It's nothing to do with NIMBYism, the discusion yesterday was based purely on safety grounds, who would be next to them wasn't even mentioned.
It's a shame you don't actually read what people write, then you might avoid writing bollocks. My post was in response to the the poster claiming that away fans placed in the UW would misbehave or spit on fans in the lower tier.
Whether they did or not should our highest paying customers really be subject to the uncomfort of the possibility?
Every stadium has away fans next to home fans somewhere in the ground. With less segregation than at the KC and without fans having a nervous breakdown about their proximity.
Agreed, but I would expect that the SAG would have still discussed who was next to the away fans when they were looking at the potential move. It's a fundamental part of the consideration.
Well, someone has to be next to the away fans. Unless you give them a whole stand. Which Allam probably would, with subsidised beer, gourmet caterers with butlers to serve them in their seats, whilst shutting down the kiosks on the home concourses for the fee remaining home fans.
I wouldn't, but whoever it is, it is a factor for stewarding and crowd control. The physical structure is already proven as fans are in there, so I struggle to see how who sits near them wasn't discussed.
No. You wouldn't want to risk families sorting out the ICF or the Front Line. Might lead to point deductions, ground closures, etc, etc...
Yep, and the "type" of fan would be a consideration for things like stewarding and access. Even away fans are considered on an individual basis. It's why clubs with a following that repeatedly stand, such as Man Utd, often get a reduced allocation.
