MadStad steward watch 09/10

[Platypuss]

That is somewhat out of date, since the FLA (Football Licensing Authority) is clamping down hard on clubs (via local councils) to enforce seating regaulations. So the numebr of clubs able to get away with common-sense approaches is going down all the time and is now less than it was in 2006.

"Fewer" surely?

The number (of clubs) is fewer?
The number (of clubs) is less?

Smaller/lower?

[Deadlock]

That is somewhat out of date, since the FLA (Football Licensing Authority) is clamping down hard on clubs (via local councils) to enforce seating regaulations. So the numebr of clubs able to get away with common-sense approaches is going down all the time and is now less than it was in 2006.

"Fewer" surely?

The number (of clubs) is fewer?
The number (of clubs) is less?

Smaller/lower?

"Number of clubs" is a discrete rather than continuous amount, thus "fewer" rather than "less". Smaller would also work.

[Gordons Cumming]

I think the safety stewards, on the whole, do a good job.

The tangos are a bit heavy handed. Such is the nature of the beast.

[handbags_harris]

Clive Doyle's speech to stewards on Wednesday evening: "Right then boys and girls, we're going to have a non-confrontational policy this evening, by that I mean that if away fans rip up seats, that's fine, let them do it. If they piss on the seats, that's perfectly acceptable behaviour. If they encroach onto the pitch, then allow them to run around a bit and then politely return them to the away section please. Finally, if any home fans stand for more than 20 seconds you must speak to them like 8 year old children, and threaten them with ejection and removal of their season ticket."

One can only wonder when a major incident will happen with the approach we take towards potentially troublesome away fans.

[Dirk Gently]

Clive Doyle's speech to stewards on Wednesday evening: "Right then boys and girls, we're going to have a non-confrontational policy this evening, by that I mean that if away fans rip up seats, that's fine, let them do it. If they piss on the seats, that's perfectly acceptable behaviour. If they encroach onto the pitch, then allow them to run around a bit and then politely return them to the away section please. Finally, if any home fans stand for more than 20 seconds you must speak to them like 8 year old children, and threaten them with ejection and removal of their season ticket."

One can only wonder when a major incident will happen with the approach we take towards potentially troublesome away fans.

The alternative view is to order half a dozen stewards to wade into a crowd of 4,000 potentially and violent supporters. As well as risking injury to those stewards it'd probably only make a volatile situation worse. And it would require about 1,00 stewards for a game like Wednesday's - if you could find them. Would you be a steward under those circumstances - I know I wouldn't.

As said so many times before, it's a numbers game. If 2,000 Cardiff supporters want to stand/swear/be abusive/whatever they will get to. If the half a dozen Reading supporters who aren't sitting on their hands, banging their rumblesticks or tucking into their baguettes and thinking about the Volvo, their 2.2 children and Labrador and their next shop at Waitrose do the same they'll be picked off easily.

[Sun Tzu]

One can only wonder when a major incident will happen with the approach we take towards potentially troublesome away fans.

When was the last major incident ?

[The Cube]

Clive Doyle's speech to stewards on Wednesday evening: "Right then boys and girls, we're going to have a non-confrontational policy this evening, by that I mean that if away fans rip up seats, that's fine, let them do it. If they piss on the seats, that's perfectly acceptable behaviour. If they encroach onto the pitch, then allow them to run around a bit and then politely return them to the away section please. Finally, if any home fans stand for more than 20 seconds you must speak to them like 8 year old children, and threaten them with ejection and removal of their season ticket."

One can only wonder when a major incident will happen with the approach we take towards potentially troublesome away fans.

The alternative view is to order half a dozen stewards to wade into a crowd of 4,000 potentially and violent supporters. As well as risking injury to those stewards it'd probably only make a volatile situation worse. And it would require about 1,00 stewards for a game like Wednesday's - if you could find them. Would you be a steward under those circumstances - I know I wouldn't.

As said so many times before, it's a numbers game. If 2,000 Cardiff supporters want to stand/swear/be abusive/whatever they will get to. If the half a dozen Reading supporters who aren't sitting on their hands, banging their rumblesticks or tucking into their baguettes and thinking about the Volvo, their 2.2 children and Labrador and their next shop at Waitrose do the same they'll be picked off easily.

I have to say Dirk that I am exceptionally disappointed that you have swallowed the stewards' line on this. It is completely unacceptable for stewards to adopt double standards as they do. In fact, it makes their job in home areas considerably more difficult than it needs to be. It is even more unacceptable that in this case the approriate method for a group to ensure less stewarding is to behave worse. (And I might add that it is even more unacceptable that stewarding is disproportionately biased towards home fans.) It's very simple - if the stewards are unable to perform their job, then they should not be there and they should be replaced by some who can perform the job.

It's also poor that the comments on page 1 of this thread effectively degenerated into yet another tedious safe standing debate. This is completely irrelevant - there is legislation in place and it is up to the club to enforce it. That does not given any excuse for the unacceptable methods described earlier in the thread. (And I plead guilty to introducing a digression of my own earlier.)

The safety people have clearly adoted a deliberate policy to distract from fans's legitimate complaints by weasly comments like "if only our hands weren't tied by the local authority" or "You can't get the staff". Again, it is very simple - if you're unable to enforce what you are supposed to enforce, then you should not be there.

[handbags_harris]

Clive Doyle's speech to stewards on Wednesday evening: "Right then boys and girls, we're going to have a non-confrontational policy this evening, by that I mean that if away fans rip up seats, that's fine, let them do it. If they piss on the seats, that's perfectly acceptable behaviour. If they encroach onto the pitch, then allow them to run around a bit and then politely return them to the away section please. Finally, if any home fans stand for more than 20 seconds you must speak to them like 8 year old children, and threaten them with ejection and removal of their season ticket."

One can only wonder when a major incident will happen with the approach we take towards potentially troublesome away fans.

The alternative view is to order half a dozen stewards to wade into a crowd of 4,000 potentially and violent supporters. As well as risking injury to those stewards it'd probably only make a volatile situation worse. And it would require about 1,00 stewards for a game like Wednesday's - if you could find them. Would you be a steward under those circumstances - I know I wouldn't.

As said so many times before, it's a numbers game. If 2,000 Cardiff supporters want to stand/swear/be abusive/whatever they will get to. If the half a dozen Reading supporters who aren't sitting on their hands, banging their rumblesticks or tucking into their baguettes and thinking about the Volvo, their 2.2 children and Labrador and their next shop at Waitrose do the same they'll be picked off easily.

You offer an alternative view that, in principle, I agree with, but in practice don't. I certainly wouldn't want to be a steward for a Cardiff game. But the fact of the matter remains that what you suggest is a problem of the club's own making by allocating 3000+ tickets in the first place and then adopting a policy of "let them get away with anything". Your alternative view appears to be, in this case, an unacceptable swallowing of the club's line on the matter. The practical alternative is to deny a club whose fans have a peppered history of violence and general disorder an allocation of any considerable size.

When was the last major incident ?

I seem to remember quite a major concerted effort to create havoc the last time Cardiff came to town. Man Utd fans also stormed the gates the last time they visited in Jan 08. Chelsea post match Nov 06...shall I go on?

[Harpers So Solid Crew]

RFC should cut the allocation of ALL clubs that have caused trouble in the past, 500 for Cardiff would be fine, let them watch on the telly at their shiny new ground, untill clubs are able and actually do this the problems will continue. I feel sure that Sky, or whoever cover the game for highlights would love acut of the ticket money from Cardiff fans at the new gaff.

Does it have a name??

[pace=forster]

Moody fans= good atmopshere

[Winchester Royal]

Moody fans= good atmopshere

Fact.

I much prefer 3000 Cardiff or Chelsea fans in the south stand than a peppering of good natured Jannerrrrrrrrrrs or Tractor Boys.

[Dirk Gently]

Clive Doyle's speech to stewards on Wednesday evening: "Right then boys and girls, we're going to have a non-confrontational policy this evening, by that I mean that if away fans rip up seats, that's fine, let them do it. If they piss on the seats, that's perfectly acceptable behaviour. If they encroach onto the pitch, then allow them to run around a bit and then politely return them to the away section please. Finally, if any home fans stand for more than 20 seconds you must speak to them like 8 year old children, and threaten them with ejection and removal of their season ticket."

One can only wonder when a major incident will happen with the approach we take towards potentially troublesome away fans.

The alternative view is to order half a dozen stewards to wade into a crowd of 4,000 potentially and violent supporters. As well as risking injury to those stewards it'd probably only make a volatile situation worse. And it would require about 1,00 stewards for a game like Wednesday's - if you could find them. Would you be a steward under those circumstances - I know I wouldn't.

As said so many times before, it's a numbers game. If 2,000 Cardiff supporters want to stand/swear/be abusive/whatever they will get to. If the half a dozen Reading supporters who aren't sitting on their hands, banging their rumblesticks or tucking into their baguettes and thinking about the Volvo, their 2.2 children and Labrador and their next shop at Waitrose do the same they'll be picked off easily.

I have to say Dirk that I am exceptionally disappointed that you have swallowed the stewards' line on this. It is completely unacceptable for stewards to adopt double standards as they do. In fact, it makes their job in home areas considerably more difficult than it needs to be. It is even more unacceptable that in this case the approriate method for a group to ensure less stewarding is to behave worse. (And I might add that it is even more unacceptable that stewarding is disproportionately biased towards home fans.) It's very simple - if the stewards are unable to perform their job, then they should not be there and they should be replaced by some who can perform the job.

It's also poor that the comments on page 1 of this thread effectively degenerated into yet another tedious safe standing debate. This is completely irrelevant - there is legislation in place and it is up to the club to enforce it. That does not given any excuse for the unacceptable methods described earlier in the thread. (And I plead guilty to introducing a digression of my own earlier.)

The safety people have clearly adoted a deliberate policy to distract from fans's legitimate complaints by weasly comments like "if only our hands weren't tied by the local authority" or "You can't get the staff". Again, it is very simple - if you're unable to enforce what you are supposed to enforce, then you should not be there.

I'd disagree with all except your last sentence!

I don't think that there are double-standards at all - I think people are wanting to see them, and are seeing them by making the assumption that stewards will "take action against everything that is against ground regulations."

But that is never going to happen in the real world - and it's consistent with stewarding (and indeed policing) everywhere - unless there is something extremely serious no stewards, tangoes or police are going to wade in and arrest or evict someone where they will be risking escalating a nasty situation or their own safety.

Instead, the tactics are for a much more pragmatic - the stewards will "take action against everything that is against ground regulations which it is realistic to tackle." And this is where the numbers game comes in - they will tackle what is safe to tackle, and the more who break ground regulations en masse then the more likely it is that they will not be tackled in the stands. But a few home supporters are an easy target so no wonder they are dealt with - even more so in that the home club has an extra weapon because the supporters in the home stands are known to them and want to come back. Why should they not use all the weapons at their disposal?

But - and despite the idea that people like to cling to of being so badly treated whilst the away fans do what they like - there frequently is action taken against away supporters. It's just not done in public, though - it's done in the concourses when a marked out person goes to the loo or whatever. In fact, every time I go to a supporters' meeting it's becoming clear that the stewards in the away end a the MadStad are consistently getting much worse and much more heavy handed - I've seen loads of complaints from away supporters who have been treated outrageously by them. It's clear that in the League table of bad away stewards Reading is pushing for third-place, behind 'Boro and Charlton. But because the home supporters don't see this they think there's never anything done against away supporters.

As to the last sentence : if you're unable to enforce what you are supposed to enforce, then you should not be there. - in an ideal world you're right, but this isn't an ideal world, and the way to do this would be to adopt the Italian/East European crowd-control method of large-numbers of police (expensive), all armed with shields and batons. Or maybe you could bring back fences, too, to stop people getting on the pitch.

Personally, I'm happy to see an occasional "incident" and have low-key stewarding rather than such heavy-handed tactics that tend not to target the actual problem individuals but instead reinforce the stereotype that "all supporters are hooligans."

I'm also looking forward to the noise and vibrancy that a full Cardiff end will bring on Wednesday - remembering that whilst a small minority of them might be idiot trouble-makers, the vast majority will be ordinary supporters like us all who just want to support their team and have a good time.

[Harpers So Solid Crew]

The first thing they could explain is why the stewards do that walking to the top of the stand thing at games, i have never understood that one, perhaps someone could explain.

IMHO it just makes them look like they are trying to intimidate the fans, especially as it is done on all walkways at the same time, looks like a military idea, rather than keeping an eye for potential trouble.

[Big Foot]

Why do the stewards in the SE corner use hand held video cameras?

Are the CCTV cameras in the ground not enough?

Voyeurs.

[westendgirl]

As to the last sentence : if you're unable to enforce what you are supposed to enforce, then you should not be there. - in an ideal world you're right, but this isn't an ideal world, and the way to do this would be to adopt the Italian/East European crowd-control method of large-numbers of police (expensive), all armed with shields and batons. Or maybe you could bring back fences, too, to stop people getting on the pitch.

Surely also these stewards are like referees - much as you may dislike them, without them we would not have a game to watch.

[Winchester Royal]

As to the last sentence : if you're unable to enforce what you are supposed to enforce, then you should not be there. - in an ideal world you're right, but this isn't an ideal world, and the way to do this would be to adopt the Italian/East European crowd-control method of large-numbers of police (expensive), all armed with shields and batons. Or maybe you could bring back fences, too, to stop people getting on the pitch.

Surely also these stewards are like referees - much as you may dislike them, without them we would not have a game to watch.

So aside from getting us to sit down, what do they actually do?

[One Beer is never enough.]

Why do the stewards in the SE corner use hand held video cameras?

Are the CCTV cameras in the ground not enough?

Voyeurs.

About 5 years ago the police used to use a big camera and flash in that corner - annonying and made worse at one game when a complete tosser stood next to the cameraman kept leaning over to set off the flash knowing it was winding everyone up. Cue a number of emails of complaint to TVP.

But back to the point, a video camera clearly better for quickly filming pockets of trouble.

[RoyalBlue]

RFC should cut the allocation of ALL clubs that have caused trouble in the past, 500 for Cardiff would be fine, let them watch on the telly at their shiny new ground, untill clubs are able and actually do this the problems will continue. I feel sure that Sky, or whoever cover the game for highlights would love acut of the ticket money from Cardiff fans at the new gaff.

Does it have a name??

RFC should insist that visiting clubs work with them to deal with the problem. Film those breaching ground regulations and then insist the visiting club deal with them. Maybe if the visiting supporters realised they faced the same sanctions as the home supporters for persistently standing etc. i.e. losing their season ticket or right to buy tickets for future games, they might be more inclined to comply.

If any visiting club won't co-operate then take the financial hit and reduce their ticket allowance next time around.

And,to make the point once again, if the club really are tackling the offenders quietly in the concourses and dealing with them there, why the f*ck aren't they prepared to tell us how many visiting supporters have been dealt with in that manner? I would suggest that the only reason they won't is because to do so will show that they aren't actually doing what they tell us they do.

[davis69]

RFc stewards are oxf*rd FACT

[handbags_harris]

I'm also looking forward to the noise and vibrancy that a full Cardiff end will bring on Wednesday - remembering that whilst a small minority of them might be idiot trouble-makers, the vast majority will be ordinary supporters like us all who just want to support their team and have a good time.

Likewise, certainly a much louder bunch than most. However I wouldn't have put the troublemakers in a minority though as I seem to remember the stewards having to police the whole of the front of the stand at the final whistle, which would suggest that there were more than a small amount of fans who had trouble on their agenda.

In other news, my latest stewarding incident - got to the ground bang on half past, just after the gates had opened. Walks in, goes to put my head in my hands on the ledge, some steward comes up to me and says "Excuse me, how did you get in?" to which I respond "well how do you think I got in? It's not rocket science". The idiot thought I'd stormed the gates or something (at 1.30 ) however I was too hung over to bother to argue back. The clang, bash, wallop of the turnstile, along with the buzz that the ticket machine, should have been a pretty big giveaway I'd have thought