Jump to content

Villa's allocation for cup game reduced by city council


Villarocker
 Share

Recommended Posts

I just wanted to get the thoughts of all Villa fans, regarding the City council's decision to reduce our allocation for the cup game with small heath from 4,500 to 3,800.

The General mentions in his thread that this is due to our fans persistent standing. Yet, the Blues fans constantly stand at Villa Park and throw in some violence and vandalism for good measure. Was their allocation for the recent derby game reduced?

Also, the same City council has given the go-ahead for a Take That concert to be staged at Villa Park, where there will no doubt be 100s/1,000s of people standing and singing throughout the event.

We Villa fans are clearly being treated unfairly by the council and, being a citizen of Birmingham, this particularly pisses me off because this is the council to which I pay my taxes.

Are there any Villa fans who actually think we aren't being treated unfairly? or is everyone in agreement that the council seems to have it in for us a little?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who votes for these pricks and whens the next election? We should get Rob to run, surely there's enough Villa fans to put him in office? Think of the effects, the city would quickly prosper as Europe's biggest Red Light district, cider sales would go through the roof and Villa would a man on the inside.

Robflag.png

VOTE ROB!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who votes for these pricks and whens the next election? We should get Rob to run, surely there's enough Villa fans to put him in office? Think of the effects, the city would quickly prosper as Europe's biggest Red Light district, cider sales would go through the roof and Villa would a man on the inside.

Robflag.png

VOTE ROB!

Viva la Robvolution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Villa fans who persistently stand are the ones to blame.

It's not as if the General hasn't been trying to warn about this for ages.

This 1000 times this.

Want a scapegoat then look to yourselves. The general was pretty clear on this when he posted that it was the fans to blame

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Villa fans who persistently stand are the ones to blame.

It's not as if the General hasn't been trying to warn about this for ages.

There's a good post on this in the questions for the general thread.

http://www.villatalk.com/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=64255&start=375

Every group of away fans that i know of stand up, at grounds around the country home fans stand up. The whole "health & safety" facade is a joke and a poor one at that, i'm not going to turn on fellow fans for standing up and supporting their team, this is what we're supposed to be doing as fans!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Rob agrees to lower the prices of alcohol, allow standing and singing at Villa Park and allow the sty to be converted back to a gypsy caravan site, he gets my vote and all of my family's votes too! :D

I sure would do those things :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

The whole thing is phony, on several levels.

Firstly standing isn't in itself dangerous. The most likely time for standing to be dangerous is when a goal is scored and people leap about, and could fall and hurt themselves - but standing during "moments of excitement" is permitted. It's when there's now't happening that it's not allowed. Daft. From a safety perspective, you'd have to say standing during the quiet bits would be OK and during goals etc. would be not OK - but of course that's not going to happen.

Secondly, less people standing (3800 instead of 4500) isn't any more safe. Unless you talk about risk per person. But the risk per person of injury caused by standing is absolutely miniscule.

The premier league has the lowest incident rate of injuries (of all kinds) to spectators throughout the leagues.

For the prem the figures are


Total spectators treated for injuries 2007/08 - 789
Taken to hospital - 72
Attendance - 18,740,056

1 injury per 23,752

Total spectators treated for injuries 2008/09 - 655,
Taken to hospital - 39
Attendance - 18,514,438,
1 injury per 28,266[/code]

So - better than the previous year, and statistically there's a tiny risk of anyone getting hurt, let alone needing hospital treatment.

There breakdown of what the injuries were, or what caused them - hot coffee, falling on wet steps, illnesses, hit by the ball, food poisoning etc. is here (all divisions)

Picture1-4.jpg

It's clear that the FLA doesn't believe that standing in seated areas is actually the cause of many at all.

The FLA does many important things, some unimportant things and some things which seem to run counter to common sense.

The local councils are instructed to take steps where there is safe standing, and as a last resort to reduce allocations, where clubs/fans do not comply with the demand to not persistently stand.

The Premier league has commissioned its own report into the issue, but it hasn't reported yet.

To me it looks like it's going to be an ongoing cause for dispute between fans and clubs and councils. Fans will not sit down, and the FLA and councils will not stop doing what they do.

Maybe the way ticket prices are going and TV is moving so many games, the "problem" will just resolve itself in stalemate, because fans are being priced out and away attendances will be such that a reduced allocation with empty seats will occur anyway.

It would be nice if people did sit at least some of the time at away games, perhaps.

I feel that Clubs, including ours are content to go along with the regulations as they stand, but are not willing to try to take steps outside just following what they are told, to make representations on alternatives, or to listen to their supporters and act. Which, to me is a shame.

Because councils are different across the country, different Clubs get different treatment.

Fans want atmosphere, involvement and not to be treated as a permanent problem, Clubs just want our money, and the FLA (which is going to be disbanded) wants to keep themselves in jobs, and persistent standing is a way in which they can point to "you still need us" because it hasn't gone away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole thing is phony, on several levels.

Firstly standing isn't in itself dangerous. The most likely time for standing to be dangerous is when a goal is scored and people leap about, and could fall and hurt themselves - but standing during "moments of excitement" is permitted. It's when there's now't happening that it's not allowed. Daft. From a safety perspective, you'd have to say standing during the quiet bits would be OK and during goals etc. would be not OK - but of course that's not going to happen.

Secondly, less people standing (3800 instead of 4500) isn't any more safe. Unless you talk about risk per person. But the risk per person of injury caused by standing is absolutely miniscule.

The premier league has the lowest incident rate of injuries (of all kinds) to spectators throughout the leagues.

For the prem the figures are


Total spectators treated for injuries 2007/08 - 789

Taken to hospital - 72

Attendance - 18,740,056


1 injury per 23,752


Total spectators treated for injuries 2008/09 - 655,

Taken to hospital -  39

Attendance - 18,514,438,

1 injury per 28,266

So - better than the previous year, and statistically there's a tiny risk of anyone getting hurt, let alone needing hospital treatment.

There breakdown of what the injuries were, or what caused them - hot coffee, falling on wet steps, illnesses, hit by the ball, food poisoning etc. is here (all divisions)

Picture1-4.jpg

It's clear that the FLA doesn't believe that standing in seated areas is actually the cause of many at all.

The FLA does many important things, some unimportant things and some things which seem to run counter to common sense.

The local councils are instructed to take steps where there is safe standing, and as a last resort to reduce allocations, where clubs/fans do not comply with the demand to not persistently stand.

The Premier league has commissioned its own report into the issue, but it hasn't reported yet.

To me it looks like it's going to be an ongoing cause for dispute between fans and clubs and councils. Fans will not sit down, and the FLA and councils will not stop doing what they do.

Maybe the way ticket prices are going and TV is moving so many games, the "problem" will just resolve itself in stalemate, because fans are being priced out and away attendances will be such that a reduced allocation with empty seats will occur anyway.

It would be nice if people did sit at least some of the time at away games, perhaps.

I feel that Clubs, including ours are content to go along with the regulations as they stand, but are not willing to try to take steps outside just following what they are told, to make representations on alternatives, or to listen to their supporters and act. Which, to me is a shame.

Because councils are different across the country, different Clubs get different treatment.

Fans want atmosphere, involvement and not to be treated as a permanent problem, Clubs just want our money, and the FLA (which is going to be disbanded) wants to keep themselves in jobs, and persistent standing is a way in which they can point to "you still need us" because it hasn't gone away.

Great post.

Would you not be tempted to wack this in the General's thread for him to view as I get the feeling he doesn't quite grasp the issue. The more he says 'you were warned by us' the more i sense that our board might not be one of the unique ones that actually relate to the fans as I had first hoped.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I stand up a lot in varying situations, sometimes for hours on end. Sometimes I move. Sometimes I'm just standing there. It's never been an issue. H+S gone mad.

And as for the allocation. I'd rather eat my intestines than go to small heath.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole thing is phony, on several levels.

Firstly standing isn't in itself dangerous. The most likely time for standing to be dangerous is when a goal is scored and people leap about, and could fall and hurt themselves - but standing during "moments of excitement" is permitted. It's when there's now't happening that it's not allowed. Daft. From a safety perspective, you'd have to say standing during the quiet bits would be OK and during goals etc. would be not OK - but of course that's not going to happen.

Secondly, less people standing (3800 instead of 4500) isn't any more safe. Unless you talk about risk per person. But the risk per person of injury caused by standing is absolutely miniscule.

The premier league has the lowest incident rate of injuries (of all kinds) to spectators throughout the leagues.

For the prem the figures are


Total spectators treated for injuries 2007/08 - 789

Taken to hospital - 72

Attendance - 18,740,056


1 injury per 23,752


Total spectators treated for injuries 2008/09 - 655,

Taken to hospital -  39

Attendance - 18,514,438,

1 injury per 28,266

So - better than the previous year, and statistically there's a tiny risk of anyone getting hurt, let alone needing hospital treatment.

There breakdown of what the injuries were, or what caused them - hot coffee, falling on wet steps, illnesses, hit by the ball, food poisoning etc. is here (all divisions)

Picture1-4.jpg

It's clear that the FLA doesn't believe that standing in seated areas is actually the cause of many at all.

The FLA does many important things, some unimportant things and some things which seem to run counter to common sense.

The local councils are instructed to take steps where there is safe standing, and as a last resort to reduce allocations, where clubs/fans do not comply with the demand to not persistently stand.

The Premier league has commissioned its own report into the issue, but it hasn't reported yet.

To me it looks like it's going to be an ongoing cause for dispute between fans and clubs and councils. Fans will not sit down, and the FLA and councils will not stop doing what they do.

Maybe the way ticket prices are going and TV is moving so many games, the "problem" will just resolve itself in stalemate, because fans are being priced out and away attendances will be such that a reduced allocation with empty seats will occur anyway.

It would be nice if people did sit at least some of the time at away games, perhaps.

I feel that Clubs, including ours are content to go along with the regulations as they stand, but are not willing to try to take steps outside just following what they are told, to make representations on alternatives, or to listen to their supporters and act. Which, to me is a shame.

Because councils are different across the country, different Clubs get different treatment.

Fans want atmosphere, involvement and not to be treated as a permanent problem, Clubs just want our money, and the FLA (which is going to be disbanded) wants to keep themselves in jobs, and persistent standing is a way in which they can point to "you still need us" because it hasn't gone away.

Great post.

Would you not be tempted to wack this in the General's thread for him to view as I get the feeling he doesn't quite grasp the issue. The more he says 'you were warned by us' the more i sense that our board might not be one of the unique ones that actually relate to the fans as I had first hoped.

And that, my friend, is the crux of the problem. General Krulak does NOT understand this issue (despite being heavily involved with it) and when challenged on here by people who do have in-depth knowledge, he gets remarkably defensive and skips the question by ranting about absolutely nothing.

On the thread set up for him to answer questions and issues, I have asked him to respond fully to the below two posts, the first one in particular which clearly highlights the discrepancy in this situation.

Villan_avfc:

It's like your account has been hijacked by the FLA and they're reading us the party line.

on your first paragraph, why is it that known persistent standers are allowed to take 4200 to the sty (not us though, of course) yet when the same teams come to villa park they have the usual allocation of 2800 cut to 2300/2400. does that not show favouritism towards birmingham city football club?

secondly, it hasn't 'eventually' caused repercussions. we've had our allocations cut a number of times in the past so i'm not sure why you think that claiming you've written about persistent standing on numerous occassions means you've somehow enlightened us in this instance. this cut in numbers has just gained a lot more attention because of what match it is and the way in which the ruling seems to show some bias against our club; again, why is it that 4200 united, liverpool, chelsea, citeh, west ham fans can occupy the railway end whilst standing for ninety minutes yet it is deemed that only 3800 villa will be safe in that same end? it doesn't make sense, does it?

as for it not being worth discussion, in a recent poll, it was shown that 94.2% would like to see safe standing areas implemented in the UK. so clearly you shouldn't be so dismissive...these fans are the ones who put money into the club and it's a debate that rages on with the majority of football fans clearly backing the idea. pretty disgraceful response, that, from a club that prides itself on its interaction with the fans.

it's a simple, pointless, flawed regulation, general. the FLA quango isn't needed and hopefully the new coalition will see that. they're certainly looking into it as david cameron himself has talked about. and if you'd like to send me the ground regs i'll happily delete the part about standing in all seater stadia. hardly like 'trying to push a wet noodle up an incline'.

and no, it isn't a pipe dream. what are the threats that the council, its SAG, and the FLA can make? closure to a stand or part of a stand or revoking a club's safety certificate. for action such as this (or in deed any action) to be taken, they must prove in court that the action being taken is in proportion to the risks involved. there is not one single piece of evidence to suggest that seating is safer than standing and nobody has been seriously injured because they've been standing in a seated area. in the case of man united, it never even got that far. it's plain to see from the above that they'd have won the case and as such trafford borough council decided to back away from the situation.

that's the problem with people in this country, they don't know their rights and will go along with anything somebody in an official role tells them. most people are still under the impression that it is illegal to stand at a football match.

so i ask again, what is the club's stance on the possibility of safe standing areas in football grounds? would the club welcome them? would the club back them in a vote as the previous regime would have done? as i say, this is an answer i would like (and i'm sure many others would too) from the club, not a throw away comment from you about it not being worthy of discussion.

thanks.

And Terrytini:

Must echo the above General.

I work with Environmental Health Officers who have responsibility for safety at Sports Grounds, and they tell me they do NOT enforce the no standing rule in their Authority - so there are choices.

Edgbaston Cricket ground ? Persistent standing.

NIA/ NEC - persistent standing.

Old Trafford - persistent standing

All Champions League games - persistent standing.

I don't live in Birmingham, but I ask all who do to petition your local councillor to ask why, when all Services are under review, this has sufficient priority to be enforced. Their EH Service has just been drastically cut, so that little food enforcement and noise pollution can now get done - so why are they singling this out ?

We as a club should challenge it - what good to the fans is you having a good relationship with a load of councillors if this happens ?

And as it is a Tory/Lib Dem Authority they are under INSTRUCTIONS from Party HQ to 'listen to the community....

Before anyone else gets 'taken in' by our own director on this issue and helps to spread more uninformed views, Richard and briny_ear haven't got a clue what they are talking about. Not a clue.

As an aside, people who clearly do have an informed opinion on this issue such as blandy, I urge you to reiterate your above post on the Generals thread and demand answers to the points raised. The only way the crass unfairness of this situation is ever going to change is if people like Mr Krulak are challenged and forced to take note of the proper facts, instead of reeling off spin designed to hoodwink the majority of supporters.

When the General makes comments such as this:

As to whether we support a "standing" rule, that is such a moot point it isn't even worth discussing. Simply put, the rule has already been made, "tested" and it still remains. Changing it would be like trying to push a wet noodle up and incline!

I one hundred per cent know that there is a massive cover-up going on here which needs unearthing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...
Â