Statement from an Official of LCFC re Fosse Boys

[Lillehamring]

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".

of course the FB knew they were not supposed to be standing - as you've persistently raised in a dozen other threads, persistent standing is prohibited, the club didn't need to tell them this, it's a given.

however, both parties are more than aware that it is tolerated - and the reason i supported and continue to support the FB, is that whilst they have periodically stood, they have done so in a way that has not disturbed anyone, much the same as all other groups who stand. the club said no flag poles, they took no flag poles, they persistantly sat without being asked to - they are just a decent bunch of fans being inexplicable persecuted by the club.

in fact, i would wear a scarf because they stand - we stand in the kop at vålerenga, so i don't have the slightest problem with standing - the best atmospheres and the most loyal fans are always connected with standing - and safe standing will return.

[unreachable]

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

Thanks for clarifying the position. I have read back through this thread and it seems that neither lcfc_jme or SamL were at the meeting either. It's a pity that Fosse Boys haven't yet been able to put forward their side of the meeting from someone who was there.

[Jackirius]

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.

How long did that take?

[unreachable]

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.

From my research it looks as though the "persistent standing" issue is current at most clubs. I just feel as season ticket holder and long time supporter that this whole Fosse Boys issue brings the club into disrepute and draws negative publicity which we can do without since at the end of the day the club alone cannot give the Fosse Boys what they want. Why hit your heads against a break wall it just seems pointless?

[leftsideoverhere]

How long did that take?

Not as long as you might think, but more time than the question probably deserved. It was quite cathartic, though. I'm so angry about the way the club are behaving that it's either write long posts on Foxes Talk or go down the Walkers Stadium and smash something.

[leftsideoverhere]

From my research it looks as though the "persistent standing" issue is current at most clubs. I just feel as season ticket holder and long time supporter that this whole Fosse Boys issue brings the club into disrepute and draws negative publicity which we can do without since at the end of the day the club alone cannot give the Fosse Boys what they want. Why hit your heads against a break wall it just seems pointless?

But other ultra groups at other clubs are not having the 'brick wall' experience. At Crystal Palace on opening day of the season we saw first hand an Ultra group in the Holmesdale Road end stand throughout the game and sing. And as I tried to explain in the post above, the club could give the Fosse Boys what they want - the FB are not asking for official permission to stand up, they just want to be treated the same way that L or K block are treated.

[Lillehamring]

To be honest, i think the reason the club reluctantly tolerate the standing in L1, is because the horse has already bolted, and there are already too many standing, and to stop it now, could cause them problems.

I think the reason they want to stop the standing in sk1, is because they`re worried it`s going to grow, as the L1 standing did, and then they can`t control it anymore.

Got to say, i sit in SK1, and think the fosse boys have been a breath of fresh air, not quite the kop at filbert street, but at least they make some noise, so all power to you guys.

something along the lines of the immovable object versus the unstoppable force, you mean

and that's how stupid the club is, if they had just let the FB have their 4 games and then say, no thanks lads, nice try - no one would be the wiser, but due to their massive incapacity to judge the mood of the fans they have ended up generating the kind of publicity the FB could have only dreamed of, stopping standing in the kop is going to be harder than ever now, and the club only have themselves to blame.

[easilee]

From my research it looks as though the "persistent standing" issue is current at most clubs. I just feel as season ticket holder and long time supporter that this whole Fosse Boys issue brings the club into disrepute and draws negative publicity which we can do without since at the end of the day the club alone cannot give the Fosse Boys what they want. Why hit your heads against a break wall it just seems pointless?

I honestly believe they can.

If standing is 'tolerated' in some parts of the ground, it can be tolertated in other parts of the ground.

[LCFC-ARAB]

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.

The point is, the club have stated that they do not condone persistent standing within the Walkers Stadium, without relating it specifically to the Fosse Boys. As far as I'm aware, that is all they've said.

However, if the Club persist on saying that they have told the Fosse Boys to sit down, why are they making an example of the group while allowing other sets of supporters within the ground to stand freely? At the end of the day, we're all supporters so we should be treated equally. The club cannot discriminate against the Fosse Boys just because we're an official group, while allowing L/K/SK to stand freely.

I was at the meeting, but i'm not very good at stringing together massive posts

so i will just say 'this' to these

JME SamL and Fosse Boy as well as plenty others can answer any questions regarding the meeting as they know everything that happened in it

WE NEVER ASKED THE CLUB TO LET US STAND

This thread is going to turn into every other thread where me and Fosse Boy just end up repeating our selfs, so i wont be posting in this thread again

[C-man]

From my research it looks as though the "persistent standing" issue is current at most clubs. I just feel as season ticket holder and long time supporter that this whole Fosse Boys issue brings the club into disrepute and draws negative publicity which we can do without since at the end of the day the club alone cannot give the Fosse Boys what they want. Why hit your heads against a break wall it just seems pointless?

This is such an embarrassingly British attitude to the situation. The 'ah well if we toe the line someone else may or may not sort the situation out ,but whilst we sit and do sod all we'll just moan that nothing is being done' approach is all too common amongst English (in particular) football fans. One which allowed us to get in the sad situation we find ourselves in currently.

The longer the Fosse Boys and similar groups across the country persist with trying to improve the atmosphere whatever it takes, the closer fans get to reclaiming the game. No one said it would be easy and there is undeniably no quick fix but there is enough passion within the group and around the group to make an impression - hence the growing media attention.

[Lillehamring]

obviously somebody doesn't remember Hillsborough.

hillsborough was not caused by standing, but by mismanagement of the fans, standing existed for years before and is still safely practised in countries around the world.

please do not drag a tragedy into this when it has little or no bearing on the matters in hand here-

[Lillehamring]

Thanks for clarifying the position. I have read back through this thread and it seems that neither lcfc_jme or SamL were at the meeting either. It's a pity that Fosse Boys haven't yet been able to put forward their side of the meeting from someone who was there.

why does it even matter, the club said they'd give them 4 matches which they have not, what ever happened in that meeting is meaningless now, things have gone beyond the original agreement.

[unreachable]

But other ultra groups at other clubs are not having the 'brick wall' experience. At Crystal Palace on opening day of the season we saw first hand an Ultra group in the Holmesdale Road end stand throughout the game and sing. And as I tried to explain in the post above, the club could give the Fosse Boys what they want - the FB are not asking for official permission to stand up, they just want to be treated the same way that L or K block are treated.

I accept that you have passionate views on the matter but wonder how you can deal with the "practical reasons" referred to on the Football Licensing Authority's website

http://www.flaweb.org.uk/docs/faqs/faq002.php

“There are, moreover, a significant number of practical reasons against reintroducing standing terraces at our all-seated grounds. The conversion of all or part of a seating deck to standing accommodation would raise all sorts of complicated design and engineering issues relating to the gradient, the row depth, the viewing standards, the dynamic movement of the deck and the dynamics of the crowd.”

Having ideas is all very good but without addressing legal and practical issues......

[davieG]

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

I can confirm that the topic starter signed up from [email protected], whether that makes them an Official Spokesperson for LCFC you'll have to make you're own mind up.

[Lillehamring]

I accept that you have passionate views on the matter but wonder how you can deal with the "practical reasons" referred to on the Football Licensing Authority's website

http://www.flaweb.org.uk/docs/faqs/faq002.php

“There are, moreover, a significant number of practical reasons against reintroducing standing terraces at our all-seated grounds. The conversion of all or part of a seating deck to standing accommodation would raise all sorts of complicated design and engineering issues relating to the gradient, the row depth, the viewing standards, the dynamic movement of the deck and the dynamics of the crowd.”

Having ideas is all very good but without addressing legal and practical issues......

oh FFS, don't you ever stop

here, read thisthread, this is how you 'deal with the practical reasons' - the only reason against it is cost... it happens, and it happens beautifully.

[unreachable]

oh FFS, don't you ever stop

here, read thisthread, this is how you 'deal with the practical reasons' - the only reason against it is cost... it happens, and it happens beautifully.

That's the point. Is the cost going to be commercially worthwhile to the club? Costs in surveys, professionals and extra construction work. Posting a knee jerk response doesn't do you any credit.

[Bakey]

unreachable****

will you ever just be content with an answer provided?

[Lillehamring]

I completely agree. But has the comprimise not already come by allowing fans in L1 to stand?

I really just wanted clarification as I have a meeting scheduled with Mr Barclay and I wanted complete facts before going in. Hence me asking for someone who was actually at the meeting to clarify the point and not just have comments from people who have second hand information that may or may not be accurate.

I apologise if I come accross as doubting anyone as I fully support the ethos of the Fosse Boys but I dont want to be pissing into the wind.

actually, no, not at all - the FB have made it very clear that they wish to remain independent from L1, for various reasons such as song choice, a wish to remain apart from away fans, and to reclaim the kop, as the club encouraged by renaiming the sections.

as such by moving to L1 the FB would effectively cease to exist.

[unreachable]

unreachable****

will you ever just be content with an answer provided?

This is supposed to be a discussion forum isn't it?

[Guest Bilo]

This is supposed to be a discussion forum isn't it?

But you've had the same answers to the same questions on more than one occasion, and to be honest, this thread is going round in circles because of it. Safe standing as a wider issue isn't part of this thread, the treatment of the Fosse Boys and the intentions of the group are and I'm pretty sure they've been clarified to everybody's satisfaction now.

[davieG]

This is supposed to be a discussion forum isn't it?

Seeing as you like to question every aspect of the Fosse Boys existence I would hope you've been as equally diligent and persistent (there's that word again) in asking LCFC why they are so inconsistent with their interpretation of their standing regulations and that you therefore have the answers by now.

[unreachable]

i wondered that many times and i still do now. Try not to say summin that pees people off on here which is easy to do

Yes I know you have to toe the party line but it is fun playing devil's advocate. It sharpens other people's views.

[unreachable]

Seeing as you like to question every aspect of the Fosse Boys existence I would hope you've been as equally diligent and persistent (there's that word again) in asking LCFC why they are so inconsistent with their interpretation of their standing regulations and that you therefore have the answers by now.

I'm not really that interested.

[Wymsey]

Yes I know you have to toe the party line but it is fun playing devil's advocate. It sharpens other people's views.

i try to do that but their views on my opinion make my reputation status low

[davieG]

I'm not really that interested.

Which means you're either biased against the Fosse Boys just for the sakes of it or to cause unrest on the forum or a troll, actually just a troll then.