</p> Did we ever get an answer regarding the trust meeting's decision not to support the idea of designated smoking areas apparently being overturned by its leadership?</p> I emailed Alan Bloore via the trust website but he hasn't replied.</p> It seems the number of people the clubis effectivelycommunicating with is even smaller than we thought.</p>
The latest on the smoking situation at Oakwell was discussed at the last ST meeting. The ST position is still the same and Oakwell is still a no smoking stadium. The Football Supporters Federation are in talks with the football league about the smoking rule.
I don't doubt for a moment that there'll be no smoking. I'm more interested in the fact that the leadership appeared to overrule your decision and, having received a resounding no in thevote went ahead and made an agreement with the club to give it a go anyway.
All was explained at the meeting and notes should be in the members are of the trust site. I suggest you look at the facts before before making a decision on what the leadership "appeared" to do. I didn't think you were a member anyway?
To be fair if you are going to use this board as a media outlet of the supporters trust when it suits it is only fair that you then answer questions about those issues from people who may not be members
I thought I had. Nothing has changed with regards to the trusts position on Smoking and Oakwell remains a no smoking stadium in line with the football league's rule 17(?)
Yes the trusts position has changed. The trust had a meeting with the club in which it was decided that areas of the ground WOULD allow smoking, now you say that in accordance with rule 17 this will not happen. How can you claim that the position is the same? I don't think it would hurt too much to explain what actually happened rather than saying you aren't a member so we aren't telling you and sticking your tongue out. Remember that many people have valid reasons for not being members of the trust (couldn't go to a single meeting if I wanted to for example)
I suggest that you delete this thread quickly It isn't as interesting and makes just as much sense as those of mine you have pettily deleted from last night!
</p> The facts are that the leadership did appear to overrule the vote.The question was raised on this boardat the time and noexplanation was given.The truth about what actually happened is what i'm asking for. A simple answer to the actual question asked would have sufficed.</p> </p> </p> </p> </p> </p> </p> .</p>
That's not an answer to the question. The information we got at the time was that the trust voted "overwhelmingly" against designated smoking areas but the leadership had gone ahead and agreed on them. The fact that no-one within the trust leadership understood that the FA would never allow it to happen is irrelevant. The question is did the leadership overrule the vote.
The postition hasn't changed - we went to the meeting with the club with the mandate from our members that we wanted Oakwell to remain a non smoking stadium. There was a misunderstading at the meeting (by myself) with regards to this. On the league's no smoking rule, most clubs are reporting problems and don't have the manpower in terms of match day stewards to address the problem so the league will probably have to act at some stage so the question is what do they do? It isn't illegal to smoke in a football stadium (at least the open air part). If the clubs decide between themselves to abolish the rule at the next league AGM we will be back to the same smoking situation we've had for years. Surely better to find a compromise? The FSF are now talking with the league about the issue.
Thanks for the explanation, I think that's all that anybody has been asking for. As for clubs saying they don't have man power to address the situation, well thats a load of crap in my opinion. How many hidden areas are there at Oakwell that people can smoke in that are not covered by the law anyway? The corners and west stand lower tier are al that I can think of.
The trust didnt overrule anything. Im not sure how else to explain that and it's got nothing to do with the FA
On the man power issue, I think the clubs are saying is that to expell one person it would take say 2-3 stewards. If 50 people are smoking clearly that soon adds up. I think pretty much every away game Ive been to this season (most of them) the toilets have been thick with smoke from our fans smoking. The stewards mostly look on as they don't want the confrontation that will inevitably happen. There are other issues of course - how many fans are staying away from football games up and down the country because they can't go somewhere for a cig at half time. I'm not a smoker by the way so to a certain degree I don't give a monkeys but I don't think any club can afford to alienate a section of its fans.
The smoking in toilets issue is irrelevent, it is illegal to smoke there regardless of what any meeting with the football league decides, the real issue is the policing/stewarding in the open air. ie the 2 corners. People don't need to be ejected, there is no need for 3 people to eject them, simply to ask them to stop. Lets say that they allow fans to smoke in one small area, how will they manage it? Will there be some unlucky steward that has to stand in the middle of them to make sure they are behaving themselves? Also while some fans might be staying away, how many extra fans are coming to replace them?
I didn't suggest the trust overruled anything. </p> I said the trust leadership appeared to have overruled the vote. I was running out of ways to ask the question but you've answered it above. Just to clarify again.</p> What we heard at the time was -</p> 1) The trust voted overwhelmingly against designated smoking areas.</p> 2) The trust leadership then agreed with the club to allow them.</p> The only question I ever asked was how did that happen? Apparently there was a mistake, fine.</p> I'm fully aware of "the facts" regarding smoking at Oakwell as I was when the trust leadership appeared to believe it was going to happen and they have nothing to do with my question.</p>
OK Somebody else must've deleted them. They were only a bit of nostalgia as well! Couldn't really see what was so offensive about them.
