West Ham bans season ticket holders...for standing!

[tangerinedream]

You didn't even post on me thread

but the question was on here

hang on...

 

[muser]

jokers

muser is wierd, he argues this odd rhetoric of 'it's a business' then doesn't see that the 'consumers' (i.e. the supporters) have a right to a choice.

You castigate, though lack an argument of your own. You paint a picture where the modern fan can get any seat he wants, when the opposite is true in most cases. Then you brand him a muppet for not being able to get into the family enclosure.

As a lifelong Blackpool fan, tangerine, what does the club owe you.
Do you expect quality football every week, maybe a good standard of yorkshire pie, all terrace stadium. New manager, bond girl stubbing your ticket. You tell me.
I think most fans are whiney rent a gobs, never satisfied.

 

[JTG]

told you he doesn't get it

 

[tangerinedream]

You castigate, though lack an argument of your own. You paint a picture where the modern fan can get any seat he wants, when the opposite is true in most cases. Then you brand him a muppet for not being able to get into the family enclosure.

As a lifelong Blackpool fan, tangerine, what does the club owe you.
Do you expect quality football every week, maybe a good standard of yorkshire pie, all terrace stadium. New manager, bond girl stubbing your ticket. You tell me.
I think most fans are whiney rent a gobs, never satisfied.

I expect a team that tries hard. I also don't expect yorkshire fucking pie, you patronising fool. As a lifelong liverpool fan, I would expect you to be aware of where lancashire is. Oh yes, it's where Liverpool is.

I accept that many Prem grounds are at capacity and you have to sit where the ticket dictates but that should be an argument for a return to standing, allowing greater capacities and a choice of experience.

You paint a picture where the modern fan can get any seat he wants, when the opposite is true in most cases.

What the fuck are you on about? How many games have you ever been to muser?

In what way have I no argument of my own? Do you even know what I'm talking about below when I talk about hillsborough? or did you pick liverpool out of shoot magazine when you were 11?

I can't be arsed with your wierd style of arguing with everything that gets posted, regardless of whether you understand it or not.

As for the 'modern fan' - we have NEVER sold out our ground at it's current capacity. Obviously, you don't view me as an example of 'most cases.'

Think about it properly for once. Imagine you are taking an 11 year old to see, say, I dunno, Muse, at an all ages gig - you ring up and ask for seats - they are all sold out.

Do you then demand all the 15 yr old kids at the front where you have bought standing tickets don't swear or drink or jump up and down cos it 'spoils the family atmosphere' - Are your rights as a consumer damaged by the fact some people want to enjoy a rock gig in the way rock gigs have always been enjoyed?

Try answering the points in the question, not just reacting with some wierd twisting of the argument.

 

[tangerinedream]

told you he doesn't get it

he still hasn't answered my question...

 

[muser]

It's like someone taking a kid into the stand behind the goal and then complaining about language, there is a family stand you muppet, go and sit in it.

That is what I was refering to in my last post. You are arguing from the point of view of a league1 supporter who CAN gain access to any seat s/he wants. The thread is dealing with West ham, a premiership team who almost always get full capacity.

Think about it properly for once. Imagine you are taking an 11 year old to see, say, I dunno, Muse, at an all ages gig - you ring up and ask for seats - they are all sold out.

Do you then demand all the 15 yr old kids at the front where you have bought standing tickets don't swear or drink or jump up and down cos it 'spoils the family atmosphere' - Are your rights as a consumer damaged by the fact some people want to enjoy a rock gig in the way rock gigs have always been enjoyed?

Wasn't the original scenario that the club's personnel ejected several fans because they had refused to heed repeated warnings to be seated?
In the analogy you give you're right, though recently thom yorke stopped his performance to tell people in the front row to calm down. Surely a reasonable request. Hooligans use to own the terraces in the 70's and 80's, was it wrong to change the dynamics of the game so that football is more spectator friendly. Using your logic those hooligans would have a case against their clubs.

In reply to my question, you stated that you expect your team\club to work hard and listed only that as a requirement, what other expectations do you have.

 

[tangerinedream]

That is what I was refering to in my last post. You are arguing from the point of view of a league1 supporter who CAN gain access to any seat s/he wants. The thread is dealing with West ham, a premiership team who almost always get full capacity.



Wasn't the original scenario that the club's personnel ejected several fans because they had refused to heed repeated warnings to be seated?
In the analogy you give you're right, though recently thom yorke stopped his performance to tell people in the front row to calm down. Surely a reasonable request. Hooligans use to own the terraces in the 70's and 80's, was it wrong to change the dynamics of the game so that football is more spectator friendly. Using your logic those hooligans would have a case against their clubs.

In reply to my question, you stated that you expect your team\club to work hard and listed only that as a requirement, what other expectations do you have.

I'm not though - I'm saying - you know the ground if you are a fan, therefore if you can't get a ticket for the right bit for the atmosphere you want, then it's tough luck. I'm also saying, if we had terracing this argument wouldn't exist

a) more people could get in
b) people could stand up if they wanted

- Am I right or wrong in that?

I expect the team to try hard. I expect whoever owns the club at the time to at least reinvest the revinue gained by club into the development of the playing squad. I would expect the club to ban anyone convicted of violence against anothers person and racism and that's it really. I would expect a basic level of safety when I am at a game, in that the club has a valid safety certificate and some stewarding and is able to manage a crowd Why? what are you hoping I'll say?

There are plenty of things I want, but they are not expectations.

Have you ever stood on a football terrace. For the 4th time.

 

[muser]

I'm not though - I'm saying - you know the ground if you are a fan, therefore if you can't get a ticket for the right bit for the atmosphere you want, then it's tough luck. I'm also saying, if we had terracing this argument wouldn't exist

a) more people could get in
b) people could stand up if they wanted

- Am I right or wrong in that?

I expect the team to try hard. I expect whoever owns the club at the time to at least reinvest the revinue gained by club into the development of the playing squad. I would expect the club to ban anyone convicted of violence against anothers person and racism and that's it really. I would expect a basic level of safety when I am at a game, in that the club has a valid safety certificate and some stewarding and is able to manage a crowd Why? what are you hoping I'll say?

There are plenty of things I want, but they are not expectations.

Have you ever stood on a football terrace. For the 4th time.

Please read post 33.
I personally think that WHU want to present an image for prospective parties, interested in buying the club (whether rightly or wrongly). 10 years ago you could hear racial abuse at WHU ground, though initiatives to curb that sort of behaviour have had an impact I can't imagine it doesn't still happen. Any measure to bring a bit of civility to the game is welcome by me.

 

[tangerinedream]

Please read post 33.
I personally think that WHU want to present an image for prospective parties, interested in buying the club (whether rightly or wrongly). 10 years ago you could hear racial abuse at WHU ground, though initiatives to curb that sort of behaviour have had an impact I can't imagine it doesn't still happen. Any measure to bring a bit of civility to the game is welcome by me.

fair enough.

What has throwing people out for standing up got to do with racism though?

Would you like the game to be followed with polite ripples of applause and shouts of 'jolly well done' when either team score? Why on earth do you link standing up with racist behaviour?

 

[bluestreak]

all i'll say is: as we are now, so you will be.

 

[editor]

10 years ago you could hear racial abuse at WHU ground, though initiatives to curb that sort of behaviour have had an impact I can't imagine it doesn't still happen. Any measure to bring a bit of civility to the game is welcome by me.

What's being forced to sit down got to do with curbing racism?

And exactly what do you mean by 'civility'?
Football is a passionate sport. The last thing I want is polite, tennis-style clapping.

 

[Jazzz]

The club was theirs until big business, TV companies and corporate interests took it away and made it into something else, so your analogy is both inappropriate and spectacularly clueless.

Plonker.

I think you have missed the point: the refrain 'if they don't like it, why don't they start their own football club' would clearly be an absurd thing to say to fans by club management, whatever the circumstances, because it's the fans that make the team happen.

Similarly, if someone was to say 'if you don't like the way these boards are run, go and start your own', that would be a crass and insensitive way of dealing with a poster's grievance here on urban75, wouldn't it?

 

[Termite Man]

To some degree I'm playing devil's advocate, but the fact that you hold these irrational views makes me question them. When did I ever say don't try and change things. Do you have a local pub? Do you purchase anything, over 20 years does that make you a loyal patron, does it give you a say in how the business is run, who the directors should be? No.
If west ham's proprietors had listened to the fans two seasons ago then they would've sacked alan pardew.

Maybe you don't know this but clubs didn't choose to go all seater , they probably don't want to force people to all sit down and be quiet either . If you'd bothered reading anything about this kind of stuff the all seater stadiums was something dictated to the clubs by the Taylor report and the government forced the change from terracing to all seater . The enforcement of the no standing is being done by local council . So when you ask if attending a club for 20 years gives you a say in how that club is run , I'd agree that you don't , but don't you agree that we have a say in what a democractically elected government body does , be it local or national and that is what any campaign for standing at football grounds needs to be targeted at !

 

[Red Faction]

id be a fan of terraces tbh
ive stood for over 90mins at a football game
coventry v celtic was the most recent
and tbh those little chairs can be fucking deadly when you're jumping up and down!

 

[editor]

I think you have missed the point: the refrain 'if they don't like it, why don't they start their own football club' would clearly be an absurd thing to say to fans by club management, whatever the circumstances, because it's the fans that make the team happen.

So you've never heard of FC United of Manchester then?

Similarly, if someone was to say 'if you don't like the way these boards are run, go and start your own', that would be a crass and insensitive way of dealing with a poster's grievance here on urban75, wouldn't it?

Utterly irrelevant. Posters haven't spent a lifetime investing in these boards, neither do they claim to represent their home town. Posters aren't financing the wages of a team or staff, there's no 'supporter's club,' neither are people expected to pay high prices to view these boards.

The only thing that's crass around here is your idiotic attempt to dredge up a non-existent, point-scoring parallel between these boards and a town's football team.

 

[Red Faction]

Utterly irrelevant. Posters haven't spent a lifetime investing in these boards, neither do they claim to represent their home town. Posters aren't financing the wages of a team or staff, there's no 'supporter's club,' neither are people expected to pay high prices to view these boards.

no- but we do contribute to the server fund tho

 

[editor]

no- but we do contribute to the server fund tho

A small minority do yes, but it's entirely voluntary and you decide how much you want to pay (if anything).

And, of course, no-one's making a living out of it and these boards don't pretend to represent a town or city, although posters' opinions do count and the mods are always listening to their suggestions.

(A good example would be when a few years back I dreamt up what I thought was a whizzo new colour scheme for the boards. I thought people would love it, but people complained that the bright colours made it obvious that they were skiving off work, so I put it straight back to the old scheme. Same with new forums - they don't get created unless people suggest them and there's a big enough demand. So we're not really laying down the law in isolation).

I really don't see many comparisons with paying £25 every week to see your team play and then - after years of supporting the team - being forced to sit down against your wishes, to be honest.

 

[JTG]

So you've never heard of FC United of Manchester then?

Or AFC Wimbledon or Enfield Town

In ten years' time, half the football clubs in the lower leagues will be fan owned and run.

 

[muser]

So you've never heard of FC United of Manchester then?

Utterly irrelevant. Posters haven't spent a lifetime investing in these boards, neither do they claim to represent their home town. Posters aren't financing the wages of a team or staff, there's no 'supporter's club,' neither are people expected to pay high prices to view these boards.

The only thing that's crass around here is your idiotic attempt to dredge up a non-existent, point-scoring parallel between these boards and a town's football team.

These boards represent a virtual community. They invest time, knowledge and a little money, dismissing that so lightly shows a lack of class.
Why are you equating money with supporter's rights?

 

[editor]

These boards represent a virtual community. They invest time, knowledge and a little money, dismissing that so lightly shows a lack of class.

I'm only "dismissing" the ridiculous comparisons between posting on a non-profit bulletin board and paying big money to follow a multi-million pound professional football club.

"Lack of class"

 

[muser]

I'm only "dismissing" the ridiculous comparisons between posting on a non-profit bulletin board and paying big money to follow a multi-million pound professional football club.

"Lack of class"

You didn't answer my question, why are you assuming paying for the right to see your team gives you a greater right?
If you forget the financial aspect of this site, then doesn't it obey all the criteria of any organisation or enterprise.

 

[editor]

You didn't answer my question, why are you assuming paying for the right to see your team gives you a greater right?

Because the only reason why most clubs are still in existence is because of the undying, week-in, week-out support from their fans.

But it's clear that you see football as a commercial commodity that's no different to a supermarket chain, so I'm not sure there's not much point continuing this discussion.

 

[Termite Man]

why are you assuming paying for the right to see your team gives you a greater right?

perhaps you could answer why a decision to put seats in all grounds at a certain level was made by the government and then the provision for capapcaity and standing in seating areas is dictated by local government do you think people don't have a right to challenge what are decisions by democratically elected bodies . The clubs really have very little to do with the provision for standing but they do have to implement measures top prevent it because thats what they have to do .

 

[muser]

Because the only reason why most clubs are still in existence is because of the undying, week-in, week-out support from their fans.

But it's clear that you see football as a commercial commodity that's no different to a supermarket chain, so I'm not sure there's not much point continuing this discussion.

Yoiu're right, there is no point continuing with this. If you only substitute the word club for sainsbury, then your argument is shown in its proper light.

 

[Termite Man]

Yoiu're right, there is no point continuing with this. If you only substitute the word club for sainsbury, then your argument is shown in its proper light.

why not answer my point then ? If we replace club with saisburys what your saying is customer demand wouldn't make sainsburys sell crack . But if the government were to allow sainsburies to sell crack and there was demand for it then you would get a crack aisle in sainsburys , which really shows your argument in it's proper light of being absolute unmittigated bollocks !

 

[muser]

why not answer my point then ? If we replace club with saisburys what your saying is customer demand wouldn't make sainsburys sell crack . But if the government were to allow sainsburies to sell crack and there was demand for it then you would get a crack aisle in sainsburys , which really shows your argument in it's proper light of being absolute unmittigated bollocks !

This is nonsensical. Do you recall the effects of prohibition in 1920's america.
God help you if you had to defend yourself in a court of law.
What I don't understand is, have the supporters appealed against their temporary ban. The proper channels are in place to remedy the situation. Alot of the reaction on here has been kneejerk.

 

[tommers]

I personally think that WHU want to present an image for prospective parties, interested in buying the club (whether rightly or wrongly). 10 years ago you could hear racial abuse at WHU ground, though initiatives to curb that sort of behaviour have had an impact I can't imagine it doesn't still happen. Any measure to bring a bit of civility to the game is welcome by me.

I've skim read most of this thread but muser, this really needs to be spoken about.

for the second time - the reason west ham have given these bans is related to Newham Council. The club have got pressure on them from the council to clamp down on this in the interests of "Health and Safety". Do you really think Mr Papashoddy cares about crowd control?

- although the letter from the club says they have been banned for "persistent standing" and "refusing to heed warnings" doesn't mean it's true. the Bobby Moore Lower is full of people standing. As is the corner between it and the Doctor Martens Lower. As I pointed out earlier - who is to say that the people banned weren't just standing up in order to see over the shoulders of the people stood up in front of them? There were only 20. There are thousands in total in those areas.

- what the fuck has racism got to do with standing?

- civility?

 

[tommers]

What I don't understand is have the supporters appealed against their temporary ban. The proper channels are in place to remedy the situation. Alot of the reaction on here has been kneejerk.

yes. they have sent letters, e-mails, made telephone calls etc etc etc.

they received the letters on the 25th October.

the first game they were banned from was on the 29th.

that gives a nice cosy 4 days (including a saturday and a sunday) to sort it out.

difficult when nobody replies to anything you write to them.

still, as long as the "proper channels are in place" eh?

 

[muser]

I've skim read most of this thread but muser, this really needs to be spoken about.

for the second time - the reason west ham have given these bans is related to Newham Council. The club have got pressure on them from the council to clamp down on this in the interests of "Health and Safety". Do you really think Mr Papashoddy cares about crowd control?

- although the letter from the club says they have been banned for "persistent standing" and "refusing to heed warnings" doesn't mean it's true. the Bobby Moore Lower is full of people standing. As is the corner between it and the Doctor Martens Lower. As I pointed out earlier - who is to say that the people banned weren't just standing up in order to see over the shoulders of the people stood up in front of them? There were only 20. There are thousands in total in those areas.

- what the fuck has racism got to do with standing?

- civility?

Where do I equate racism with standing.

 

[tommers]

Where do I equate racism with standing.

where do I say you equate it with standing? I said "what the fuck does racism have to do with standing?"

I personally think that WHU want to present an image for prospective parties, interested in buying the club (whether rightly or wrongly). 10 years ago you could hear racial abuse at WHU ground, though initiatives to curb that sort of behaviour have had an impact I can't imagine it doesn't still happen. Any measure to bring a bit of civility to the game is welcome by me.

I'll ask it again. what the fuck does racism have to do with standing?

honestly.

you really have confused me.