Welcome Notice

Hello and welcome to Molineux Mix a forum for Wolves fans by Wolves fans.

Register Log in

Balls Up In The South Bank

George AlooGobi

Has a lot to say
Joined
Dec 18, 2018
Messages
1,629
Reaction score
1,893
As I indicated above, jobsworth. Whilst I understand what's going on, a steward also has to read situations and act accordingly as you know.

What you don't do is rile up supporters and create inflammatory situations where none existed.

Is it not the supporters creating that situation by standing up in the first place?

Just playing devil's advocate - I find it ridiculous that clubs still aren't allowed to let supporters stand, but that's a different debate
 

sillytuna

Just doesn't shut up
Joined
Jul 12, 2016
Messages
5,062
Reaction score
9,267
I don't see how persistent defiance would make it any more acceptable to the club and stewards

It's not persistent defiance. It's the norm. It becomes defiance when the the stewards start asking to change it, and that creates a dangerous situation where one didn't exist before.

The entire point of the rules is to increase safety. Where enforcement of rules decreases safety, that's when something is wrong somewhere.

Hence my use of the word jobsworth (which could, as sheffwolf pointed out, be a problem higher up the chain but even so the steward could handle it better). A jobsworth enforces rules without consideration for the situation or intention of the rules.
 
B

BristolInPeace

Guest
It's not persistent defiance. It's the norm. It becomes defiance when the the stewards start asking to change it, and that creates a dangerous situation where one didn't exist before.

The entire point of the rules is to increase safety. Where enforcement of rules decreases safety, that's when something is wrong somewhere.

Hence my use of the word jobsworth (which could, as sheffwolf pointed out, be a problem higher up the chain but even so the steward could handle it better). A jobsworth enforces rules without consideration for the situation or intention of the rules.

I read this thread and especially the bit about persistent standing at the back of the stand with interest, as it appears the powers that be are clamping down this season nationally.

I find it quite possible that the steward is under orders from the chief steward, who is under orders from the Head of Security, who in turn is under orders from the SGSA (Sports Ground Safety Authority) or more likely, your local SAG (Safety Advisory Group).

I note that at Plymouth the top 2 rows have been taped off due to persistent standing requests not being taken seriously by fans at least pending relocation and solutions being found and at AG we are threatened with similar or at least those on the top rows standing have- find it more than likely that your local authority are pushing the club on it, as is increasingly happening atm- or more specifically, your local Safety Advisory Group will be the ones pushing the issue. Don't have the balls to come and speak with fans though, nope.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

WS10Wolf

MolMix Poster of the Season 2013-14
Joined
Aug 8, 2012
Messages
5,069
Reaction score
6,913
From the conversations I've had with Steve Sutton at focus groups and parliament meetings, the feeling I got was that something needed to be done, or at least, the club needed to be seeing doing something. Persistent standing is not allowed, so Wolves were left with two choices, either try and enforce sitting down in the South Bank (not going to work and I don't think the club even wanted to try), or provide something which should make standing 'safer', without being 'safe standing', I think even Steve found some of the wording in the official documentation unnecessarily confusing. I'd be really interested to know how people are finding it generally, I know there were issues for the Crusaders game.
 
B

BristolInPeace

Guest
From the conversations I've had with Steve Sutton at focus groups and parliament meetings, the feeling I got was that something needed to be done, or at least, the club needed to be seeing doing something. Persistent standing is not allowed, so Wolves were left with two choices, either try and enforce sitting down in the South Bank (not going to work and I don't think the club even wanted to try), or provide something which should make standing 'safer', without being 'safe standing', I think even Steve found some of the wording in the official documentation unnecessarily confusing. I'd be really interested to know how people are finding it generally, I know there were issues for the Crusaders game.

Out of interest, do your SAG not threaten things like capacity reductions/stand closures?

Or are these threats just bluffing/empty?
 

Macman

Just doesn't shut up
Joined
Jan 28, 2010
Messages
7,573
Reaction score
9,991
I guess it must be difficult in areas like the Steve Bull, where a steward might get fans who genuinely want to sit down at the game (they have every right to) complain to them as their view is impaired by those standing up. Hence, they have to get fans who stand up to sit back down. Then conflicts arise.

Saying that, I don't see a problem if fans on the very back row of a stand stand up as they are not impeding the view of anyone.
 

WS10Wolf

MolMix Poster of the Season 2013-14
Joined
Aug 8, 2012
Messages
5,069
Reaction score
6,913
Out of interest, do your SAG not threaten things like capacity reductions/stand closures?

Or are these threats just bluffing/empty?
My feeling is that these were been threatened by those above, and so our safety officers and stadium managers have stepped in and found a solution. The fact that the South Bank is not allowed to be termed 'safe standing' but can be called 'seating incorporating rails' shows you how fussy the whole thing is. I think reducing capacity would be the last thing Wolves would want to do, especially with how important to the atmosphere the South Bank is, but it was obviously something which could have happened had Wolves not done anything.
 
B

BristolInPeace

Guest
My feeling is that these were been threatened by those above, and so our safety officers and stadium managers have stepped in and found a solution. The fact that the South Bank is not allowed to be termed 'safe standing' but can be called 'seating incorporating rails' shows you how fussy the whole thing is. I think reducing capacity would be the last thing Wolves would want to do, especially with how important to the atmosphere the South Bank is, but it was obviously something which could have happened had Wolves not done anything.

We're not actually looking AFAIK to reduce capacity, believe it's imposed from above or might be imposed from above ie outside the club as a threat.

I'm surmising that different councils/SAGs have different tolerance levels?

However your solution seems an ideal one! Seems there are big differences nationally and locally though, our "safe standing" or "persistent standing" area appears to be between 1,000-1,500, whereas the South Bank is pretty big?
 
B

BristolInPeace

Guest
I guess it must be difficult in areas like the Steve Bull, where a steward might get fans who genuinely want to sit down at the game (they have every right to) complain to them as their view is impaired by those standing up. Hence, they have to get fans who stand up to sit back down. Then conflicts arise.

Saying that, I don't see a problem if fans on the very back row of a stand stand up as they are not impeding the view of anyone.

You and me both. Similar at our club- something to do with "rake/gradient" maybe. I dunno I saw a letter online whereby the club said that reductions in capacity maybe enforced if back rows don't sit.

Also there are signs at the back of the Dolman and South Stand warning that persistent standing isn't allowed and ejection is risked, as well as season ticket suspension.
 

1972 i began

Just doesn't shut up
Joined
Jul 22, 2012
Messages
12,928
Reaction score
12,048
Well I have had a rail for the last 2 games and they are the dogs nats.I can hold on to the rail and stretch me back if it's playin up,and to me that's a godsend.Much much safer than being without one.It's a no brainer,I just car see where the problem is.
 

Darbena

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2011
Messages
492
Reaction score
444
I guess it must be difficult in areas like the Steve Bull, where a steward might get fans who genuinely want to sit down at the game (they have every right to) complain to them as their view is impaired by those standing up. Hence, they have to get fans who stand up to sit back down. Then conflicts arise.

Saying that, I don't see a problem if fans on the very back row of a stand stand up as they are not impeding the view of anyone.
I have this problem in the Steve Bull, I can’t complain because I do stand more than I should, but every one stands in the rows behind so it’s not causing them an issue and it’s better than having knees in my back. But the guy in front of me is at least two foot taller than me so it’s fine when we are sitting down but if he stands I have to as well and I can’t see through his big bonce either so I have to find a gap to peak through and it can get a bit frustrating.
I’ve see the stewards getting irksome & trying to get people to sit this season and causing more agro than needed which results in the ‘if you love the wolves stand up’ chant then results in the rows in front standing up and remaining standing up where they were sitting and occasionally standing before so in my eyes it’s the stewards causing the issue in the Steve Bull.
Most people if their asked nicely will be considerate to those behind them, but people are going to stand when it gets exciting, I know I do. I don’t know what’s causing the stewards to act in the way they are but if you just tell someone politely that you can’t see through them they generally are pretty apologetic and will be considerate I do hope people are big enough to do this first before running and telling tales to the stewards.
 
B

BristolInPeace

Guest
I have this problem in the Steve Bull, I can’t complain because I do stand more than I should, but every one stands in the rows behind so it’s not causing them an issue and it’s better than having knees in my back. But the guy in front of me is at least two foot taller than me so it’s fine when we are sitting down but if he stands I have to as well and I can’t see through his big bonce either so I have to find a gap to peak through and it can get a bit frustrating.
I’ve see the stewards getting irksome & trying to get people to sit this season and causing more agro than needed which results in the ‘if you love the wolves stand up’ chant then results in the rows in front standing up and remaining standing up where they were sitting and occasionally standing before so in my eyes it’s the stewards causing the issue in the Steve Bull.
Most people if their asked nicely will be considerate to those behind them, but people are going to stand when it gets exciting, I know I do. I don’t know what’s causing the stewards to act in the way they are but if you just tell someone politely that you can’t see through them they generally are pretty apologetic and will be considerate I do hope people are big enough to do this first before running and telling tales to the stewards.

May well be the, mainly in reply to the bolded bits, your local council/Safety Advisory Group telling the club to get it sorted, otherwise threats of capacity reduction etc.

IF your local council/SAG are like ours I'd expect emails out to those persistently standing at the back, unfortunately.

If it's a national regulation then it wouldn't be so surprising.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

TooMutchBull

Senior Member
Joined
May 22, 2015
Messages
580
Reaction score
1,300
I'm in J10 and stand as long as there aren't kids or new people who don't fancy standing behind me.
I feel for the stewards since they're only following orders and they themselves can see what a charade it is. They seem to return with progressively bigger stewards in order to intimidate us though which is pathetic.
Ironically them walking up and down the stairs obstructs my view more than the outhouse in front of me.
We need to be treated like adults and behave like adults.
 
L

Lincoln-WOLF

Guest
This absolutely riles me.
We have a stand that stand, everyone knows it, it's been that way for years and years.
These safety advisory groups need to **** off. Why should they decide what happens in that stand. If there are complaints, the club could deal with it. But there are not!
Has anyone actually been hurt by persistently standing up?
 

Dudleywolf

Just doesn't shut up
Joined
Jan 16, 2014
Messages
3,709
Reaction score
2,636
Having just read this thread for the first time, it reminds me of when we played Stoke City, in early November 1997 at the newly built Brittania stadium. Wolves were the first team to sell out the away stand. I reproduce the letter that I sent to Mr M J Potts Secretary of Stoke City FC on 9th November 1997:-

Dear Sir,
As a visiting Supporter to your new stadium on Saturday 8th November, I was dismayed at the chaos that ensued amongst your stewards whilst we attempted to take our seats prior to the match commencing. I say attempted to take our seats, because as you can see from the tickets I have enclosed, they are for rows 37 and 38 which I soon discovered do not actually exist as your seating ends at row 35 !
When assistance was requested from a steward, hurried conversations were held on her mobile phone and we were taken to other stewards inside the building. After several minutes, by which time the game had commenced, we had various advice, such as "sit in any seats you can find" not to clever in an all-ticket sell-out situation and "stand in the disabled platform area" which I assume was against your ground rules!
Finally, after missing about 15-20 minutes of the game, we were escorted around the pitch into an empty section of the stoke supporters side of the ground.
On behalf of myself and my two fellow supporters (tickets enclosed) I am requesting a full refund of £14 admission fee each, for the incompetence and confusion we encountered and also for the intimidating seating arrangements to which we were finally subjected. Surrounded as we were by about 50 police and stewards as if it were our fault we were there.
Your comments on the matter would be appreciated.

Yours Faithfully.
DQ

In the express & star a number of complaints had been registered as it involved a couple of hundred, the E&S spoke to this Potts bloke and he said no refunds would be forthcoming, I sent this letter and we got our money back in full ! I remember "lads" volunteering to join us to sit next to the stoke fans ! we lost quite heavily as I recall.
Quite a similar situation ?
 

JadeWolf

Official Noddy pre match thread starter.
Joined
Aug 16, 2017
Messages
28,224
Reaction score
57,790
Well I have had a rail for the last 2 games and they are the dogs nats.I can hold on to the rail and stretch me back if it's playin up,and to me that's a godsend.Much much safer than being without one.It's a no brainer,I just car see where the problem is.
That’s good, wonder if they’ll eventually get it in all stands, would help my dad out massively with his back and spine.
 
W

wolvesultra

Guest
That’s good, wonder if they’ll eventually get it in all stands, would help my dad out massively with his back and spine.
Doubtful, it’s basically safe standing but they can’t be seen to say it is. We won’t have safe standing in all stands even when it’s legally allowed.
 

Sammy Chungs Tracksuit

Just doesn't shut up
Joined
Feb 20, 2013
Messages
3,254
Reaction score
3,193
I read this thread and especially the bit about persistent standing at the back of the stand with interest, as it appears the powers that be are clamping down this season nationally.

I find it quite possible that the steward is under orders from the chief steward, who is under orders from the Head of Security, who in turn is under orders from the SGSA (Sports Ground Safety Authority) or more likely, your local SAG (Safety Advisory Group).

I note that at Plymouth the top 2 rows have been taped off due to persistent standing not being taken seriously by fans at least pending relocation and solutions being found and at AG we are threatened with similar or at least those on the top rows standing have- find it more than likely that your local authority are pushing the club on it, as is increasingly happening atm- or more specifically, your local Safety Advisory Group will be the ones pushing the issue. Don't have the balls to come and speak with fans though, nope.

About 10 years ago there were quite a few problems in the South Bank with stewards trying to force fans to sit down after they had got used to standing up. There were threats of Season Ticket smart cards being disabled for persistent standers and capacity reductions. There were endless threads on this forum about it.

The Safety Advisory Group consists of Health & Safety jobsworths from the council, plus police and people from the club etc. They made a lot of empty threats about their powers to reduce capacity but obviously an actual capacity reduction in a ground or a stand that is often full would have caused serious waves which IMO these jobsworths shy away from. I'd guess its different at Plymouth where their ground is rarely full so they can flex their muscles a bit without causing major ripples. Minutes of their very boring SAG meetings used to be published online by Wolverhampton council.

Anyway what happened at Wolves about 9 or 10 years ago was it all went very quiet as though they finally accepted that trying to enforce the ban in the South Bank was actually more dangerous than standing itself as it was causing arguments with stewards. It also coincided with big council financial cutbacks so maybe the jobsworths at the council suddenly had better things to do with their time. If it becomes a massive problem at your club then I'd just recommend encouraging fans who are ****ed off about it to lobby their local councillors. There are local elections 3 years out of 4 I think and voting turnouts are low so most years a council can change hands and a coordinated effort by just a few fans to lean on councillors to lean on their SAG council reps is well worth a go IMO.
 
Back
Top Bottom