Steward abuse and standing
-
Royal Lady
-
Hob Nob Subscriber
- Posts: 13760
- Joined: 14 Apr 2004 10:17
- Location: Don't mess with "my sort". Cheers then.
-
Stranded
-
Hob Nob Subscriber
- Posts: 19929
- Joined: 14 Apr 2004 12:42
- Location: Propping up the bar in the Nags
-
shadesrwrf
-
Hob Nob Subscriber
- Posts: 1261
- Joined: 15 Apr 2004 13:03
- Location: In an octopus' garden in my shades.
Actually, having re-read the original post, all STAR have done is pass on the message. They've commented neither one way or another on the issue. What I'd like to see now is a statement from STAR outlining its position and its intended actions. Without this the message does "seem" to be one of implicit support.
-
Royal Lady
-
Hob Nob Subscriber
- Posts: 13760
- Joined: 14 Apr 2004 10:17
- Location: Don't mess with "my sort". Cheers then.
But they could say, our fans are not happy with the fact that Away fans do not seem to be targetted in the same way, what are you planning to do about it?StrandedRoyal Lady No. But I would prefer it if STAR were actually a mouthpiece for those of us who don't always agree with things.
And they are when they can be. There's not much point going "Well, the fans don't agree on the policy regarding standing" as the club can't change that.
-
earley_royals
- Member
- Posts: 260
- Joined: 21 Feb 2005 12:29
- Location: I am earley, super earley, i am earley, from Earley.
-
Stranded
-
Hob Nob Subscriber
- Posts: 19929
- Joined: 14 Apr 2004 12:42
- Location: Propping up the bar in the Nags
Royal LadyBut they could say, our fans are not happy with the fact that Away fans do not seem to be targetted in the same way, what are you planning to do about it?StrandedRoyal Lady No. But I would prefer it if STAR were actually a mouthpiece for those of us who don't always agree with things.
And they are when they can be. There's not much point going "Well, the fans don't agree on the policy regarding standing" as the club can't change that.
And I would hope they have, if they haven't then I agree they have missed a trick.
shadesrwrf Actually, having re-read the original post, all STAR have done is pass on the message. They've commented neither one way or another on the issue. What I'd like to see now is a statement from STAR outlining its position and its intended actions. Without this the message does "seem" to be one of implicit support.
Absolutely spot on. STAR are merely acting as a medium to communicate the club's message. No attempt to question it; I for one would like to know...
What is STAR's opinion on this issue?
What do we pay our money for if not to be represented by STAR?
Do STAR even know how the majority of fans feel about this?
Have they consulted anyone in Y25 / Y26 to get their views in response to this club statement?
I am replying to this individually and not representing the views of STAR for those who know that I am on the STAR Board
I sit in Y25, I don't particuarly like standing, my mouth isn't in my backside so I can sing and chant sat down, being shorter than most I need to stand if people infront of me do, I do not stand for the sake of it, but sometimes forget to sit straight back down when an exciting moment has just occurred, this isn't persistance, because I do sit again
If people stand infront of me I will stand, the people behind me will stand, but why do stewards ask the people at the back to sit first, that causes most of the problems, because we are being asked to sit down and be obsturcted, if they started with the people at the front of the standees they would automatically get the people behind to sit, I've seen it happen.
Then the odd one or two who want to argue can do so, its not the majority of us who cause the problems happening in that area. In fact there were more people telling people to sit than there were having a go at the stewards.
There seem to be a lot of people on here who have a strong opinion on these matters, and STAR have time and again tried to arrange for the main parties at the Club and the supporters to have a discussion about the stewarding policy, but noone seems to bother to come.
If people would like to air their views and get a straight answer from the safety officer and the chief steward then say so, STAR can arrange a forum for people to attend and rather than siding one way or another (remember STAR have to represent the views of their members and to be honest the views are divided on this one)
If people are interested, genuinely, then let us know and if enough people will come then we will arrange it because i'm sure people would want to discuss this properly, remember STAR cannot represent your views unless we can back it up with names and numbers (not phone numbers, statistical numbers) the best way of doing this would be to set up a meeting - AGAIN!
I sit in Y25, I don't particuarly like standing, my mouth isn't in my backside so I can sing and chant sat down, being shorter than most I need to stand if people infront of me do, I do not stand for the sake of it, but sometimes forget to sit straight back down when an exciting moment has just occurred, this isn't persistance, because I do sit again
If people stand infront of me I will stand, the people behind me will stand, but why do stewards ask the people at the back to sit first, that causes most of the problems, because we are being asked to sit down and be obsturcted, if they started with the people at the front of the standees they would automatically get the people behind to sit, I've seen it happen.
Then the odd one or two who want to argue can do so, its not the majority of us who cause the problems happening in that area. In fact there were more people telling people to sit than there were having a go at the stewards.
There seem to be a lot of people on here who have a strong opinion on these matters, and STAR have time and again tried to arrange for the main parties at the Club and the supporters to have a discussion about the stewarding policy, but noone seems to bother to come.
If people would like to air their views and get a straight answer from the safety officer and the chief steward then say so, STAR can arrange a forum for people to attend and rather than siding one way or another (remember STAR have to represent the views of their members and to be honest the views are divided on this one)
If people are interested, genuinely, then let us know and if enough people will come then we will arrange it because i'm sure people would want to discuss this properly, remember STAR cannot represent your views unless we can back it up with names and numbers (not phone numbers, statistical numbers) the best way of doing this would be to set up a meeting - AGAIN!
-
Royal Lady
-
Hob Nob Subscriber
- Posts: 13760
- Joined: 14 Apr 2004 10:17
- Location: Don't mess with "my sort". Cheers then.
-
Forbury Lion
-
Hob Nob Subscriber
- Posts: 8837
- Joined: 14 Apr 2004 08:37
- Location: https://youtu.be/c4sX57ZUhzc
Sensible suggestion.Keeper but why do stewards ask the people at the back to sit first, that causes most of the problems, because we are being asked to sit down and be obsturcted, if they started with the people at the front of the standees they would automatically get the people behind to sit, I've seen it happen.
-
STAR Voice
- Member
- Posts: 394
- Joined: 22 Apr 2004 20:16
This thread to have diverted into discussing two different questions : "Is standing unsafe?" and "Is standing allowed?"
I think everyone (outside the Football Licensing Authority, DCMS and Martin Salter) agrees that standing is not unsafe - and the campaign to get the law changed is increasing in strength and effectiveness every day - there are now 113 signatures on the relevant EDM and notice is being taken of this in the corridors of power. If anyone doubts STAR's views on this and on their efforts to get this changed I'd refer them to the below thread :
http://hobnob.royals.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=53306 I'd also direct them to the article I wrote in The Whiff, issue 30 (way back in Feb 2002) in support of Safe Standing and this picture of me freezing my nuts off at the Houses of Parliament in Jan 2001
.
But (and it's a big "but" not you, RL
) that's not what is being discussed here.
What this thread is about is the fact that all clubs, including RFC, are coming under increasing pressure to make sure the rules are being implemented. This comes under the terms of their licence to operate the stadium, from the FLA via Reading Borough Council. The club have no choice or discretion in this - they are required to operate under the terms of their licence, and are likely to have santions taken if not which could well affect all of us - and there are FLA assessors at games to report on this.
Maybe this is the FLA flexing their muscles against the increased pressure they're coming under, maybe there are other factors. Certainly, the club believe they are supporting their stewards, who are doing their job as instructed, and typically are receiving abuse and lack of co-operation. Yes, that happens everywhere, but many other clubs are stamping down too, and the final straw was on Saturday with a number of incidents, not just the abuse of stewards but, for instance, a female "red-coat" being pushed over for asking someone to stop standing in front of the disabled area. Again, it's not just this one incident, but lots over time that have strained the club's patience to the point that they are now going to get heavier.
The club's view is that this problem seems to be getting worse and more widespread, and this is their response, which STAR is warning people of. If you want to see that as STAR being a "mouthpiece" then fair enough, that's your choice, but our policy is that the current rules on standing are wrong and need changing, but we recognise the club's obligation to make sure supporters abide by them. We have a definite duty, though, to warn everyone, STAR members or not, if we have been told that their actions are likely to affect them and other Reading supporters.
This is because if they don't, it affects all fans, not just those few who will be potentially banned. Firstly, there is a real policy of having away reductions reduced - it's happened to some clubs already.
Secondly, we can't support anyone knowingly breaking the stadium regulations - people buy their tickets knowing what the rules are, why should they be able to selectively decide which ones they shouldn't abide by? An extreme example, yes, but if we support some people who want to stand, why shouldn't we support others who want to do racist chanting?
Lastly, we can't condone abuse, violence and animosity - not just for the obvious reasons, but because I think everyone wants us to have the best stewards. Now, would you be a steward if when you try and do your jobs as you've been told to then you get abused (at best) or threatened or attacked? I know I wouldn't, so perhaps people who complain about the stewards should consider how they interact with them - it make come as a surprise to some kids trying to prove how macho they are, but the stewards are actually people like us, trying to earn a little money and they are working to a set of instructions that they've been given - they have no choice in what the rules are, they have been paid to enforce them.
Of course we have spoken to the club about the way away fans are treated - we have also shadowed stewards there, as well as having been in the match control room, and we know that most of the things that happen with away fans go one "behind the scenes", and so are a lot less visible. When they are expelled - and a lot have this season! - they are "snatched" in the concourses or approached individually and taken outside. CCTV footage is also sent to the away club for them to take action, and the away club itself is (potentially) punished by reduced allocations.
In all of this, the approach of the club is to avoid public confrontation which could quickly escalate. Everyone recognises that going in too heavy handed will cause more problems than it will solve. But of course they have more sanctions available for home fans than they do for away fans - and they will now start to use them more. In the same approach of avoiding public confrontation they will, I think, no longer put the stewards at risk of abuse and attack by trying to get them to make persistent offenders to sit - they will, instead, allow the person to stand for that match while they gather CCTV evidence and then they will inform them after the match that they have been banned. Much easier for the stewards and a way the clubs sees to protect them from unnecessary risk.
I think the "fair play league" thing has been given too much prominence and is not being used as a "justification" - it's just a minor bit of supporting evidence, mentioned in passing. I think the low scores are down to what is seen as "negative" support - a lot of time instead of supporting Reading we tend to be attacking the other team/supporters/referee (e.g, booing AJ every time he got the ball at the Everton match). I'm not going to get into whether this support is "good" or "bad" - I'll just comment that the assessors obviously think it's "bad" and they mark us down for it, and I'll advise people not to take it too seriously - this is certainly not the reason for this clamping down.
Well, you wanted a statement - does that answer everything?
I think everyone (outside the Football Licensing Authority, DCMS and Martin Salter) agrees that standing is not unsafe - and the campaign to get the law changed is increasing in strength and effectiveness every day - there are now 113 signatures on the relevant EDM and notice is being taken of this in the corridors of power. If anyone doubts STAR's views on this and on their efforts to get this changed I'd refer them to the below thread :
http://hobnob.royals.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=53306 I'd also direct them to the article I wrote in The Whiff, issue 30 (way back in Feb 2002) in support of Safe Standing and this picture of me freezing my nuts off at the Houses of Parliament in Jan 2001
.
But (and it's a big "but" not you, RL
) that's not what is being discussed here.
What this thread is about is the fact that all clubs, including RFC, are coming under increasing pressure to make sure the rules are being implemented. This comes under the terms of their licence to operate the stadium, from the FLA via Reading Borough Council. The club have no choice or discretion in this - they are required to operate under the terms of their licence, and are likely to have santions taken if not which could well affect all of us - and there are FLA assessors at games to report on this.
Maybe this is the FLA flexing their muscles against the increased pressure they're coming under, maybe there are other factors. Certainly, the club believe they are supporting their stewards, who are doing their job as instructed, and typically are receiving abuse and lack of co-operation. Yes, that happens everywhere, but many other clubs are stamping down too, and the final straw was on Saturday with a number of incidents, not just the abuse of stewards but, for instance, a female "red-coat" being pushed over for asking someone to stop standing in front of the disabled area. Again, it's not just this one incident, but lots over time that have strained the club's patience to the point that they are now going to get heavier.
The club's view is that this problem seems to be getting worse and more widespread, and this is their response, which STAR is warning people of. If you want to see that as STAR being a "mouthpiece" then fair enough, that's your choice, but our policy is that the current rules on standing are wrong and need changing, but we recognise the club's obligation to make sure supporters abide by them. We have a definite duty, though, to warn everyone, STAR members or not, if we have been told that their actions are likely to affect them and other Reading supporters.
This is because if they don't, it affects all fans, not just those few who will be potentially banned. Firstly, there is a real policy of having away reductions reduced - it's happened to some clubs already.
Secondly, we can't support anyone knowingly breaking the stadium regulations - people buy their tickets knowing what the rules are, why should they be able to selectively decide which ones they shouldn't abide by? An extreme example, yes, but if we support some people who want to stand, why shouldn't we support others who want to do racist chanting?
Lastly, we can't condone abuse, violence and animosity - not just for the obvious reasons, but because I think everyone wants us to have the best stewards. Now, would you be a steward if when you try and do your jobs as you've been told to then you get abused (at best) or threatened or attacked? I know I wouldn't, so perhaps people who complain about the stewards should consider how they interact with them - it make come as a surprise to some kids trying to prove how macho they are, but the stewards are actually people like us, trying to earn a little money and they are working to a set of instructions that they've been given - they have no choice in what the rules are, they have been paid to enforce them.
Of course we have spoken to the club about the way away fans are treated - we have also shadowed stewards there, as well as having been in the match control room, and we know that most of the things that happen with away fans go one "behind the scenes", and so are a lot less visible. When they are expelled - and a lot have this season! - they are "snatched" in the concourses or approached individually and taken outside. CCTV footage is also sent to the away club for them to take action, and the away club itself is (potentially) punished by reduced allocations.
In all of this, the approach of the club is to avoid public confrontation which could quickly escalate. Everyone recognises that going in too heavy handed will cause more problems than it will solve. But of course they have more sanctions available for home fans than they do for away fans - and they will now start to use them more. In the same approach of avoiding public confrontation they will, I think, no longer put the stewards at risk of abuse and attack by trying to get them to make persistent offenders to sit - they will, instead, allow the person to stand for that match while they gather CCTV evidence and then they will inform them after the match that they have been banned. Much easier for the stewards and a way the clubs sees to protect them from unnecessary risk.
I think the "fair play league" thing has been given too much prominence and is not being used as a "justification" - it's just a minor bit of supporting evidence, mentioned in passing. I think the low scores are down to what is seen as "negative" support - a lot of time instead of supporting Reading we tend to be attacking the other team/supporters/referee (e.g, booing AJ every time he got the ball at the Everton match). I'm not going to get into whether this support is "good" or "bad" - I'll just comment that the assessors obviously think it's "bad" and they mark us down for it, and I'll advise people not to take it too seriously - this is certainly not the reason for this clamping down.
Well, you wanted a statement - does that answer everything?
Seal I've been debating whether or not to renew my S/T and it's this kind of stuff that makes me think not to bother.
The final straw will be if they even dare put up the prices more than inflation, especially baring in mind the new TV deal.
You're not the only one. I've had a ST for over 15 years and even though we've had a great season on the pitch I'm starting to think about not renewing for next season. One of the main reasons is the way the fans are treated by the club and the way it no longer feels like my club anymore. Add to that the increasing arrogance of footballers, across the board not so much at RFC thankfully, and the general changes to the game and I just don't feel as inclined to keep turning up and supporting the game.
As for this fair play league, I've never heard anything so bizare in football, apart from, obviously, everytime Sepp Blatter and his cronies open their collective mouth.
Schards#2 As long as STAR are thrown the bone of being able to bolster their membership by gifting royalty points by the club, they will be the club's mouthpiece and dutifully peddle the club line whenever told so to do.
and
Royal Lady ...I would prefer it if STAR were actually a mouthpiece for those of us who don't always agree with things.
I've refused to join STAR for the last few years because I just don't think they represent the fans anymore. Yes they are in contact with the club and work as means of communicating between the two bodies but they don't appear to stand up for the fans against the club when it's appropriate. I don't want STAR to become at odds with the club at every corner but from the outside it would appear they are so close to the club that they refuse to protect the rights of the supporters who've made the club what it is today, without us JM wouldn't have had a club to provide for, let alone a reason to pump his cash in.
It maybe that STAR are fighting the club over this nonsense, if you are, please tell us as it comes over that you've just doffed your cap to the powers that be and passed on the message without pointing out to the club how outragous the statement and policy appears.
I know the club can't change the rules, but they can change the way they deal with the fans regarding them, and other issues, and STAR should be fighting our corner.
Schards#2 As a lifelong supporter, i'm pretty offended that the club choses to judge its fans by some crappy arbritary fans league rather than the evidence of their own eyes every week.
Quite, the clubs losing touch with its fan base, ripping us off at every turn, and is in danger of alienating a number of the fanbase that will (would've maybe more accurate) stay with the club through the learner years that are sure to follow this spike in our performance.
-
Royal Lady
-
Hob Nob Subscriber
- Posts: 13760
- Joined: 14 Apr 2004 10:17
- Location: Don't mess with "my sort". Cheers then.
-
shadesrwrf
-
Hob Nob Subscriber
- Posts: 1261
- Joined: 15 Apr 2004 13:03
- Location: In an octopus' garden in my shades.
Thanks for that STAR, it was a very comprehensive answer, and I'm glad to know that you are behind the 'safe to stand' campaign.
I just have 2 further questions for you...
1. Could you explain a bit more about where this 'increased pressure on the FLA' is coming from? Who is instigating it and why? From what you are saying, this seems to be the route of the problem.
2. If RFC adopt a new tactic of banning people after the game for persistent standing, rather than getting people to sit down during the game, will this not just mean we end up with hundreds of our most vocal and (often, not always) loyal fans banned? What I see happening is more people standing because the stewards don't stop them doing so, then more bans happening they would have done otherwise. The ultimate result will be lots of empty seats and a poorer atmosphere. I understand the stewards shouldn’t have to deal with abuse, but surely this would just be cutting of their nose to spite their face?
Just to give you an analogy...I'm in advertising and if I told a client to stop selling to his most loyal customers and brand advocators, he would fire me. This is in essence what is happening at RFC.
I just have 2 further questions for you...
1. Could you explain a bit more about where this 'increased pressure on the FLA' is coming from? Who is instigating it and why? From what you are saying, this seems to be the route of the problem.
2. If RFC adopt a new tactic of banning people after the game for persistent standing, rather than getting people to sit down during the game, will this not just mean we end up with hundreds of our most vocal and (often, not always) loyal fans banned? What I see happening is more people standing because the stewards don't stop them doing so, then more bans happening they would have done otherwise. The ultimate result will be lots of empty seats and a poorer atmosphere. I understand the stewards shouldn’t have to deal with abuse, but surely this would just be cutting of their nose to spite their face?
Just to give you an analogy...I'm in advertising and if I told a client to stop selling to his most loyal customers and brand advocators, he would fire me. This is in essence what is happening at RFC.
Seal
2. If RFC adopt a new tactic of banning people after the game for persistent standing, rather than getting people to sit down during the game, will this not just mean we end up with hundreds of our most vocal and (often, not always) loyal fans banned?.
Also can we have assurances that this will be well publicised and people be warned that if they do not stop standing then they will be banned.............as i cannot imagine anything worse than not hearing any complaints all game only to walk out at the end and find yourself banned without any warning.
-
STAR Voice
- Member
- Posts: 394
- Joined: 22 Apr 2004 20:16
Seal 1. Could you explain a bit more about where this 'increased pressure on the FLA' is coming from? Who is instigating it and why? From what you are saying, this seems to be the route of the problem.
I don't want to overstate the "increased pressure" too much - that's just one of the causes of this, but it's very real that the FLA realises that their whole existence depends upon enforcing the current regulations - and, in fact, they're currently trying to extend their reach to all other sports! But they are very threatened by the safe-standing campaigns - if they win, the FLA has no real reason to exist any more, hence them doing more and more at the moment to be more visible and to try and justify their existence. As the publicity and fallout from EDM101 bites more, the greater the pressure on them becomes.
Seal 2. If RFC adopt a new tactic of banning people after the game for persistent standing, rather than getting people to sit down during the game, will this not just mean we end up with hundreds of our most vocal and (often, not always) loyal fans banned? What I see happening is more people standing because the stewards don't stop them doing so, then more bans happening they would have done otherwise. The ultimate result will be lots of empty seats and a poorer atmosphere. I understand the stewards shouldn’t have to deal with abuse, but surely this would just be cutting of their nose to spite their face?
I think the stewards will still be warning people at the start of matches - they just won't go in too heavily if people ignore them, and CCTV evidence will be collected. (that's my own interpretation, BTW - I'm not an expert on the exact strategy that might be used).
Your scenario only works if people don't get the message about what the club is doing - I think the club is assuming that once they have banned 10 or 20 people then the message will get around that they are serious and the problem will dissipate.
Seal Just to give you an analogy...I'm in advertising and if I told a client to stop selling to his most loyal customers and brand advocators, he would fire me. This is in essence what is happening at RFC.
Indeed, but the club would no doubt answer that the cost of servicing these few customers is unacceptably high - both in the stewarding costs, and in the risk cost of possible sanctions/legal actions. They'd also probably say that they'd be confident that they could replace these customers with others, who would cost them less overall.
To stretch the analogy further, Burberry no longer manufacture baseball caps - but surely these were worn by "their most loyal customers and brand advocators." Yes I know the main issue was counterfeiting, but you get the point that it's not unique for a company to market to a specific set of customers?
Certainly, there's a battle to be fought here about standing at football matches, but it's a battle that can only be fought at a political level (and in fact we're making good progress there.) Anyone who decides to fight the battle on their own at the MadStad is fighting the wrong battle and is probably going to be the only one who suffers at the end of it.
-
STAR Voice
- Member
- Posts: 394
- Joined: 22 Apr 2004 20:16
JoeSeal
2. If RFC adopt a new tactic of banning people after the game for persistent standing, rather than getting people to sit down during the game, will this not just mean we end up with hundreds of our most vocal and (often, not always) loyal fans banned?.
Also can we have assurances that this will be well publicised and people be warned that if they do not stop standing then they will be banned.............as i cannot imagine anything worse than not hearing any complaints all game only to walk out at the end and find yourself banned without any warning.
We have made this point and we have been promised that this will be well publicised as well as being put in the programme.
And I may have not put it as well before - the stewards will still be telling people to sit down when required, as they do now - the difference is that when they threaten that persistent offenders will be banned it is no longer the idel threat that it may have been in the past - the club is serious!
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 110 guests
It is currently 30 Jun 2024 08:50