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

[tangerinedream]

Where do I equate racism with standing.

You say out of the blue

West Ham have had a problem with racism

and then say you support anything that civilises the game, like throwing people out for standing up.

about 15 posts ago.

Therefore, it appears you link standing up at games with racism.

 

[tangerinedream]

you really have confused me.

It's his speciality that.

 

[muser]

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



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

honestly.

you really have confused me.

Standing and civility seem to have more in common, in the domain of football. If that wasn't clear then I'm sorry.

 

[muser]

It's his speciality that.

Not hard when I'm working with your ilk

 

[tommers]

Standing and civility seem to have more in common, in the domain of football. If that wasn't clear then I'm sorry.

nope, sorry, might as well be in swahili. what do you mean?

do you mean that making people sit down makes them more civil and therefore less likely to shout out racist abuse?

or something else?

maybe they should give everyone some nice earl grey and cucumber sandwiches as they come through the turnstiles? they could play classical music at half time.

 

[Jazzz]

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.

I think some are well on the way to spending a lifetime investing in these boards, judging by the amount of posts some make. It's the posters that make these boards, that there is far less money sloshing around in the venture is neither here nor there. If a poster is annoyed about something, well that doesn't mean you have to agree, it's just utterly crass to suggest as you do that they leave the boards they have spent maybe thousands of hours contributing to, as muser noted it is certainly lacking in class.

 

[editor]

If a poster is annoyed about something, well that doesn't mean you have to agree, it's just utterly crass to suggest as you do that they leave the boards they have spent maybe thousands of hours contributing to, as muser noted it is certainly lacking in class.

You should learn to just listen sometimes editor.

What the fuck are you babbling on about?

Who have I recently asked to leave the boards?



You should leant to make some sense instead of posting up an endless stream of lunatic bonkers nonsense and thread diverting drivel.

 

[Jazzz]

It's a regular refrain of yours 'if you don't like the way things are around here, go and start your own boards'. You're probably about to say it to me too right now.

You are unable to allow anything you perceive as criticism to stand on your site unchallenged. For instance, you could just let this post lie, but you won't.

 

[tangerinedream]

Not hard when I'm working with your ilk

 

[editor]

It's a regular refrain of yours 'if you don't like the way things are around here, go and start your own boards'. You're probably about to say it to me too right now.

Recent examples - with context - if you please.

 

[muser]

Recent examples - with context - if you please.

I recall but recently taking you to task for intimidating someone who you disagreed with. In that instance he made an off the cuff remark which you dealt with in your own inimitable style.

 

[tangerinedream]

So, west ham and standing up eh?

 

[Termite Man]

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.

sorry . Your saying supporters shouldn't have the right to say how there club is run , which to an extent I agree with , but in this case it's not the club that is instigating the seating it's local and national government .

And I am aware of what happened in 1920's Amerioca with prohibition . The only parralel is that a hugely unpopular law was passed , many disagreed with it and it was repealed . Whats your point .

 

[muser]

free vimto - it will all become clear

sorry . Your saying supporters shouldn't have the right to say how there club is run , which to an extent I agree with , but in this case it's not the club that is instigating the seating it's local and national government .

And I am aware of what happened in 1920's Amerioca with prohibition . The only parralel is that a hugely unpopular law was passed , many disagreed with it and it was repealed . Whats your point .

I used the point to illustrate how absurd your original claim was, it isn't a point in itself. Local and national government writ those laws for the welfare of the fans (including those ejected from the game). Do you object to the law in being in place, or that it was implimented, where deemed necessary?

 

[Termite Man]

I used the point to illustrate how absurd your original claim was, it isn't a point in itself. Local and national government writ those laws for the welfare of the fans (including those ejected from the game). Do you object to the law in being in place, or that it was implimented, where deemed necessary?

Well a few people have mentioned that the original problem to do with Hillsborough which kick started the Taylor Report was down to more factors than just terracing so for crowd safety reasons all seaters are probably an easy option but not the best .
In terms of hooliganism , again all seaters keep fans in the same place so "trouble makers" can be spotted but then all seaters are just an easier way of doing that . and IMO as a fan who has attended all seater venues and terraced grounds I have to say terraces are much better .
I personally don't think all seater stadiums are perfect , they take away a lot from the game from the fans perspective , in some cases you may as well just watch the game in a pub on sky because the atmosphere will be better , but they have been used as the easiest measure to tackle a percieved crowd danger and a "hooligan threat" . I also belive that while they are the easiest solution they are not the best solution for the game and the concerns of government .

 

[Termite Man]

I used the point to illustrate how absurd your original claim was, it isn't a point in itself. Local and national government writ those laws for the welfare of the fans

National government is also wanting to allow private healthcare to bid for NHS patients which will effectivly take money out of the NHS , which I'm sure they think they are doing for our benefit . Just as going to war in Iraq is somehow for our benefit . I don't agree with either of those because I think the end results could be achieved using better methods and I will do my utmost to let MP's know that and to highlight my disagreement . That is what we can do living ina democracy and the day people stop questioning what the government think is best for us will be a very sad day IMO !

 

[editor]

I recall but recently taking you to task for intimidating someone who you disagreed with. In that instance he made an off the cuff remark which you dealt with in your own inimitable style.

Fascinating, but I'm asking for recent examples of me telling someone to "go and start their boards," as Jazzz claimed.

Have you got any then?

Oh, and what does this "free vimto" stuff mean, please?

 

[Jazzz]

one here

another

another

another

 

[editor]

I asked you for recent examples. The ones you've just listed are (a) nearly a year old, (b) over a year old, (c) two years old and (c) over two years old.

Which bit of 'recent' are you incapable of understanding, Jazzz?



You're not doing very well here, are you?

 

[Jazzz]

oh I understand! You don't contest that you used to say that regularly. But posters went and did indeed start their own boards, so you haven't said it for a while.

 

[editor]

oh I understand! You don't contest that you used to say that regularly. But posters went and did indeed start their own boards, so you haven't said it for a while.

I asked you to give me a recent example so that your thread-disrupting 'point' may at least have some vague relevance.

It seems that you're either unable to understand the meaning of the word, "recent" (I repeated it enough times) or you're only interested in scoring points at the expense of the topic under discussion.

Either way, you haven't come out of this looking very good, but you've certainly managed to fuck up the thread.

 

[Jazzz]

Well you'll have to forgive me editor - it's something you made such a habit of saying that one hardly notices that you haven't said it for a while. A bit like a house alarm that drones on so long that you aren't quite sure if it's there or not

 

[editor]

A bit like a house alarm that drones on so long that you aren't quite sure if it's there or not

How long do you intend to keep on wrecking this thread with your idiotic, off-topic wriggling?

 

[moose]

Meanwhile back on-topic...

At least West Ham have only given temporary bans. MUFC were under pressure from Trafford BC to prevent standing, and so removed tickets permanently from some supporters a couple of years ago after their persistent 'reoffending'. Trafford threatened closure of the stadium unless the no standing rule was strictly enforced.

On numerous occasions United's ticket allocation to away games has been reduced as 'punishment' for us standing on the previous visit, because again local councils are clamping down and threatening sanctions against clubs who don't do the same.

In contrast, I've stood on some of the crumbliest, dangerous terraces in Europe, all approved by UEFA to host their flagship competition. It's the inconsistency which is annoying.

 

[tommers]

At least West Ham have only given temporary bans. MUFC were under pressure from Trafford BC to prevent standing, and so removed tickets permanently from some supporters a couple of years ago after their persistent 'reoffending'. Trafford threatened closure of the stadium unless the no standing rule was strictly enforced.

yep. exactly. I have some sympathy with the club in that the rules are being enforced by an outside authority.

on the other hand the way they have dealt with the whole issue is the usual incompetent, inconsiderate mess that is west ham.

 

[muser]

How long do you intend to keep on wrecking this thread with your idiotic, off-topic wriggling?

Sometimes its necessary to deviate, in order to arrive at a fundamental tenet.
In this instance, deviation has only occured as a result of the original poster requesting that the contributor expand on an earlier response. In assessing the merit of the opening post, it's often productive to ascertain the nature of the original poster, in which the contributor (in question) has done with unfailing aplomb.