Heathrow Green":2j6ue47m said:
I acknowledge that's a point to consider.
However there is no chance of Argyle having to play games behind closed doors is there? Come on that's total nonsense.
-
This site is sponsored by Lang & Potter.
Persistent Standing Policy
- Thread starter Tony Pastyman
- Start date
I acknowledge that's a point to consider.
However there is no chance of Argyle having to play games behind closed doors is there? Come on that's total nonsense.
Heathrow Green
🏆 Callum Wright 23/24
🇰🇪 Welicar Donor
Brickfields Donor
Jade Berrow 23/24
🎫 S.T. Donor 🎫
🚑 Steve Hooper
✨Pasoti Donor✨
🌟Sparksy Mural🌟
Bristol Rich":5ivtknud said:
It's a small percentage chance, but still a chance nevertheless.
It really depend on who is doing the leaning on PAFC.
If it's PCC on their own, then i'd put it at minimal, but if it the SGSA leaning on PCC to lean on PAFC then it'd put it much higher, and a point to remember is the there is an SGSA member present at each and every game, if they report something then it will filter down the line and PAFC will have to deal with it.
Don't get me wrong, I'd like people to stand if they want, but not at the expense of not having the refurbished grandstand open.
Heathrow Green":pgnip9ho said:
A half decent solicitor would have 92 examples of the authorities not enforcing a ruling.
Heathrow Green
🏆 Callum Wright 23/24
🇰🇪 Welicar Donor
Brickfields Donor
Jade Berrow 23/24
🎫 S.T. Donor 🎫
🚑 Steve Hooper
✨Pasoti Donor✨
🌟Sparksy Mural🌟
Bristol Rich":1ypcwv0x said:
Which of course would include Argyle. who just so happen to need a safety cert.
Check out what West Ham had to do, and what Spurs have done. All in the name of a safety Cert.
Action Jackson":2u42yooz said:
The other "rubbish" thing I mentioned was the problem of people standing up in front of kids and OAPS and blocking their view.
You didn't have an answer for that.
Presumably you think that's OK, these people should have to move to accommodate you ?
gaspargomez":13n774dw said:
Don’t think you can stand in front of the front row. Or anywhere in the ground where people don’t persistently stand. It’s still very simple to understand.
gaspargomez":307c665x said:
Roughly 2.5% of the ground stand, we literally never sell out and everyone knows where the people that stand go. Just move somewhere else.
No one is saying go and stand in front of the disabled section or deliberately block John Smith the OAP's view. It's about using common sense, something you seem to be severely lacking.
Just like i respect people that want to sit down, people should also respect people that want to stand.
PMPilgrim":2dhuxbfb said:
Just a totally ludicrous statement again.
Who's deciding what the 'key moments' are? Is there an announcement over the PA system?
1. If persistent standing is unsafe then how can any standing be allowed at all regardless of it being a 'key moment'
2. Alternatively, if persistent standing is undesirable rather than unsafe, on the basis that it blocks people's view, then why the frig are they saying its ok to stand during 'key moments'? Surely that's exactly when you shouldn't be blocking someone's view?
If our defence is "other people do it" then why can't we apply that to other situations? Other people rob banks, other people stab people...
There are lots of rules in this world that annoy me/us, unfortunately the world will descend into chaos if we all pick and choose which rules we wish to follow
There are lots of rules in this world that annoy me/us, unfortunately the world will descend into chaos if we all pick and choose which rules we wish to follow
I have a season ticket in the back row. Not Block 3 or 14.
I have always stood when I felt the need.
I block no-ones view.
For the next few games I will be wearing a body camera to film any conversation I have with a steward who happens to ask me to sit down.
I will also be getting my friends to film any incident on their phones.
I will be polite and not looking for trouble.
However the footage will be posted all over social media for all to see the inconsistency and ridiculousness of Argyle’s handling of this policy.
John Black - you are a joke.
I have always stood when I felt the need.
I block no-ones view.
For the next few games I will be wearing a body camera to film any conversation I have with a steward who happens to ask me to sit down.
I will also be getting my friends to film any incident on their phones.
I will be polite and not looking for trouble.
However the footage will be posted all over social media for all to see the inconsistency and ridiculousness of Argyle’s handling of this policy.
John Black - you are a joke.
There are so many people posting on here, who have nothing more than conjecture of their side. Here are the facts:
Historically Blocks 3, 4, 14, 15 & 16 have stood watching games (Blocks 5 & 6 in the old Spion Kop too, but I'm talking since the ground has been redeveloped). This has never been an issue before. People who wanted to sit chose anywhere else, standers chose the above areas.
Last season, a group of Mayflower fans were relocated to the horseshoe of the ground. One fan in particular, who sat at least 10 seats away in a different block took it open himself to aggressively confront the fans in Block 14 for standing. This was naturally met with similar aggression back, to which the steward, enforced that fans in Block 14 sit. Everybody understood the laws regarding standing at games and never argued that point, however an amicable agreement was suggested regarding moving 1 single temporary season ticket holder, over 25-30 long serving permanent season ticket holders. This was met with further resistance by 1 particular steward.
Further to the above, understanding that this was being enforced on block 14 due to a complaint, further complaints were made regarding fans stood in Blocks 3, 4, 6, 7, 9 & 10. This was completely ignored. This is where the issue started to become sensitive. Why would the stewards act on 1 complaint but not another? These fans were also stood in the back rows of other blocks, therefore they should be met with the same enforcement.
The next home match, depersonalised letters were left on the seats for the back 3 rows of block 14. Why could they not have done this prior to arriving in the ground? They knew all of out personal information. This letter mentioned that it was accepted by 'the authorities' that fans could stand behind either goal as this did not affect any sightlines. Block 14 also did not affect any sightlines in the back rows. This was another dig at a section of fans where consistency was not being enforced stadium-wide.
As a group, the letters left on the seats were responded to letter via various emails and letters. Not a single person was given any response at all. Many of these letters requested a 'clear the air' meeting.
Another home match on, it seemed to have calmed down. Nothing at all mentioned. It was believed that the pleas that had been sent in response had been listened to. This wasn't the case. A single fan went to use the toilet mid-way through the first half. On exiting the toilet, he was met by 3 stewards who told him he was being ejected from the ground.
After this, it completely calmed down. Nothing else was mentioned for the duration of the season. The single fan 10 seats away in the next block had moved his temporary ticket. Sense had prevailed.
This season came. Repeat all of the above again.
I only knew my account was blocked as a chance login to my account on Wednesday evening to check away ticket availability saw I couldn't log in. I was met with a 'Your account if currently blocked' message. We all then checked, alongside fans who sit in other areas of the ground, who could log in.
I strongly believe that had we not mentioned this had occurred, the club would not have made any attempt to communicate with the fans. A couple have called the club and in fairness to Jon Back, he has admitted that he handled the whole situation poorly.
To go back to address further conjecture, Home Park opening a new stand 'could' be affected by this issue, but Home Park 'could' also be closed by fans entering the pitch when promotion was secured, 'could' be closed for flares being thrown, 'could' be closed for standing in every single other block... you're all just using potential scenarios to suit your argument.
To counter this and therefore suit my argument, Home Park 'could' be totally unaffected. The word could can mean anything if you want it to.
In regards to the non-opening of the new stand conjecture, Brentford are currently set to move into a brand new stadium next year. All seater. Griffin Park currently has 2 stands where you can stand and 3 stands where you have to sit (the away stand is split half standing and half seated for those that don't know). In a stadium where there are actual areas where only standing is allowed, you see fans stood in the seated areas. Is there safety certificate at risk? Are they banning their fans? Are they making statements? The answer to these are no.
To address another issue where Tottenham is being used as an example. I'm certain that English laws are countrywide. To say that they didn't use Plymouth City Council so they would have different rules is ridiculous. Would you be able to commit certain crimes in other local council areas that PCC would deem punishable?
This has become an issue because the club have only ever picked on Block 14, no matter how many pleas have been to look elsewhere. This isn't about "you speed on the motorway, so I will too". This is where the speed camera is purposely switched off when some cars go past but not others. Block 14 are no more repeat offenders than every other block. There is no reason to use these fans as a scapegoat. I will again mention that more than a handful of the fans affected either always sit down regardless or weren't even there. The club are punishing innocent fans to get their point across, whilst completely ignoring fans who are offending.
Historically Blocks 3, 4, 14, 15 & 16 have stood watching games (Blocks 5 & 6 in the old Spion Kop too, but I'm talking since the ground has been redeveloped). This has never been an issue before. People who wanted to sit chose anywhere else, standers chose the above areas.
Last season, a group of Mayflower fans were relocated to the horseshoe of the ground. One fan in particular, who sat at least 10 seats away in a different block took it open himself to aggressively confront the fans in Block 14 for standing. This was naturally met with similar aggression back, to which the steward, enforced that fans in Block 14 sit. Everybody understood the laws regarding standing at games and never argued that point, however an amicable agreement was suggested regarding moving 1 single temporary season ticket holder, over 25-30 long serving permanent season ticket holders. This was met with further resistance by 1 particular steward.
Further to the above, understanding that this was being enforced on block 14 due to a complaint, further complaints were made regarding fans stood in Blocks 3, 4, 6, 7, 9 & 10. This was completely ignored. This is where the issue started to become sensitive. Why would the stewards act on 1 complaint but not another? These fans were also stood in the back rows of other blocks, therefore they should be met with the same enforcement.
The next home match, depersonalised letters were left on the seats for the back 3 rows of block 14. Why could they not have done this prior to arriving in the ground? They knew all of out personal information. This letter mentioned that it was accepted by 'the authorities' that fans could stand behind either goal as this did not affect any sightlines. Block 14 also did not affect any sightlines in the back rows. This was another dig at a section of fans where consistency was not being enforced stadium-wide.
As a group, the letters left on the seats were responded to letter via various emails and letters. Not a single person was given any response at all. Many of these letters requested a 'clear the air' meeting.
Another home match on, it seemed to have calmed down. Nothing at all mentioned. It was believed that the pleas that had been sent in response had been listened to. This wasn't the case. A single fan went to use the toilet mid-way through the first half. On exiting the toilet, he was met by 3 stewards who told him he was being ejected from the ground.
After this, it completely calmed down. Nothing else was mentioned for the duration of the season. The single fan 10 seats away in the next block had moved his temporary ticket. Sense had prevailed.
This season came. Repeat all of the above again.
I only knew my account was blocked as a chance login to my account on Wednesday evening to check away ticket availability saw I couldn't log in. I was met with a 'Your account if currently blocked' message. We all then checked, alongside fans who sit in other areas of the ground, who could log in.
I strongly believe that had we not mentioned this had occurred, the club would not have made any attempt to communicate with the fans. A couple have called the club and in fairness to Jon Back, he has admitted that he handled the whole situation poorly.
To go back to address further conjecture, Home Park opening a new stand 'could' be affected by this issue, but Home Park 'could' also be closed by fans entering the pitch when promotion was secured, 'could' be closed for flares being thrown, 'could' be closed for standing in every single other block... you're all just using potential scenarios to suit your argument.
To counter this and therefore suit my argument, Home Park 'could' be totally unaffected. The word could can mean anything if you want it to.
In regards to the non-opening of the new stand conjecture, Brentford are currently set to move into a brand new stadium next year. All seater. Griffin Park currently has 2 stands where you can stand and 3 stands where you have to sit (the away stand is split half standing and half seated for those that don't know). In a stadium where there are actual areas where only standing is allowed, you see fans stood in the seated areas. Is there safety certificate at risk? Are they banning their fans? Are they making statements? The answer to these are no.
To address another issue where Tottenham is being used as an example. I'm certain that English laws are countrywide. To say that they didn't use Plymouth City Council so they would have different rules is ridiculous. Would you be able to commit certain crimes in other local council areas that PCC would deem punishable?
This has become an issue because the club have only ever picked on Block 14, no matter how many pleas have been to look elsewhere. This isn't about "you speed on the motorway, so I will too". This is where the speed camera is purposely switched off when some cars go past but not others. Block 14 are no more repeat offenders than every other block. There is no reason to use these fans as a scapegoat. I will again mention that more than a handful of the fans affected either always sit down regardless or weren't even there. The club are punishing innocent fans to get their point across, whilst completely ignoring fans who are offending.
dani_B":2yn5av8b said:
Possibly the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen posted on this site? Comparing the mimicking of standing at a football match to the mimicking of stabbing someone. Get a grip you (insult removed by Admin).
While I have sympathy with the back row of 14, it is limited. And if they keep on pointing the finger at other areas demanding that they are also dealt with, that sympathy will evaporate. In the same way that the moaner relocated, could the block 14 standers not relocate to block 3/4 where no action is being taken? Just a thought. Block 3 and 4 will not be happy with the handful in Block 14 if attention switches to them.
