United are set to get 2,284 tickets for the trip to Sunderland – 582 more than previously thought.
On March 26, Sunderland City Council’s regulatory committee set the allocation at 1,700, due to persistent standing.
Reds Away editor Dale Haslam attending the meeting in Sunderland and United should get 2,700 tickets.
Now, the Sunderland AFC and the council has had a rethink after considering the submissions of Reds Away, MUST and IMUSA and speaking to United officials.
The committee will meet on April 30 to consider a recommendation to set the allocation at 2,282.
The committee has gone along with every single allocation recommendation put before it in the last 10 years, so it would be a major shock if it did not on this occassion.
But there are conditions:
- 1,064 of those tickets must be sold to those in the loyalty pot and the other 1,218 must be sold to those in the standard port.
- Those in the loyalty pot who get tickets will be on rows 1 to 15
- 100 United stewards “will be put at (Sunderland’s) disposal during the game, to monitor the away end
- police will be helping stewards make sure fans sit down and, if not, helping them eject fans from the stadium
- two seats from the end of each row of the away end will be left empty to prevent aisle blocking
- rows of seats will be kept empty “to allow stewards and police into the heart of the crowd if necessary’
A council report explaining the change of heart says: “The revised safety management plan intends that priority be given to a well established “loyalty pot” which exists within the Manchester United fan database and informs that just short of 50 per cent of tickets will be made available to that group.
“As the name suggests, these fans have been long term supporters of the club and as a result attract benefits.
“Clearly the loyalty-pot status is cherished by those fans which fall within its category and as a result it is felt that the selling of a significant proportion of tickets to that group will attract a more compliant crowd than perhaps received in the past.”
Reds Away editor Dale Haslam said: “We strongly welcome these measures and are grateful that the council and Sunderland AFC officials have listened to fans’ concerns.
“This is a great victory for reds and it shows that football fans can win if they fight against unfair bureaucracy.
“However, we still have concerns about the proposed police operation for this game and are working with MUST, IMUSA, United and the Football Supporters’ Federation to ensure fans are treated well on the day.”
Paul, agree with your post, but just to make a side point, the Club does have evidence that LP members are generally better behaved. They started to look at it when people were calling for LP to be cancelled due to standing, and was being blamed on LP. I agree that our fans will stand the same whether LP or not LP (as shown when Bolton game was all given to non LP) but behaviour is a different issue. The club (as well as police spotters and cross club commmunication) has tracked arrests in Utd ends and looked at numbers who are a) in LP or b) obtained ticket in the name of someone in LP. There are hardly any examples of LP names being arrested, whereas there are plenty of arrests overall. Generally regarded that those in LP are more worried about losing their status and/ or attend more games and know what’s expected of them. Obviously a broad generalisation and not meaning to imply that all non LP people don’t behave, but of those who do behave badly few seem to be in LP.
Without seeing the actual risk assessment that has been carried out for this match it is almost impossible to second guess what the safety officer is most concerned about & therefore trying to control, as there seems to be conflicting information about aisles/standing being the main areas of concern.
Just a note on the legal side – clubs have a duty of care to supporters when in their stadiums. If a supporter is harmed or god forbid killed then the club and individuals (e.g. safety officers) may be found negligent by the courts and face prison and large fines. If you think about it from that perspective then you can see why they go overboard and try to mitigage any perceived risk, however remote, as believe me – they are trying to protect themselves as much as keeping supporters safe.
We all want swaying, vibrant away ends like the 70s and 80s but the world has changed, tragedies have happened, and legislation is made in government to prevent repeats.
I don’t know a solution because people sitting on their arses generally don’t sing, and the authorities don’t want us to stand up either. Catch-22.
ps great work getting the additional allocation Vitty et al.
Suggestions seem to be that ballot results may not be out until Friday…..
floymored – I completely agree…and Sunderland’s safety officer made the point about the possibility of death….but it seems like they only want to stop people dying if the match is arranged at long notice. Otherwise, they can’t be arsed arranging a meeting and 6,000 fans stand up. (Everton).
Paul – United can’t make submissions for the meeting. Clubs agree that the only authorities they can consult with are other clubs, the FA or the PL. United did that and, ultimately, it was United who got these extra seats building on the discussions at the earlier meeting I attended.
In short, it’s unfair to criticise United on this issue as they have done more to get a bigger allocation than I’ve ever seen them do for any game…and they have been absolutely excellent this season generally on these compared to previous years.
That is because we (IMUSA/MUST/SEF) are providing decent watchdogs. They know they have to represent the fans.
I’m rather proud of the developments in communication between those groups, United and the police this season and, hopefully, it will mean we have a lot fewer of these issues next season.
Oli, granted that there’ll be a more experienced element within the LP, U/25s won’t likely be even in LP, but police figures will also cover those without any ticket at all so not a totally acute way of looking at it, arrests will never generally be for standing/aisle blocking which is the reason why there’s issues with allocations and no evidence LP react any better to being asked to sit than any other supporter, and what’s the evidence they don’t aisle block or go to different seats if they arrive quite late just like others, no doubting LP will likely be the most compliant in this instance as they know focus will be more on them and potentially the most to lose, that’s why the safety officer has put them as a big part of his plan. Unless this plan is a resounding success I can only see even less than even 1,700 in upper tier from next season onwards as the safety officer will think he has a even stronger case to cut allocations.
I agree Vitty that overall United are doing lots more on fans behalf this season than ever before, they’ve realised that away tickets are a big issue, at a time when they don’t sell season tickets as easily and increased demand from execs for away tickets due to more exec facilities, they need to be seen acting for fans in a positive way. Also think that’s why they’ve been very open to the singing section as its a positive to retaining and maybe increasing season ticket sales as well as a positive to the feel of OT overall. Paz, the different colour STs is maybe no more than data collection on different age groups habits, ie if they go into OT earlier, apply for more aways etc, can’t see them giving priority to STHs who’ve had them longest on a descending basis as ticketing system would be more of closed shop and difficult than what we have now and less incentive for Younger fans to purchase or renew STs.
In terms of the length of season ticket. On the basis that the club allowed you to tell them how long you had your season ticket, can’t see this being used for priority.
I doubt United will give away ticket priority to those who have had season tickets the longest as that would lead to more recent season ticket holders not renewing as they would have no chance of getting away tickets
Agree Higgo. Is probably more to do with a teenager turning up with a ticket that’s been held for 30 years, and them knowing it’s been transferred. I don’t think they can put your DOB on there without having data/ legal issues, so this is nearest thing.
Off topic abit guys but is anyone else having this problem in the ground i have 2 st 1 in my name 1 used to be my brothers he stopped going yrs ago so i transferred it to my kids name age 10 .i have to pay full adult price for a 10 yr old unless i moved to fam stand or nst 3 then u get a reduction .. I have sat in same seats yrs good mates around me etc & stewards that have a laugh..
On another not Vitty. I understand it you’re too busy battling the authorities on our behalf but is there any chance of a ‘general’ city away guide. By general I mean any screenings for us ticketless reds if there are any, and any details of any security / ticket / police checks for the game. Also, do we know it there will be a lock in after? Will they serve beer again?
Thanks.
*note
Armani – there’s no real need for me to do a guide for City but I am expecting safety/useful info to come from GMP/other authorities later today and will post something about that later this week.
An IMUSA rep is meeting with GMP this morning (I was due to go but can’t make it due to work) to discuss safety arrangements for the City game.
City fans’ group reps are also there.
In fairness to GMP, this is becoming the norm and they have been excellent with all our requests in recent months. Long may it continue.
Armani, Manchester United are showing the City game in the international suite on big screens. its £20 and includes a curry/rice/naam bread dinner, a free beer and a Q&A session with Lou macari who will be there to watch the game.
As is always the case at City, they will have additional security chjecks and barriers before you get near to the turnstyles. For the cup game, this included sniffer dogs. I would also imagine that supporters will be kept in for 20 minutes, as was the case in the cup game and has previously been the case at some league games.
I assume we will be held in too. We didn’t use to be, but a few times it kicked off and those who had left were gone, but those still there were then shut in. We were held back in the cup game and this is a night game, so more chance of it than not.
Thanks for all the responses lads. All as I expected, but thought I’d check with the ‘people in the know’ or more so than me anyway.
I out a few questions and concerns to sunderland AFC in regards to their new submission. i wont publish all of the Q & A’s as it might be considerd private information, but here is one of the main concerns that they addressed -
Q -Will the emphasis be on getting the front 15 rows to sit, or will that be enforced for all spectators within the away end?
A – THE WHOLE REASON FOR THE INCREASED ALLOCATION IS THE GUARANTEE FROM MANCHESTER UNITED THAT THE FRONT 15 ROWS WILL SIT OR LOSE THEIR LOYALTY POT STATUS. IT IS IMPERITIVE THAT THE LOYALTY POT SUPPORTERS WORK WITH US AND IDENTIFY THOSE WHO SHOPULD NOT BE IN THE FRONT 15 ROWS.
Interesting. Will see what MUFC say.
I doubt any other info sent to you is private, otherwise they wouldn’t have sent it to you…
I’m not in the Loyalty Pot but making them sit or lose their status at a ground away from Old Trafford is taking the piss? Under what legal right can they do that??
Especially if the top tier all stand, what a farce that will become. Who the fuck are Sunderland to have any say on OUR loyalty pot??
The only way that can be correct is if they have agreed this previously with United as Sunderland have no authority over United’s running of the Loyalty Pot.
Any removals from the Loyalty Pot would have to come from United as that certainly isn’t in Sunderland’s authority.
It’s wrong but it could be an excuse for Utd to reduce the numbers in the LP.
Perhaps allow LP members to return tickets (without losing status) but if they keep tickets and attend on the proviso they sit down and adhere to SAFC rules, if not risk jeopardising their LP status.
Lakey, in theory there’s good legal right as the LP is for the benefit of away games and standing is breaking ground regulations at a away game, agree that it is a joke Sunderland are able to have so much influence on Mufc but what are United meant to do if its these conditions or nothing, who’s to say united would have to go through with punishing those in LP once the game has gone. Unless they see a benefit of trimming LP numbers.
Think is important to see what MUFC say – and whether they have actually agreed to these terms – before guessing what is going on. At this point I don’t believe there is any agenda to trim the LP, remember they have actually been bringing in conditions to stop people dropping out my mistake etc.
Also, that para from Sunderland is a joke. As an LP member am I really supposed to identify everyone else in the LP and know who should not be in the section? If they want us to ‘work with them’ why not ask MUFC to have put LP members in touch with them before etc?
Re Legal right thou what happens if any in a LP seated area stand at all or are in a slightly different seat and the person in their allocated seat stands, would the stewards be able to just take down seat numbers to pass to Mufc or would they need to confiscate tickets as evidence?
Paul, almost always target an individual then take their details (and sometimes ask to see their ticket). Virtually impossible to do it by seat details as they know they’ll make some major errors that way. But CCTV can also help them pick people out, even the week after the game.
Oli, Yes that’s the normal procedure and you would hope they will stick to that, but it will very difficult or impossible for them to confront mass amounts of people if standing is still a problem, also how heavy handed would they really feel able to do as standing is not really a legal matter, re CCTV, would it really be mufc responsibility to identify standing individuals at a later date, would be difficult for mufc to know face identity of all LP and those they may give tickets to, remember mufc used the tactic of taking note of seat numbers of some persistently standing at OT and then sent them warning letters rather continually confront them.
Have United confirmed to any Execs about ticket eligibility in last 2 days?
Armani,
Mary D’s is always a good bet for a pre match pint.
“Have United confirmed to any Execs about ticket eligibility in last 2 days?”
What do you mean?
Have now read actually documents and not just Vitty summary. It does not a any point say the rest of the tickets have to go to the standard pot (ie not to execs). It says the LP must get 1068, and the rest must go to ‘general season ticket holders’ which presumably includes execs too. There is no way whatsoever execs won’t be ticketed, and no reason Sunderland would insist on them not being.
Oli – I’ll ask Phil about this loyalty pot issue. Vwry concerning comment from Sunderland.
So basically the front 15 rows are going to be empty haha
Oli, meant have Execs had confirmation there’ll be eligible for this ballot, you’ve partly answered that anyway, if there was were any doubts about Execs it maybe that their seen as most likely to pass on tickets, not that it should be any business of sunderland.
I agree that Execs should be eligible just like other ticket holders, thou it means Standard pot STHs will get a poor amount of tickets for this game as they do with many others esp “Big games” and return tickets for this and City game will go to Execs, maybe a few may go to LP for City, that’s if they issue any returns at all.
I don’t see any reason MUFC would notify execs that they’re eligible for a ballot that they’d always assume they’d be eligible for. And if they were not able to be allocated tickets, MUFC aren’t going to go out their way to tell people and create a fuss, they’d just reject people and hope no questions were asked.
Agree standard pot will have very reduced chances, but no more than when allocation was 1700 anyway.
PS The Sunderland document at least acknowledges that people at the front standing means those behind have to stand up whether they want to or not. I therefore assume stewards/ police will be most focused on rows 1-5, and only if they sit down and others behind don’t will the problems arise for those further back.
Oli, re Exec confirmation generally meant if TO had been able to confirm eligibility to any execs that may have rang to inquire, obviously the club aren’t going to want to highlight a possible negative by contacting execs.
Agree standard pot have heavily reduced chance either way regardless of which of the 2 reduced allocations are confirmed by council, expect many Execs will be unsuccessful also, but Standard pot esp do bad for “big games” as obviously lots more apply, but less tickets in Standard pot also when all 3 pots are oversubscribed. .
Right, I’ve had some clarification from Sunderland.
Essentially, what they want is, if a Loyalty Pot member goes to their seat and finds someone in it, that they go to a steward and tell them.
However, they don’t anticipate this will happen as they will be checking tickets in the area between rows 15 and 16.
Essentially, if you’ve not got a ticket for rows 1-15, you won’t be able to enter that area.
And if you have got a ticket for rows 1-15 you will not be allowed in rows 16+
However, Sunderland claim they have a guarantee from United that any LP member who stands will have their LP membership withdrawn. I’ve asked United if that is the case, as it seems extremely dodgy to me.
So at the end of all this, when ARE they running the ballot?
The most annoying thing about all this is this is something Sunderland should have taken the lead on years ago as it is a clear design flaw in the stadium. When we were the the year we won 2 1 when macheda scored the winner we were in about row 12 I think right in front of the entrance. We were standing in front of our seats about 20 mins before k o and about 2 minutes before the game started a large crowd of lads had appeared. Our row was effectively 2 deep all game and lads from their group were standing on the seats etc. to the extent that when we score on of them ended up about 3 rows in front!
I went up to the stewards and police afterwards and they just didn’t care. There should be stewards at the top of each flight of steps down to the lower tier and u have to show your ticket when u enter/leave. They seem to manage this at other sports events and gigs ive been to so cannot be that hard to implement
So u went grassing to the police cos a few lads were stood in an incorrect seat. Knobhead
GD, mufc have told some ballot could be done friday but reality suggests may 1st/2nd. For the sake of 3/4 days unlikely they will do 2 ballots
Stugo, main problem is that large amounts reds don’t enter away end until near dead on kick off, so even if there was a steward at top & bottom of stairs they still wouldn’t likely check all tickets, at home games, gigs etc think people drift in at different times more, also at home games, gigs etc you would find people less tolerant of people squeezing into area near their seat, their is a mentality by some at away games to not bother looking for their seat esp if arrive late on, that creates the overcrowding in certain rows and some in aisles, think less of that mentality at gigs etc.
Paul,
Yeah I agree. Although at other aways with small entrances stewarding is easier. I don’t believe there is a way of controlling the entrance of a large group with the bigger entrances at Sunderland.I am also willing to put good money on that the group in question got in without tickets. just the impression I got at the time.
Anyway, just glad to see the work of supporters groups has been rewarded. Well done to all involved!
Stugo, I agree with Paul that our fans are at least partly to blame for that situation. So often the away end is pretty empty 5 mins before kick off them everyone piles in. If stewards insisted on checking every ticket and making sure people went to the right seat at that point, then there would be crushes, angry reds pushing forwards to get in and would be utter chaos. That’s pretty much what happens on euro aways when everyone turns up late and faces long security checks outside.
For this one I think I will looking to use tickets not in rows 1-15. Too much hassle. But if we win title being at the front very nice for celebrations!
does anyone know if the ballot will be this week or not ? This seems to be a long drawn out affair and the train prices are going up with it being quite soon.
Common sense dictates the ballot must be done on or after April 30 as United would otherwise run the risk of selling tickets before the council has allowed them to.
Ballot wont be until next week I would imagine come 5pm Wednesday we will all know we have been chubbed again
Registered on SAFC website, and trying purchasing tickets in Sunderland end, thought I was in luck as the guy said it shouldn’t be a problem. Only to tell me you need to have purchased and attended a previous home game. I said what if I bought an U16 ticket for the Bolton game, and he said yeah that would work, only to find out you still need to have attended a game this season. Slim chance of getting a ticket in Utd end, hopefully there will be a few home end tickets knocking about. We’re flying into Liverpool and hiring a car, flight times from Belfast didnt suit.
i bought an under 16 for bolton still wont let me buy for united perhaps it will after the game has taken place though
Managed to get tickets in home end,been told however any away fans found in the home end could face a banning order,anyone with any info?
stewart, yet another reason to just keep quiet if we score!
I don’t believe that’s true unless you are provocative/ resist being ejected etc. And remember a banning order is given by a court, rather than by Sunderland FC or the police, so that cannot be pre determined anyway.
yeah oli,did’nt think you could get one just for being there,it came from someone at sunderland,think they may just be worried about the amount of reds getting tickets for home sections!