Off Field Management

[Cate Fox]

Go on, just a nibble.

What are you on about, by the way?

I'll be damned if I know either :icon_lol:

 

[drummindefender]

I've had two infractions. I'm a real man.

 

[camberwell fox]

I've had two good bummings. I'm a real man.

I think not

 

[Blue Maniac]

I think not

Only a real man can take it up the dirtbox.

And most women, obviously.

 

[city-faithful]

I just gave my turtle an infraction. It didn't seem too fussed.

 

[Steven]

I just gave my turtle an infraction. It didn't seem too fussed.

He'll still be going on about it in a couple of years time. :icon_roll :icon_wink

 

[Micky]

Yes, but what is being done about it, it is not a one off?

The firing squad have been called.

 

[spionfox]

He'll still be going on about it in a couple of years time. :icon_roll :icon_wink

 

[spionfox]

The firing squad have been called.

All joking aside, he hasn't been seen or heard for nearly 48 hours. Can somebody pop round to Waterford to make sure he isn't lying in a pool of vomit?

 

[Micky]

All joking aside, he hasn't been seen or heard for nearly 48 hours. Can somebody pop round to Waterford to make sure he isn't lying in a pool of vomit?

He'll be sobbing in self pity.

 

[Cate Fox]

Cant we drop this now? Jeff has said he has been infracted...

 

[Micky]

Shall we start again......

There is a story on the Blue Army site that Laura Oakes and Kevin Barclay have been given new jobs with Leicester City. The comments sent into the Mercury and published underneath are, to me at least, baffling.

Somebody called Chappy seems to disapprove of Laura Oakes before she has started. Welcome to Leicester City Laura.

Paul Rodwell tells us that Kevin Barclay is unpopular with most traditionally minded supporters. He may be right but I am so traditionally minded my middle names are National Trust and I have no quarrel with the gentleman.

Simmo86 says that Kevin Barclay is loathed by the fans. Where I sit near Sven's dugout (so I can give him helpful advice) we talk a lot between ourselves but I have never heard him mentioned - perhaps we are an oasis of indifference in a sea of loathing.

The most worrying comment comes from someone calling themselves "davieG". Let me immediately state that I am not "davieG". This davieG claims that Kevin Barclay wants the Walkers to resemble a library. When someone regards libraries with disdain I always worry about their reading age. Sadly davieG is not on the forum or I would ask him to quote the comment where Kevin Barclay wanted the Walkers to resemble a library.

I loathe Dennis Wise and Eric Hall. As a loyal Leicester supporter I do not want to miss out. Can someone please tell me why I should add Kevin Barclay to this unsavoury duo.

 

[camberwell fox]

Cant we drop this now? Jeff has said he has been infracted...

Just out of mild interest, why do you care one way or the other?

 

[Cate Fox]

Just out of mild interest, why do you care one way or the other?

I am finding it boring.

 

[Biffa Bacon]

Thank goodness Blue Maniac has not read my earlier post so I can beat him to the criticism that "an oasis of indifference in a sea of loathing" is a mixed metaphor.

If davieG is being made to sit down surely it is by the law and not by Kevin Barclay. I have treasured the sight of Thai father and son outside the stadium enjoying a cigarette - whether you are Top, Top's dad or Kevin Barclay the law is the law and Leicester City cannot just ignore it.

Don't know if it's been mentioned but there is no law about standing at football, there are laws about having to provide seats and ground regulations that tell you to sit on them.

 

[Leesoh]

If davieG is being made to sit down surely it is by the law and not by Kevin Barclay. I have treasured the sight of Thai father and son outside the stadium enjoying a cigarette - whether you are Top, Top's dad or Kevin Barclay the law is the law and Leicester City cannot just ignore it.

Don't know if it's been mentioned but there is no law about standing at football, there are laws about having to provide seats and ground regulations that tell you to sit on them.

Exactly, there is no law preventing standing. The only legislative enactments say designated games may be subject to requirements regarding the provision of seating, and that the Walkers Stadium must provide seats, and fans may only be permitted into the seating areas. There is nothing to say that fans have to sit in the seated areas, and indeed, the plan was to hold gigs at the Walkers, where many fans do not sit, and there is no legislation requiring them to be provided with seated accommodation.

Ground regulations are provided by clubs to secure a safety certificate. Here, the club will not be granted a safety certificate if standing is permitted, but this is not binding on those who issue the certificates to impose that condition. The group issuing the certificate (my understanding is that it includes the Council, the Police, and "others") may include whatever conditions they like, to a degree. It is then down to the club to enforce those regulations. If they choose.

This is where it gets confusing, as pretty much all clubs affected and those who issue the certificates are not enforcing, or threatening to enforce, all of the time, leading to inconsistent practices up and down the country.

The maximum punishment for standing is not a criminal record, it's ejection from the ground, and at this club, a three match ban from the Walkers. Sometimes. Which is one of the reasons Mr Barclay isn't popular.

I was a steward at the Walkers a season or two ago so know full well why the rules are as they are. These new precedures and such come about as a result of past tragedies so as to prevent them happening again, so it's all just part and parcel of the evolution of the game and indicative of life in general being more health and safety concious.

Just out of interest, did Mr Barclay give you a copy of the Taylor report to read before he spoon-fed you the Health and Safety crap?

The decision to make top flight football stadia all seater has more to do with the control of fans to prevent hooliganism than it ever had with the tragic events in Sheffield (or at any other ground). A simple look at the timeline will show this, as the legislation I alluded to above, the Football Spectators Act 1989 was actually introduced into Parliament in 1988, around 6 months before Hillsborough.

The knee-jerk reaction by certain factions of the popular press in blaming hooligans for what happened served to have this legislation rushed through Parliament without any thought at all, and in fact, certain sections, such as the ID cards system, have never been enacted, and remain dormant.

If you take the time to read the Taylor Report (I have, and I wished that I had read it in full much sooner than I did), you will see that Taylor LJ actually stated that standing is not unsafe, and that he had seen improvements being made in other countries, in Germany in particular, at making standing even more comfortable for the fan (note the wording there).

Further, Taylor LJ said that he appreciated fans would rebel against being forced into sitting, and that fans should be permitted to stand in front of their seats because in the end they would "get bored and realise it's actually more comfortable to sit" (paraphrased). He said that this was preferable to overcrowded terraces, and again was linked to comfort rather than safety, and the identification of potential or actual troublemakers.

 

[GazLCFC]

Exactly, there is no law preventing standing. The only legislative enactments say designated games may be subject to requirements regarding the provision of seating, and that the Walkers Stadium must provide seats, and fans may only be permitted into the seating areas. There is nothing to say that fans have to sit in the seated areas, and indeed, the plan was to hold gigs at the Walkers, where many fans do not sit, and there is no legislation requiring them to be provided with seated accommodation.

Ground regulations are provided by clubs to secure a safety certificate. Here, the club will not be granted a safety certificate if standing is permitted, but this is not binding on those who issue the certificates to impose that condition. The group issuing the certificate (my understanding is that it includes the Council, the Police, and "others") may include whatever conditions they like, to a degree. It is then down to the club to enforce those regulations. If they choose.

This is where it gets confusing, as pretty much all clubs affected and those who issue the certificates are not enforcing, or threatening to enforce, all of the time, leading to inconsistent practices up and down the country.

The maximum punishment for standing is not a criminal record, it's ejection from the ground, and at this club, a three match ban from the Walkers. Sometimes. Which is one of the reasons Mr Barclay isn't popular.




Just out of interest, did Mr Barclay give you a copy of the Taylor report to read before he spoon-fed you the Health and Safety crap?

The decision to make top flight football stadia all seater has more to do with the control of fans to prevent hooliganism than it ever had with the tragic events in Sheffield (or at any other ground). A simple look at the timeline will show this, as the legislation I alluded to above, the Football Spectators Act 1989 was actually introduced into Parliament in 1988, around 6 months before Hillsborough.

The knee-jerk reaction by certain factions of the popular press in blaming hooligans for what happened served to have this legislation rushed through Parliament without any thought at all, and in fact, certain sections, such as the ID cards system, have never been enacted, and remain dormant.

If you take the time to read the Taylor Report (I have, and I wished that I had read it in full much sooner than I did), you will see that Taylor LJ actually stated that standing is not unsafe, and that he had seen improvements being made in other countries, in Germany in particular, at making standing even more comfortable for the fan (note the wording there).

Further, Taylor LJ said that he appreciated fans would rebel against being forced into sitting, and that fans should be permitted to stand in front of their seats because in the end they would "get bored and realise it's actually more comfortable to sit" (paraphrased). He said that this was preferable to overcrowded terraces, and again was linked to comfort rather than safety, and the identification of potential or actual troublemakers.

Very insightful post Leesoh. Thank you.

I briefly studied the Taylor Report for a school project about 16 years ago but remember very little about it.

 

[Leesoh]

Very insightful post Leesoh. Thank you.

I briefly studied the Taylor Report for a school project about 16 years ago but remember very little about it.

Thanks! I really should get my arse into gear and write an article on it. I'm wondering if I could do a Masters in the law governing football supporters, but I don't think it's going to help me much!

 

[Mawsley]

Thanks! I really should get my arse into gear and write an article on it. I'm wondering if I could do a Masters in the law governing football supporters, but I don't think it's going to help me much!

An extra point during the sifting?

And an extra pint is up for grabs if you can condense the post into a one-sentence read

 

[Leesoh]

An extra point during the sifting?

And an extra pint is up for grabs if you can condense the post into a one-sentence read

I dunno, footy isn't seen as an intellectual challenge. Although it should be worth two points for getting it right!

How about "it's not actually illegal to stand, but clubs like you to do it so they can keep an eye on you easier, and the Taylor Report said that fans would find it nicer in the long run".