Official Statement On the OS re Fosse Boys

[sbfox]

you really are thinking too much into this

so you think we should have 90 minute standing areas, then 80 minute standing areas then 70 minutes standing areas for people who cant quite stand for the 90 minutes?

English football fans today are the best behaved supporters in the world, if terraces are used in europe and in Germany then there is no reason why it couldnt work over here

you are going on about peoples right to want to sit without having someone blocking their view, well i would like the right to stand without blocking someones view

the two sets of fans should be campaigning for this together because it will benefit every supporter in the country

Maybe I am thinking too much about this, but then good natured debating on a forum is probably the best place to do it, plus it might hone your own argument when you have to face Barclay again!

On your last point, I didn't particularly want to raise this because it makes me sound like a bit of a goober, but I enjoy standing and singing, but I just can't do it for the full 90 because of health problems. What would you suggestion to me be (and others, I can't be the only one!) if we want to enjoy the atmosphere, but simply can't?

Sorry if it seems like I'm busting your balls, I'm really not

[Lillehamring]

I know this returns to standing v seating again, but this is the major area of debate and one where agreement won't be easy to find.

My take on standing is that you'll have to have a large majority of the Kop wanting to stand before it could ever be allowed on a large scale. This would have to be repeated around the ground as people in the East Stand (for example) might see most of the Kop standing and want to replicate this. The problem arises when people cannot or do not want to stand, yet retain their seats in the top half, back quarter of the stand. What do we do then? Kick those people out of their seats they have paid for them? Move them all to the West Stand? Hardly seems fair.

I don't see a solution to this problem. Yes, we could have a standing zone at the back on SK1, but then what happens when some of the rest of the Kop want to stand too, because they see the FB standing? Do we force the older supporters to stand?

I'd love to hear thoughts on this matter. It just seems a tad hypocritical to (rightly) complain about not being allowed in the ground to stand in your purchased seat, when an old guy who has also bought a seat is forced to watch the back of someone's legs because he can't stand at all. I'm not sure there's 'enough weight of standing' to make this viable anymore.

i think you pretty much answer your own question here.

as you correctly observe, the level of participants required to make standing the tolerated norm (a la L1, away fans) would need to be significant. there is already a migration of those who wish to stand in the kop, towards the back, this may shift towards the FB zone over time, and spread from there.

like it or not people who don't want to be involved will migrate in their own way towards sk4 - in fact, pretty much how it used to be when filbo was seated. when people are paying 300+ quid a year they are unlikely to be stubborn enough to sit amongst standers.

the key things to remember are - 1. this won't change over night and 2. unless the movement takes off unimaginably successfully AND the walkers is regularly sold out, there won't be any need for people to move out of the Kop, just to the higher SK numbers.

[LCFC-ARAB]

Maybe I am thinking too much about this, but then good natured debating on a forum is probably the best place to do it, plus it might hone your own argument when you have to face Barclay again!

On your last point, I didn't particularly want to raise this because it makes me sound like a bit of a goober, but I enjoy standing and singing, but I just can't do it for the full 90 because of health problems. What would you suggestion to me be (and others, I can't be the only one!) if we want to enjoy the atmosphere, but simply can't?

Sorry if it seems like I'm busting your balls, I'm really not

Well Kevin Barclay admitted that standing at football isnt un safe and he doesnt agree with current legislation, or something like that! dont quote me i wasnt there! but he said that if legislation was changed he wouldnt have any problems with it what so ever

I Really dont know what to say to your self about not wanting to stand for 90 minutes but wanting to stand and sing sometimes, maybe sit/stand on the front row? over time people like your self will find a suitable area to move too. like i'm sure you have at the minute

may i ask where yous it currently?

i dont think it's fair that if i stand i block someones view and ruin their day just as i dont think it's fair that having to sit ruins my day.

[Tommy G]

So is it back to SKI on tuesday night?

Guess there wont be enough of you to reach from the back of the block down to row U (my seat) so looks like im sitting for the time being.

From my memory I think we have an old peoples home outing sitting somehwre behind us so can't see them being bowled over if the fosse boys expand enough that far down the block

[James.]

Well Kevin Barclay admitted that standing at football isnt un safe and he doesnt agree with current legislation, or something like that! dont quote me i wasnt there! but he said that if legislation was changed he wouldnt have any problems with it what so ever

You really should be more careful about what you say.

[LCFC-ARAB]

You really should be more careful about what you say.

I tried to be careful with that one!

But i was just saying that Kevin Barclay wouldnt argue against standing with us if he didnt have too

[Ryanside]

On your last point, I didn't particularly want to raise this because it makes me sound like a bit of a goober, but I enjoy standing and singing, but I just can't do it for the full 90 because of health problems. What would you suggestion to me be (and others, I can't be the only one!) if we want to enjoy the atmosphere, but simply can't?

What would you do if everyone around you started standing and singing for the whole match? The only options I can see is that you would either have to move, or complain. I know you wouldn't want to do either but then what other choices are there?

Maybe you could start a non-persistent standing section

[Shrenchel]

Maybe I am thinking too much about this, but then good natured debating on a forum is probably the best place to do it, plus it might hone your own argument when you have to face Barclay again!

On your last point, I didn't particularly want to raise this because it makes me sound like a bit of a goober, but I enjoy standing and singing, but I just can't do it for the full 90 because of health problems. What would you suggestion to me be (and others, I can't be the only one!) if we want to enjoy the atmosphere, but simply can't?

Sorry if it seems like I'm busting your balls, I'm really not

But it's only because the atmsopheres have become so shoddy in England that you need to be right amongst the standers to experience a bit of noise. Go to a German ground and you'll see that the noise from the standing terrace engulfs the seating either side of it and plenty of the sitters start to join in.

Anyway, I don't really understand your argument to start with. How would the situation be any different than it is now?! There's not currently an area of the Walkers where people stand for 60 minutes and then sit down when they get a bit tired. People either stand or they don't. It wouldn't be any different if there was a designated safe standing area.

You really should be more careful about what you say.

Agreeed. When Captain Barco told you he thought 60% of his job was pretty much a load of bollocks, I doubt he wanted you to quote him on the internet.

[Lillehamring]

Maybe I am thinking too much about this, but then good natured debating on a forum is probably the best place to do it, plus it might hone your own argument when you have to face Barclay again!

On your last point, I didn't particularly want to raise this because it makes me sound like a bit of a goober, but I enjoy standing and singing, but I just can't do it for the full 90 because of health problems. What would you suggestion to me be (and others, I can't be the only one!) if we want to enjoy the atmosphere, but simply can't?

Sorry if it seems like I'm busting your balls, I'm really not

well, until the walkers gets close to selling out, i don't see why you cant go and sing with FB for as long as you hold up, and then move to a seat later.

[davieG]

Maybe I am thinking too much about this, but then good natured debating on a forum is probably the best place to do it, plus it might hone your own argument when you have to face Barclay again!

On your last point, I didn't particularly want to raise this because it makes me sound like a bit of a goober, but I enjoy standing and singing, but I just can't do it for the full 90 because of health problems. What would you suggestion to me be (and others, I can't be the only one!) if we want to enjoy the atmosphere, but simply can't?

Sorry if it seems like I'm busting your balls, I'm really not

What do you currently do? Unless you're located in SK1 where the FB appear to be allocated nothings changed. Besides I doubt there's anywhere in the stadium where people sit for 100% of the game unless they are disabled, if you're only interested in standing at moments of 'extreme' excitement then anywhere will do.

[sbfox]

What do you currently do? Unless you're located in SK1 where the FB appear to be allocated nothings changed. Besides I doubt there's anywhere in the stadium where people sit for 100% of the game unless they are disabled, if you're only interested in standing at moments of 'extreme' excitement then anywhere will do.

No of course I'm not affected by this, I don't think I ever will be, sitting in K as I usually do. My point was merely hypothetical, just examining how 'thorough' the FB arguments were in relation to this. I know we've all done a lot of back-slapping, but I just thought it might be useful to remind ourselves of some of the issues or problems that might arise out of standing. Perhaps I shouldn't?

[h1210]

No of course I'm not affected by this, I don't think I ever will be, sitting in K as I usually do. My point was merely hypothetical, just examining how 'thorough' the FB arguments were in relation to this. I know we've all done a lot of back-slapping, but I just thought it might be useful to remind ourselves of some of the issues or problems that might arise out of standing. Perhaps I shouldn't?

Shouldn't be allowed!!

[davieG]

No of course I'm not affected by this, I don't think I ever will be, sitting in K as I usually do. My point was merely hypothetical, just examining how 'thorough' the FB arguments were in relation to this. I know we've all done a lot of back-slapping, but I just thought it might be useful to remind ourselves of some of the issues or problems that might arise out of standing. Perhaps I shouldn't?

No problem with raising issues but I don't think it is an issue at least not a new one and not really related to the FBs. Whatever the regulations people in seating areas have always stood, even in the main stand at Filbo and not necessarily at the same time or for the same duration so there has always been the situation you describe, it's an inherent problem with sitting at a sporting event. At least with the FBs situation, with them being situated in a specific location people that don't want to stand for long periods know to avoid it.

Of course it's all been made worse by the pricing structure which forces those on a low income to sit in the Kop. I've always advocated restricted concessions (no juniors/under 8s and no seniors) in the Kop and unreserved seating which would allow the 90 minute standers to go to the back and the 90 minutes sitters to reside at the front and those that are in between to sit in between, of course it wouldn't be perfect but better than it is now.

[haraven]

The “did he die?” troll:


Variations: Did he died?


Seen most often on Youtube, they however have been seen infiltrating other forums.

“FIRST!” trolls:


Obsessed with posting the first comment on a new forum. They have absolutely no imagination and can’t risk the time required to type much beyond “first”. They shake so much with excitement at the prospect of being first they often misspell “first”. Don’t identify this species by their use of the word “first”; look for any short text or pasted material with no relevance to the topic at the opening of a new comment section.

“LAST” trolls:


A FIRST troll without ambition, they accept that they’re too lazy to figure out when new posts arrive and are content with having the last word. Their amusement is short-lived since some comment sections never close.

Numeric trolls:


Will post the numeric placement of their comment (i.e. “Third!”, “Sixty seventh!”, etc.)

Thread Hijackers:

Are most prominent in the first thread of a post. They will try and post as high as possible in a forum, and will completely change the subject of a thread, most often to focus attention on themselves.

The Troll Who Doesn’t Know S/He Is A Troll:


Someone who posts bigoted, idiotic, ignorant, or unkind comments and absolutely cannot understand why their posts engender anger, scorn, or derision. Usually becomes very defensive and projects blame onto other posters.

Pseudo-Intellectual Trolls:


A troll who corrects other posters’ information, grammar, word choice, etc., and its “correction” is actually wrong. It’s even better when the original information being “corrected” was, in fact, correct in the first place.

Care Troll:


A care-troll is a troll that comes onto a thread and posts an absolutely outraged, “HOW CAN YOU PEOPLE LAUGH AT THIS THING, CAN’T YOU SEE THAT SOMEONE COULD GET HURT??” kind of message. They are usually verbally abusive towards other people.

Hate Troll (Latin: Trollus Ignoranus):


Trolls who have absolutely no problem posting prejudicial, bigoted, inflammatory comments and is unapologetic about doing so.

Vanilla Troll:


Willing to try any lame comment that elicited a response in the past, they often mimic other trolls. For example, they might post “first” hours into a post, or “Can it play Crysis?” on every single thread.

PHOTOSHOPPED!!!1! Troll:


Rather self-explanatory, this one. These trolls will cry “Photoshopped” on any photograph (and occasionally on videos) and point out pixels, shadows, or lines as evidence–usually without having any idea of how Photoshop or compression actually works.

The Attention Whore troll:

This troll posts on every thread. Every other post is theirs. When people ignore them or aren’t nice, they resort to self-pity and leave posts that say things like “Since you all hate me, I guess I’ll just leave now!” This particular troll can also be a variant of the “Thread Hijacker”.

The Spam Troll:

These are trolls who post responses on every single thread, often to every single post. Spam trolls love, above all else, to see their own words in print. It makes absolutely no difference if those words say anything meaningful, funny or interesting…such things are not important to the Spam troll. Spam trolls are liable to post such things as, “I have nothing to say here, but I’ll p0st this anyway!” or other such trivialities. Also see Attention Whore Trolls…the two are often closely related.

The Master Baiter Troll:

These are trolls who like to bait regulars into replying to their posts, but they are supremely uninterested in actually participating in the community. They seek instant gratification by posting nonsensical, irrelevant, or inflammatory messages and watching the resultant hoopla that ensues.

Product Spammer Troll:

This troll will try to get you to buy whatever it is they’re selling, via their name link. This troll may attempt to get people to click their link via misdirection, outright lies, guilt-tripping, or ridicule.

Buzzkill Troll:


Also be known as the “Killjoy Troll”, this particular species loves to spoil others’ fun by explaining exactly why a particular thread isn’t correct, or otherwise offering too much information rather than merely enjoying the thread and its black and white content. But more often, the object of the troll’s desire is to interrupt and deride others’ enjoyment.

Copypasta Troll:


These trolls enjoy copying text and pasting it into the comments box and posting it without any meaningfulness to the topic or accuracy. Often, the text is long, boring, and has nothing to do with anything anyone is talking about. Sometimes the text is lewd and vulgar. It could be a YouTube vid or a Wikipedia entry. The Copypasta troll is only concerned with filling up as much space as he/she can and annoying the other posters, claiming that this entry helps the original poster’s topic.

Identity Troll:


These trolls steal the name and/or the avatar of other posters and post inflammatory and offensive comments. It is ridiculously easy to catch these trolls, since they post things that would never, EVER be posted by the person whose identity they have stolen.

Self-Insulting Troll:


A troll who in an attempt to insult another poster ultimately ends up insulting itself. For example, if a troll posts, “Everyone who posts in this thread is stupid!”, having just posted in the comments, has admitted to being stupid under its own definition of the word.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To be fair...all of the "trolls" listed above, are simply what makes up any forum.

Breaking news, I just discovered a new sort of rare yet annoying and hard to get rid of Troll;

"Hellbent on destroying any positive fan efforts in the Leicestershire region-Troll".

[Houdini Logic]

You've ignored http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(research_station)

Look - I've made some constructive points today addressed to the Fosse Boys about how to achieve their aims. What has your contribution been?

A humourous post, perfectly summing up certain people and creating a laugh for a number of posters on here, rather than picking out and dwelling on immaterial points and trying to drag everyone down to his miserable and unsatisfied level of life?

[Lillehamring]

No problem with raising issues but I don't think it is an issue at least not a new one and not really related to the FBs. Whatever the regulations people in seating areas have always stood, even in the main stand at Filbo and not necessarily at the same time or for the same duration so there has always been the situation you describe, it's an inherent problem with sitting at a sporting event. At least with the FBs situation, with them being situated in a specific location people that don't want to stand for long periods know to avoid it.

Of course it's all been made worse by the pricing structure which forces those on a low income to sit in the Kop. I've always advocated restricted concessions (no juniors/under 8s and no seniors) in the Kop and unreserved seating which would allow the 90 minute standers to go to the back and the 90 minutes sitters to reside at the front and those that are in between to sit in between, of course it wouldn't be perfect but better than it is now.

the 'kop' at ulleval is unrestricted seating - you bascially just stand where you can - last time we ended standing on the steps between two sections of seats - can't say that felt tremendously safe, and as a matter of fact, for the last 15 minutes i went and sat towards the side of the stand, where there were some free seats.

[ozleicester]

Breaking news, I just discovered a new sort of rare yet annoying and hard to get rid of Troll;

"Hellbent on destroying any positive fan efforts in the Leicestershire region-Troll".

Having been a vocal and (lightly) active supporter of the FB's, i hope this was not directed at me.

I did raise some concerns regarding the lack of information, but at no time was i in any way negative about the FB's or what they are trying to achieve.

[haraven]

Having been a vocal and (lightly) active supporter of the FB's, i hope this was not directed at me.

I did raise some concerns regarding the lack of information, but at no time was i in any way negative about the FB's or what they are trying to achieve.

No, it was not - you were the last to list the current topography of troll types, so I just reused that.

[unreachable]

No you didn't.

You have nothing to say of any value on this matter.

This was pointed out.

Then you bang on as if you are playing the academic 'Devil's Advocate' - which is nonsense - You are not winding anybody up intentionally with any wit or satiricism.

You are simply behaving like a tool and have no worthwhile comment on this matter.

In view of the number of posts targeting me personally I thought it only fair that I post in reply. My cynical views are not dissimilar to the views of DavieG @ post #45 anotherofwalshieswomen @ post #46 and smudger63 @post #54.

As for having nothing worthwhile to say 1964FOX #171 thanked me for my advice; I’m happy with that contribution.

My views about being careful in releasing information @ post #170 are close to those of DavieG @ post #74 where he says:

“As long as they're not being silenced, and we now know they are not then I believe it's in their own interests to keep their plans/thoughts to themselves whilst negotiations are in progress.

If they can come to an acceptable arrangement then our support will have counted if they cannot come to a satisfactory solution then they can then announce the full situation so that we as fans can decide whether to support them further or whether we feel they or the club are being unreasonable.”

It is unfair to categorise me as a lone voice as Valerenga has done since filbertway @ post #157 said “To be fair I agree with what unreachable is saying...”

I don’t know whether witty comments are appropriate to this thread. I regard it as a serious thread.

I don’t want to be the subject of insults but just to make contributions to the thread when I have something to say. You may not agree with what I say but others reading the forum as members or guests may do so for all you know.

I repeat that I support the aims and objectives of the Fosse Boys.

[davieG]

In view of the number of posts targeting me personally I thought it only fair that I post in reply. My cynical views are not dissimilar to the views of DavieG @ post #45 anotherofwalshieswomen @ post #46 and smudger63 @post #54.

As for having nothing worthwhile to say 1964FOX #171 thanked me for my advice; I'm happy with that contribution.

My views about being careful in releasing information @ post #170 are close to those of DavieG @ post #74 where he says:

"As long as they're not being silenced, and we now know they are not then I believe it's in their own interests to keep their plans/thoughts to themselves whilst negotiations are in progress.

If they can come to an acceptable arrangement then our support will have counted if they cannot come to a satisfactory solution then they can then announce the full situation so that we as fans can decide whether to support them further or whether we feel they or the club are being unreasonable."

It is unfair to categorise me as a lone voice as Valerenga has done since filbertway @ post #157 said "To be fair I agree with what unreachable is saying..."

I don't know whether witty comments are appropriate to this thread. I regard it as a serious thread.

I don't want to be the subject of insults but just to make contributions to the thread when I have something to say. You may not agree with what I say but others reading the forum as members or guests may do so for all you know.

I repeat that I support the aims and objectives of the Fosse Boys.

My feeling is that irrespective of what you've just said your criticisms and warnings are all aimed at the FBs,

I can't think of a single instance where you have indicated any fault on behalf of LCFC in spite of their underhand tactics at the Reading game, in spite of their going back on their word with the 4 game trial, in spite of the veiled treats through 3rd parties and via dubious communication methods, in spite of their double standards on the standing issue I could on as their misjudgement of the FBs based simple on the standing issue which they must have know would arise gives the impression that you're biased against the FB or as I said previously a troll!

Anyway hopefully, again in spite of your interpretation we've moved on and some trust is starting to built therefore it seems a tad disingenuous of you to keep blowing the negative trumpet without the bugle playing of some of the positives.

I say all this as one of LCFCs biggest critic and cynic.

[unreachable]

My feeling is that irrespective of what you've just said your criticisms and warnings are all aimed at the FBs,

I can't think of a single instance where you have indicated any fault on behalf of LCFC in spite of their underhand tactics at the Reading game, in spite of their going back on their word with the 4 game trial, in spite of the veiled treats through 3rd parties and via dubious communication methods, in spite of their double standards on the standing issue I could on as their misjudgement of the FBs based simple on the standing issue which they must have know would arise gives the impression that you're biased against the FB or as I said previously a troll!

Anyway hopefully, again in spite of your interpretation we've moved on and some trust is starting to built therefore it seems a tad disingenuous of you to keep blowing the negative trumpet without the bugle playing of some of the positives.

I say all this as one of LCFCs biggest critic and cynic.

Perhaps your bias against LCFC prevents you from forming an objective opinion. I don't have sufficient facts to be confident that LCFC is at fault. You have not been present at the Fosse Boy meetings with the club and don't know all the facts yourself.

The home game next Tuesday will be interesting and hopefully will be a positive step forward in the relationship between LCFC and the Fosse Boys.

[Magictv]

Perhaps your bias against LCFC prevents you from forming an objective opinion. I don't have sufficient facts to be confident that LCFC is at fault. You have not been present at the Fosse Boy meetings with the club and don't know all the facts yourself.

The home game next Tuesday will be interesting and hopefully will be a positive step forward in the relationship between LCFC and the Fosse Boys.

All well and good but do you "have sufficient facts to be confident that" FB are at fault?

[unreachable]

All well and good but do you "have sufficient facts to be confident that" FB are at fault?

No I don't. That's the point. I am observing events as they develop. There doesn't have to be any fault on either side.

[Magictv]

No I don't. That's the point. I am observing events as they develop. There doesn't have to be any fault on either side.

Well therein lies most people's problem I think. As DavieG pointed out almost/absolutely all of your criticism seems aimed at the FB and you refuse to pass criticism on LCFC because as you correctly say you don't have sufficient facts, yet you seem more than happy to ignore your lack of facts when it comes to the FB.

[unreachable]

Well therein lies most people's problem I think. As DavieG pointed out almost/absolutely all of your criticism seems aimed at the FB and you refuse to pass criticism on LCFC because as you correctly say you don't have sufficient facts, yet you seem more than happy to ignore your lack of facts when it comes to the FB.

I have not criticised the Fosse Boys. Please read back through my posts and don't just rely upon what DavieG says. My comments have been addressed as to whether it will be practicable for the Fosse Boys to achieve their aims and objectives. I support them in achieving them but am uncertain whether they will get what they want.