Standing in North Stand Lower - email from club

[Zlatan]

I take your point fishy but the club are partly responsible for the situation by turning a blind eye for well over 10 years.The rules against persistent standing were there all along.

I get that, but it still doesn’t make it right.

There’s a 30mph road alongside my housing estate, people have always done well over 30 in fact upwards of 40+mph down this straight stretch of road. Thing is, those bloody authorities have only just recently put in an average speed check which has everyone in uproar over it. I mean who’s have thought doing something to uphold the law would cause such a fuss…

…just do 30 and all will be well and be grateful you weren’t caught before.

…just sit down and all will be well and be grateful you’ve been able to stand until now.

[pushpinpussy]

Small minded people rarely have opinions, just a series of excuses and grievances.

[Mattster]

I get that, but it still doesn’t make it right.

There’s a 30mph road alongside my housing estate, people have always done well over 30 in fact upwards of 40+mph down this straight stretch of road. Thing is, those bloody authorities have only just recently put in an average speed check which has everyone in uproar over it. I mean who’s have thought doing something to uphold the law would cause such a fuss…

…just do 30 and all will be well and be grateful you weren’t caught before.

…just sit down and all will be well and be grateful you’ve been able to stand until now.

That's a really bad analogy.

A better one would be a road, that would usually be 30mph, being agreed between local council and residents to be 40mph.

Then, after years, the council changing the 40mph road to a 30mph one. Only informing local residents of the change via a single email (not knowing whether this is account is currently in use or whether the email it would get through junk filters) a few days before putting up a speed camera.

And only then, once the first fines have been handed out, making any kind of public notice of the speed change. Telling residents they could have moved house to somewhere with a 40mph limit had they asked when there were still some for sale down the road, except they're all sold now.

[AGENT_CLARET]

https://youtu.be/zPNw_2h0CnU

[Somethingfishy]

That's a really bad analogy.

A better one would be a road, that would usually be 30mph, being agreed between local council and residents to be 40mph.

Then, after years, the council changing the 40mph road to a 30mph one. Only informing local residents of the change via a single email (not knowing whether this is account is currently in use or whether the email it would get through junk filters) a few days before putting up a speed camera.

And only then, once the first fines have been handed out, making any kind of public notice of the speed change. Telling residents they could have moved house to somewhere with a 40mph limit had they asked when there were still some for sale down the road, except they're all sold now.

Except there has never been an allowance to stand in the JHL. Where have you got that notion from? They have let you off..with the odd reminders no doubt from the stewards. They are guilty of being too lenient with you for too long.
The analogy is spot on. You've been getting away with flouting the rules for so long you now think you are hard done to when they begin to enforce it.

You're not.

[Mattster]

Except there has never been an allowance to stand in the JHL. Where have you got that notion from? They have let you off..with the odd reminders no doubt from the stewards. They are guilty of being too lenient with you for too long.
The analogy is spot on. You've been getting away with flouting the rules for so long you now think you are hard done to when they begin to enforce it.

You're not.

The same arrangements that the club claims, in their statement on Thursday, are now in place in the CFS to facilitate standing (as allowed by the SGSA) were originally in place in JHL Blocks 2 and 3 following dialogue between the club and fans.

So, yes, there was allowed standing in those blocks the same way it is now allowed in the CFS.

Which was posted by CT and others earlier in this thread. So either you've not read the whole thread to ascertain the facts of the situation before posting with absolute certainty that standing has never been allowed in those blocks. Or you can't read. Which is it?

[Middle-agedClaret]

The same arrangements that the club claims, in their statement on Thursday, are now in place in the CFS to facilitate standing (as allowed by the SGSA) were originally in place in JHL Blocks 2 and 3 following dialogue between the club and fans.

So, yes, there was allowed standing in those blocks the same way it is now allowed in the CFS.

Which was posted by CT and others earlier in this thread. So either you've not read the whole thread to ascertain the facts of the situation before posting with absolute certainty that standing has never been allowed in those blocks. Or you can't read. Which is it?

Whatever “arrangements” are in place do not override the law. There’s a useful summary on the FSA site:

Standing in seated areas, is, however, contrary to ground regulations. For example, the Football League’s model set of ground regulations states: ‘Nobody may stand in any seating area whilst play is in progress. Persistent standing in seated areas whilst play is in progress is strictly forbidden and may result in ejection from the ground’

CRIMINAL AND CIVIL LAW
There are two types of law, criminal law and civil law.
Criminal laws are offences against the state (‘illegal acts’), such as smoking in enclosed public places. Police may become involved with enforcing criminal laws.
Civil laws are contracts between two parties, such as agreements to purchase home insurance.
The ground regulations of a club (including the ban on persistent standing) form a contract between the supporter and the club. Entering the stadium is a tacit agreement to accept the ground regulations.
By standing, the supporter is in breach of that contract. This is a civil, not a criminal matter.
Therefore, a supporter cannot be arrested simply for standing. For that reason, it is not a matter that the police should be involved in, unless (for example) a supporter assaults a steward asking to get people to sit down; that would be a criminal offence.


The club - indeed, any club - may not allow persistent standing. If they did so previously, they were wrong.

[Leisure]

Whatever “arrangements” are in place do not override the law. There’s a useful summary on the FSA site:

Standing in seated areas, is, however, contrary to ground regulations. For example, the Football League’s model set of ground regulations states: ‘Nobody may stand in any seating area whilst play is in progress. Persistent standing in seated areas whilst play is in progress is strictly forbidden and may result in ejection from the ground’

CRIMINAL AND CIVIL LAW
There are two types of law, criminal law and civil law.
Criminal laws are offences against the state (‘illegal acts’), such as smoking in enclosed public places. Police may become involved with enforcing criminal laws.
Civil laws are contracts between two parties, such as agreements to purchase home insurance.
The ground regulations of a club (including the ban on persistent standing) form a contract between the supporter and the club. Entering the stadium is a tacit agreement to accept the ground regulations.
By standing, the supporter is in breach of that contract. This is a civil, not a criminal matter.
Therefore, a supporter cannot be arrested simply for standing. For that reason, it is not a matter that the police should be involved in, unless (for example) a supporter assaults a steward asking to get people to sit down; that would be a criminal offence.


The club - indeed, any club - may not allow persistent standing. If they did so previously, they were wrong.

If that's the case, why is it allowed in the CFS?

[Middle-agedClaret]

Leisure
This is all very circular.
I may have missed it, although I have read every post on this thread, but I do not remember seeing any official statement from BFC sanctioning persistent standing in the CFS. Happy to be corrected.

[KRBFC]

People have stood in that area for years and years, those people were standing before Alan Pace knew what BFC was. He should think carefully before treating fans like shite, go re-invest some money on the team you chancer.

[Leisure]

Leisure
This is all very circular.
I may have missed it, although I have read every post on this thread, but I do not remember seeing any official statement from BFC sanctioning persistent standing in the CFS. Happy to be corrected.

May be not but everybody stands in there and nobody gets banned for it.

[dougcollins]

I've been sat in the JHL since the day it opened. What happened was a gradual drift of like minded people into that block, and the then ground management realised it was advantageous, for both the standers and sitters, to accommodate this arrangement.

I suspect they consider it no longer advantageous following complaints from the Corporates behind.

Just out of interest, I'm a sitter in the opposite end of the stand.

[Bin Ont Turf]

I've been sat in the JHL since the day it opened. What happened was a gradual drift of like minded people into that block, and the then ground management realised it was advantageous, for both the standers and sitters, to accommodate this arrangement.

I suspect they consider it no longer advantageous following complaints from the Corporates behind.

Just out of interest, I'm a sitter in the opposite end of the stand.

And a lot of the time from my experience, those corporates behind are often away fans in that particular box.

[dougcollins]

And a lot of the time from my experience, those corporates behind are often away fans in that particular box.

So I've heard.

[Burnley Ace]

And a lot of the time from my experience, those corporates behind are often away fans in that particular box.

First box is players family, second box was for Dyche and the third box was (I think) Aircell. Perhaps the guests they invited were often fans of the away team?

[brexit]

At some point you Muppets standing in the JHL will realise that those of us in the corporate boxes keep the club solvent. The income from corporate boxes is in danger if our clients can't see the game.
Season ticket owners don't own the club you are paying a reduced price for an entertaining afternoon out
Get it into your thick skulls you are a consumer of a product that you have no influence over.
Sit down shut up or wander down to your local park and watch pub football, vape and take your well hard dog for a walk

[Gaia]

It is looking like the corporate. Issue is the real reason for the clampdown. No other club seems to be clamping down and we aren't the only club in Lancashire where persistent standing occurs. If it was the authorities clamping down it would be happening at other clubs.

[gandhisflipflop]

At some point you Muppets standing in the JHL will realise that those of us in the corporate boxes keep the club solvent. The income from corporate boxes is in danger if our clients can't see the game.
Season ticket owners don't own the club you are paying a reduced price for an entertaining afternoon out
Get it into your thick skulls you are a consumer of a product that you have no influence over.
Sit down shut up or wander down to your local park and watch pub football, vape and take your well hard dog for a walk

I’m alright Jack.


******

[MrTopTier]

At some point you Muppets standing in the JHL will realise that those of us in the corporate boxes keep the club solvent. The income from corporate boxes is in danger if our clients can't see the game.
Season ticket owners don't own the club you are paying a reduced price for an entertaining afternoon out
Get it into your thick skulls you are a consumer of a product that you have no influence over.
Sit down shut up or wander down to your local park and watch pub football, vape and take your well hard dog for a walk

Ha ha post of the week for me, haven’t laughed so much for ages. #standonthelongside

[Burnley Ace]

These are the people that want to stand.

https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMNnvARRs/

[gawthorpe_view]

I'm not sure of the exact amounts but weren't the JHS boxes sold for £500,000 each for a 10-year term recently?
10 seats per box, so £5,000 per seat, per season?

[IanMcL]

Nowadays, football is a sit down job.

It is for safety reasons.

It is evident that some in the CFS are not there just to sing.

Standing permits rapid movement, usually towards opposition fans.

If you are there to watch the football, then sitting offers a good view for all. Standing in a seated stand is a real spoiler, as the depths as set for sitting, not standing.

At away matches, I get to miss large chunks of play, instead of being able to sit and see.

[Mattster]

Leisure
This is all very circular.
I may have missed it, although I have read every post on this thread, but I do not remember seeing any official statement from BFC sanctioning persistent standing in the CFS. Happy to be corrected.

Consider yourself corrected.

Screenshot_20220821-115620_Samsung Internet.jpg (452.66 KiB) Viewed 2217 times

[Gaia]

There's a petition for safe standing at Burnley on change.org
https://www.change.org/p/for-safe-stand ... burnley-fc

[Rileybobs]

I’m alright Jack.


******

I’m not sure you can see the irony when you keep using this phrase.

[Gaia]

There's a campaign on twitter too
#standonthelongside.

[gandhisflipflop]

I’m not sure you can see the irony when you keep using this phrase.

Call it what you want. Those that are whinging about fans whinging aren’t affected, and they wouldn’t but tickets in the affected section because they know people stand.

[Middle-agedClaret]

Consider yourself corrected.

Screenshot_20220821-115620_Samsung Internet.jpg

Thank you for your helpful contribution.
Mmmmm…..BFC say they allow “ standing for longer periods of the game”
That’s quite specific.
Doesn’t seem to cover standing throughout the game - what might be seen as “ persistent standing “
Still haven’t seen anything from BFC allowing this.

[Mattster]

Thank you for your helpful contribution.
Mmmmm…..BFC say they allow “ standing for longer periods of the game”
That’s quite specific.
Doesn’t seem to cover standing throughout the game - what might be seen as “ persistent standing “
Still haven’t seen anything from BFC allowing this.

The statement it's taken from defines "persistent standing" earlier. By saying "standing for longer periods" it clearly means standing for longer than would be deemed "persistent standing".

[Middle-agedClaret]

Well, Mattser you’ve got me there,
If you’re correct, and the document from which you’ve quoted makes clear that “standing for longer periods” covers a longer duration than “persistent standing” then BFC are being remarkably inconsistent.
I am a simple person, who is still struggling to understand how any real duration of standing is allowed in an all - seater stadium.
UTC.

[brexit]

I’m alright Jack.


******

Yes, you are alright because the corporate revenue keeps season ticket prices reasonable.
We are petitioning Mr Pace to ensure the JHL lower season tickets will only be available to anyone under 1.3 metres in height, unfortunately this means it will be populated by residents of the Padiham unwashed who are known for their height recidivism due to inappropriate inbreeding

[brexit]

I'm not sure of the exact amounts but weren't the JHS boxes sold for £500,000 each for a 10-year term recently?
10 seats per box, so £5,000 per seat, per season?

mine cost £45000 for the season with 10 seats one year deal

[gandhisflipflop]

Yes, you are alright because the corporate revenue keeps season ticket prices reasonable.
We are petitioning Mr Pace to ensure the JHL lower season tickets will only be available to anyone under 1.3 metres in height, unfortunately this means it will be populated by residents of the Padiham unwashed who are known for their height recidivism due to inappropriate inbreeding

Don’t talk utter ********. You the corporates have nothing to do with season ticket pricing, you are just a bigger cash cow for the club.

[Duffer_]

I'm not sure if SGSA is subject to The Freedom Of Information Act 2000 but I'll find out soon enough having submitted a FOI request concerning standing at Turf Moor. I'll share any responses on this thread.

This is the holding response I received from SGSA today. Will share more when I get it.

Screenshot_20220915-185300_Yahoo Mail.jpg (308.83 KiB) Viewed 1755 times

Here is a redacted version of my original enquiry:

20220915_190041.jpg (370.22 KiB) Viewed 1755 times

[Rileybobs]

I’m surprised the Washington Post haven’t picked up on this.

[elwaclaret]

Thank you for your helpful contribution.
Mmmmm…..BFC say they allow “ standing for longer periods of the game”
That’s quite specific.
Doesn’t seem to cover standing throughout the game - what might be seen as “ persistent standing “
Still haven’t seen anything from BFC allowing this.

Was not going to get involved in this… but I did wonder if anyone had spotted ‘the proof’ given was non-existent.

[Duffer_]

I’m surprised the Washington Post haven’t picked up on this.

Does that make me Deep Throat? Don't answer that!

[dsr]

This is the holding response I received from SGSA today. Will share more when I get it.

So if you get the SGSA to take action, and the only possible action they could take would be to enforce the law as it stands, will you rate that a success? Because if you think the SGSA is going to say "carry on Burnley, we approve your plans for allowing illegal standing in parts of the ground" then you are going to have to think again.

[Duffer_]

So if you get the SGSA to take action, and the only possible action they could take would be to enforce the law as it stands, will you rate that a success? Because if you think the SGSA is going to say "carry on Burnley, we approve your plans for allowing illegal standing in parts of the ground" then you are going to have to think again.

I'm not asking for them to take any action, except disclosing their correspondence with BFC but we've already had this conversation dsr. Your fears of stricter enforcement in the CFS are unfounded. The "worst" that will happen is the installation of rail seating, which I for one would welcome in areas of persistent standing.

...the SGSA recognise that standing happens and encourage it to be managed, notably in areas of lower risk (lower tier and gradient of less than 25 degrees) and, if all else fails, through rail seating.

"Additionally, the document outlines what further action can be taken by ground management to manage residual safety risks for those spectators who still choose to stand in seated areas. These include:

Limiting persistent standing to areas where the safety risks are lower;

Recognising particular triggers associated with persistent standing and addressing them in the development and implementation of up to date and fit for purpose persistent standing management plans;

Installing seats with barriers or independent rails where persistent standing continues to take place, in line with guidance of the Guide to Safety at Sports Grounds (Green Guide), although only once all other measures have been tried"

[Quickenthetempo]

I think it would be very hard for a health and safety guy to prove it's dangerous to stand at football matches, if the current laws/ground regulations come under scrutiny.

There are thousands of fans standing every week in areas not designed to. Without any serious incidents. Even 2/3 to one seat in areas at away games.

There was plenty of reasons for banning standing, but safety was the easiest route for them to take.

[Mattster]

Update to this. The row second from the back in Block 3 was entirely covered (back row has been covered all season), much to the surprise of season ticket holders on that row. No stewards about explaining it to those fans as they arrived they just found gaps in the rows in front. Ones I spoke to hadn't received any communication from the club ahead of the match.

I spoke to a steward on the concourse at half time who said the club have chosen to cover it for 2 games as fans in that row had been standing. He said fans had been given complimentary tickets elsewhere, though that was news to the fans affected.

[Quickenthetempo]

The Athletic ran a story last night on it.

[Duffer_]

Hmm...I wonder what it is about those 2 back rows that makes standing in them particularly concerning from a health and safety perspective?

[basil6345789]

Hmm...I wonder what it is about those 2 back rows that makes standing in them particularly concerning from a health and safety perspective?

Don't think just that. All the legislation came in as a "package of safe practice" following Hillsborough.

[Loyalclaret]

From where we stand in the Cricketfield end, it looked like the whole of first 2 or 3 blocks were endangering themselves by standing yesterday.

[Duffer_]

This statement was made on 18 August:

"Burnley Football Club can confirm in recent weeks we have been in communication with a number of season ticket holders regarding persistent standing in the North Stand Lower at Turf Moor. By ‘persistent’ the Club means when individuals in seated areas stand for prolonged periods of time other than for short durations in periods of play where it could be deemed unnatural to remain seated.

The Club have sent correspondence reminding several identified supporters to remain seated in their designated seat, except for the times mentioned above, as persistent standing not only obstructs other people’s views and spoils their enjoyment but is a safety issue and breach of ground regulations that are stated when fans purchase a ticket to a game at Turf Moor. This has been reinforced via the match days stewarding team.


As a football club, Burnley FC work under a safety certificate, issued by Lancashire County Council and the Sports Grounds Safety Authority has been in communication with the Club asking us to intervene on the matter surrounding persistent standing before they take further action.

In accordance with Section 10 of the Football Spectators Act 1989 Act, the Sports Grounds Safety Authority remains responsible for issuing and ensuring compliance with licences to admit spectators to sports grounds to watch designated football matches, on such terms and conditions as it considers appropriate."

Under a Freedom of Information request covering the subject of standing at Turf Moor in the period 1 July to 18 August 2022, the SGSA provided the following single document. It is redacted in part under s40(2) covering third parties' personal data.

It is by no means conclusive but I would have expected significantly more correspondence if there were threats of further action.

Screenshot_20220929-191659_Yahoo Mail.jpg (642.34 KiB) Viewed 850 times

Screenshot_20220929-191719_Yahoo Mail.jpg (594.58 KiB) Viewed 850 times

Screenshot_20220929-172517_Print Spooler.jpg (34.46 KiB) Viewed 850 times