Stand Up To Big Match Passion Killers
APOLOGIES in advance but some of this is going to sound a bit like a Richard Littlejohn "safety Nazi" soap-box rant. The phrases 'remote killjoys', 'faceless unelected suits,' 'joyless cabal of autocrats drunk on power riding roughshod over the people' and 'you couldn't make it up' may or may not feature. We'll see.
Boro fans have been left fuming over the harsh and opaque decision to hand the club just 3,000 tickets for the mouthwatering FA Cup derby clash at the Stadium of Light. And you can see why. The arbitrary decision flies in the face of the competition rules, the long and proud traditions of "the magic of the cup" and of common sense.
As we are always told by players, managers and TV pundits as part of the super soaraway spin in the big build up, these games are "a bit special" and they have an "extra edge" - and that stems directly from a dramatic tension and increased volume created by a bigger than normal away following.
We all have stories of crackling derby games where passions ran high and we stood among like minded loyalists and sang our hearts out. Iconic occasions like that are rites of passage and a powerful part of the narcotic attraction that makes football the most vibrant cultural force in the nation.
But we can't be having that.
For the health and safety overlords anything out of the ordinary that is not predictable and that creates unusual or heightened atmospheres and volatility is bad! Bad! Bad!
The grey men who licence the game - at all clubs, not just Sunderland - believe passion is the problem. They want you to sit down, shut up, clap when prompted by Pavlovian music and be passively fed a soulless "matchday experience" in a stifling emotional void then file out quietly packing the debris of your club crested generic burger, popcorn and cola-style drink with you.
That runs counter to the instinct of supporters and is at odds with the compelling drama of a game.
We have had our share of problems at Boro with fans objecting to increasingly fussy stewarding, arguments and ejections over standing, letters of complaint left on seats demanding fans curb excessive persistent noisy celebrations that out-last the goal music and the recent wrangles with the headstrong loyalists of the Red Faction.
It is bad enough having excitable fans on a mundane matchday. A one-off, high-stakes showdown with an unusually high away contingent and local rivalry thrown into the mix - a battle for bragging rights - is anathema to safety chiefs.
The Sunderland ticket decision was taken in the name of "public safety" by people who seem not to understand - or care about - or overtly opposed to - the dynamics of fandom or the drive to see the biggest games, whatever the cost, the logistics or the risk to life and limb.
The move is more likely to provoke trouble than prevent it as diehard Boro fans denied the chance to enjoy themselves overtly in the away end will instead inevitably try to see the game surreptiously, sneaking in back door and forced to sit on their hands and bite their tongues behind enemy lines. Good luck.
We've all been there. I've stood in the main stand at Roker Park at derby games trying to focus on the pitch and resist the subliminal pressure to hum along to the chanting from the away end or join in the EIOing when Jamie Pollock scored.
It is a high risk strategy that requires nerves of steel, Oscar winning acting, a command of the nuances of regional accents, a degree of blaze stupidity and an uncanny ability to mask your body language that would put a confidence trickster to shame.
You may wonder why anyone would want to spend good money to be restrained from joining the celebrations and get thrown out or sparked out after 20 minutes is a different matter but it will happen and at a flashpoint - hopefully Boro goals - there will be scuffles and ejections as involuntary twitches give the game away.
Then rather than admit it may have been maybe easier all round in policing terms to hand over an extra few thousand tickets in the first place there will be grave hand-wringing condemnation to retro-validate the decision and next time Boro's allocation will be cut further still. You know it makes sense. It's for your own good.
The FA Cup rules state that away clubs are entitled to request up to 15% of the host stadium's capacity, if they think they can sell them and generally, give or take a bit for segregation here or the physical limitations of the ground lay-out, they get them.
And why shouldn't they? The Stadium of Light is a well engineered modern ground with wide concourses and aisles, excellent access and the kind of well drilled stewarding that comes with regularly hosting 46,000 plus crowds including thousands of away supporters on a regular basis. Even those notorious Take That fans.
Are the powers that be suggesting Sunderland are unable to control a number of away fans the FA believe is normal and appropriate in their national ? Surely not. It seems a harsh criticism of their stewarding operation.
Grounds less well designed will house larger travelling contingents this term and some of those games will involve just as passionate parochial rivalry. Manchester City and United have already clashed with over 6,000 away fans.
Every round throws up a few fruity ties. The default position should be to ensure they go ahead with the full complement of away fans - if there is the demand for travellers' tickets - and the onus should be on the safety officials to accommodate that, not to resort to the intricacies of the rulebook to legislate the problem away.
The rationale for the cut by Sunderland's safety committee - being spun in brassnecked Orwellian fashion as a fantastic and generous increase - is that Boro fans have previous form for persistent standing at the Stadium of Light. Of course they have.
The committee say that in the last visit, in the costly Premier League defeat in 2009, Boro were given 3,200 tickets but vast numbers of that number stood throughout the game so it was decided that for the next visit it would be cut to 2,700.
So now, instead of a cut it is actually a 10% increase. Hurray! Hi-vis vests all round!
But don't let us give in to Boronoia. They are not singling us out. They are not seeking to restrict numbers to give their heroes as strategic advantage in the game. It's nothing personal. Sunderland have already come in for stick in the past year from fans of both neighbours Newcastle and Manchester United for cutting their usual away day allocation on the same grounds.
Such dictats are now the norm. It is part of the culture within the hidden apparatus of the game that appears openly hostile to supporters and sees them primarily as a potential public order problem to be controlled and corralled rather than as valued customers and law abiding citizens engaging in a legal pursuit.
It is the same mentality that sees Robocop police pushing video cameras in your face at railway stations or herding fans into pubs before a game whether they want to go or not. As a fan you are expected to surrender all your civil and legal rights. Heavy handed policing and insensitive stewarding is the norm. We are routinely treated in draconian ways that would not be tolerated in any other sphere of life.
And you can't object without being ordered to leave town or get carted off under Section 27 of the catch-all Violent Crime Reduction Act.
The 'persistent standing' issue is a red herring and part of the on-going bureaucratic sterilisation and beigefication of a game fuelled by passion.
All away fans routinely stand. They are usually the hardcore sing-yer-hearts-out-for-the-lads type. It's part of the day out. At every level of the league. Hundreds of people. Thousands. From every part of the demographic. It is not mandatory but it is the norm. And no one objects. It has no correlation to trouble. People stand, they shout, they sing, they dance a bit if there's a goal and then they go home happy.
Very rarely do stewards worry about visiting fans breaking the ground regulations. It would cause more disruption and led to more safety problems if they went into the crowd to remonstrate with standers or to try to eject them. Besides, they are too busy hassling home fans for bringing contraband bottles of coke WITH TOPS into the ground.
If we allow the safety police to cut out the wriggle room of sensible stewarding and routinely zealously apply the rules on standing it will cause trouble - which will lead to reduced future allocations and then the logic is that very soon there will be NO away fans. Which safety chiefs (and some clubs) may well see as a costly problem solved - although it will further corrode atmosphere and also cut off a vital revenue stream.
The way forward in this trick area is not 'no standing' but 'safe standing'.
That will diffuse not just the current ticket row (and others that are simmering away under the radar) but also remove the most contentious routine stewarding problem for clubs up and down and a potential point of friction between clubs and their own fans.
If the cup games goes to a replay many Boro fans will want a punative retaliation against Sunderland supporters and will want their own allocation cut. But we should resist the temptation to demand a tit-for-tat cut. Give them the full whack - even if they did stand last time. We shouldn't get drawn into a divide-and-rule squabble with rival fans.
Fans shouldn't be lured into the safety chiefs' mindset. Don't play the numbers game. It's more important than scoring points against old enemies. It is about the supporters' right to travel unhindered to games and the need to prevent key decisions about matchday mechanics slipping away from the orbit of football and football people into town hall offices and onto the desks of people who neither know nor care about
It is time to unite and defend the culture of our game.
**This is the Hi-Viz ft AwayDaze Remix of this week's Big Picture column.
Older/Newer
« Jukebox Plays As Boro Hit Bum Note | Blitzed At Coventry. »
45 Comments
Leave a comment
Profile
Anthony Vickers
Latest Football League video
Keep up to date
Follow Untypical Boro on
Good article, AV.
Even if you ignore the fact that 3,000 is a miserable allocation, as you say the ruling totally defeats the object of the reasoning. We are going to end up with Boro fans scattered all over the Sunderland end which will cause a lot more trouble than if they were in one place. Fortunately, I’ve got my ticket, but I’m not looking forward to the options of getting to the game, herded in on coaches or getting the train and no doubt being intercepted by the Police at the station.
I went to Leeds earlier in the season on the train and managed to slip off at the station as I didn’t have any Boro colours on. The unfortunate ones who did got marched to Yates’s where they were forced to stay there until kick-off. I was meeting a mate in Leeds, had I been caught as well, I’d have been stuck.
Why should we be treated like animals? I sometimes think the police add fuel to these situations by having such an unnecessary large and heavy-handed presence in the first place.
Sunderland say they won’t sell to fans not on their database, but how many of us know Sunderland fans? I work with a load, I could easily get tickets. People are even talking of buying one for the next home game to get their name on the database. People will find a way.
On the subject of standing, I totally agree. If Germany can do it, there’s no reason why we can’t. I stood at Peterborough this season, perfectly safely. It’s arguably more dangerous when people are jumping around and celebrating with a load of seats in the way anyway.
Enjoyable read ...
Sadly, I could tell you a thing or two about Section 27's ... But more importantly now, knowledge of how to avoid them ;) ...
PP ... x
All very valid points.
And a number of different issues. Treatment of away supporters travelling to matches has been disgrace ever since I first started going to away games 10 years ago, when i was about 15 years old, the situation has got worse. If you say anything to a police officer, you are branded a trouble maker or a stirrer.
These are the same officers who hang around city centre streets on weekends and who's very presence provokes annoyance in the vast majority of people who are simply behaving and having a good time.At one time police would turn up WHEN a crime has happened. not stand there, watching NO criminal behaviour, and claiming to be there for our protection.
Absolute joke. We must stick up for the rights we deserve and resist this oppression at every oppurtunity.
Howwever, AV, I fear for the first and your prediction of zero away fans at games, is something I can see happening sooner rather than later.
AV I thought you knew - the last people most clubs are interested in are the fans.
A little bee that has got into my bonnet recently is concessions for older gadgies. Having recently turned 60 I have taken advantage of reduced price tickets - £15 at Posh to sit down and £16 for Coventry on Saturday.
Checking the MFC website to buy a home ticket I find that I have to reach the grand old age of 65 to qualify for a concession. Surely reducing the age limit to 60 would not cause too much hardship to the club, would be good public relations and might even tempt some of the older refuseniks,like me, back a bit more than for just the odd game?
A lot of years ago when I was a kid I was taken by a geordie cousin to a Boro v barcodes match at Ayersome Park, Boro scored and I jumped up (very briefly) among 10000 geordies. Fortunatley being about ten I got away with it.
I've stood/sat in with home fans at Boro away games all over the country and never had a bit of trouble, normally you can have a bit of friendly banter. I'm not suggesting the same could be done against Sunderland in an all or nothing cup tie, but for the life of me I cant see the difference in risk between selling 3000 away tickets and selling 7500 away tickets for this game.
Presumably the authorities want us all to stay at home and watch it on telly just like the current Pakistan v England test match.
AV - are you advocating standing in seating areas?
It may be a convenient excuse but the Mackems have been given a cast iron excuse to cut our allocation. So the joke is on us. We also did the same to Man. U fans a few years ago when they refused to sit.
Yes, standing areas might be the way forward, but that will never happen. But I don't think consistent standing in a seating area is very clever really. If someone needs to sit, because of health reasons, then they have no chance of seeing the game if the rest continue to stand up in front of them! Sorry to sound like a killjoy, but jumping up and down to celebrate is a lot different from continual standing.
**AV writes: I am not advocating breaking the law. I am advocating CHANGING the law.
I agree with most of what you say . Standing in a seated area is not ideal - but it happens. It is potentially dangerous, always restrictive and usually impedes people who want to sit - which is precisely why clubs should be allowed to introduce designated specific well designed, well stewarded safe standing areas that reflect the reality of the ways football crowds behave.
This government is always banging on about rolling back the nanny state, the right of the individual to take control of their own lives and consumer choice. Let's see them act on that then. This issue is an open goal for them: it is cheap, easy and every poll suggests it is popular and it would give clubs an option that would allow some creative marketing and pricing flexibility.
I enjoyed the article. That doesn't mean I agree with everything, though. If you are no longer the 25 year-old athlete you once were, and you are only 5ft 8 inches tall, the last thing you would want is to be in a standing area at a football ground. No doubt behind a group all tall enough to join the Grenadier Guards!
If you are 5ft 8 inches tall, it might be suggested you could go to the seated area whilst others who wish, might stand. But if one of your mates is 5ft 11, and the other is 6ft 4 inches, it would be silly to go together, then split up as you make your way to different parts of the stadium.
Thanks for the link to section 27 Violent Crime Reduction Act which leads to an interesting Football Supporters' Federation (FSF) website, which refers to Stoke and Plymouth supporters being "dispersed" under that section.
If you go to the "National Public Order Legislation Guide - 2011" produced by the National Policing Improvement Agency (you'll find it on the web) it explains the rules that apply if a Police Officer requires people to leave an area, and it updates the information given in the FSA article, which dates to 18.12.08.
Having given information about the section, the requirement for the Officer to make a request that is proportionate to the risk of disorder etc, the NPIA advice goes on to explain what happened in that Stoke case:
"Police Admit Unlawful Use of S.27 on Stoke Fan - 11th June 2009.
Stoke City fan Lyndon Edwards, 38, has been awarded £2,750 in compensation following unlawful police action in Manchester last year. Greater Manchester Police used s27 VCR Act to round up more than 80 Stoke fans prior to their club's Premier League tie with Manchester United at Old Trafford on Saturday November 15th 2008.
Even though Stoke's fans had been well behaved - the pub landlord made no complaints and has since invited them back - supporters were detained for up to 4 hours and forcibly transported by the police back to Stoke on Trent on coaches, missing the game.
Deprived of toilet facilities on the coach, Lyndon and his fellow supporters were instructed to urinate into cups, which spilled over the floor of the bus, so that they had to sit with the urine sloshing around their feet for the 40-mile journey back.
Stoke City fan Lyndon contacted the FSF to complain about his appalling treatment at the hands of the Police."
Almost sounded like Rome there, for a minute!
We are supposed to be a liberal democracy, with "policing by consent". Many thousands of football supporters (including some police officers) follow their clubs up and down the country each week. I don't suppose many of them consent to be treated like an animal.
If you treat someone, or a group of people, like an animal, don't be surprised if they start to behave like an animal.
Pick any minority - say Muslim, Quaker, Feminists, a Working Party from the House of Lords, a group of newly-qualified social workers, or a group of working class males - let's say they are on their way in coaches to a religious retreat, a week or two in Taize, a weekend course aimed at improving employment prospects, for example. Let's say they were treated in the same way as football supporters.
You wouldn't be able to get near a newstand for the stampede as eager readers rushed the latest delivery of outrage from "The Guardian". However it seems as though football supporters can be treated as a lesser species of mankind. Human rights - well, football supporters are only half-human, aren't they?
At a rugby game I can drink beer AND see the pitch. Could even have a cheeky bottle of Rioja if I wished, and stand next to a supporter from the visiting team, and have some friendly banter about the season so far.
At the cricket I could drink beer, wine or spirits from my seat all day long as I watch the game, so long as I buy it at the ground rather than bring in my own. Nothing to do with safety there, just profit. (Mind you, it must be a bit wearing on the West Terrace at Headingley if the bloke sitting next to you all day, dressed as a gorilla, has just finished his 15th pint of Stella).
At football, they can't sell me a (plastic) bottle of Diet Coke without taking the cap off! Maybe there should be an official "Put a spare bottle-top in your pocket for the match" weekend.
**AV writes: Exactly, Football fans are expected to surrender all their civil liberties the moment they set off to a match because their hobby has been demonised. That is the real issue. That mindset is at the heart of the debate over seating because every rational argument is immediately trumped by the "law and order/safety/unleash the hooligans" position adopted by the powers that be.
The way supporters are aggressively policed, the excessive extra-judicial powers of heavy handed, poorly paid stewards and the way the norms of the legal system are suspended when football is involved are unacceptable in a democracy.
Well said Vic.
Safety people should use their expertise and information from police and clubs to decide how many away fans will want to travel then so long as it does not exceed the number the rules say MAKE IT SAFE FOR THEM TO ATTEND. That is their job. - not set out to restrict the numbers to suit the police and stewards.
Nor should they punish innocent law abiding Boro fans because of something that other people may have done three years ago (and then because provocative stewards and police were pushing them about about). That tarring everyone with the same brush/ collective punishment thing is the kind of thing they do in tinpot dictatorships.
I think it is about money. I think the clubs decided between them not many Boro fans would want to travel and best way to fill the stadium and max profit was to give more to the Mackems. I think they were wrong on that. Boro should be ashamed at under-estimating how passionate we are and how important this match is to us and how many would want to go.
I can't believe we would get so few tickets unless Boro agreed to it/did not object.
I won't go to Sunderland. It is the one ground I won't travel to any more.
I have been to all the 'dodgy' grounds in the bad old days and in more modern 'beigefied' times without too much bother. I have been to Nexcastle, Leeds, Carlisle, Stoke, Millwall, Hull, Barnsley and Man City and remember when there was always chew but these days they are no bother at all.
But I won't go to Sunderland. I have no confidence in the stewarding or the policing there and Newcastle supporting work mates say the same. There is always bother. The "safety" committee should be looking at that, not how many away fans stand.
AV -
regular reader from afar in Australia and now Hong Kong, not as much commenting as I should, it's hard when i don't watch the games, but the insight from the regular posters (Jarkko and the like) and yourself with the constant refresh of the #borolive on twitter brings me closer to a match day experience, so thanks.
Anyway, this post has everything about it for why you were nominated for your award last year. Passion, honesty and a true football fan viewpoint. I know quite a few mates back home queued and didn't get tickets for the Sunderland game after the club administration actually made a good move by putting on free busses.
It's disappointing as this is one of the games of the season and a nice distraction from the seriousness of the league campaign at the moment. The club should be lobbying to get more ticket allocation. I agree that we shouldn't reciprocate if there's a replay
I personally am going for the moral high-ground, taking it on the chin and moving on.
I will be inviting my mackem-supporting neighbour and son around to watch the game with the proviso that due to Health & Safety issues only 50% can attend.
Sounds fair doesn't it?
Stop sitting on the fence and say what you mean.
I am sorry Vic but you are wrong here. Its the fans that are to blame for the deluge of so-called safety measures inflicted upon us nowadays.
When my dad started taking me to games in the early 60s there was no segregation of fans. Opposing team supporters stood side-by-side without problems just like other sports still find it possible to do.
Now we have to have segregation - police escorts to and from stadia for visiting supporters - and the inability of anyone to just turn up on the day and get any ticket that is available whatever end that may put them in.
That's not down to heavy-handed stewarding, policing or lawmakers. Itys nothing to do with standing or sitting. Its down to sheer intolerance of somebody different. The last bastion of discrimination on grounds of just being different is alive and well in the hearts of fans everywhere.
We are told that we must decry all forms of discrimination on grounds of race, age, colour, religion, sexuality etc etc but try telling a football fan that the seat next to him might conceivably be occupied by an opposition team's supporter and all of us scream for either immediate ejection or for blood.
And then we shout and scream if there is the slightest suggestion that we should not be treated like the dregs of humanity.
Kick racism out of football - great - but if intolerance of somebody having the accident of birth in a different town to mine isnt just as bad then what is?
We have brought this on ourselves and deserve not the slightest iota of sympathy.
I hope that a copy of this article is on its way to the FA.
Sunderland, crowd trouble, away supporters and police go together like apple crumble and custard, they were meant for each other!
I'm more shocked that the Mackem safety fraternity allow anyone without a Mackem passport into their illustrious city at all. Lets face it the policing tactics used up there belong to the Thatcherite coal mining era so we shouldn't be surprised at their lack of ability on modern crowd control techniques. Just a pity they aren't allowed to use tear gas and plastic bullets to dissuade all visiting fans completely then they could fill their ground week in week out with well behaved safety conscious clones in their disposable coveralls and masks.
It seems to be a Sunderlandcentric problem that is magnified out of proportion there and there alone. Can't think it has anything at all to do with how they treat the visiting people (whoops sorry football upporters are not people, they are vermin and scum just itching for it).
Lets face it if you poke a bear or a dog with a stick its a bit of fun unless they break out of the cage so you don't make the mistake of putting too many in the cage in the first place then you can poke sticks at them and just wait for them to take the bait. I think we are confusing a football competition with a local past time which is enjoyed in places like Rome, Buenos Aires, Sunderland and Montivedeo etc.
It seems that we have a few relatively minor breaches (mainly alcohol related) of the peace when we visit Sid James or when they come down here to us and likewise when the Mackems visit the Riverside but conversely there are scenes as I said remniscent of Thatcherite 70's Britain when either us or the Barcodes visit the SOL, coincidence? Maybe the FA ought to start looking a lot deeper into what appears to be just a silly ticket wrangle on the surface.
Perhaps Strathclyde Police should have Wearisde tagged onto their Authority as part of a Policing Reform Bill seeing as they seem to manage a few friendly Glaswegians partaking in jovial alcohol free banter four times a season on the terraces of Parkhead and Ibrox without resorting to the scenes we can all anticipate and expect at Sunderland whether there is 3,000 or 300 visiting fans.
Good article if a wee bit revisionist in parts, but yeah I agree, but as in most things we get the (insert lambism of your choice) you deserve/afford.
The rules and safety worries are from the bad old days that the changes that were made have helped to nullify, but only helped.
The game itself has been changed through self interest, natural evolution through society itself changing, but there will always be a minority that will wee on everyone elses chips, its their overly influential behaviour that brings all the nannying arguments their weight and its always supported by the cost of one death or injury.
I can't see that changing in a country that in this still "post Thatcherite" malaise that afflicts this once more inclusive country, the "its always some boooogers fault" blame culture and its attendant compo regime that makes everyone fear litigation of some sort.
Its like the booing Rhys complains about. I would never boo my own team, thats reserved for the opposition, whether present or not, and the officials/stewards etc, but never the team.
Maybe the people who boo are the same who would put a false claim in for spurious injuries, then go and seek a rival supporter for a fight? if only they were that easy to find eh?
Hope it goes to replay... then lets give them about 500 tickets
H&S of course. They are Mackems after all!
UTB
Talk of drink at matches reminds me of my mate visiting his brother in Sydney. They went to watch the test match so once in the ground it was off to the bar for beer.
The barman said they could only have low alcohol beer as the safety wallahs wanted to stop potential trouble. They decided not to bother with beer and drink chilled white wine instead, they bought bucket loads of bottles from the same bar.
Its a bit like kids playing conkers wearing safety glasses.
I was amongst the 2,000 plus crowd of away supporters at Peterborough a few weeks ago. The Posh were very happy with our 30% of the crowd. The vast majority of us were standing, behind the goal at one end and the opposite end was equally crowded with standing home fans. I asked at the time for clarification of this rule. Any answers please ?
AV -
As usual you are honest and passionate, and there lies the problem.
Recent studies of the football supporters anatomy have shown that their bodies consist of 95% water and 5% emotion/passion. Thus, as the supporter gets more excited he starts to perspire then looses more water , the emotion fills this void and the rest is well documented. If only everyone was as wel behaved as yourself.
I myself live abroad so I was never going to the game, but I did attend a derby game at Roker Park 42 years ago and funny enough I learnt my lesson and I only had a secondary modern education.
To finish I must say I sympathise with those who miss out but maybe next year in the Premiership?.
AV:
I accept your reply to my post, thanks. I too would like to see standing areas return for small sections of stadiums but as I said it will never happen in the upper echelons of English football. Remember Hillsborough and the resons we were inflicted with all seater stadia.
But I think Jiffy (post 12.27) has really hit the nail on the head. Great post and quite true. We only have ourselves to blame (ourselves being sections of fans who still cannot abide opposition fans, who, by and large, are the same backbground as the rest of us, their only crime been supporters of a different team).
Witness the Boro "fans" hurling abuse at Hull fans on Boxing Day from the safety of a police courdon. Silly, just silly,for us older and wiser supporters.
**AV writes: You say it will never happen at the top level but the Birmingham Mail today carried news that Aston Villa are doing a feasibility study into safe standing. SPL clubs were given the go ahead to submit plans for a trial last week. The subject is waiting a place on the Parliamentary timetable agains this year. Momemtum is growing.
No one is calling for a return to a terrace free-for-all but there is no reason whatsoever that well designed standing areas with, for example, inidividually designated, numbered and ticketed spots, can't be just as effectively stewarded/policed as seats.
It is about offering those that want to stand the choice.
On the subject of standing at Peterborough. The terraces are going shortly, so you will never stand again at London Road.
As an attendee at the fateful Hillsborough game I will never agree to terracing, regardless of the safety guarantees.
I thought the ruling on away fans in the FA Cup was clear - a straight percentage. I can see that this could alter slightly up or down depending on the ground design, but essentially it is set isn't it?
I got a call on Monday from a Mackem who wanted a ticket for a Boro supporting colleague.
He originally thought we hadnt asked for enough tickets. He now realises it was jobsworths and thinks it is barmy. He can see loads of Boro fans scattered around the stadium.
One thing we discussed was the share of the gate. I cant remember the split, is it 33%? Does that also apply to the TV money?
**AV writes: Broadcast rights belong to the FA so the fee goes to them but each club selected for a live match, home or away, gets an equal payment on a sliding scale. In this round it is worth £62,000 each.
Whilst I agree it's a sad day when football fans are deemed guilty before the event, ultimately the people responsible for public safety have to make a disconnected risk assessment of the situation.
The question of how many supporters from a visiting club can be safely accomodated is probably not an exact science as there are too many 'ifs'. Sunderland have no doubt chose the most cautious figure - after all if they got it wrong someone will ultimately be held responsible.
Anyway, i've no experience of recent games against Sunderland but have vivid memories of the mayhem of the games in the eighties - ie people being attacked and beaten up all around the ground, being chased down Linthorpe Road by several hundred sunderland fans.
Thankfully those days are gone but I'm sure it influences those who have to make the call. Hopefully we can just concentrate on the football and at least I'll finally be able to enjoy(?) seeing a Boro game on TV.
Looking forward to the distraction...
Went on a website yesterday to find the Coventry telephone number so I could ask if we could pay at the gate.
Got through to IKEA, put the phone down, checked the number and rang again, got through to IKEA again. Told the bloke what I wanted, he couldn't help. Bloody useless IKEA.
(Ian, could you check the details of the 1967 match please? I'm sure we went down to 9 men and then scored).
Werdermouth -
The number of away fans a club can manage is not the issue.
The design of modern grounds, developments of older grounds and policing make almost any number manageable. The police have CCTV and numerous hand held cameras to monitor fans so it is harder to melt away. Fans are more self policing.
If Sunderland were awarded a cup semi final they would suddenly find a way of policing 48,000 most of whom would be 'away' fans all coming up the A19/A1 (unless we played Toon!)
If we were given 5,000 tickets there would be chuff all difference in policing and stewarding costs. Nor would there be much increase in risk.
It is a punishment on the fans that makes the decision makers feel better.
Percypie -
No players sent off in 1967.
The match I think you were referring to was away at Norwich City on Wednesday 14th August 1968.
Horsfield scored after 36 minutes and Downing put us two up after 52. Hickton and McMordie were sent off but I havent the times. I was in staying in Scarborough with some mates and remember getting the paper the next day to read about the match. I am sure they were sent off in the last ten or fifteen minutes, we were coasting the match and held out comfortably.
Hope that helps, keep taking the medication
**AV writes: According to Cliff Mitchell, and I'm paraphrasing here, McMordie was sent off on 55 minutes for chinning Norwich inside forward Tommy Bryceland as they jostled while assembling a wall at a free-kick; and Hickton went three minutes later after a chopping Hugh Curran down from behind with a mis-timed lunge. It was the first time ever two Boro players had been pedalled in the game.
Nevertheless, said Mitchell, Boro hung on for the remaining 32 minutes "with a dedication and fortitude that that commanded the admiration of even the fiercely partisan home spectators". Boro chairman Eric Thoms added: "It was probably the grittiest and most courageous display in the history of Middlesbrough football club."
Percypieblocks -
It sounds like Coventry will be playing a flat pack four tomorrow.
Ian -
If as you suggest the decision to only award 3,000 tickets on safety grounds was based on a false argument then it raises the question of why hasn't MFC been more vocal to obtain more tickets?
The reason we had all the problems in the 60s and 70s was , YES, there where some headcases around but for the most part fans both home and away where corralled and treated with disrespect by police etc causing a mob mentality,
If you treat people like animals they will respond as such
Thanks Ian/AV, double dose of the anti alzheimers powder for me tonight, although it was worth writing in for Weldermouth's 'flat pack four'.
Werdermouth at 2.10pm: -
Do football clubs ever speak up loudly to defend the interests of their supporters (if the club itself has no financial interest - ie wouldn't receive the gate money)?
What would happen if all football clubs refused to pay police for attending football matches, or went to court to argue in their case that they have only had 5 arrests in 4 years, and really this home game at Exeter against Huddersfield (or whoever) is not a high risk fixture and that no more police need attend it than attend the Exeter rugby club Premier League game the next day (where the attendance might even be higher)?
What are the police there for? What are taxes there for? What if the presence of the police provokes a reaction from fans? What if it is the attitude of the police to the fans that is the cause of the friction and, left to their own, the small number of Exeter/Huddersield fans would simply wander off after the match for a nice cup of tea and a chat about how times change?
What is the average police attendance at, say, Wimbledon each year, and the crowd there compared with the crowd at Sunderland/Boro, let alone that Exeter match? 494,761 attended the two weeks at Wimbledon in 2011 (I have just looked it up!) with no day less than 29K and many in the mid-to-low 40Ks.
Do shopkeepers, say the mega-stores at the MetroCentre or the ones at the Teesside Retail Park, have to pay for the police to ensure the "safety" of people resorting to retail therapy there. And it would be intriguing to know how many people are arrested each year at the MetroCentre, for example for theft or other loutish behaviour, compared with those arrested at Sunderland football ground not so very far away.
**AV writes: There are more arrests at the average horserace meeting than the average football match. But no strict crowd control or restrictions on alcohol. Hmmmm.
Last time I went to Stadium of Light was for some corporate do when we won 3-0 in January 06. We were told by the steward: "When (!) Boro score don't celebrate as you'll be pelted with coins".
I duly celebrated and took home just under a tenner in pound coins and assorted shiny coins. Happy days!
AV -
Thanks for filling out the two off, 2-0 win for Percypie, having access to the reports is more reliable than my memory, I was sure the sending offs were late on.
Werdermouth -
Once the various groups give their advice, Sunderland, like all the clubs cant do much else but follow their guidelines.
By nature they will all be half empties reinforcing the nature of low levels of liquid in glasses. By their very make up they will be looking for a way to reduce perceived risk and if we were in their position we would do the same. My wife and daughter say lets go to York, I manipulate a Saturday with a home match. It suits my purpose.
The fewer fans to police and steward will reduce the work and perceived risk. Less chance of something going wrong, they would rather be spoilsports than liable.
Throw in a bit of history and the idiot fans who only go to hurl abuse and the die is set.
BUT, get a cup semi and suddenly their well oiled machine would spring in to action, words such as 'experience of big games' and good planning would take over.
If the FA said 15% tickets unless fans can not be segregated than they would run with it.
Any truth to the rumour that we have a gentlemen's agreement with Coventry that Nimely must play tomorrow?
I'm sure that there was more than 3,000 at the SOL for the England game against Turkey in 2003.
I was there and it looked full of visiting fans.
No problem, I've just got some tickets for the Boro V Leicester game in the Leicester end, lovely people. Just difficult keeping under control when we score.
Boro Ricohchet off the Blues!
"That night I bought Australia for £2,800 at 340 runs. That meant for every run over 340 you win £2,800, but for every run under you lose the same amount. Australia collapsed for 237. It is a score I remember well. It cost me £288,400. Every wicket felt like a stab in the heart. By the end of the night I felt like I'd been scalped" –
Dietmar Hamann makes it painfully clear why no German should ever bet on cricket, especially one with a gambling problem.
Jiffy........your response earlier is fantastic and spot on.
I get a much greater sense of proportion by living away from the region.
Ian Gill at 8am -
I take the point about the clubs and the police saying what they want about crowd control, depending on their preferred outcome.
Sunderland v Boro in the 4th Round: "Risk of crowd trouble...public order fears - so an away contingent of only 3,000 allowed".
Let's say Boro somehow triumph and march on to a semi-final against Newcastle. Rather than have Geordies and Boro fans alll travelling the same route to get to, say, the Emirates or Old Trafford, a large ground in between the two clubs is chosen, where the fans would largely approach from opposite directions. Let's say, Sunderland!
"No...we have a well-oiled machine here...experienced in dealing with big games..hoping it might be possible to stage some Under-21 games and large European ties in the future...confident we can manage the situation..."
And suddenly having maybe 22,000 fans from each of the competing clubs presents no problem. Or if the tie were between, say, rivals like Manchester Utd and City (or Liverpool) would grounds like Newcastle and Sunderland not want to host a semi-final if each club had more than 3,000 tickets? The stadia will be the same, and the police won't have changed. I think not!
The Sunderland game is a "home" game for me, however i shall be sat in the comfort of my livingroom watching it on the tele.O ne of my mates queued for 4 hours to get the tickets for the lads who are coming up so i could have been fortunate to have got a ticket if i wished.
However i made a conscious decision not to get one as soon as the draw was made and even before my makem loving brother in law phoned to start the banter,the reason has nothing to do with past "altercations" with their supporters but more about being treat like scum by their stewards inside the ground and the blackshirts outside the ground.
Faced with a solid line of snarling Police (and their dogs) its amazing how difficult it is to get through to them not all Boro fans live on Teesside.My polite request to be allowed through the line to catch my Metro back to Pelaw was met with a response of "You're going back to the train station to get the train to Middlesbrough" and the threat of being arrested! Finally his Inspector came over and let me through,and there's me thinking i'm a law abiding citizen,silly me!
Working in Newcastle a lot of my workmates are Makem season ticket holders and to a man they have said they couldn't understand why they had capped our ticket allocation They personally don't mind us bringing a large contingent and would rather have us all in one place rather than dotted all over the home end....
Maybe Sunderland should listen to their own supporters
It is fairly obvious we are missing Nicky Bailey. Does anyone agree with me that Tony McMahon could do a good job in that position, breaking up attacks and protecting the back four?
Forever
Exactly!
AV, have I understood correctly that Mogga was planning to add a winger to the squad? But now as Kink's transfer to Poland has crashed Mogga need to remove someone else from the pay roll first before any incoming players.
Secondly we haven't seen Park nor Halliday this season. Andy was injured earlier and loaned out to gain some match fitness. But he is back now as I saw him on the score sheet in this week's reserve match. How close he is to fit the first team? We could do with a winger or two now we have the Juke in.
I think we have enough bodies in the midfield but we will struggle on the left now that Arca is suspended for three matches. Hence the above questions. Where is Adam Reach btw? He can play on left, too.
Up the Boro!
**AV writes: Park has been injured and ill. Halliday came back from Walsall but didn't really do it there and is back where he was in the summer, needing to prove himself in the stiffs. Kink has been given chances in the first team but despite repeated coaching and explicit instructions just shoots with his first touch. None are really in the first team reckoning.