Persistent Standing Policy

[Jasa]

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.

You've completed missed the point. Other areas are not being brought up in order to have action taken, other areas are being used as examples, knowing that the club have no intention in enforcing rules there. I've personally got friends in those blocks. Do you really think we're trying to get our mates banned? You'll find they're all sympathetic, not offended by a couple of fingers pointed. They have been allowed to stand up, as quoted in last season's letter by the club, hence why this years letter was more thorough in checking it's wording prior to issue. Why are the club using the SGSA as an example but not actually doing as the SGSA says? I'm still awaiting the extract from their report, relating to the risk assessment proving standing is attributed to injuries in stands along the side but not behind the goal.

 

[Bristol Rich]

You really do spout absolute rubbish.

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 ?

Yes it's really easy, don't sit in the back 2 rows of block 14. When the Grandstand opens the people who like to stand won't come and bother the supporters up there.

 

[Bristol Rich]

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.

Great idea.

I suspect though the club will pick off others next once block 14 is sorted. If you were sat in the back row of block 15 do the standers in block 14 obscure the view?

Why would sit in block 15 if you don't like people standing?
I doubt people from block 14 will move into the Grandstand next year.
Home Park should be a broad church.

 

[Andy S]

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.

Yeah ok then...not much!

It's also Jon Back.

 

[Stiffler]

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.

Yeah ok then...not much!

It's also Jon Back.

You do not need to do this, just get a solicitor involved and then the cctv from the stands will have all the evidence you need, the club have actually drawn attention that was not needed and have scored a massive own goal.
I am not surprised one bit as to how this has happened and been dealt with, the policing, stewarding and those in charge have not had a scooby for years, although the stewarding has improved the last year or so by quite a bit.

 

[Kentishgreen]

I was brought up standing on the terraces my first game being when an elderly gentleman named Stanley Matthews turned out for Stoke. For most of my life the ground was nearly all standing. Unfortunately thats no longer the case and people need to recognise that. Who knows maybe The Devonport End is next. We have the law we have and should comply with it. Those that don’t should face the consequences. I would prefer to stand too but I can’t. The future of the football club is far far more important than a few hundred people who want to do what they want to do and sod everyone else.

 

[Keyham Pilgrim]

I think the club is between a rock and a hard place. They have clearly been told by whatever authority that they are not doing enough to tackle persistent standing so have decided on this area first. Rightly or wrongly it shows that are making an effort. It is the club responsibility to satisfy these authorities to get a safety certificate and I cant believe fans are suggesting getting solicitors involved so the club would end up with a legal bill.

 

[Jasa]

I think the club is between a rock and a hard place. They have clearly been told by whatever authority that they are not doing enough to tackle persistent standing so have decided on this area first. Rightly or wrongly it shows that are making an effort. It is the club responsibility to satisfy these authorities to get a safety certificate and I cant believe fans are suggesting getting solicitors involved so the club would end up with a legal bill.

32 fans @ £17.17 per ticket is the fans current cost per game this isn't sorted, £549.44. The club have just made that money without providing a service for this money? Why would their individual costs be allowed but the club don't need to pay a penny?

Nobody is getting any legal action (that I'm aware of), but what a silly statement that individuals hard earned money should be written off to save the club a few pence. Can you tell me how many of those 32 stand at games? It's not all of them, so why are these people supposed to turn a blind eye to losing out because someone next to them may have caused an offence. Safety certification not being renewed is closely followed by the word 'may'.

Risk Perception is normally based on the potential impact against the potential likelihood. You cannot prevent everything. Risk Management would show that you've acted correctly to mitigate any potential as best as possible. Do you think blocking 32 seats in a capacity of 12,800 is mitigating any risk, when the club accept that 500 - 600 are allowed to stand in another area? I'm sure the EFL would be delighted to know they've not actually achieved any real progress. It's like a doctor mending a broken leg but ignoring the heart attack so the bloke dies anyway.

The EFL, PCC and SGSA won't thank Argyle for closing 32 seats. They'll ask if you can do 32, why can't you do the rest? Half a job doesn't solve anything.

Simple question, you've not stood up. Your ticket has been revoked until further notice. How do you feel? Seems lots of people think that this is a simple case of you stood, you deserve it. If you don't understand what's happening in detail, why speculate?

 

[Aerok]

:facepalm:

Consistency; always at its finest levels at Argyle.

 

[Pogleswoody]

I think the club is between a rock and a hard place. They have clearly been told by whatever authority that they are not doing enough to tackle persistent standing so have decided on this area first. Rightly or wrongly it shows that are making an effort. It is the club responsibility to satisfy these authorities to get a safety certificate and I cant believe fans are suggesting getting solicitors involved so the club would end up with a legal bill.

32 fans @ £17.17 per ticket is the fans current cost per game this isn't sorted, £549.44. The club have just made that money without providing a service for this money? Why would their individual costs be allowed but the club don't need to pay a penny?

Nobody is getting any legal action (that I'm aware of), but what a silly statement that individuals hard earned money should be written off to save the club a few pence. Can you tell me how many of those 32 stand at games? It's not all of them, so why are these people supposed to turn a blind eye to losing out because someone next to them may have caused an offence. Safety certification not being renewed is closely followed by the word 'may'.

Risk Perception is normally based on the potential impact against the potential likelihood. You cannot prevent everything. Risk Management would show that you've acted correctly to mitigate any potential as best as possible. Do you think blocking 32 seats in a capacity of 12,800 is mitigating any risk, when the club accept that 500 - 600 are allowed to stand in another area? I'm sure the EFL would be delighted to know they've not actually achieved any real progress. It's like a doctor mending a broken leg but ignoring the heart attack so the bloke dies anyway.

The EFL, PCC and SGSA won't thank Argyle for closing 32 seats. They'll ask if you can do 32, why can't you do the rest? Half a job doesn't solve anything.

Simple question, you've not stood up. Your ticket has been revoked until further notice. How do you feel? Seems lots of people think that this is a simple case of you stood, you deserve it. If you don't understand what's happening in detail, why speculate?

It may be the case that you stood (persistently) at the last game, perhaps you didn't. Were you told to sit down and didn't? (or did?) Did a Steward record your name/seat and whether or not you had been told? Whether (or not) you had then sat (or not?)

Now, it seems, you can be excluded from a game that you have already paid for as part of a 'bloc ban'? With no refund, no proof? No hearing? No case made?

Happy to accept people's argument re. safety certificates (tho' how does standing in the Lyndy prove that you will stand in the new stand?) but this (legally) is a wishy-washy judgmental nightmare, a half decent solicitor could at least embarrass our club muchly over this. :facepalm:

 

[Argyle Casual]

I think the club is between a rock and a hard place. They have clearly been told by whatever authority that they are not doing enough to tackle persistent standing so have decided on this area first. Rightly or wrongly it shows that are making an effort. It is the club responsibility to satisfy these authorities to get a safety certificate and I cant believe fans are suggesting getting solicitors involved so the club would end up with a legal bill.

32 fans @ £17.17 per ticket is the fans current cost per game this isn't sorted, £549.44. The club have just made that money without providing a service for this money? Why would their individual costs be allowed but the club don't need to pay a penny?

Nobody is getting any legal action (that I'm aware of), but what a silly statement that individuals hard earned money should be written off to save the club a few pence. Can you tell me how many of those 32 stand at games? It's not all of them, so why are these people supposed to turn a blind eye to losing out because someone next to them may have caused an offence. Safety certification not being renewed is closely followed by the word 'may'.

Risk Perception is normally based on the potential impact against the potential likelihood. You cannot prevent everything. Risk Management would show that you've acted correctly to mitigate any potential as best as possible. Do you think blocking 32 seats in a capacity of 12,800 is mitigating any risk, when the club accept that 500 - 600 are allowed to stand in another area? I'm sure the EFL would be delighted to know they've not actually achieved any real progress. It's like a doctor mending a broken leg but ignoring the heart attack so the bloke dies anyway.

The EFL, PCC and SGSA won't thank Argyle for closing 32 seats. They'll ask if you can do 32, why can't you do the rest? Half a job doesn't solve anything.

Simple question, you've not stood up. Your ticket has been revoked until further notice. How do you feel? Seems lots of people think that this is a simple case of you stood, you deserve it. If you don't understand what's happening in detail, why speculate?

:nworthy: :nworthy: Absolutely spot on

 

[Keyham Pilgrim]

You missed my point totally that the club has to be seen to be doing something. I did say rightly or wrongly they have chosen this area so I have not accused anyone in this area of doing anything. If you read all this thread then other posters have mentioned getting solicitors involved which I think is ridiculous.

I think the club could have handled this differently but not sure what the best way is. Argyle have clearly been instructed by some authority to make more effort to get people to sit. Everyone who stands who has written on this thread seem to say they don't care what the rules are, they are going to stand so what is the club meant to do because ignoring it is not the solution.

 

[Jasa]

I think the club is between a rock and a hard place. They have clearly been told by whatever authority that they are not doing enough to tackle persistent standing so have decided on this area first. Rightly or wrongly it shows that are making an effort. It is the club responsibility to satisfy these authorities to get a safety certificate and I cant believe fans are suggesting getting solicitors involved so the club would end up with a legal bill.

32 fans @ £17.17 per ticket is the fans current cost per game this isn't sorted, £549.44. The club have just made that money without providing a service for this money? Why would their individual costs be allowed but the club don't need to pay a penny?

Nobody is getting any legal action (that I'm aware of), but what a silly statement that individuals hard earned money should be written off to save the club a few pence. Can you tell me how many of those 32 stand at games? It's not all of them, so why are these people supposed to turn a blind eye to losing out because someone next to them may have caused an offence. Safety certification not being renewed is closely followed by the word 'may'.

Risk Perception is normally based on the potential impact against the potential likelihood. You cannot prevent everything. Risk Management would show that you've acted correctly to mitigate any potential as best as possible. Do you think blocking 32 seats in a capacity of 12,800 is mitigating any risk, when the club accept that 500 - 600 are allowed to stand in another area? I'm sure the EFL would be delighted to know they've not actually achieved any real progress. It's like a doctor mending a broken leg but ignoring the heart attack so the bloke dies anyway.

The EFL, PCC and SGSA won't thank Argyle for closing 32 seats. They'll ask if you can do 32, why can't you do the rest? Half a job doesn't solve anything.

Simple question, you've not stood up. Your ticket has been revoked until further notice. How do you feel? Seems lots of people think that this is a simple case of you stood, you deserve it. If you don't understand what's happening in detail, why speculate?

It may be the case that you stood (persistently) at the last game, perhaps you didn't. Were you told to sit down and didn't? (or did?) Did a Steward record your name/seat and whether or not you had been told? Whether (or not) you had then sat (or not?)

Now, it seems, you can be excluded from a game that you have already paid for as part of a 'bloc ban'? With no refund, no proof? No hearing? No case made?

Happy to accept people's argument re. safety certificates (tho' how does standing in the Lyndy prove that you will stand in the new stand?) but this (legally) is a wishy-washy judgmental nightmare, a half decent solicitor could at least embarrass our club muchly over this. :facepalm:

The stewards do not know who was involved. If they did, they wouldn't have scatter-gunned an area invoking sanctions on innocent fans. My name was certainly not taken, so for them to 'assume' who I am as I was in a seat is incorrect. There were others who have tickets in that area but didn't use their own seat on Tuesday (weird how there were alternative empty seats in a sell out....) and these people have also had their tickets temporarily suspended. To reiterate again, people have had their tickets temporarily suspended and they have not committed an offence.

Ticket holders were sent an email to arrange contact with Jon Back to arrange a meeting to discuss how to reactivate the tickets and no means of how to contact him. Another own goal. I've contacted the club stating my availability and I'm yet to hear if he's available or not at this time. Some have had contact, so he's obviously available in some capacity, but 3 of 32 making contact is not good enough if that's the instruction we've been given. Why ask us to make contact if contact isn't going to be made?

 

[KFA]

Jasa. I appreciate you are directly affected by this situation and therefore seem stressed out by it but take a breath!

These 32 seats contain how many season ticket holders? 12/15?

Of those a portion seem to have “ persistently stood” and not been willing to compromise or accept the clubs/ stewards requests/ instructions over an extended period of time. So I’m guessing we are into low single figures? If so would it not be reasonable for them to accept relocation to Demport?

If I recall there were reports of fisticuffs and verbal violence last season and formal complaints to the club etc. I do not recall similar for the Demport do you?

This no doubt raised the profile of Block14 with the authorities and they would have required the club to resolve matters. A year later ( with no progress) it is not surprising that the club is having to demonstrate that it is doing something tangible.

Don’t suppose for one minute the club actually wants to ban anyone if it can avoid it so by closing a small area rather than hitting specific individuals it can show the authorities it is doing something whilst minimising impact on fans.

That does mean the non offending season ticket holders are caught up in the ( hopefully) one match disruption but I am sure with the quality of CCTV in the stadium that Jon Backs team can ID “ saints and sinners “.

Whilst I think the club could have managed this better by communicating earlier with the affected dozen season ticket holders is there not an argument that the small group of persistently standing season ticket holders have actually brought this on themselves and dumped it on the rest of the season ticket holders in those rows?

Surely the “suspending” of the season ticket does not mean a ban nor financial loss to anyone as the affected season ticket holders will simply need to sit elsewhere for a game?

 

[Kentishgreen]

Would they need such one to one evidence though. I’m sure with CCTV and Security cameras they’d easily be able to identify any seat and any person they cared to.