The police were inconspicuous at the back. The stewards were in the aisles but they were providing the segregation line between the two sets of fans. There wasn't any netting covering the seats so we were the width of the aisle away from the City fans who were all good humoured. They spent all of their time abusing their own team for not thrashing little ol' upstarts 'ull! I don't believe segregation should be necessary but, unfortunately, it is. Yes, I stood all game, despite my objection to it. I wouldn't have seen anything otherwise. My back was awful afterwards. No sympathy, please. I don't deserve it with my heretical views.
Sorry. At cross purposes. I was referring to the KC where stewards and coppers get in the way in the vomitories.
Watching the Manc Derby earlier on Sky. They had three seats and a line of stewards separating the fans. Still don't understand what rules are preventing us doing this.
We had this on a thread a couple of weeks back, it's to do with the number of seats and distance between the seats and the exits. We asked the SAG why they didn't just use an aisle for segregation, as they do at Arsenal or Man City and they said they couldn't, as it put that aisle out of action and made the seats too far from the exits that could be used, breaking ground safety rules. Basically, they said the KC had some design flaws, as it wasn't actually anticipated that we'd want to use every seat in the ground, so wasn't built to accommodate it.
A lot of Chelsea fans complaining about Jose saying that the atmosphere on Saturday was ****e as the Bridge. Many were saying it was because of the stewarding, stopping people standing, and that you can't chant and sing sitting down, and the stewards were making everyone sit down if they stood up.
I wonder if it's possible to remove a two seat column from the middle of a section, so that the stewards could stand in that. It would mean some away fans are closer to vomitaries than they are at present and free up some rows for resale to cover removal costs. **** knows how the stewards get in and out though. At the risk of banging my drum, having away fans up to a natural barrier in the ground, such as the north west corner, limits the seats lost from segragation as it's only needed on one side.
Some say a part of it is partly due to the home fans being shifted out of the shed, as well as the high pricing. They also clamp down on 'non-family appropriate' chanting.
I wonder if clubs will start to seriously look at improving atmospheres in grounds if even the managers are complaining now ?
It's official, atmosphere at KC is better than at Chelsea Having moved the away fans and got Tigers supporters behind both goals, Hull City’s match-day atmosphere is now better than that of league-leaders Chelsea, apparently. With his team seemingly marching to the Premier League title, manager Jose Mourinho should be a happy bunny but he’s been having a good whinge over the weekend. The Blues boss has hit out at the atmosphere at Stamford Bridge following his side’s 2-1 victory over Queens Park Rangers. Not happy about the noise generated by the home fans or the support given to his players, Mourinho claims Chelsea receive less home backing than any other side in the Premier League. Is that the case? Well, the Daily Telegraph have done their best to find out. And it looks as if Jose is right! Reporter Jim White at the Telegraph has compiled the best and worse atmospheres at Premier League grounds giving each club a mark out of 10. The volume at Stamford Bride earns Chelsea a 3, that’s one less than Hull City get. Speaking about the Tigers, White writes: “After the season-long revolutionary discontent over the proposed change of name last year, Hull supporters have returned to the business of boisterously backing their team.” Boisterously it may be, but City still only get a 4, the same as Arsenal, Leicester, Manchester United, Southampton and Sunderland. Only Aston Villa and Chelsea on three are ranked lower. Crystal Palace top the noise standings with 9 out of 10, followed by Stoke on 8. http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/Hull...tory-24021883-detail/story.html#ixzz3I0HaNCMh
A design flaw caused by the rugby centric council having a number of meeting with FC fans but only one with City fans. This lead to some utopian vision of fans being able to walk round the concourse to swap seats with no thought of segregation and matching up toilets and concourse facilities. No doubt they wouldn't have bothered as they would have been told this was a rugby "town" and that family friendly game wouldn't need it whilst little old City would never fill it so it wouldn't be a problem. Another poster on here was invited for a look round the KC before it was opened up for everyone to have a look round and said to me at the time tere would be a problem if we ever did well. Which was shown when in the bottom flight there were loads locked out against Swansea with over 2,000 seats unused. Anyone remember the campaign, lead by Vince Groake who was in charge of the FC fanzine at the time, and a Jim Gardiner, who wanted a stadium with standing, the ability to swap seats, the East Stand (a stand in a £30million pound stadium) to be called the Threepenny Stand, and a 15,000 capacity as that was enough for FC and City would never need that many. Groake said City would never get over 15,000 in the next 100 years and Gardiner said a 25,000 stadium would be a white elephant. They were both given a lot of space by the HDM and RH. I have asked them both to contact them to get their comments seeing as they previously gave plenty of coverage of their negative thoughts . Didn't expect them to and, needless to say, they didn't.
But the aisle closest to those Man City fans would be out of use for them as the three empty covered seats and line of stewards separated them from it, meaning only the Man Utd fans could have used that particular aisle they showed on the TV camera shot. Taking a row of a couple of seats out could work, couldn't it?
It doesn't matter what aisles are out of use, it only matters what aisles are still in use, each seat needs to be no more than 14 seats from an aisle and apparently with an aisle closed, we fail to meet that criteria, but newer stadiums like the Emirates and the Etihad are built to be operated with every seat used.
Assuming access could be made for them, stewards in an area created by removing two columns of seats from the middle would get around that wouldn't it?
