efforts,

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.

This is just utter shite.

[unreachable]

Actually, pretty much everyone on this forum apart from you understand that the club would have to say to the Fosse Boys that they would not allow "persistent standing". That phrase is, as others have pointed out to you, on every ticket that they sell, including to those who stand all game, every game in L or K, and to away fans, who pretty much all stand, every game. It is also printed on every ticket I've bought for away games (excepting those, like Hereford or Peterborough where they have a standing terrace) over the last three seasons (probably much longer, but I can't be arsed to check) despite the fact that at almost all of those games I've been able to stand throughout the game without let or hindrance by the club stewards.

It's a rule that every club pays lip service to, so there's no way the club could be expected, by the Fosse Boys, by me, by you or by anyone else, to actually say in a meeting, or in writing, that a group of fans can go ahead and stand up all game. But it's a rule that is honoured more in the breach than the observance, as the saying goes, at pretty much every club in the country. Watch Match of the Day on any Saturday night, and find me a premiership ground where everyone sits down for 90 minutes. You won't be able to. At the most what happens is stewards make a half-hearted effort to ask people to sit down, and they either don't bother or they sit for ten seconds until the steward's back is turned and then they stand up again, and everyone is happy: the fans get to stand, and the club get to say (if anyone were to ask) that the standing wasn't "persistent" because the fans sat down when asked, even if only for a few moments. See?

What this all boils down to is that the validity of the Fosse Boys complaints about their treatment by the club has never been about what was or wasn't said in the initial meeting, but about the fact that the club's refusal to allow "persistent standing" is never enforced against away fans, L block, K block, those (like me) who stand on the back rows of the kop, but was ruthlessly enforced against the Fosse Boys at their very first match, and followed up with indirect threats and eventually forcible denial of admission to the seats they had paid for. Everyone else gets this, why are you so unwilling to get it too? Your repeated attempts to suggest that all the supporters of the Fosse Boys feel somehow misled over this is the product only of your own imagination. Let it go.

I do have some grasp of the issues but this affair can only end up in one of the following ways:

1. The current “persistent standing” area remains in the stadium.

2. The club extends the apparent “persistent standing” area to an area which the Fosse Boys occupy.

3. All “persistent standing” is stopped throughout the stadium.

4. “Safe Standing” is embraced by the Government and in turn by local authorities.

Which of the above do you think is a realistic expectation?

Aside from the alleged mistreatment of the Fosse Boys you are left with the ages old “Stand up Sit Down” argument.

[andy_croydz]

Providing 'Fosse Boy' is telling the truth the club needs to get their stories straight. (See following Quote - What Fosse Boy claimed the club had told him/Fosse Boys.)

Either way someone is telling porkys, Either LCFC Official saying vocal support has never been a problem or complaint and it is all due to standing, or Fosse Boy saying it was all being blamed on being too noisy.

I know who I believe.

I don't

[Fosse Boy]

Knocked up an article on Vital for you boys...

http://www.leicester.vitalfootball.co.uk/article.asp?a=211790

Let me know if anything needs adding.

Great work Joe. Spot on.

I agree with you, I've learned more about it since, I'm just saying what my initial reaction was to the term when it was first mentioned and trying to be helpful if I can because i support what you boys are doing. May be that officials at LCFC reacted the same way and haven't bothered to learn more about it since. I think if you can convince them that there's no chance of any significant trouble (i.e. racism, hooliganism, violence) you'll get a much easier time of it. Just have a sneaky suspicion that all this talk about standing and so on is a bit of a smokescreen because they can have a go about that when in reality they're more worried about something else.

I don't think there's much more we could have done since our foundation to re-emphasise the points you've mentioned to the club and fellow supporters to be honest. Declaring ourselves as explicitly anti-racist, setting up at the other end of the ground from the away fans, we've re-enforced these points til our hair turns blue but people are still happy to see the word Ultras and think of lazy Sun headlines about Mancs getting stabbed in Rome. A one minute scan of our forum or any threads on here would ease their minds but it seems some just can't be bothered and are happy to wallow in tabloid ignorance.

[unreachable]

Great work Joe. Spot on.

I don't think there's much more we could have done since our foundation to re-emphasise the points you've mentioned to the club and fellow supporters to be honest. Declaring ourselves as explicitly anti-racist, setting up at the other end of the ground from the away fans, we've re-enforced these points til our hair turns blue but people are still happy to see the word Ultras and think of lazy Sun headlines about Mancs getting stabbed in Rome. A one minute scan of our forum or any threads on here would ease their minds but it seems some just can't be bothered and are happy to wallow in tabloid ignorance.

Can you please comment upon the Statement post#1 and put us all out of our misery?

[andy_croydz]

I reckon we should alert Harry Hill to this, Fosse Boys say they have had no direct communication with LCFC, LCFC says they told the Fosse Boys not to stand persistantly at the Boro game. Which is telling the truth? Theres only one way to find out....

[AndyBrew]

I've seen more violent tendencies from other supporters and our own stewards than I have from any Fosse Boy member, the whole thing is laughable.

[andy_croydz]

I've seen more violent tendencies from other supporters and our own stewards than I have from any Fosse Boy member, the whole thing is laughable.

I gotta agree with that, I remember when I sat with some mates in L1 back in 2004... This steward who looked like Ken Bates was shouting at my mate to stop giving the finger to the opposition fans when we were walking down the stairs on the way out, my mate ignored the steward and did it again and the steward fookin punched him round the face . No one at the club did anything about that,

[C-man]

Can you please comment upon the Statement post#1 and put us all out of our misery?

Hasn't JME already covered this? I'm not sure what else you want to know

[Aumski]

Why not make an area for standing? And let the Fosse boys have THAT area? .. Is the main issue about standing really because people cannot view the game? .. If so then solve it

obviously somebody doesn't remember Hillsborough.

[unreachable]

Hasn't JME already covered this? I'm not sure what else you want to know

JME?

[Fosse Boy]

JME and SamL have already responded to unreachable's questions with perfect clarity and don't feel there's any need for me to be clogging up the thread just essentially paraphrasing what they've said.

[easilee]

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.

what was the actual request?

[Lillehamring]

Firstly, I'm all for Fosse Boys. I've signed the petition, great idea etc, etc.

But fair play to the club for the statement. What they've said is fair, and they're following the regulations that they have to. I've not read every post here but i'm sure there are some moaning about the original post.

What I would say is, if FB want to continue to grow and to be successful, there's gonna have to be some give and take between them and the club. Stand up when we score, when the team comes out, when we win a dangerous set-peice, and milk it too. But don't push it to the extent that other fans/stewards/the people at the top are gonna get arsey with you. Easier said then done when i'm sat at home on a weds night and not at a game with a few beers in me freezing my nuts off, but in the cold light of day that'd seem the best way forward, for the time being at least.

yeah, but that's all they have ever done isn't it - the problem is that the club didn't even give them the chance to do this. most of the talk on FT before the reading game was about sitting down and singing so the club would not be able to expedite their threat to throw them out.

the statement, and FWIW i don't believe it's authentic, if it were i would not expect it to be anonymous unless it were on the OS - is anything but fair: if the club are so keen to support the FB and improving the atmosphere, why did they split the group up, and why have they not extended their 'blind eye' to the FB.

make no mistake, the club have behaved appallingly towards the FB, and until they treat them the same as all the other standing fans, they will continue to let down and insult supporters of the game

[Tommeh]

obviously somebody doesn't remember Hillsborough.

There's always one isn't there?

do some decent research and come back on the subject.

[Jackirius]

obviously somebody doesn't remember Hillsborough.

Oh yeh i forgot that Hillsborough was caused in a half full stadium with a few people standing and chanting in the corner of it.

[Katy]

There's always one isn't there?

do some decent research and come back on the subject.

Glad you got there before me.

[unreachable]

JME and SamL have already responded to unreachable's questions with perfect clarity and don't feel there's any need for me to be clogging up the thread just essentially paraphrasing what they've said.

I was assuming you were at the meeting so could give your own opinion in your own words.

[C-man]

JME?

Sorry, Post #37. Probably best to go back to the second page to view it in context

As I understand it, the bits of the "official statement" posted on here that are untrue are:

I'm not entirely convinced that this is a club official, seeing as the club have thus far communicated everything to the Fosse Boys via phonecalls, and also have a meeting with them later this week.

Evidently the club will have said at some stage persistant standing will not be tolerated, it's just one of the generic things they have to say. However, there was no request to the Fosse Boys to sit down in the second half of the Sunderland game - that was a decision made entirely by the Fosse Boys to appease Kevin's certain fear and rage over the first-half standing. That said, standing is rife in many areas of the ground and is completely ignored, shown by L1, K, the entire back of the Kop and the group of old Koppites who stood infront of the Fosse Boys unchallenged. Members of the Fosse Boys refused entry to SK1 on Saturday were told to go to L1 or K as they would be allowed to stand freely in there. Beautiful hypocrisy.

As for nobody beng refused entry at the Reading game, well, that's a lie. We were told point blank that we would not be going into the ground at the turnstiles for SK1. It took the club 10 whole minutes to agree to allow us in to the ground round at L1. Sure, we eventually got in, but the point remains that initially and for a small period of time we were infact refused entry.

The club also only supports initiatives to improve atmosphere that they themselves can take credit for, and they always seem to go back on their word at the earliest possible opportunity. They did it with N Block and now they're trying it with the Fosse Boys. If they did, as claimed, agree to give the Fosse Boys 4 games in SK1, why have they tried to separate and destroy the group in the 2nd game of this trial? Makes a lot of sense and does not make them look cowardly at all.

[Fosse Boy]

I was assuming you were at the meeting so could give your own opinion in your own words.

I wasn't at the meeting due to work commitments.

[leftsideoverhere]

I do have some grasp of the issues but this affair can only end up in one of the following ways:

1. The current “persistent standing” area remains in the stadium.

2. The club extends the apparent “persistent standing” area to an area which the Fosse Boys occupy.

3. All “persistent standing” is stopped throughout the stadium.

4. “Safe Standing” is embraced by the Government and in turn by local authorities.

Which of the above do you think is a realistic expectation?

Aside from the alleged mistreatment of the Fosse Boys you are left with the ages old “Stand up Sit Down” argument.

Well, probably the most likely in the short term is 1, which means the current inconsistency by the club will just go on for a while. But that's not a permanent solution unless the club and fans are happy with the idea of the kop slowly emptying as people either move to L and K block in a desperate attempt to find some atmosphere, or pack it in altogether and take up supporting speedway or something.

Given that the current vaguely-tolerated 'persistent standing' area includes the back couple of rows along most of the kop, I can't see any reason why option 2 couldn't happen - it would certainly be the best possible outcome in the short term. As the Reading game indicated, the presence of the Fosse Boys in the kop lifted significant sections of the normally-docile kop into several bouts of singing, despite the less-than-inspiring on-pitch performance. If the club could only see it's way to accepting that the Fosse Boys in SK1 represent a 'natural outgrowth' of the currently tolerated standing along the back of the kop (given that they are manifestly not in anyone's way, not blocking any views, and not posing a health and safety risk to anyone who might need to leave the stadium in a hurry) then we could have some hope of the singing slowly making its way forward from the back rows until the whole kop would remember what they're there for. Trouble is, I think this is exactly what Barclay is scared of. A bouncing, singing kop would be great for the players but a little bit harder to steward - he might need to take on a few more staff. But the fact that decisions appear to be being made in the interests of 'a quiet life for the chief steward' instead of doing what would give the team the best possible support shows a worrying sense of priorities at the football club. That's what I wish someone would point out to them.

I can't see option 3 happening, because no matter what the club might say about persistent standing, it is happening more and more at more and more grounds around the country, and away fans won't tolerate being told to sit down and shut up at the Walkers if they don't have to do it anywhere else. And L block won't sit down if the away fans are up on their feet. The key fact is that the 'fear of standing' which spread thanks to some very inaccurate reporting of the Taylor report into the Hillsborough disaster is now a generation or so in the past, and increasing numbers of football fans see European matches on their TVs where thousands stand, jump, bounce and sing, and even let flares off, without casualties. And they are increasingly wondering why they have to put up with a sterile 'matchday experience' in the supposed 'home' of football, when fans across the rest of the world, from the USA to Australia, have lively Ultra-style fan sections at their games.

Which brings us to option 4. I can't imagine the government (either this one or any likely Labour one) "embracing" safe standing. But I can imagine a government giving way to pressure from football fans to allow safe standing, if they thought there were votes in it. I think that will happen one day, but in the meantime, clubs will have to muddle along with a deliberately hypocritical attitude - refusing to countenance persistent standing in word, but tolerating it in practice. That is where we are - the question for the club is where in that split personality it can accomodate the Fosse Boys. Currently, the club want to treat them differently from the other 'lively' sections of the ground, and force them to sit down for long periods (it is noticeable that the 'official statement' recognises that they sat down for the entire second half against Sunderland, and again during the Reading game, but still says the Fosse Boys were "persistently standing").

Sadly, the club are making what could have been a great initiative at the start of the new season ("new owners, new players, and a new way to support your team" would have been a great marketing slogan the club and the Fosse Boys could have used together to get more fans to participate) into a tiresome argument about the meaning of the word "persistent". If the Fosse Boys agreed to site down for one minute every fifteen minutes, would that be acceptable to the club? What about one minute of sitting down every half hour? Or if they sit during the half-time interval does that mean they're not "persistently standing"? Who knows? The whole point about the phrase "persistently standing" is that it is subjective, and it is meant to be subjective because the authorities wanted to allow clubs some flexibility in how they implemented it. If they'd wanted to ban standing altogether they could just say "standing during play is not permitted" but they know they'd kill the sport if they did that.

[leftsideoverhere]

obviously somebody doesn't remember Hillsborough.

I'm plenty old enough to remember Hillsborough. You know nothing about it if you think that 'standing' was the cause of that.