Steward abuse and standing

[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.

I pretty much agree with everything you've said in your reply, and thanks for taking the time to do so. Only point I'd pick you up on is the above one.

Firstly, I don't think you would replace these customers with equally passionate and high spending (in terms of merchandising etc) alternatives. RFC's fan base just isn't that large, and passion for the club grows over a significant period of time. I would argue 99% of the fans most likely to be high spenders are already season ticket holders. Banning many of these fans will most likely result in replacements who don’t spend or contribute as much – I’m thinking tickets to non glamorous cup ties and singing as well as shirts.

Secondly, I also think RFC are massively over confident in the loyalty and dedication of the fanbase. After all the worry last season, what was the actual over subscription of season tickets? 500ish? Take away all the ‘one season wonders’ who have had their fix of premiership football and I think we will struggle to match the same level of ST demand this summer as we had last. Therefore policies like banning current ST holders, over pricing other tickets and generally treating fans like numbers rather than people may well come back and bit the club on the a$$. They don’t have as many ‘ready made’ replacements at they like to think, and certainly do not have many replacements who contribute as much to a vibrant match day atmosphere as those in Y25 / Y26.

[STAR Voice]

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.

I pretty much agree with everything you've said in your reply, and thanks for taking the time to do so. Only point I'd pick you up on is the above one.

Firstly, I don't think you would replace these customers with equally passionate and high spending (in terms of merchandising etc) alternatives. RFC's fan base just isn't that large, and passion for the club grows over a significant period of time. I would argue 99% of the fans most likely to be high spenders are already season ticket holders. Banning many of these fans will most likely result in replacements who don’t spend or contribute as much – I’m thinking tickets to non glamorous cup ties and singing as well as shirts.

Secondly, I also think RFC are massively over confident in the loyalty and dedication of the fanbase. After all the worry last season, what was the actual over subscription of season tickets? 500ish? Take away all the ‘one season wonders’ who have had their fix of premiership football and I think we will struggle to match the same level of ST demand this summer as we had last. Therefore policies like banning current ST holders, over pricing other tickets and generally treating fans like numbers rather than people may well come back and bit the club on the a$$. They don’t have as many ‘ready made’ replacements at they like to think, and certainly do not have many replacements who contribute as much to a vibrant match day atmosphere as those in Y25 / Y26.

I agree - but don't forget that a "ban" needn't be for a long period of time. I think the club might believe that banning someone for a couple of games or 5 games might be enough to get them to change their behaviour. In fact, one person who we defended with the club after the Chelsea match was only banned for a handful of games, and was allowed to move their season ticket to a less "volitile" part of the ground in order to reduce later possible eventualities. So I don't actually think it's lifetime bans we're talking about.

But I take your overall point - the whole danger of the Premier League is that the whole point of the PL is money - pure and simply. Fans are too ofter an afterthought - there to provide atmosphere for the TV cameras (and the right kind of atmosphere, too) and to pay handsomely for the privelige. RFC isn't yet anywhere as nearly as bad as some other clubs in this, but there is a danger of it happening. We're doing what we can, through STAR and the FSF on this.

[Andy M]

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.

This "possible sanctions/legal costs" argument is a red herring that has been circulating for far too long.

From the FLA website:

The reluctance of the football authorities to table this issue was unlikely to be overcome unless the FLA could persuade club chairman of the consequences of taking no action. It was agreed that anecdotal evidence would not be sufficient. Cost and liability implications would be a much stronger message.

[b]Our statutory powers allowed us to close sections of grounds but we would need to demonstrate proportionality. This action might well lead to judicial review.[/b] The negative attitude of the football authorities was very disappointing and the FLA could not sit back and do nothing. The Board wanted to show the FLA would not tolerate persistent standing. The key was convincing club chairmen of the need for action.

I think people need to ask themselves, considering the grave risk that apparently we are all under if we stand, why there has been no judicial review?

Manchester United were threatened with ground closure, threatened to fight it through the courts and all of a sudden the threat disappeared.

I'd also take issue with the idea that the FLA may go out of buisness if their mission to ensure we all sit failed. Perhaps STAR are right in that if they do fail here then they won't be able to become the Sports Licencing Authority as they'd like to be but since the Government trust them to take their expertise around the world and get involved with local projects such as the Ascot redevelpment I doubt very much if those employed would find themselves jobless...

Finally, while you're having a fantastic season this season what if next season isn't so good and you find yourself back in the CCC? Something that should certainly be considered imvho!

[Skin]

STAR CAMPAIGNS:

What seems to be very evident here is the lack of empathy the club has with the fans that feel they might actually have a point and standing is actually no more unsafe than sitting.
The continual lack of acknowledgement of this is what really causes a lot of resentment and I'm sure leads to fans thinking they should make a stand (excuse the pun) when told to sit down by the stewards.
If the club want to dictate rules, play lapdog to the FLA and alienate some of their most loyal fans then fine, they're perfectly entitled to do so, what they need to remember is if they start sticking 2 fingers up to the fans then the fans will simply stick 2 fingers back and in essence its the club that will lose out in the long run.
Whereas if the club came out and said they recognise the issue and they will support the fans in trying to campaign for safe standing, but only when the fans start complying with the current rules, they might find more people will start to listen and we can all start pulling in the same direction.
Its about time the club started to support its fans a little bit in return for all the support they've had over the decades. Try that and they might just be pleasantly suprised with the results. Carry on enforcing at whatever cost and I can think of some good ways of spending my £500 -£600 elsewhere come the summer.
Please pass my comments on to the club.

[RoyalBlue]

I was asked at the senior management meeting today to pass on a message to all fans of Reading, the East stand and Y26 in particular, that the club will not condone persistant standing and will certainly not allow abuse of the stewards who are doing the job they are employed for.

This is not a discussion of what the rules should be and whether we agree with them but a warnng that the rules that currently exist will be enforced and if it is necessary large numbers may find themselves banned from the Madejski.

The club is particularly aware that Reading fans are bottom of the fans fair play league and possibly working towards reduced away allocations if they continue this way. Although our fans are witty and knowledgeable in some songs, their song on Saturday abusing their own stewards is a step too far for the club.

Perhaps you could also pass a message back to the senior management. Why the hell don't they treat away fans exactly the same way?

[RoyalBlue]

How about STAR make it clear to the club that the away fans should be treated exactly as we are in the East Stand.

Make them sit down!

err.... 'This is not a discussion of what the rules should be'

err no ....... It is a sodding debate on how they should be applied i.e. equally and fairly.

The rules are meant to be the same for all supporters and should be applied as such.

The approach to away fans is also different - they are apprehended individually in the concourses where possible, and are being expelled from the ground - in ever-increasing numbers this season. But the stewards' strategy is to do things quietly without lots of fuss.

So treat home supporters in the same manner!

I really would be interested in knowing just how many away supporters have been ejected in this quiet, no fuss, invisible manner, particularly as far more away supporters appear to stand and for longer periods than home fans. One would like to think it is a considerably higher number than that of home fans who have been banned for the same offence but I somehow doubt it.

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.

Have to say I'm with you on this one. It leaves a bad taste in the mouth when STAR are apparently so closely aligned with the club on this issue. I joined STAR for the first time this season, sadly it seems it'll be the first and last.

So when STAR gets early warning of an imminent crackdown on people not abiding by the stadium conditions, would you rather they didn't give people early warning of this?

No I would rather they stood up to the club a bit more and commicated the opinions of the fans, particularly in relation to the clear double standards that exist between treatment of home and away support.

Bad timing by the club (can you imagine their reaction if a fan had decided to 'make his/her view known a little more forcibly' by giving Warnock a shove!) and distinct lack of political judgment by STAR in allowing the senior management team to set them up in this mannner.

And if they're so concerned about safety - sort out those sodding buses!

[STAR Voice]

Please pass my comments on to the club.

Certainly will - I don't disagree with anything you say.

[STAR Voice]

Perhaps you could also pass a message back to the senior management. Why the hell don't they treat away fans exactly the same way?

Have already highlighted this point with them, and also tried to answer in my previous post the practical difficulties in stewarding away fans and how the acton taken against them is often less visible. But action is certainly taken, and the club would answer that "two wrongs don't make a right."

[gazzer, loyal royal]

i remember current STH's this season, especially against chelsea, where objects were thrown from the away end into the home end. of course, if you get hit by an object, your going to respond 99% of the time by throwing it back. Home fans are getting banned for this as well, and away fans continuto do it, surely CCTV can pick up the nobs doing it in the away end as well?

[Stranded]

i remember current STH's this season, especially against chelsea, where objects were thrown from the away end into the home end. of course, if you get hit by an object, your going to respond 99% of the time by throwing it back. Home fans are getting banned for this as well, and away fans continuto do it, surely CCTV can pick up the nobs doing it in the away end as well?

And they have and this would have been passed on if possible.

Two main problems though - the away fans are from a different club every game so there are different people each time so ejecting a Chelsea fan won't stop a Spurs fan doing the same thing. Meantime, the home fans are in the same seat every week (pretty much) so easy to pick out offenders.

With regards to the Chelsea incident, the bottle throwing was after the game as I recall at which point no-one is in their seats so hard to pinpoint an offender - esp. as they are leaving the ground. Even if in their seats chances are it's not the seat sold to them anyway.

[LimpBiscuit]

Lets get one thing clear.

The Taylor report, instigated after Hillsborough and Heysell, was largely a smokescreen, used by a conservative government with an anti sport remit.

This government was led by a woman who saw all working class people as spawn of the devil. She had successfully effectively banned union membership, sold the county's industrial heritage to the highest bidder and squandered the profits from North seas gas and oil.

If she could rid our stadia of working class oiks, then that was the perfect opportunity to do so.

Sadly, the good people of Liverpool unwittingly conspired with their outpourings of grief. This gave Thatcher the opportunity to run to Murdoch and collude with him in killing 2 birds with 1 stone.

Make stadia all seater and those nasty little common people won't go.

The greedy bastards from Lancaster Gate (Now Soho-How apt-Square) will be so desperate to fill the cash cow that they'll sell the soul of english sport to her biggest supporter (Murdoch) thus driviong a stab wound to the heart of her fiercest critics, the BBC.

The result is, in this current world of sanitised football, those who don't tow the line are simply surplus.

Throw away your season ticket. There'll be another mug punter waiting to pick it up.

Sad but true.


See you all on tuesday.

[Forbury Lion]

I think the club would do well to put some spin on this and make sure the impression comes accross that the club's hands are tied on this matter, that they feel they have no choice but to be seen to be taking action and that they will to reduce away allocations to the minimum for away teams whose fans fail to sit during matches this season.

At the moment the club sound like they are enforcing their own personal regulations and not those enforced upon them.

Let the anger/complaints go to the people who make the rules, not the clubs who have to enforce them.

[Volvicanus]

Many people on this thread seem to be suggesting that the majority of people that go to Reading games want to stand. Furthermore, you seem to expect STAR to support you in this opinion. As STAR have pointed out, there isn't a consensus on this matter. There probably are just as many people that prefer sitting down. If you want to stand, so be it, but the implication in this discussion that everyone (or even the majority) feels the same way is false.

[Sharpy]

Can someone please tell me EXACTLY how many people have died standing in large volumes in front of their seats in all seater stadiums due to standing up during the game?

[Dirk Gently]

Can someone please tell me EXACTLY how many people have died standing in large volumes in front of their seats in all seater stadiums due to standing up during the game?

This thread is not about the danger or otherwise of standing - it is about the club's reaction to it!

[Sharpy]

Can someone please tell me EXACTLY how many people have died standing in large volumes in front of their seats in all seater stadiums due to standing up during the game?

This thread is not about the danger or otherwise of standing - it is about the club's reaction to it!

OK, so let's tackle the club's reaction (aka the problem) by getting to the root of it

And I got bored of tearing my hair out with rage after 4 pages of crap from some of the bafoons on here.

Anyway, I personally feel the club are going schizo over what is essentially oxf*rd all.

More needs to be done to put pressure on the FLA to relax their instructions to the club. I was speaking to a steward on Saturday after he watched a tango colleague kick my mate out - he agreed with me that standing isn't unsafe and should be allowed - but his hands are tied by his boss, who's hands are tied (and he doesn't want to untie them either) by the FLA due restrictions. (Enough cliche's already!).

The FLA in turn are ignorant, they fail to ignore aspects of the Taylor report post- Hillsborough such as "supporters will adapt to having to sit down" - quite clearly haven't- and, "it must be accepted that supporters will stand during periods of high excitement". But as documented elsewhere on this topic by various other peers, the club are going to extremes on this one. People being told to sit down when we're attacking the edge of the box etc.

[Royal Lady]

Well I'd come to a meeting and say my piece, but I'm not a member of STAR!

If STAR set up a meeting with the Club you wouldn't need to be a STAR member to come along and say your piece

Then count me in, my friend!

[Sharpy]

Also - FAO STAR

You say you support the standing debate.

As I STAR member, I demand to know HOW exactly you do so? How do you use your relationship with the club in this regard or are you too busy decorating the stadium with hoops or helping the players WAGs organise a car park party?

HOW is my - and others- membership fees put to good use for the BENEFIT OF THE FANS?

Oh, I forgot. When Reading Borough Council gave the planning pemission for the Madejski Stadium to be built, it was in the contract that throughout all times; the club MUST have a supporters trust set up. So STAR are really only there to serve the club and not the fans. I appreciate the fact you're all volunteers, but come on; you're not doing the 'job' properly. I anticipate many cries of "why don't you do it?" - but frankly, from where I am - it appears to be a system in which I know I wouldn't be able to win.

[Sharpy]

The club is particularly aware that Reading fans are bottom of the fans fair play league and possibly working towards reduced away allocations if they continue this way.

Again - FAO STAR

Please supply us with HARD FACTS and not wishy washy terminology about HOW exactly the club plan to implement such a ludicrous proposition?

And if you can't, I suggest you ask the club to back it up for themselves and stop using yourselves as a (only too willing FTR) dummy in which they can slip their ventriloquist hand.

[STAR Voice]

You've clearly not actually read what I've posted already, but I'll try and answer your points anyway.

You say you support the standing debate.

As I STAR member, I demand to know HOW exactly you do so? How do you use your relationship with the club in this regard or are you too busy decorating the stadium with hoops or helping the players WAGs organise a car park party?

See the numerous posts I've made about the safe standing campaign and the need for support for EDM 101, as well at the lobby or parliament and the Whiff article I've already mentioned. I've personally spent a lot of time on this, in discussing strategy at FSF level, in lobbying 4 MPs (1 of whom so far has signed the EDM and the others I'm still in contact with). I'm not going to list all the things I've done for your benefit, but anyone who reads HNA should be able to see immediately mine and STAR's view on safe standing.

But we recognise that RFC are not actually "the enemy" in the safe standing debate. Since RFC has no power to change the rules on standing, our efforts are not aimed at them - they're aimed at the FLA, DCMS and government, where the only chnage will come from.

HOW is my - and others- membership fees put to good use for the BENEFIT OF THE FANS?

See the STAR website or come to the AGM where full details of all our expenditure are given.

Oh, I forgot. When Reading Borough Council gave the planning pemission for the Madejski Stadium to be built, it was in the contract that throughout all times; the club MUST have a supporters trust set up. So STAR are really only there to serve the club and not the fans. I appreciate the fact you're all volunteers, but come on; you're not doing the 'job' properly. I anticipate many cries of "why don't you do it?" - but frankly, from where I am - it appears to be a system in which I know I wouldn't be able to win.

There's no way to answer this question without using the words "utter" and "bullsh*t" in close proximity to each other? Where did you get this little story from? RFC was playing at the MadStad in August 1998, with planning permission granted a year or so earlier. Supporters' Direct, the "umbrella organisation" for Supporters' Trsust was not formed until 2000, and STAR itself was not formed until March 2002.