Ricky BCFC Posted April 20, 2004 Report Share Posted April 20, 2004 I agree, it's obvious that they are trying as hard as possible to still let us use it and not punish the majority who are well behaved. Yes it's a bit unfair on the kids, but sacrifices were obviously going to have to be made if the police were going to agree to the EE being opened again and this was it. Like you say, they could have quite easily just closed it alltogether and let no one in at all, but at least this shows that they are trying and the majority shouldn't suffer from these new arrangements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bringbacktherobin Posted April 20, 2004 Report Share Posted April 20, 2004 What do you mean better than not having it at all, I dont have it at all and i did nothing wrong! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edson Posted April 20, 2004 Report Share Posted April 20, 2004 The price of tickets is affected by the cost of stewarding that the club incurs. I have never caused trouble, yet I still have to help foot the bill. It's just not fair that they take this broadbrush approach to tackling problems. Perhaps, in future, only those who actually cause the stewards to 'steward' could pay for them, that way us innocent fans aren't hit in the pocket for something that isn't our fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bow_Legged_Chicken Posted April 20, 2004 Report Share Posted April 20, 2004 We don't do anything regarding that the same way you don't do anything regarding having to pay extra tax to accomodate your fellow adults in prison. Insurance is a compulsary thing, they can rip us off and charge us extra for anything they can find an excuse for. City is not compulsary, i choose to go there. Therefore City should do everything in their power to want me to keep going week in week out. Discriminating against me certainly doesn't make me want to come week in week out so therefore it shouldn't be done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricky BCFC Posted April 20, 2004 Report Share Posted April 20, 2004 It means no under-16's are allowed in at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Red_Rat Posted April 20, 2004 Report Share Posted April 20, 2004 That made no sense to me, but this thread isn't about who pays insurance (unless its a er.. metaphore? about the clubs decision!! [i might of missed something]) but about the clubs disappointment and disgusting decision. I just hope that it doesn't cost us promotion. Another thing, you might of noticed already but, if the club is blaming it on Under 16's why is there only 500 tickets? Surely the club are laying down some 'punishment' about the adults by only allowing 500 fans in, but why do adults still get to go in? (if that makes sense) This has really annoyed me as you can probaly see by my post but AHH.. :@ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pudsey Posted April 20, 2004 Report Share Posted April 20, 2004 Yes it's a bit unfair on the kids, but sacrifices were obviously going to have to be made if the police were going to agree to the EE being opened again and this was it. if the police did there ######ing job in the first place we would have no problem at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lordofthebling Posted April 20, 2004 Report Share Posted April 20, 2004 Nice reply, however, you are wrong. "Experience" undoubtedly comes into it but a 22 year old with 1 year's driving experience will pay less insurance than an 18 year old with the same experience, driving the same car. Similarly a 26 year old with the same experience would pay less insurance than the 22 year old. however Madger, a 17 year old girl would pay less than the 22 year old male. Also - if you go onto your parents insurance it would be cheaper. So, all in all - parents with kids in the EE - and dont forget, banning under 16s, your are also banning girls under 16 in the EE too... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricky BCFC Posted April 20, 2004 Report Share Posted April 20, 2004 if the police did there ######ing job in the first place we would have no problem at all. I agree with that, but they obviously don't want to. It seems as though we are having to go by their terms or not at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest redandwhiteforever9590 Posted April 20, 2004 Report Share Posted April 20, 2004 what the ######******** i havent done nothing what are the police paid for !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swindon Hater Posted April 20, 2004 Report Share Posted April 20, 2004 I take it you can if you are 16. I don't know if I'll bother anyway, it'll be ****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin Ian M Posted April 20, 2004 Admin Report Share Posted April 20, 2004 however Madger, a 17 year old girl would pay less than the 22 year old male. Also - if you go onto your parents insurance it would be cheaper. So, all in all - parents with kids in the EE - and dont forget, banning under 16s, your are also banning girls under 16 in the EE too... Just a thought, but some of the Under16s above appear to be wasting time moaning on this thread when they could be putting the "creative ability" of their PCs to better use in making them appear older than they actually are Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lilciderhed Posted April 20, 2004 Report Share Posted April 20, 2004 But thats because older, new drivers are in a more mature stage in there life and are more likely to take driving and others safety more seriously. However, hooliganism involves much, much, much more adults than under 16's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest redandwhiteforever9590 Posted April 20, 2004 Report Share Posted April 20, 2004 what do u mean swindon hater? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pudsey Posted April 20, 2004 Report Share Posted April 20, 2004 However, hooliganism involves much, much, much more adults than under 16's. well said Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swindon Hater Posted April 20, 2004 Report Share Posted April 20, 2004 I was asking, I take it 'cause I'm 16 I can go in? Don't know if I'll bother anyway, 500 tickets? Stupid! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lilciderhed Posted April 20, 2004 Report Share Posted April 20, 2004 Imagine how small the corner 'the mature fans' have been given must be, and how many brighton fans about 800? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin Ian M Posted April 20, 2004 Admin Report Share Posted April 20, 2004 But thats because older, new drivers are in a more mature stage in there life and are more likely to take driving and others safety more seriously. However, hooliganism involves much, much, much more adults than under 16's. Hooliganism isn't the main concern of the club though. They appear to be more worried about the collapse of the fences when (some) u16s climb on them and suing them for the resultant injuries. As you say, older people are in a more mature stage in their life and are more willing to take climbing on a fence and the way this effects their own and others' safety more seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest redandwhiteforever9590 Posted April 20, 2004 Report Share Posted April 20, 2004 how many do you thing will go ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedTop Posted April 20, 2004 Report Share Posted April 20, 2004 Everyone expected the East End to be shut completely. It looks to me like the club have moved heaven and earth to keep it open in the face of issues raised by the police and health & safety. Has anyone considered that it might actually be a safety issue and that the council safety officers may have insisted on a ban on Under-16s for their own sake, fearing they may get hurt or crushed if the wombats who think it's okay to rush to the fence ignore the warnings and carry on doing it? Let's get this straight. No-one is being banned from watching the game. Under-16s are being banned from one area. It's not ideal but it's not exactly a disgrace. Is this really so different from the ban imposed on single adults going into the 'family zone'? As an adult without a kid, I wasn't allowed into the GWR Family Stand, which had a darned sight better view than the East End. In both cases a section of fans were discriminated against to limit the type of people in a certain section. Let's get this into perspective. The club was unable to guarantee the fans would behave, because a group has shown themselves unable to do so. Actions have to be taken to stop that happening, and innocent people suffer. It happens in real life every day. Innocent people can't buy guns because a small minority might use them to shoot people. Innocent people can't take nailclippers onto flights because a minority might use them to hijack planes. It's part of life, and if it's the only way to stop bad things happening then that's the way it has to be. If you're genuinely going to stop watching City just because you can't sit in the seat you want - even though the club has plenty of better seats available - then it says more about you as a fan than about the way the club treats its supporters. Get over it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edson Posted April 20, 2004 Report Share Posted April 20, 2004 But thats because older, new drivers are in a more mature stage in there life and are more likely to take driving and others safety more seriously. However, hooliganism involves much, much, much more adults than under 16's. And it will be easier to police those older ones with fewer people in there and the tiresome wannabes out of the way. As with all decisions like this, it is the innocent parties who take offence. Just as with Steve L's comment about people 'getting off their butts' a little while ago, it was fans who already do just that who got annoyed about it. Similarly here, it is the young fans who don't cause trouble who have reacted. Try to accept that it is a compromise between the club and the police, to keep the East End open, but more manageable, for the last two games of the seaon. I'm sure that, once this season is over, there will be a rethink and a more permanent policy put in place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedTop Posted April 20, 2004 Report Share Posted April 20, 2004 if the police did there ######ing job in the first place we would have no problem at all. If all the fans did their ######ing job in the first place we would have no problem at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin Ian M Posted April 20, 2004 Admin Report Share Posted April 20, 2004 Imagine how small the corner 'the mature fans' have been given must be, and how many brighton fans about 800? why does everyone assume so few BHA fans will come on Saturday? last time they visited they brought 2295 fans. ok they were in the top 3 then but they are still in a promotion fight Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 20, 2004 Report Share Posted April 20, 2004 Rumours of 500 tickets for us and 2000 available to Brighton are we not the HOME SUPPORTERS Probably pushed even further into the corner whoa there . Keep the East End but what a CR@p option. If your under 16 push off what the heck is going on Got a really bad feeling about this now 2 home games to go and this is chucked at us un blooming believable. Whos next From an amazed; definate over 16year old Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest redandwhiteforever9590 Posted April 20, 2004 Report Share Posted April 20, 2004 I think i could be shut for non season ticket holders children but not for season ticket holders? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pudsey Posted April 20, 2004 Report Share Posted April 20, 2004 yes some fans did not do there job but why punish people who did nothing wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Red_Rat Posted April 20, 2004 Report Share Posted April 20, 2004 Think about it, the club know the stewards and police aren't doind their jobs. Otherwise the decision would of been only Season Ticket Holders allowed it, that way if trouble does occur the prats in green can chuck them out and ban them from the East End. But, the club have chosen the easy option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest comeonyoureds Posted April 20, 2004 Report Share Posted April 20, 2004 i really dont think baning under 16 is going to make that much difference on trouble in the east end! at the plymuff game i know for fact that some of the kids jumping on the fence were older than this, around the 17/18 age group! however there is always going to be the opportunity for trouble no matter what age groups are allowed in! its more to do with the policing and the stewarding! if the police had stuck around till the end of the game then this situation would never have occured! i still cant see why we need two fences either! one next to the away fans with a line of stewards/police and netting would be enough for sure! that way more seats can be used and our view wouldnt be so obstructed! i didnt even see roberts goal hit the net v qpr due to the fence being in the way! i hope this decision today is only a temporary one to allow some people in there on saturday, as undoubtably some people singing are better than none! and that other measures will be considered so this problem can be sorted out once and for all so we can all enjoy the east end, the atmosphere and the football, once again! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akira Posted April 20, 2004 Report Share Posted April 20, 2004 this may seem like a stupid question but i just want to make this clear.if your 16 can you go in the East End? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bcfcchris2016 Posted April 20, 2004 Report Share Posted April 20, 2004 what do you all think of both Steve and Colin now he has banned under 16s. Wacko and Jacko i am calling them at the moment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.