Union Bears And Safe Standing.

Ardoyne RSC

Well-Known Member
I would go further and move all away supporters to the West Enclosure, extreme end. Those normally sitting there, I'm sure, wouldn't mind moving to the North West corner (better seats, view etc.) In most grounds I have been to, we get the worst area. It is time to return the serve.
 

It Is Old But Beautiful

Well-Known Member
It just won't.

Rangers vs Hamilton isn't suddenly going to be atmospheric because we have a standing section, it won't make a difference.

Similarly, games like Sunday, standing section or not, will be bouncing.

It is the nature of the UK in particular but football in general, matches have a level in terms of atmosphere and circumstances dictate it.

Not to say I am not 100% for it, I am.
Have to disagree, there’s lots of people around the ground who get funny looks for starting a song. If you move all of those people to one area the atmosphere will be much better especially as it’s right behind the goals and not in a corner.
 

JW1988

Well-Known Member
Have to disagree, there’s lots of people around the ground who get funny looks for starting a song. If you move all of those people to one area the atmosphere will be much better especially as it’s right behind the goals and not in a corner.
I feel that people reckon I’m pissed when I try to start some singing in Cf and ended up giving up completely a few years ago
 

Barryhopez

Well-Known Member
Because the fans around about them went greeting to the club and stewards every other week leaving no option but to move.
Regardless, they requested a move to an area to accommodate them and what they wanted to create/do which they were granted.
 

Nacho Novo

Well-Known Member
Have to disagree, there’s lots of people around the ground who get funny looks for starting a song. If you move all of those people to one area the atmosphere will be much better especially as it’s right behind the goals and not in a corner.
Agreed, I think it would be fantastic to have all the families in the Broomloan Stand (as it is now) and have them sing back and forward across the pitch to the Union Bears and the 4,000 (hopefully in safe standing) so its a good mix of generations between the fans getting the stadium rocking.

My only fear would be everyone in the Broomloan would then want to move to the standing section in the CF and the older guys 60+ would then want to move to the Broomloan Front.

How can we combat this healthy dilemma other than forcing pensioners to sing every song and don't stop doing the bouncy until the full time whistle.
 

frazz

Active Member
That would require a managing director who would be capable of facing down the "it's ma seat um no moving" rabble and not buckling.

I'm going day that's harsh

Simple fact is union bears this year let themselves down the sheep game was disgusting with streamers the players had to end up cleaning up when we needed them focused and the silent protests we support the club not the union bears when we needed everyone to support - a lot of people went off the UB that night and ended up causing a negative atmosphere anger at the UB which then transferred to the players after a bit

I do believe union bears could be a massive benefit to our club but they need to stop acting like spoilt children when they don't get what they want

Save standing is a step forward for the club in general just don't mess it up as it will be removed as Quickly as created if similar incidents and some happen.
 

Aww Skew

Well-Known Member
Heard that the proposed location will be broomloan front as it’s the area with the most support for it.

I’m all for safe standing and think it’ll improve the atmosphere but having it in the beoomloan is a disaster; get celtic in the scottish cup and you’d have celtic fans getting our standing section. I’d be disappointed if the UB accept broomloan for that reason
 

Nacho Novo

Well-Known Member
Heard that the proposed location will be broomloan front as it’s the area with the most support for it.

I’m all for safe standing and think it’ll improve the atmosphere but having it in the beoomloan is a disaster; get celtic in the scottish cup and you’d have celtic fans getting our standing section. I’d be disappointed if the UB accept broomloan for that reason
And certain European games
 

I P Freely

Well-Known Member
Heard that the proposed location will be broomloan front as it’s the area with the most support for it.

I’m all for safe standing and think it’ll improve the atmosphere but having it in the beoomloan is a disaster; get celtic in the scottish cup and you’d have celtic fans getting our standing section. I’d be disappointed if the UB accept broomloan for that reason
The first rule of designing a survey

What result do you want ?

The club has designed the "survey" in such a way that they got the result they wanted all because our managing director is too scared to face down the "it's ma seat um no movin" rabble.
 

Aww Skew

Well-Known Member
The first rule of designing a survey

What result do you want ?

The club has designed the "survey" in such a way that they got the result they wanted all because our managing director is too scared to face down the "it's ma seat um no movin" rabble.
Most definitely however I also know folk in Broomloan front who are against safe standing so either way there’s going to be people who are angry about having to move.

I very much doubt there’ll be another club in the world who need to move their own fans for certain games, from the clubs only standing section.
 

I P Freely

Well-Known Member
Most definitely however I also know folk in Broomloan front who are against safe standing so either way there’s going to be people who are angry about having to move.

I very much doubt there’ll be another club in the world who need to move their own fans for certain games, from the clubs only standing section.
Crystal Palace have managed to get their ultras into the middle of the traditional home end no problem , and I couldn't imagine Dortmund even surrendering a tiny slither of the yellow wall .
 

Gramps1

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
Heard that the proposed location will be broomloan front as it’s the area with the most support for it.

I’m all for safe standing and think it’ll improve the atmosphere but having it in the beoomloan is a disaster; get celtic in the scottish cup and you’d have celtic fans getting our standing section. I’d be disappointed if the UB accept broomloan for that reason
Why’s that?
We didn’t give the sheep more tickets?
And for eurpean games why is it got to be the fans in the broomloan who have to move?
 

I P Freely

Well-Known Member
Why’s that?
We didn’t give the sheep more tickets?
And for eurpean games why is it got to be the fans in the broomloan who have to move?
Govan tickets are more expensive meaning the club would lose more revenue if they put the overspill allocation in there
 

Wazza

Well-Known Member
Crystal Palace have managed to get their ultras into the middle of the traditional home end no problem , and I couldn't imagine Dortmund even surrendering a tiny slither of the yellow wall .
Couple of articles you might find interesting:

https://uk.sports.yahoo.com/news/crystal-palace-announce-return-famous-atmosphere-cant-come-quick-enough-115054042.html

https://www.dw.com/en/fear-on-the-yellow-wall-borussia-dortmund-ultras-threatened-by-right-wing-hooligans/a-46364501
 

Aww Skew

Well-Known Member
Why’s that?
We didn’t give the sheep more tickets?
And for eurpean games why is it got to be the fans in the broomloan who have to move?
Do you honestly think if we get Celtic in the scottish cup that the league allocations will be used? In europe, I’m sure the rules are very rigid in terms of clubs being entitled to 5% if they want that much - so where would they go? The govan front?

Broomloan has the least amount of ST holders and it’s always housed away fans whenever they’ve got more than just the corner.
 

I P Freely

Well-Known Member
Do you honestly think if we get Celtic in the scottish cup that the league allocations will be used? In europe, I’m sure the rules are very rigid in terms of clubs being entitled to 5% if they want that much - so where would they go? The govan front?

Broomloan has the least amount of ST holders and it’s always housed away fans whenever they’ve got more than just the corner.
It's actually 20% in the Scottish Cup , Kilmarnock got BF4 and BF5 in the cup . Hibs have had the Broomloan in cup on a couple of times over the years
 

RFC_Champions

Well-Known Member
And if everyone wants to stay put because they’ll get first refusal then what?
If they (CF season ticket holders) get first refusal and happy to stay there and embrace the safe standing then the UB’s have to stay put in BF1 until a space in the safe standing area becomes available.

To be clear..... safe standing is NOT just for the UB’s. It’s for anyone who wants to be a part of it. It’s the club that needs to be decisive- one way or another.

If we can get the UB’s in there, then that’s great and will be better imo. If not, then they may need to enjoy it from afar until space becomes available. Personally, one massive change is better. ie do it all at once. (We won’t keep everyone happy)
 

RFC_Champions

Well-Known Member
Heard that the proposed location will be broomloan front as it’s the area with the most support for it.

I’m all for safe standing and think it’ll improve the atmosphere but having it in the beoomloan is a disaster; get celtic in the scottish cup and you’d have celtic fans getting our standing section. I’d be disappointed if the UB accept broomloan for that reason
Correct me if I’m wrong... but the UB’s proposed the Broomloan Front (which was knocked back - hence the silent protest a few matches ago)

Personally I think it would be short term thinking and an “own goal” making it in the Broomloan Front.
 

It Is Old But Beautiful

Well-Known Member
Agreed, I think it would be fantastic to have all the families in the Broomloan Stand (as it is now) and have them sing back and forward across the pitch to the Union Bears and the 4,000 (hopefully in safe standing) so its a good mix of generations between the fans getting the stadium rocking.

My only fear would be everyone in the Broomloan would then want to move to the standing section in the CF and the older guys 60+ would then want to move to the Broomloan Front.

How can we combat this healthy dilemma other than forcing pensioners to sing every song and don't stop doing the bouncy until the full time whistle.
Let the older fans move into the Broomloan Front what’s the issue? The family stand is the Broomloan Rear.
 

It Is Old But Beautiful

Well-Known Member
Correct me if I’m wrong... but the UB’s proposed the Broomloan Front (which was knocked back - hence the silent protest a few matches ago)

Personally I think it would be short term thinking and an “own goal” making it in the Broomloan Front.
That was before this happened, the club are now realising fans wanted it. They’re planning on putting it in the Broomloan but Copland would be better.
 

It Is Old But Beautiful

Well-Known Member
If they (CF season ticket holders) get first refusal and happy to stay there and embrace the safe standing then the UB’s have to stay put in BF1 until a space in the safe standing area becomes available.

To be clear..... safe standing is NOT just for the UB’s. It’s for anyone who wants to be a part of it. It’s the club that needs to be decisive- one way or another.

If we can get the UB’s in there, then that’s great and will be better imo. If not, then they may need to enjoy it from afar until space becomes available. Personally, one massive change is better. ie do it all at once. (We won’t keep everyone happy)
What’s the point of having a safe standing section if the Ultras aren’t allowed to be there. That defeats the whole purpose of a safe standing section. The Union Bears are the ones who have campaigned for years for this to happen so why should they be shafted when it was their idea in the first place to have it. The Union Bears consist of only I would say ~100 core members so it wouldn’t be hard to move people to the Broomloan Front if they don’t want to be apart of it. With safe standing you can basically stand where you want as well.
 

It Is Old But Beautiful

Well-Known Member
The first rule of designing a survey

What result do you want ?

The club has designed the "survey" in such a way that they got the result they wanted all because our managing director is too scared to face down the "it's ma seat um no movin" rabble.
“it’s ma bit of plastic for 30 years son am no moving and am no joining in with the songs” These are the people who contribute nothing to the atmosphere and rather moan than cheer on the team. Put it in the Copland Front then get names of folk who want transferred into the Copland Front then there we go. Folk who want nothing to do with it can be moved to the Broomloan Front.
 

It Is Old But Beautiful

Well-Known Member
I'm going day that's harsh

Simple fact is union bears this year let themselves down the sheep game was disgusting with streamers the players had to end up cleaning up when we needed them focused and the silent protests we support the club not the union bears when we needed everyone to support - a lot of people went off the UB that night and ended up causing a negative atmosphere anger at the UB which then transferred to the players after a bit

I do believe union bears could be a massive benefit to our club but they need to stop acting like spoilt children when they don't get what they want

Save standing is a step forward for the club in general just don't mess it up as it will be removed as Quickly as created if similar incidents and some happen.
Why blame a group in a corner when there’s 49,000 folk in the stadium who could start songs but don’t. The folk complaining about the UB’s protests are hypocrites and I doubt they are the ones creating an atmosphere but rather shout abuse at our own players.
 

I P Freely

Well-Known Member
What’s the point of having a safe standing section if the Ultras aren’t allowed to be there. That defeats the whole purpose of a safe standing section. The Union Bears are the ones who have campaigned for years for this to happen so why should they be shafted when it was their idea in the first place to have it. The Union Bears consist of only I would say ~100 core members so it wouldn’t be hard to move people to the Broomloan Front if they don’t want to be apart of it. With safe standing you can basically stand where you want as well.
Let's be honest the UB has been the only group who have actually been pushing for it . Club1872 only joined the bandwagon when the saw the number of individuals RSC's who supported it and to slow down any momentum the UB had built up for it,
 

RFC_Champions

Well-Known Member
What’s the point of having a safe standing section if the Ultras aren’t allowed to be there. That defeats the whole purpose of a safe standing section. The Union Bears are the ones who have campaigned for years for this to happen so why should they be shafted when it was their idea in the first place to have it. The Union Bears consist of only I would say ~100 core members so it wouldn’t be hard to move people to the Broomloan Front if they don’t want to be apart of it. With safe standing you can basically stand where you want as well.
Im not denying that mate. I want the UB’s in there from a personal point of view (and I sit in the main stand).

By point is - we are not spending money and implementing a standing section purely for the benefit of the UB’s.
If they are in it - great.
If the are not in it - it might not be great, but at least it’s good that we’ve got it.

But as I said previously.... do it all at once. Get it implemented and get the UB’s in. Do it right, or not at all is my preference.
 

Carson no1

Well-Known Member
I would go further and move all away supporters to the West Enclosure, extreme end. Those normally sitting there, I'm sure, wouldn't mind moving to the North West corner (better seats, view etc.) In most grounds I have been to, we get the worst area. It is time to return the serve.
Totally agree look after our own first and foremost
 

Stanley Yelnats

Well-Known Member
Im not denying that mate. I want the UB’s in there from a personal point of view (and I sit in the main stand).

By point is - we are not spending money and implementing a standing section purely for the benefit of the UB’s.
If they are in it - great.
If the are not in it - it might not be great, but at least it’s good that we’ve got it.

But as I said previously.... do it all at once. Get it implemented and get the UB’s in. Do it right, or not at all is my preference.
That would totally defeat the purpose haha.

The UB need to be in safe standing. That would defeat the point, a safe standing section that doesn’t have our most vocal fan group in it.

What would be the point?

Whether we like it or not, the UB should be the front and centre of safe standing section.

There’s no point in having the stand opposite to the safe standing section having a better atmosphere.
 

RFC_Champions

Well-Known Member
That would totally defeat the purpose haha.

The UB need to be in safe standing. That would defeat the point, a safe standing section that doesn’t have our most vocal fan group in it.

What would be the point?

Whether we like it or not, the UB should be the front and centre of safe standing section.

There’s no point in having the stand opposite to the safe standing section having a better atmosphere.
I agree with that mate. My point is.... safe standing is for the full support. Not just for the union bears.

They should be in there. I’ve said that. But it shouldn’t be “their way or the highway”.

I’d be curious to know why the UB’s proposed the BF for safe standing not so long ago? (Which is a poor idea imo)
 

Stanley Yelnats

Well-Known Member
I agree with that mate. My point is.... safe standing is for the full support. Not just for the union bears.

They should be in there. I’ve said that. But it shouldn’t be “their way or the highway”.

I’d be curious to know why the UB’s proposed the BF for safe standing not so long ago? (Which is a poor idea imo)
Think they proposed a number of options but they’d all been rejected.

The UB have tried everything for the last seven years.

A move to BF3 was verbally agreed in 2012 but head of security David Martin rejected it.

I have no doubts the whole Broomloan would have been safe standing by now if it wasn’t for David Martin.

The problem for the board isn’t where to put safe standing, it’s where to situate the UB first before safe standing is installed.
 

SM™

Administrator
Staff member
Given that over the past couple of years we've had an issue with punters spilling out of stands at late winners or important goals I have this feeling that the club head of security is having kittens at the thought of safe standing and will try and implement it in as small an area as possible where fans can't possibly get on to the pitch.

Just watch. It'll be section CD7 and it'll kill the atmosphere with everyone being way up in the sky.

Ideally I'd love it if the Copland Front and the corner there were allowed it but the club treats the fans like crap. They operate very similarly to the way the club did things under Murray and I feel is if we're not trusted.

Good luck to those involved. I think you'll need it.
 
Top