Club's double standard . . . .

[riverroyal]

I know this may have all been said before but we are repeatedly told by the club that you have to sit down as the council will reduce capacity, etc. if it is not adhered too . . . .

however . . . .

the club has also stated that teams that repeatedly stand will have their allocation reduced the next time they play at the MadStad

NOT TRUE THOUGH

Cardiff always stand and smashed the toilets up last time around but the club have still given them the whole end. Seems they would rather take the 4,000 ticket sales than stick to their principles . . .

but they will still pick on the couple of hundred youngsters in the east stand to sit down and eject/ban them!

[Svlad Cjelli]

What?!?

It's not down to the club, it's down to the SGSA (nee FLA). The club has absolutely no power whatsoever to restrict allocations - they are governed by Football League regulations.

I'd advise you to look at the numerous existing threads on this very forum which explain in great detail the legislation, policy and attitude towards standing.

[Red]

Still shows that it's something of an empty threat by the club though I'd have thought.

[Svlad Cjelli]

Still shows that it's something of an empty threat by the club though I'd have thought.

Really? Allocations of away reductions have been made at the MadStad, and are frequently used at other clubs. But it's something that isn't up to the club, and whenever what was the FLA tries to impose this it's vigorously resisted by the club.

[Sonic]

Sorry, but I don't really understand this. Clearly FL rules state a minimum away allocation that must be offered to visiting clubs and only the authorities can restrict this. However if a club usually offers more the the minimum allocation, in our case all the South Stand, then surely is a club decision to do this and they could opt to offer the league minimum and reserve the additional area from home fans, whether they sell these tickets or not?

[Barry the bird boggler]

Sorry, but I don't really understand this. Clearly FL rules state a minimum away allocation that must be offered to visiting clubs and only the authorities can restrict this. However if a club usually offers more the the minimum allocation, in our case all the South Stand, then surely is a club decision to do this and they could opt to offer the league minimum and reserve the additional area from home fans, whether they sell these tickets or not?

Club have to offer a minimum percentage of the available seating, which I believe for the Mad Stad is HALF of the south stand (approx 2500). Therefore if Reading's threats hold true to reduce based on poor behaviour etc. then the most Cardiff should get is 2500. Of course if RFC do it then CCFC could do it as well, just out of spite, so these threats don't really get anyone anywhere in the end and we're left with the standard argument that away fans do what they like in terms of standing while home fans get victimised because they are easy targets that turn up in the same seats every week.

[URZZZZZZZZ]

Sorry, but I don't really understand this. Clearly FL rules state a minimum away allocation that must be offered to visiting clubs and only the authorities can restrict this. However if a club usually offers more the the minimum allocation, in our case all the South Stand, then surely is a club decision to do this and they could opt to offer the league minimum and reserve the additional area from home fans, whether they sell these tickets or not?

Club have to offer a minimum percentage of the available seating, which I believe for the Mad Stad is HALF of the south stand (approx 2500). Therefore if Reading's threats hold true to reduce based on poor behaviour etc. then the most Cardiff should get is 2500. Of course if RFC do it then CCFC could do it as well, just out of spite, so these threats don't really get anyone anywhere in the end and we're left with the standard argument that away fans do what they like in terms of standing while home fans get victimised because they are easy targets that turn up in the same seats every week.

The Cardiff away end only holds 2,500 odd anyway though, so Cardiff wouldn't be able to hinder us at all.

[T.R.O.L.I.]

I can't see Reading (or any club) turning down potential ticket sales - it's all about the £££ these days.

[EPR]

Stewarding of the no-standing rule does seem to be common sense at most clubs - almost every away support at the Madejski is standing from the back-forwards; same with our fans on away trips (which are more often than not un-allocated as opposed to home tickets which at most clubs are allocated) and stewards look out for anyone being inconvenienced by the standing. If they see someone, then they have to act; but if everyone is standing from the back forwards then the common sense policy in most cases seems to be just to keep an eye on the situation rather than attempt to get everyone to sit down.

[Svlad Cjelli]

Clubs have to offer 10% of the stadium capacity (or 3,000 seats)- whichever is lower. Clubs have the option to offer more than that - up to any figure they like.

However, the initial allocation (2,400, or half the South stand in our case) will be sold on a sale-or-return basis, so that a visiting club will only be charged for the tickets they sell.

If they take more than the minimum figure, there is no sale-or-return - so if a club asks for 4,000 tickets (or all of the away stand) then they pay for all 4,000, even if they don't sell them all. So the financial risk of not selling them is transferred to the away club if they want more than the minimum.

As to reducing the allocation, RFC have never threatened this to anyone. They point out that they may have this penalty imposed onto them by the SGSA, but it's not their threat, and whilst they could decide to only let Cardiff have 2,400 tickets, why on earth would they? 1,600 tickets at (say) £20 each is about £27k after VAT. Yes there'll be extra stewarding costs, but there'll also be extra refreshment and programme income.

So why would they want the allocation kept low?

[Red]

Do the away club take a cut of the sales?

Otherwise why would they ever take the risk of taking more than the minimum? They can only lose financially from the deal, doesn't seem a fair way of doing it.

[Svlad Cjelli]

Stewarding of the no-standing rule does seem to be common sense at most clubs - almost every away support at the Madajski is standing from the back-forwards; same with our fans on away trips (which are more often than not un-allocated as opposed to home tickets which at most clubs are allocated) and stewards look out for anyone being inconvenienced by the standing. If they see someone, then they have to act.

Clubs have to be seen by the SGSA inspector and the local authority to be making every reasonable effort to stop "persistent standing".

What "every reasonable effort" is when you have 4,000 people standing in an area and 50 people standing in an area are quite different things - especially when there is the extra weapon with home fans of local stadium bans. Everyone who screams "they're standing so why cant we?" should remember this.

[RoyalBlue]

What?!?

It's not down to the club, it's down to the SGSA (nee FLA). The club has absolutely no power whatsoever to restrict allocations - they are governed by Football League regulations.
.

But Svlad, the above is not strictly true is it? Yes the club has to allocate a minimum number of seats and can't restrict allocations below that level unless SGSA sanction it. However, don't you agree that the club does not have to allow Cardiff 4,000 seats and therefore could punish that club and its supporters for persistent flouting of ground regulations etc.?

The fact they have chosen not to does give riverroyal's argument some legs.

And yes, I've read all the justifications for the perceived double standards when it comes to standing etc. and don't buy all of them. It seems only RFC feel they have to do everything by the absolute letter of the law/licensing authority and aren't prepared to cut their own supporters a reasonable amount of slack in a more pragmatic/common sense approach.

Similarly, the way that most of us have been kept back at away grounds until the home support has cleared the area but then find that the same approach/laws don't apply in the Royal County.

[Svlad Cjelli]

Do the away club take a cut of the sales?

Otherwise why would they ever take the risk of taking more than the minimum? They can only lose financially from the deal, doesn't seem a fair way of doing it.

I think there's a 5% commission.

But where a club knows they'll sell the whole allocation it's an easy decision easy for them. The problems come when clubs don't take the risk of taking more than the initial allocation and then it appears they could have sold more (up to the full allocation), although of course it can never be certain if they could or not. (q.v. Man City vs .Reading, where Reading didn't take the risk).

[RoyalBlue]

What "every reasonable effort" is when you have 4,000 people standing in an area and 50 people standing in an area are quite different things - especially when there is the extra weapon with home fans of local stadium bans. Everyone who screams "they're standing so why cant we?" should remember this.

Perhaps we all should start screaming that home fans at numerous other stadia are allowed to stand, so why can't we?

[Svlad Cjelli]

What?!?

It's not down to the club, it's down to the SGSA (nee FLA). The club has absolutely no power whatsoever to restrict allocations - they are governed by Football League regulations.
.

But Svlad, the above is not strictly true is it? Yes the club has to allocate a minimum number of seats and can't restrict allocations below that level unless SGSA sanction it. However, don't you agree that the club does not have to allow Cardiff 4,000 seats and therefore could punish that club and its supporters for persistent flouting of ground regulations etc.?

The fact they have chosen not to does give riverroyal's argument some legs.

And yes, I've read all the justifications for the perceived double standards when it comes to standing etc. and don't buy all of them. It seems only RFC feel they have to do everything by the absolute letter of the law/licensing authority and aren't prepared to cut their own supporters a reasonable amount of slack in a more pragmatic/common sense approach.

Similarly, the way that most of us have been kept back at away grounds until the home support has cleared the area but then find that the same approach/laws don't apply in the Royal County.

I'm using the term "restrict allocations" in the sense of an enforced restriction. Yes they could refuse more than the minimum, but why on earth would they?

And why on earth would the club want to punish another club's supporters for "persistent flouting of ground regulations etc".

This is a fundamental error that everyone seems to be making. Reading FC as such don't give a toss if people stand or not - but they have to be seen by RBC & SGSA to be making the appropriate effort to stop it. They know that they are being observed at matches and have to be seen to act - but it is acknowledged that when a whole stand stands nothing can be done - and at that point the stewarding emphasis switches to keeping aisles and gangways clear.

But why on earth would RFC ever turn down revenue in order to punish another club for breaching such ground regulations?

[Red]

What price public safety

[Svlad Cjelli]

What "every reasonable effort" is when you have 4,000 people standing in an area and 50 people standing in an area are quite different things - especially when there is the extra weapon with home fans of local stadium bans. Everyone who screams "they're standing so why cant we?" should remember this.

Perhaps we all should start screaming that home fans at numerous other stadia are allowed to stand, so why can't we?

Because they're not allowed to stand! But if enough of them are standing then it's not possible to stop them stranding - and everyone in the business knows this. Instead, there are threats of stands closing (as at Wolves and Newcastle in recent months.)

[Svlad Cjelli]

To reinforce this, I'll repost this from a few months ago about home supporters who are "allowed" to stand. It's just that the weapons and tactics are clearly different for home and away supporters.

Also,regarding Wolves, you must have missed this article in the Wolverhampton Express & Star, 11th March 2011

Wolves’ standing fans handed a final warning

A reduction in the Molineux capacity enforced by Wolverhampton City Council is “inevitable” if fans continue to stand up during games, Wolves warned today.

The council will force the club to reduce the 5,345-capacity Jack Harris Stand by at least 500 seats if fans refuse a “last chance” offer to prove they can stay seated at matches.

Council officers have written to the club asking it to draw up a strategy for withdrawing seats from use, claiming the problem has not been resolved despite repeated requests.

Wolves chief executive Jez Moxey said: “This is going to be a huge problem for those fans affected but no-one is going to be able to say: ‘It’s not fair, you didn’t tell us.’ Many clubs have forced reductions — now it is about to come to the Jack Harris Stand unless something is done quickly.

“It’s now up to the fans themselves to decide, there’s nothing more we can do. This is the last chance. Persistent standing has to stop from this point onwards. We aren’t going to be able to change Government policy or that of the football licensing authority on the issue of safe standing.

I could show you similar things happening at the other grounds too.

[Red]

I'd be amazed if it comes to that. Interesting developments though - keep us posted Svlad. (seriously)