LICENSING BOSS DEFENDS STANCE

John de Quidt, chief executive of the Football Licensing Authority, warned supporters they were still drinking in the last-chance saloon, but insisted Saints fans were not being made scapegoats for a national problem.

In a frank interview with The Daily Echo, de Quidt described Saints chairman Rupert Lowe's entry into the debate as "unhelpful" and even compared the current Northam End situation to the stand-off in the Middle-East.

He said: "It's like Iraq and the weapons inspectors. I hope war never becomes necessary, but sometimes you do have to take a tougher line.

"No-one wanted to go down the road of a more coercive approach, but it was felt that there was no alternative."

De Quidt said there had been ongoing problems with Saints.

"During the last year at The Dell there was quite a determined effort by the club, the police and local authority to get people sitting," he said.

"This produced a backlash and suddenly the whole end was standing.

"With the move to the new stadium, the authority decided to play a long game and backed off.

"The problem started up and it was felt not to go in with a heavy mob but to try and persuade and encourage people to start with. But it got to the stage where we had to threaten to close sections of the ground.

"No-one wants that to happen. We want to resolve the situation as best as possible and there does now seem to be a more positive response."

Although fans from West Ham, Charlton and Portsmouth, have all told The Echo that the FLA has not cracked down on them despite persistent standing, de Quidt was adamant Saints were not being handled differently.

He said: "I honestly don't think they are being treated unfairly on this. You get this misconception that we are ignoring other fans.

"There are other clubs who have got similar problems and they are being dealt with. There is a national approach to this issue.

"Perhaps they have not hit the headlines in the same way because people are not dragging out the separate argument about safe standing.

"It has simply come to a head at Southampton because of the open defiance and confrontation."

De Quidt also denied the tough stance had arisen as pay-back for Lowe's support for the whole issue of safe standing to be properly debated.

"Us trying to get people to sit down was well before the Southampton chairman's remarks," he said.

"Having said that I do think what he said does confuse the issue and isn't helpful.

"But we don't have a vendetta against Rupert Lowe."

THE FULL INTERVIEW:

Southern Daily Echo: What is the background to calls for the safe-standing debate?

John de Quidt: It is a requirement for all grounds in the top two divisions to go all seated from the Taylor Report and the subsequent Act of Parliament.

There was an order for The Dell in 1994 and when they went to St Mary's in 2001 there was a similar order which is called the Football Spectators (Seating Orders) which prescribes the licensing issues.

It says firstly that only seated accommodation should be provided and secondly that spectators can only watch football matches while seated.

We consult the local authority and the club on this and neither the local authority or the club raised any objections.

For obvious reasons St Mary's was built as an all-seater stadium.

The requirements that spectators sit down is in the ground regulations and they are common to every club.

These are not our rules, they are football's rules.

The responsibility for getting people to sit down rests with the club. The local authority issues a safety certificate regarding the permitted capacity.

The FLA then oversees the local authority and we can over-rule the safety authority.

SDE: Has the FLA ever stepped in and closed parts of a ground because of

standing?

JDQ: We would have the power to make the safety authority reduce the capacity, but in practice we have never done that.

It is certainly not our style to interfere. If you get to the point where you are closing sections of the ground, it is a failure of the club and it shows the guidance has not worked.

Closing sections of the ground is the ultimate weapon and we would rather not do that. We want to have safe and happy grounds.

SDE: How bad would persistent standing have to be for you to close parts of a ground?

JDQ: In 12 years we have never closed sections of a ground because of persistent standing.

Stands have been closed because of deficiencies, but not for standing and I hope that we never get to that position. It is certainly not how we would like to proceed.

But if it was the only solution then it might happen.

The issues that we have to consider are spectator safety, crowd behaviour and customer care.

Standing can accompany bad behaviour and there could be issues of customer care. But it is a matter of judgement.

SDE: Why have you decided to tackle Saints fans now when standing went on in the Archers at The Dell and last year at St Mary's without any problems?

JDQ: The situation at Saints goes back

several years. It did go back to the Archers

section at The Dell.

It was a smaller stand, the view of the pitch was not so good and people probably were more tolerant - perhaps they were more tolerant than they should have been.

During the last year at The Dell there was quite a determined effort by the club, the police and local authority to get people sitting.

This produced a backlash and suddenly the whole end was standing.

The authority decided to play a long game and backed off. They decided that with the move to a new ground they would try and crack it then through encouragement and education.

In the first match at St Mary's, the Espanyol game, people sat down and things seemed to be going well.

But the problem started up again.

SDE: From the point of view of the FLA, how serious is the current situation at Saints?

JDQ: To start with it was felt not to go in with a heavy mob, but to try and persuade and encourage people.

St Mary's is an excellent stadium and you don't need to stand up to get a great view.

But it got to the stage where we threatened to close sections of the ground and if it had got to that stage we would have implemented it.

Noone wants that to happen and we want to resolve the situation as best as possible. But people have abused the situation, although there does now seem to be a more positive response.

It's like with Iraq and the weapons inspector. I hope that war never becomes necessary, but sometimes you do have to take a tougher line.

Noone wanted to go down the road of a more coercive approach, but it was felt that there was no alternative, particularly as people tried various tactics to beat the system.

SDE: Fans stand at other grounds. Are Saints being singled out for tough action?

JDQ: I don't honestly think Saints have been treated unfairly on this. You get misconceptions that we are ignoring other fans.

You might see people standing on television at other grounds, but they generally show the crowds when a goal is scored and that is precisely when people stand.

What you don't see is when the action moves away. Television can be misleading on this.

There are other clubs who have got similar problems and they are being dealt with. There is a national approach to this issue.

Perhaps they have not hit the headlines in the same way because people are not dragging out the separate argument about safe standing.

To bring the two issues together does muddy the waters.

They are not many clubs with an issue on a large scale. I can understand why fans might feel as they do, but there is no policy of picking on a club.

It has simply come to a head at Southampton because of the open defiance and confrontation.

SDE: Some say the FLA is just trying to get at Rupert Lowe for backing fans and saying that there should be a debate on safe standing. What would you say to that?

JDQ: Us trying to get people to sit down was well before the Southampton chairman's remarks.

Having said that I do think that what he said does confuse the issue and isn't helpful. But we don't have a vendetta against Rupert Lowe.

SDE: Is it your impression that significant numbers of people want to stand at football?

JDQ: The supporters who stand get the headlines but we also get a lot of people who don't want to stand.

There are a lot of myths with standing. The tradition of standing only grew because back in the 'good old days' the facilities weren't so good and the clubs weren't prepared to provide good facilities and it became the tradition to stand.

But in the United States noone has ever stood up because they have looked after the customer.

SDE: Why are visiting supporters less likely to be challenged when they stand?

JDQ: It's true that most of the persistent standing is done by visiting supporters and it is very difficult to control when you don't know who they are.

Away fans tend to be fewer families and older people and it can then make home supporters stand up in response to them.

SDE: The FLA looked at safe standing areas in Germany. Could a similar system be easily introduced at Premiership clubs?

JDQ: We were asked to do a technical evaluation of the situation in Germany.

But there would be difficulties with introducing it for all sorts of technical reasons.

Most stands are also on solid ground and not on a concourse and it is very likely that they would need to convert St Mary's. There are also issues with the seat row depth.

There is a myth saying you could get more people in for lower the price.

In practice people often take up more space when standing, as you will see when people stand up in seated areas and then spill into the aisles.

The full report is on our website.

SDE: Is it true that government whips deliberately killed off the bill on safe standing proposed by Roger Godsiff earlier in the year?

JDQ: Most private members bills are never debated as only six days are set aside each year for.

Roger Godsiff's was the third item up on that particular day. It is completely unheard of the third item to be heard on any given day, so there was certainly no policy not to debate this bill.

TO FIND OUT MORE ABOUT THE FLA SEE ITS WEBSITE AT: www.flaweb.org.uk