How can we create a Kop end?

[The9]

Aye, but Ipswich only really had one song if you discount their player songs and the annoying spelling out of IPSWICH..

 

Maybe we could do that at SMS, S-S, O-O, U-U, T-T etc. etc. maybe not....

 

We've pretty much only stopped doing that altogether in the past 5 years, the accelerated P-T-O-N was always a bit weird, but probably necessary.

[Wes Tender]

The wailing and gnashing of teeth of those theoretical 'plastic' Man U fans won't match the grizzling and whining from you about our perfectly reasonable and fair allocation for Old Trafford.

 

And, what a surprise, your solution to this "patently unjust" problem is something that has no impact whatsoever on SFC but a significant impact on other clubs and their supporters, whose home fans it turns out have less of a right to go to games than away fans. That's nice and fair then.

 

But hey, fuc k them. Clubs should be punished for daring to have bigger grounds.

 

No impact on Southampton? So Arsenal can have 10% of our capacity, but we can only have 5% of theirs. Chelsea can have 10% of ours, but we can only have 7% of theirs?

 

But what did I expect from you anyway? To recognise that it was only just that there be a level playing field whereby every team could have 90% of the stadium for their own fans and that the rival team could have the other 10%?

 

Where did you get the notion that home fans would have less of a right to go to matches than the away fans? As it stands, the fans of smaller clubs have less rights than those of the bigger clubs, as per the illustration I have given.

 

As you say, fuc k those big clubs and their unfair advantage they are given by the football authorities.

[CB Fry]

No impact on Southampton? So Arsenal can have 10% of our capacity, but we can only have 5% of theirs. Chelsea can have 10% of ours, but we can only have 7% of theirs?

 

But what did I expect from you anyway? To recognise that it was only just that there be a level playing field whereby every team could have 90% of the stadium for their own fans and that the rival team could have the other 10%?

 

Where did you get the notion that home fans would have less of a right to go to matches than the away fans? As it stands, the fans of smaller clubs have less rights than those of the bigger clubs, as per the illustration I have given.

 

As you say, fuc k those big clubs and their unfair advantage they are given by the football authorities.

 

We don't need or deserve 10% of all stadiums. We still have tickets on sale for Old Trafford so let's safely assume we won't sell 7/8,000.

 

An allocation of 3,000 is perfectly fair.

 

As for rights you're the one bleating about 4,000 theoretical Liverpool/Arsenal fans who can't go to Old Trafford but I still don't understand why those people have more of a right to go than the 4,000 United fans (some Season ticket holders) already in those seats.

 

 

Clubs don't expand stadiums for the benefit of effing away supporters.

 

Bigger clubs having more supporters and bigger grounds is not an "unfair advantage", it's a perfectly fair advantage.

 

If we want a bigger ground, we need to get more fans and then build a bigger stadium - you've told me so often about our huge catchment area, and the fans that will flock to us once we're challenging for Europe so only a matter of time before your predicted expansion takes place, ain't it?

 

And no, your "solution" doesn't impact SFC because they don't need to change anything, but, how convenient, other clubs do have to change things that would directly impact their own supporter base. How "fair".

Edited 8 January, 2015 by CB Fry

[Turkish]

No impact on Southampton? So Arsenal can have 10% of our capacity, but we can only have 5% of theirs. Chelsea can have 10% of ours, but we can only have 7% of theirs?

 

But what did I expect from you anyway? To recognise that it was only just that there be a level playing field whereby every team could have 90% of the stadium for their own fans and that the rival team could have the other 10%?

 

Where did you get the notion that home fans would have less of a right to go to matches than the away fans? As it stands, the fans of smaller clubs have less rights than those of the bigger clubs, as per the illustration I have given.

 

As you say, fuc k those big clubs and their unfair advantage they are given by the football authorities.

 

There is a level playing field, every team can have 3,000 away tickets or 10% of the capacity if the ground is smaller at every ground for every premier league ground if they can sell them. Just because you don't like and have *****ed and moaned that it's so unfair it doesn't make it unfair.

Edited 8 January, 2015 by Turkish

[Turkish]

No impact on Southampton? So Arsenal can have 10% of our capacity, but we can only have 5% of theirs. Chelsea can have 10% of ours, but we can only have 7% of theirs?

 

But what did I expect from you anyway? To recognise that it was only just that there be a level playing field whereby every team could have 90% of the stadium for their own fans and that the rival team could have the other 10%?

 

Where did you get the notion that home fans would have less of a right to go to matches than the away fans? As it stands, the fans of smaller clubs have less rights than those of the bigger clubs, as per the illustration I have given.

 

As you say, fuc k those big clubs and their unfair advantage they are given by the football authorities.

 

You can see why I've got him on ignore can't you fry. If I have someone on ignore then quoting them should be able to be seen anyway so don't quote that idiot.

 

 

But to answer him Why should southampton be given 8000 away tickets when Man United only get ground when we will only give them 3000 of ours? They'll only fill it with plastics who just want to see old Trafford. That unfair, it's not Man Uniteds away supports fault they've for a bigger ground than southampton. It's disgusting. Why do southampton get that unfair advantage? Something needs to be done by the football authorities it's a disgrace.

Edited 8 January, 2015 by Turkish

[OldNick]

I see the club on twitter today saying tickets on general sale for the United trip.

 

But yeah, we desperately need a 10% allocation of 8,000 seats at Old Trafford.

So patently unjust.

Iam surprised that we have not sold our full allocation. Normally you can't get tickets for Man U away.

[Wes Tender]

We don't need or deserve 10% of all stadiums. We still have tickets on sale for Old Trafford so let's safely assume we won't sell 7/8,000.

 

An allocation of 3,000 is perfectly fair.

 

As for rights you're the one bleating about 4,000 theoretical Liverpool/Arsenal fans who can't go to Old Trafford but I still don't understand why those people have more of a right to go than the 4,000 United fans (some Season ticket holders) already in those seats.

 

 

Clubs don't expand stadiums for the benefit of effing away supporters.

 

Bigger clubs having more supporters and bigger grounds is not an "unfair advantage", it's a perfectly fair advantage.

 

If we want a bigger ground, we need to get more fans and then build a bigger stadium - you've told me so often about our huge catchment area, and the fans that will flock to us once we're challenging for Europe so only a matter of time before your predicted expansion takes place, ain't it?

 

And no, your "solution" doesn't impact SFC because they don't need to change anything, but, how convenient, other clubs do have to change things that would directly impact their own supporter base. How "fair".

 

Huff and puff as much as you like to avoid the main issue, as usual. Which is that it is unfair that there is a cap of 3000 on the percentage number of away fans that can attend a stadium which gives an advantage to the bigger clubs, because they will have a lower percentage of away fans in their stadium than they will have as a percentage on the return fixture.

 

If you can't see that, then I really can't be arsed to argue the toss with you.

[stevegrant]

Iam surprised that we have not sold our full allocation. Normally you can't get tickets for Man U away.

Sunday late afternoon on TV, £46 tickets, shortly after a busy Christmas schedule which will have stretched wallets, there are a whole host of reasons.

[Sour Mash]

Iam surprised that we have not sold our full allocation. Normally you can't get tickets for Man U away.

I think last year only just sold out the day before the game, if at all and the year before that we only sold out about half the away end, no surprise really.

[SaintNeil90]

We don't need a Kop. The so called 'Kops' I have seen/heard in the North are silent.

 

Southampton fans love to be next to the away fans, why do you think everyone got tickets there in the first place?!

[The9]

Huff and puff as much as you like to avoid the main issue, as usual. Which is that it is unfair that there is a cap of 3000 on the percentage number of away fans that can attend a stadium which gives an advantage to the bigger clubs, because they will have a lower percentage of away fans in their stadium than they will have as a percentage on the return fixture.

 

If you can't see that, then I really can't be arsed to argue the toss with you.

 

It's a bloody good job they don't do allocations based on global fanbase, then. Because I'm not sure our allocation at Old Trafford would be much compared to Man U's 37,600,000 estimated worldwide fans (2008 figures: http://www.iese.edu/en/files/S.Kuper_tcm4-40591.pdf).

 

I'm still not sure what you think is unfair about clubs letting lots more home fans in, when most of the away sections are about right and we're not even selling out the section we have been offered.

[Sour Mash]

Apart from Arsenal away in the league, have we taken and filled the full allocation at an away game so far this season?

[stevegrant]

Apart from Arsenal away in the league, have we taken and filled the full allocation at an away game so far this season?

Palace is the only other one, I think.

[Sour Mash]

Palace is the only other one, I think.

I don't think it ever quite sold out? I might have missed the announcement from the club though.

[Griffo]

Palace is the only other one, I think.

 

Palace is the only other one, there were still a handful of restricted view tickets available. Swansea, Liverpool and West Ham were all "sold out" but only as the club took reduced allocations.

[Bartosz Bialkowski]

They've taken a reduced allocation for QPR too.

 

I dont get why, they wont even make general sale

[Big Bad Bob]

They've taken a reduced allocation for QPR too.

 

I dont get why, they wont even make general sale

 

Because they'd rather take and sell a reduced allocation than take the full allocation and not sell them all.

 

I believe, and I may be wrong, that SFC have to purchase the tickets in the first place and they're not sale or return. So if we don't sell our full allocation SFC will be out of pocket..

[stevegrant]

They've taken a reduced allocation for QPR too.

 

I dont get why, they wont even make general sale

No we haven't, QPR are only giving away teams the upper tier, has been the case since after the first game of last season (Sheffield Wednesday had the whole end on the opening day, but they changed their policy after that game).

[Big Bad Bob]

Because they'd rather take and sell a reduced allocation than take the full allocation and not sell them all.

 

I believe, and I may be wrong, that SFC have to purchase the tickets in the first place and they're not sale or return. So if we don't sell our full allocation SFC will be out of pocket..

 

No we haven't, QPR are only giving away teams the upper tier, has been the case since after the first game of last season (Sheffield Wednesday had the whole end on the opening day, but they changed their policy after that game).

 

Told you I was wrong, but my logic still stands for other away matches...

[Bartosz Bialkowski]

No we haven't, QPR are only giving away teams the upper tier, has been the case since after the first game of last season (Sheffield Wednesday had the whole end on the opening day, but they changed their policy after that game).

 

I stand corrected. 1,800 seemed low and assumed that was just the bottom tier.

[Wes Tender]

It's a bloody good job they don't do allocations based on global fanbase, then. Because I'm not sure our allocation at Old Trafford would be much compared to Man U's 37,600,000 estimated worldwide fans (2008 figures: http://www.iese.edu/en/files/S.Kuper_tcm4-40591.pdf).

 

I'm still not sure what you think is unfair about clubs letting lots more home fans in, when most of the away sections are about right and we're not even selling out the section we have been offered.

 

Congratulations for going off on even more of a tangent by introducing Man Utd's worldwide support of plastic fans into the equation. This is quite an upgrade on Fry with his red herring of our catchment area.

 

In order to gain some perspective into the discussion, it is necessary to concentrate on the more pertinent examples of the disparity of allocations that make the allocation of away fans numbers unfair. Regardless of whether we would normally expect to take more than 3000 fans to United is not the point. The point is that we are restricted to that 4% there, rather than to the 10% of our capacity that they have here.

 

The more glaring examples are not of teams having to travel the length of the country, but those within a short distance away from each other, where the expectations of larger away attendances are greatly increased. We usually have good attendances at the London Clubs and the problem isn't so great with West Ham, Spurs and Crystal Palace, or previously Fulham, which are not that much different in capacity to us. But our allocation for Arsenal and Chelsea should be 10%, not 3000. If we failed to take the full allocation at Arsenal of 6000 tickets, or 4100 at Chelsea, then what is the problem? We should still have the choice of taking that allocation if we wanted to. But why should Crystal Palace fans not be able to have more than 3000 seats at venues virtually on their doorstep? Other notable discrepancies are West Brom compared to Aston Villa, Newcastle and Sunderland compared with Middlesbrough, and Liverpool, Everton and City compared to United, with the most glaring disparity of Burnley, who have to allow 10% of United's fans into their ground for a return of 4% of United's capacity.

 

If you and Fry cannot see that this gives the bigger teams an unfair advantage in that at their grounds the proportion of away fans is much lower that theirs is away, then so be it.

[The9]

There is no "unfair advantage", there's not even any concrete proof that having more fans makes for better results. Never mind it being unfair that Man U would, under your tangibly bonkers proposals, have to set aside 7,000 empty seats per match on the off-chance that a load of Saints fans want to decamp to an away game despite there being absolutely no suggestion that likely to be the case.

 

Just to be clear, what is the only scenario that is actually "fair" with your argument, is actually that the ground is 50-50 home and away fans, so we should give Man U 16,000 seats, and they should give us about 42,000. Which is the bit you're actually saying is unfair anyway.

[Wes Tender]

There is no "unfair advantage", there's not even any concrete proof that having more fans makes for better results. Never mind it being unfair that Man U would, under your tangibly bonkers proposals, have to set aside 7,000 empty seats per match on the off-chance that a load of Saints fans want to decamp to an away game despite there being absolutely no suggestion that likely to be the case.

 

Just to be clear, what is the only scenario that is actually "fair" with your argument, is actually that the ground is 50-50 home and away fans, so we should give Man U 16,000 seats, and they should give us about 42,000. Which is the bit you're actually saying is unfair anyway.

Congratulations on a spectacular misunderstanding of what I wrote. Quite where you got the idea from that United would have to set aside 7000 (actually 7500 is 10%) empty seats is quite beyond me. I merely suggested that 10% of the stadium's capacity should be available to away fans, across the board. Of course if that allocation was not required by the visiting club's fans, then those seats would be available to the home crowd.

 

I note above that we sold out of our allocation of Arsenal tickets, presumably the 3000 maximum allowed by this daft ruling. Had we wished to take more, then we should have been allowed to take anything up to 6000, or 10% of their capacity. As it was, we were only allowed just under 5%, whilst they were able to fill 10% of our stadium. In case that is not clear, I am not proposing that any seats we did not take would remain empty, merely that we should have been allowed more than the 3000 had we wanted them.

 

It really is quite simple as to what constitutes a fair situation - the away fans have 10% of the ground's capacity if they require it. It is the limiting restriction of the 3000 maximum that gives the big clubs an unfair advantage.

[The9]

Where's the advantage?

 

Also, re the 7000/7500, I'm pretty sure we can always find at least 500 no matter what, hence "7000 empty seats".

[Turkish]

Correct me if i'm wrong here but Wes seems to be the only one that thinks he isn't talking utter bol locks, right?

[Wes Tender]

Where's the advantage?

 

Also, re the 7000/7500, I'm pretty sure we can always find at least 500 no matter what, hence "7000 empty seats".

 

As I said, no empty seats required, as any that we didn't take would be filled by home fans.

 

Where's the advantage? If you feel that there is little or no advantage in having one's fans at an away match to cheer the team on, then naturally you will fail to see the advantage.

 

If however you think that having your own fans at a match increases the chances of gaining a result, then it follows logically that the more fans you have at the match, the better the atmosphere they will create and the more encouragement the team will receive. Then it is only a short leap of imagination to realise that having 10% of the stadium comprising our fans, is going to be much better than having only 5%.

 

This thread is about how we can create a Kop end at St Mary's. It suggests that an increase of vociferous support at one end of the stadium will benefit the team. But as you see no advantage from having as many of your own supporters at a match as possible, then in your eyes the thread is presumably a bit pointless.

[The9]

Correct me if i'm wrong here but Wes seems to be the only one that thinks he isn't talking utter bol locks, right?

 

You'll be waiting a long time for everyone to respond.

 

I personally fail to see what unfair advantage is being gained from the allocation rules, when 1) we're not even filling our allocation 2) the home team already have loads more fans in the ground which is the only unfair part of it, and even that makes perfect sense.

 

The point about Palace being unfairly treated because they get proportionately fewer fans at other London grounds is a nice effort at trying to make out that someone's being unfairly treated, but literally no-one at Palace has ever complained about this.

 

So...

1) Not sure what the basis for the "unfair" complaint is in the first place...

2) If it's down to the number of fans in attendance, the home team will always have more anyway, inherently "unfair", or actually just fine due to logistics and geography depending on how you look at it.

3) If it's because they have bigger grounds and the percentage of away fans is lower in big grounds, that's only actually a problem for fans when clubs are vastly oversubscribed to away ends (which actually only really affects the big clubs when they travel away anyway). Other than that, it's just a ridiculous figure which is tantamount to an acknowledgement of the right of men to have children which gestate in a box.

4) The alternative for genuine fairness and proportionality is 50/50, not some other arbitrary figure

5) A fixed 10% figure will lead to sides with big grounds having to leave seats empty for a number of away fans who are never going to turn up, unless of course they can work out some system of finding thousands of away fans who didn't really want to go but are made to.

6) The real problem is actually about clubs not co-operating to provide an optimum number of seats at competitive prices, leading to the sale/return situation which means clubs take a smaller allocation when they might actually fill 3000. But that's a long way from finding 7500 people to go to Old Trafford on a Sunday afternoon rather than just ambling into their lounge to see it.

7) This thread is about improving the atmosphere at St Mary's, nothing else.

[OldNick]

No we haven't, QPR are only giving away teams the upper tier, has been the case since after the first game of last season (Sheffield Wednesday had the whole end on the opening day, but they changed their policy after that game).

well I thought they had to give 3000 tickets in the rules mentioned ealrier

[The9]

Where's the advantage? If you feel that there is little or no advantage in having one's fans at an away match to cheer the team on, then naturally you will fail to see the advantage.

 

If however you think that having your own fans at a match increases the chances of gaining a result, then it follows logically that the more fans you have at the match, the better the atmosphere they will create and the more encouragement the team will receive. Then it is only a short leap of imagination to realise that having 10% of the stadium comprising our fans, is going to be much better than having only 5%.

 

Your logic is flawed all over the place.

 

I would think that (unless the ticket allocation process is flawed) the first 5% who get away tickets are the people who really want to be there, the next 5% less so, thus adding less value, and so on to the people who may as well not be there, for all the support they actually provide the team.

 

In addition, you're assuming that there is any tangible, empirically proven value to having fans at a match to begin with, when such results like the 5-2 defeat at Watford in the League Cup in 2004(ish) saw half the Saints fans ironically singing for Watford at 4-0 down, resulting in a 2-1 scoreline in Saints' favour for the last 15 minutes. Or the fantastic atmosphere at Blackburn in 2005 to watch the team utterly keel over. On the flipside, Anfield sees what seem to be 30,000 tourists sit on their hands for 95 minutes nowadays in between the two renditions of YNWA, giving no tangible benefit to the team whatsoever.

 

It is also tangibly ridiculous to suggest that Saints' better away performances this season compared to, say, 2004/5 are due to the number of fans, and not the quality of players.

 

All the stats for home record against away record can be just as easily attributable to familiarity with surroundings, the pitch, the changing facilities, less time spent travelling, and more importantly than all that, the quality of the team.

 

I'm glad you've recalled the purpose of this thread, but I fail to see how any of the stuff around away allocations it is unfair, especially when, in Saints' case, we've only been shortchanged on those allowed to attend compared to those who actually wanted to, on maybe 2 or 3 occasions this season.

 

Anyway, overall, yes, I'm pretty sure that compared to a bunch of other factors actually affecting what happens on the pitch, the crowd doesn't really do much at all. Players will always make out that it does, but good teams win away all over the place irrespective of their following.

Edited 8 January, 2015 by The9

[The9]

well I thought they had to give 3000 tickets in the rules mentioned ealrier

 

3000 or 10%, whichever is fewer. This would be 10%.

[Wes Tender]

Close the thread. The 9 tells us that there is no empirically proven value to having fans at a match, so any discussion on how the atmosphere can be improved is rendered completely pointless. He has examples of a couple of matches to prove it.

 

I'm amused that my logic is deemed to be all over the place following my reading of your other contribution above this last one, when some of the points that you made were quite frankly bizarre.

 

But then again, am I right in recalling that it was you who went on and on moaning about the Car Parking policy laid down by Cortese, when it was perfectly possible to park for free just across the road from the stadium in the adjacent industrial estate? My apologies if I got you mixed up with somebody else.

[Turkish]

3000 or 10%, whichever is fewer. This would be 10%.

 

Which is perfectly reasonable. Man United can have 3,000 of their fans at st Mary's and we can have 3,000 of ours at old Trafford.

 

The ruling actually protects smaller clubs with smaller grounds as having 10% in place means the likes of burnley and QPR can offer away teams fewer than 3,000 but still have 3,000 away tickets themselves. But of course Wes won't understand this with his persecution complex. We should be allowed to have 8,000 for Man United and so should everyone else, regardless of if the clubs needs them or not.

[The9]

Which is perfectly reasonable. Man United can have 3,000 of their fans at st Mary's and we can have 3,000 of ours at old Trafford.

 

The ruling actually protects smaller clubs with smaller grounds as having 10% in place means the likes of burnley and QPR can offer away teams fewer than 3,000 but still have 3,000 away tickets themselves. But of course Wes won't understand this with his persecution complex. We should be allowed to have 8,000 for Man United and so should everyone else, regardless of if the clubs needs them or not.

 

Yeah, it's weird. There is no "unfair situation", the clubs have agreed the regulations to make them as workable as possible WITHOUT prejudice.

 

What would be unfair would be basing away allocations on home attendances, so Man U would have 7500 at St Mary's. THEN there's a problem, whether fans actually have any impact on match outcomes or not. Fortunately that's not the situation.

[The9]

But then again, am I right in recalling that it was you who went on and on moaning about the Car Parking policy laid down by Cortese, when it was perfectly possible to park for free just across the road from the stadium in the adjacent industrial estate? My apologies if I got you mixed up with somebody else.

 

I certainly wasn't in favour of the car parking policy of charging fans for parking for over fifteen minutes when anything over an hour would have stopped people parking there all day, which was the supposed point of it. Shockingly, the "free" parking in the industrial estate was then taken up with people who could no longer park in the club car park.

 

All you have to do to work out if it was a good policy or not by Cortese is look to see if Katharina's regime has changed it, and they have, to everyone's satisfaction.

[OldNick]

3000 or 10%, whichever is fewer. This would be 10%.

Ok, thanks for that. i suspect Steve put that in his original post and I missed it

[The9]

Ok, thanks for that. i suspect Steve put that in his original post and I missed it

 

He did.

[CB Fry]

Huff and puff as much as you like to avoid the main issue, as usual. Which is that it is unfair that there is a cap of 3000 on the percentage number of away fans that can attend a stadium which gives an advantage to the bigger clubs, because they will have a lower percentage of away fans in their stadium than they will have as a percentage on the return fixture.

 

If you can't see that, then I really can't be arsed to argue the toss with you.

 

So is the "main issue" the fact we rarely ever even sell 3,000 away tickets, let alone 6, 7 or 8 thousand?

 

Or is the "main issue" that there is a simple reason why this "patently unjust" situation is allowed to carry on. A very simple reason.

 

Ask yourself why Arsenal, Liverpool and Man City haven't challenged the "patently unjust" 10% rule and demanded their "fair" 8,000 seats at Old Trafford.

 

Have an ickle tiny little think about why they haven't. It shouldn't take long what with you being jolly clever and all.

 

Answer the question, then maybe you can shut up about this utter horsesh it you are coming out with.

[Toomer]

Aye, but Ipswich only really had one song if you discount their player songs and the annoying spelling out of IPSWICH..

 

Maybe we could do that at SMS, S-S, O-O, U-U, T-T etc. etc. maybe not....

Back in the day on The Milton we had a chant spelling out Southampton, S O U T H -A M P T - O N

[alehouseboys]

Back in the day on The Milton we had a chant spelling out Southampton, S O U T H -A M P T - O N

 

...AG-AGR-AGRO-AGRO!

 

Spelling wasn't great back in the day.

 

Maybe we should rename the Chapel 'The Toomer'...that would go down well with the old gits amongst us.

[saintnicoolas]

Give me an away game anyday of the week for atmosphere, if we do Europe next year i shall be handing in my season tickets for a european tour, so much more fun.

 

Giving Lovren sh**t first game of the season...priceless

 

Telling Puncheon he can sh**t where he likes at Palace...well worth the journey

[SarniaSaint]

Back to the OP .......nobody has said why the Chapel cant be the Home End ......hate the word Kop

[OldNick]

So is the "main issue" the fact we rarely ever even sell 3,000 away tickets, let alone 6, 7 or 8 thousand?

 

Or is the "main issue" that there is a simple reason why this "patently unjust" situation is allowed to carry on. A very simple reason.

 

Ask yourself why Arsenal, Liverpool and Man City haven't challenged the "patently unjust" 10% rule and demanded their "fair" 8,000 seats at Old Trafford.

 

Have an ickle tiny little think about why they haven't. It shouldn't take long what with you being jolly clever and all.

 

Answer the question, then maybe you can shut up about this utter horsesh it you are coming out with.

you do yourself no favours when you are giving good points by doing your childish wording in an attempt to try and belittle.

It seems Westender gets under your skin and you don't like debating and winning the debate with good reasoning.

 

To me the main point is that we have an arbitrary rule that gives the away section bigger area than perhaps we would like if we wanted a Kop end. The ruling allows the bigger clubs to have an advantage. Yes it is unlikely that we would wish to take 7k to OT, but the fact that we can only have 5% of the capacity makes the potential of a more hostile atmosphere when we play at these grounds as well as the extra pressure on the ref.

 

 

On a couple of occasions I have sat in the Chapel and you cannot hear the Northam as they are drowned out by the away section. Fans standing in the Northam may well believe they are out singing in volume the away fans but they don't.

 

If we did have an 'end' of singing fans, do you think that would make a more hostile atmosphere for the opposing team and put extra pressure on the ref who may give us a few more decisions?

I believe we would, I remember on a few occasions over the years where the Kop, Stretford end etc got dubious penalties due to the pressure the ref was under.

 

All hypothectical now, but I wish the club had thought more about an 'end' when we moved to SMS, but I suspect Rupert didn't want the hobos all in one place to boo him lol

[CB Fry]

you do yourself no favours when you are giving good points by doing your childish wording in an attempt to try and belittle.

It seems Westender gets under your skin and you don't like debating and winning the debate with good reasoning.

 

To me the main point is that we have an arbitrary rule that gives the away section bigger area than perhaps we would like if we wanted a Kop end. The ruling allows the bigger clubs to have an advantage. Yes it is unlikely that we would wish to take 7k to OT, but the fact that we can only have 5% of the capacity makes the potential of a more hostile atmosphere when we play at these grounds as well as the extra pressure on the ref.

 

 

On a couple of occasions I have sat in the Chapel and you cannot hear the Northam as they are drowned out by the away section. Fans standing in the Northam may well believe they are out singing in volume the away fans but they don't.

 

If we did have an 'end' of singing fans, do you think that would make a more hostile atmosphere for the opposing team and put extra pressure on the ref who may give us a few more decisions?

I believe we would, I remember on a few occasions over the years where the Kop, Stretford end etc got dubious penalties due to the pressure the ref was under.

 

All hypothectical now, but I wish the club had thought more about an 'end' when we moved to SMS, but I suspect Rupert didn't want the hobos all in one place to boo him lol

Steve Grant on here has explained how the Northam end as we know it came about, and it was nothing to do with Lowe.

 

The 10%/3,000 rule is not "arbitrary". It's perfectly fair, and suits our needs perfectly. Tickets for OT still on general sale, not suggesting a demand for 7 or 8 thousand of them.

[OldNick]

Steve Grant on here has explained how the Northam end as we know it came about, and it was nothing to do with Lowe.

 

The 10%/3,000 rule is not "arbitrary". It's perfectly fair, and suits our needs perfectly. Tickets for OT still on general sale, not suggesting a demand for 7 or 8 thousand of them.

All true , but if the club had really wanted a 'end' they may have asked the architects to do something to suit. Newcastle put the away fans in the gods, I know q much bigger ground, but Iam sure that was done to reduce the away fans impact.

i haven't seen your opinion on this, would you like a full end of singing fans who may increase the intimidation and atmosphere at home games?

I accept you are correct regarding us not needing a full away allocation at OT etc

[CB Fry]

All true , but if the club had really wanted a 'end' they may have asked the architects to do something to suit. Newcastle put the away fans in the gods, I know q much bigger ground, but Iam sure that was done to reduce the away fans impact.

i haven't seen your opinion on this, would you like a full end of singing fans who may increase the intimidation and atmosphere at home games?

I accept you are correct regarding us not needing a full away allocation at OT etc

We had a blank canvas of a ground back in 2001, the singers decided they wanted to be next to the away fans, whose position was fixed. The architects gave us a four sided ground.

 

Grounds everywhere are getting quieter. I actually think our best bet of preserving the atmosphere is to keep the singers from both sides together. Relocating the Northam Saints singers to, say, the Chapel I don't think would improve the atmosphere. But as someone who goes to more aways than homes it's not something I will claim expertise on. The 10% rule I will.

[Wes Tender]

you do yourself no favours when you are giving good points by doing your childish wording in an attempt to try and belittle.

It seems Westender gets under your skin and you don't like debating and winning the debate with good reasoning.

 

To me the main point is that we have an arbitrary rule that gives the away section bigger area than perhaps we would like if we wanted a Kop end. The ruling allows the bigger clubs to have an advantage. Yes it is unlikely that we would wish to take 7k to OT, but the fact that we can only have 5% of the capacity makes the potential of a more hostile atmosphere when we play at these grounds as well as the extra pressure on the ref.

 

 

On a couple of occasions I have sat in the Chapel and you cannot hear the Northam as they are drowned out by the away section. Fans standing in the Northam may well believe they are out singing in volume the away fans but they don't.

 

If we did have an 'end' of singing fans, do you think that would make a more hostile atmosphere for the opposing team and put extra pressure on the ref who may give us a few more decisions?

I believe we would, I remember on a few occasions over the years where the Kop, Stretford end etc got dubious penalties due to the pressure the ref was under.

 

All hypothectical now, but I wish the club had thought more about an 'end' when we moved to SMS, but I suspect Rupert didn't want the hobos all in one place to boo him lol

 

As you say, Fry doesn't do himself any favours with his snide and infantile style one day and his supercilious, condescending mode the next. But he naturally finds that far easier than having to make salient points and then debate them like an adult.

 

Where some dismiss this 10% or 3000 ruling as not being arbitrary, they ignore the other meaning of the word which describes it accurately as a decision taken by an autocratic, authoritarian body, which the governing body of football most certainly is. It's brave of you to agree that it gives the big clubs an advantage, as you risk being charges with talking horsesh*t, bowlocks, etc. We are never going to need more than 3000 places at OT on a Sunday at 4pm when the match is on the telly, but even if the timing of the match and other circumstances meant that we could need more than the 3000, it is not available. But all well and good to cite examples of clubs five hours drive away and ignore the more relevant ones like Burnley, right on United's doorstep, or Crystal Palace or Fulham (when they were in the PL) and Arsenal, West Brom and Aston Villa.

 

A very good point you raise about the influence that a vociferous home crowd can have over refereeing decisions, but we're assured by The9 that there is no tangible, empirically proven value to having fans at a match to begin with,

[OldNick]

As you say, Fry doesn't do himself any favours with his snide and infantile style one day and his supercilious, condescending mode the next. But he naturally finds that far easier than having to make salient points and then debate them like an adult.

 

Where some dismiss this 10% or 3000 ruling as not being arbitrary, they ignore the other meaning of the word which describes it accurately as a decision taken by an autocratic, authoritarian body, which the governing body of football most certainly is. It's brave of you to agree that it gives the big clubs an advantage, as you risk being charges with talking horsesh*t, bowlocks, etc. We are never going to need more than 3000 places at OT on a Sunday at 4pm when the match is on the telly, but even if the timing of the match and other circumstances meant that we could need more than the 3000, it is not available. But all well and good to cite examples of clubs five hours drive away and ignore the more relevant ones like Burnley, right on United's doorstep, or Crystal Palace or Fulham (when they were in the PL) and Arsenal, West Brom and Aston Villa.

 

A very good point you raise about the influence that a vociferous home crowd can have over refereeing decisions, but we're assured by The9 that there is no tangible, empirically proven value to having fans at a match to begin with,

Iam surprised the9 has come up with that, i suspect his post was mis interpreted.

If the home venue is not an issue why are home draws always wished for in cup competitions, why do players mention the atmosphere or how they dislike playing at certain grounds as the fans are close to the pitch etc.

The9 is much younger than me and so may not have expereinced the Kop and Stretford end responsible for many dubious penalties, something that is often mentioned by ex-pro's etc.

I have seen individuals/players/refs crumble when only a handful of people are screaming at them at local level, what 20,000 from the Kop must have be like!

Even at the Dell I remember how Newcastle, we were losing with a couple of minutes to go when the announcer came on and declared that they should sit in the Archers. The Archers being as they were immedialtely got to their feet and starting to sing, it seemed to make the newcastlwe players turn to jelly. We went on and scored 3 goals in a few minutes. The same when Blackburn came to us when Osgood and co were in our team. Bailey the Blackburn had had 2 of our players sent off at their place and when they came back to the Dell the atmosphere was very hostile. The Blackburn players (apart from Bailey strangely enough) did not want to know. Iam sure we all can recall games where the fans made the opposition play poorly.

[CB Fry]

As you say, Fry doesn't do himself any favours with his snide and infantile style one day and his supercilious, condescending mode the next. But he naturally finds that far easier than having to make salient points and then debate them like an adult.

 

Where some dismiss this 10% or 3000 ruling as not being arbitrary, they ignore the other meaning of the word which describes it accurately as a decision taken by an autocratic, authoritarian body, which the governing body of football most certainly is. It's brave of you to agree that it gives the big clubs an advantage, as you risk being charges with talking horsesh*t, bowlocks, etc. We are never going to need more than 3000 places at OT on a Sunday at 4pm when the match is on the telly, but even if the timing of the match and other circumstances meant that we could need more than the 3000, it is not available. But all well and good to cite examples of clubs five hours drive away and ignore the more relevant ones like Burnley, right on United's doorstep, or Crystal Palace or Fulham (when they were in the PL) and Arsenal, West Brom and Aston Villa.

 

A very good point you raise about the influence that a vociferous home crowd can have over refereeing decisions, but we're assured by The9 that there is no tangible, empirically proven value to having fans at a match to begin with,

Why are you talking about Burnley fans now, not Liverpool or Man City fans?

 

You not going to answer my question on why those clubs haven't demanded an end to this "patently unjust" system?

 

Because it's patently unjust isn't it? Isn't it?

[Wes Tender]

Why are you talking about Burnley fans now, not Liverpool or Man City fans?

 

You not going to answer my question on why those clubs haven't demanded an end to this "patently unjust" system?

 

Because it's patently unjust isn't it? Isn't it?

Yes

[CB Fry]

Yes

Not answering the question then.