The APL/FA Management Thread

[Dylan]

5 minutes ago, haz said:

For us, it would be much more effective and worthwhile protesting for #JVSOUT rather then for this, considering just as cadete has said only 3 city supporters were named but they were charged in the heart days, so really it is not relevant to us but rather WSW 

Yeah I am annoyed that a potential JVS thing is now going to be hijacked because of this. But hey I have nothing to do with active so what I think doesnt matter really. 

Edited November 22, 2015 by Dylan

[Shahanga]

1 hour ago, Bannon said:

you even read the article?
 

Yeah I read it.

look don't get me wrong I'm not in active and I support your right to do whatever you like. I'm just struggling to understand who you are influencing with your protest.

[sheepdog]

Let's be honest here, its only happening in the faint hope that some cred will be earnt on ultras mentality facey page by being the first terrace to boycott. 

Am I right or am I right? 

[thisphantomfortress]

5 minutes ago, sheepdog said:

Let's be honest here, its only happening in the faint hope that some cred will be earnt on ultras mentality facey page by being the first terrace to boycott. 

Am I right or am I right? 

Fuck he's onto us protest off...

[Murfy1]

Are active supporters groups of any other A-League clubs doing protests/demonstrations? I honestly don't know. However I do think it would be a little unusual for supporters of Melbourne City to be the only supporters to protest, since only 3 or 4 apparent Melbourne Heart/City supporters are named and profiled in the Daily Telegraph article.

 

If people have had information falsely reported about them in the article, then it is very clearly a serious issue and the newspaper is pretty clearly in the wrong, and might even be open to defamation claims.

However if the information reported is correct things are less clear. Still I personally don't agree with what the Daily Telegraph has done. I think it's wrong and counterproductive. And there is the question of how people's personal information, which presumably was kept by some organisation like the FFA, fell into the hands of the media, as I'm sure there would have been confidentiality and privacy promises pledging that things like this couldn't happen. 

 

So people who have been wronged by the Daily Telegraph article are right to be outraged. On protests/demonstrations though I'm of the opinion that they are most effective when they are only done rarely, and are only triggered by very important events/developments. So if such things go ahead there should be agreement that the issues with this Daily Telegraph article and so on are very important for Melbourne City supporters, and IMO it's debatable.

Edited November 22, 2015 by Murfy1

[benzema23]

Serious issue in terms of privacy laws, but #JVSout is the only protest I'll get behind. 

Edited November 22, 2015 by benzema23

[Pete Heartspur]

Hang on. So let me get this straight.

It goes:

Paedophile

Banned Spectator

Terrorist

Yeah?

Sorry, just trying to figure out who has the higher social standing and how i'm meant to be outraged by the Murdoch propaganda machine.

[cadete]

1 minute ago, Pete Heartspur said:

Hang on. So let me get this straight.

It goes:

Paedophile

Banned Spectator

Terrorist

Yeah?

Sorry, just trying to figure out who has the higher social standing and how i'm meant to be outraged by the Murdoch propaganda machine.

Just read The Age and blame all the following on Climate Change...

[Pete Heartspur]

1 minute ago, cadete said:

Just read The Age and blame all the following on Climate Change...

But i thought it was all the muslim's fault?

To be honest though, i don't read the age either.

[SHERLOCK]

Very compelling discussion. If possible can I make a suggestion regarding a protest on Friday. 

3 banners for the obviously vacated active area.

#JVS OUT

#PARDEN OUR WRONGED FANS

most importantly 

#WHERE THE FUCK ARE THE SAUSAGES?

[thisphantomfortress]

12 minutes ago, SHERLOCK said:

 

#WHERE THE FUCK ARE THE SAUSAGES?

This banner confirmed 

[Tonyboozeadams]

Muslims and the poor are to blame

[jeffplz]

The Den's response to the same article:

 

Quote

The Sunday Telegraph, a News Limited publication, today released the names and pictures of people who are currently serving bans enforced by FFA. The public release of this information is a gross breach of privacy, and one that has the potential to damage the personal lives of supporters around the country.

To remedy this situation a number of steps need to be undertaken;

1. The FFA needs to announce a full investigation into how this information came to be made public. With steps to be taken to ensure that a similar situation doesn’t occur again.
2. Someone needs to be made responsible for this breach of privacy, a right that is stated in the letter informing supporters of their ban. All situations have a chain of command and this breach is unacceptable in any circumstance.
3. An audit of the process currently in effect needs to be undertaken, with recommendations made for the implementation of an appeals process. An immediate assumption of guilt is a denial of natural justice, and those accused must be given the opportunity to respond to allegations.

As a football active support group we exist to support our team and create an atmosphere. We have experienced our own issues throughout our existence; however, our message has been and will always be to support the team with as much passion as you can and to remain compliant with the laws of the country and state that you are in. We cannot and will not support anti-social behaviour by our fans.

We stand with our fellow supporters across the league who have been wronged by this situation and know that many of you don’t deserve this unjust attention. All supporters need to come together to show that supporters right to privacy is more important than a newspaper front page. We hope those that have been wronged explore all legal avenues in defending themselves and addressing this betrayal of confidentiality.

With regards to a boycott, we are in a situation where by we don’t have a home game at the Lang Park Concert Venue until December 27, approximately 5 weeks away. If the need for action to be taken is still relevant, we will consider boycotting as an active support group on that date. In the meantime, we will show our support in other methods. We will not stand by and continue to let the FFA or media outlets tarnish and dismantle what we as football supporters have worked so hard to build. We will not stay silent. We will not go away.

from https://www.facebook.com/BRFCTheDen/posts/895813210525491?fref=nf

[belaguttman]

21 hours ago, NewConvert said:

I recall a while back (1-2 years???) that a bloke on 442 was trying to muster support to get his ban revoked on the grounds of mistaken identity. IIRC the ban was from the stadium, not the courts nor the police and there was no appeal. Apparently the police had nabbed someone else and successfully prosecuted a bloke but the stadium got him confused and even a letter from the police exonerating him couldn't overturn the ban. Not sure whether that was accurate or not but it could be the reason why neither the police nor the courts are mentioned in the article.

Or stadium management.

That guy is a visitors fan and has produced his passport to show that he was out of the country when he was banned. Despite that he is still banned

Edited November 23, 2015 by belaguttman

[Yants]

I think the principle of the protest is fair, but why should we be the 1^st to do it when it’s a bigger issue with active supporters of other clubs. Let WSW abandon their active area for their home game then maybe we can decide if we wanna show solidarity.

I have a feeling if we were to do it on Fri night nobody will care or notice & other teams will support as normal & get to enjoy their home games.

[n i k o]

Rebecca Wilson is the woman that wrote the article. Her wiki page: 

 

Edited November 22, 2015 by n i k o

[strider]

... jvs out > this shitty protest 

[ecguymer]

Part of me wants to know who's ban list this is, or is it some form of combine list; venues, clubs and the FFA all, independently of each other, have the ability to ban fan. Most other codes (as far as I'm aware) mainly use a mix of club membership bans and venue bans and rarely have the governing body ban people entirely (which may be why the numbers in the article for other bans are much lower). One could also ask the question have any of these bans expired, is this a list of everyone who has been banned ever, or is this an up to date list of currently banned people.

Those matters aside; while I have no issues with the use visible active security, pre-match venue sweeps and bans where the behaviour is sufficiently contrary to the rules of admittance and/or the law; the release of this information, especially in this level of detail, raises major ethical and legal questions at those who impose and govern the bans, and those with access to this information.

Some of the other posts also raise questions around the policies and procedures used when deciding in a long term ban, and particularly what, if any, communication those policies require between the deciding party/s, security, and law enforcement (as far as I'm aware, the only bans that are automatic are the 24-48 hour bans imposed upon ejection from/arrest at certain venues)

 

[wombegongal]

It's up to people in the terrace as to what they do to be honest. Each persons has the right to make their own choice. 

 

I'm really surprised people deem this protest worthy though. Is it a breach of privacy? Well yes in a way and no at the same time. If you commit an act in public, in front of others, get caught and then are named in public for said act the newspaper has only broadcast to a larger audience a factual piece of information about you. Good luck trying to sue for defamation when you defamed yourself in the first place. Further to this I'm sure most of these muppets have bragged about it to mates. 

 

The people that are the real losers here are the wrongly accused who as it appears have no way to challenge such bans. This aspect of ffa policy is troubling. There always needs to be some right to appeal and further investigation. Even a defamation action where you can prove you were wrongly accused and therefore defamed as you are innocent, requires you to prove you have suffered some damage as a result of the article. I can't imagine anyone in this file will suffer large material loss due to it's publication.

 

This is a storm in a tea cup it warrants a strongly worded letter at most.

[agoalie]

FFA are ruining active support, the amount of bullshit that you have to go through now to get something approved is a joke. Can't even have pullovers anymore and tifos on poles are so much harder to get approved. There is a bigger issue at hand with the treatment of active support groups than just what has been reported in the media. 

[Shahanga]

3 hours ago, wombegongal said:

It's up to people in the terrace as to what they do to be honest. Each persons has the right to make their own choice. 

 

I'm really surprised people deem this protest worthy though. Is it a breach of privacy? Well yes in a way and no at the same time. If you commit an act in public, in front of others, get caught and then are named in public for said act the newspaper has only broadcast to a larger audience a factual piece of information about you. Good luck trying to sue for defamation when you defamed yourself in the first place. Further to this I'm sure most of these muppets have bragged about it to mates. 

 

The people that are the real losers here are the wrongly accused who as it appears have no way to challenge such bans. This aspect of ffa policy is troubling. There always needs to be some right to appeal and further investigation. Even a defamation action where you can prove you were wrongly accused and therefore defamed as you are innocent, requires you to prove you have suffered some damage as a result of the article. I can't imagine anyone in this file will suffer large material loss due to it's publication.

 

This is a storm in a tea cup it warrants a strongly worded letter at most.

Sadly wasted my likes. Well said.

[cadete]

10 hours ago, belaguttman said:

That guy is a visitors fan and has[produced his passport to show that he was out of the country when he was banned. Despite that he is still banned

I think this ban was revoked (well I was told as much by someone who would know) and that probably the said person received a new ban as its one of the longer bans listed... but I could be wrong.

There is def another MV fan the paper listed who I know had a ban revoked after video evidence showed he was clearly not at fault, and he was listed in the article for being banned for the offence of this revoked ban which leads me to believe that some other parts of the information in the article was a bit inaccurate.

[belaguttman]

We should be protesting about the poor on field performances and be demanding better of the players and coaching staff and management. A silent protest will be seen as a victory by that professional troll. We'd be better off protesting about JVS and also having a banner showing her as a puppet of the forces of darkness of AFL/NRL.

[Alexxxandro]

6 minutes ago, belaguttman said:

We should be protesting about the poor on field performances and be demanding better of the players and coaching staff and management. A silent protest will be seen as a victory by that professional troll. We'd be better off protesting about JVS and also having a banner showing her as a puppet of the forces of darkness of AFL/NRL.

Damn Bela you getting mad.

 

 

[Dylan]

Apparently the source was the SCG trust

[n i k o]

Apparently this is on the bottom of a banned notice and appears to be from the FFA. Does the FFA have more to answer for than they're admitting regarding the release of info about these people?

[belaguttman]

1 hour ago, Alexxxandro said:

Damn Bela you getting mad.

 

 

Well and truly

[n i k o]

The protest goes beyond the article written. FFA have their own explaining to do as to how the private information they're supposed to keep has been released to the media. It appears this includes some of our supporters from the Heart days and perhaps even as City members. Also the watering down of active support by the FFA is of a concern as well as it is ruining what makes our game experiences different to other codes. In saying that all I hope is the Melburnians have thought this out extremely well and this protest sends the desired message. 

 

[Tonyboozeadams]

http://youtu.be/eBShN8qT4lk

[thisphantomfortress]

18 minutes ago, n i k o said:

The protest goes beyond the article written. FFA have their own explaining to do as to how the private information they're supposed to keep has been released to the media. It appears this includes some of our supporters from the Heart days and perhaps even as City members. Also the watering down of active support by the FFA is of a concern as well as it is ruining what makes our game experiences different to other codes. In saying that all I hope is the Melburnians have thought this out extremely well and this protest sends the desired message. 

 

This guy get it.

[n i k o]

Word is that SCG Trust leaked supporters information to the media. Apparently when banning orders are given the FFA and stadium operators possess private details of those people. If that's the case how does the FFA get by allowing this to happen?

And what will their next move be to show that "We are Football" and that they're protecting the parts of our active support that are vital to what makes us unique. 

[Dylan]

4 minutes ago, n i k o said:

Word is that SCG Trust leaked supporters information to the media. Apparently when banning orders are given the FFA and stadium operators possess private details of those people. If that's the case how does the FFA get by allowing this to happen?

And what will their next move be to show that "We are Football" and that they're protecting the parts of our active support that are vital to what makes us unique. 

Of course the stadiums have to know. As well as security companies. How else would they enforce it? FFA is not to blame for this no matter how much people want them to be at fault.

[raw10]

18 hours ago, Chez said:

Having the pictures up was very weird, they got kicked out of a stadium, they didn't get convicted of a crime

A bit harsh imo.

[Shahanga]

Active support is getting cracked down upon because of the behaviour of WSW and tards fans and their clubs skills at getting the measures applied to all clubs.

This is unjust and billshit and worth protesting about, but without clear banners it will appear you are supporting the louts who are ruining this game.

[n i k o]

FFA has a responsibility to its stakeholders, namely us. Have a look at the picture I posted above to see that in their own admission the FFA must protect the privacy of anyone that receives a banning order. They state that "Your personal details....are considered confidential and will only be used to enforce the banning notice for the specified period." The FFA stands by this with its own stamp of approval. 

The FFA is also responsible for the people that are innocent yet still carry banning orders. They have no appeal process to prove they weren't guilty of the actions they've been accused of. Because of this these people will be black listed in the future because of this article. All it takes is for an future potential employer to google search their name. 

 

[Tony999]

By the way, why are crowds significantly low this season?

[johnno cpfc]

19 hours ago, hedaik said:

Time for you me and Johnno to make a power play for terrace leadership

 

Hediak, i sit in Prem B  so not realy interested in protests but i do think there has been a big breach of confidentiality here. So there needs to be an investigation into who leaked the list and total banning of Alan Jones .

 

[Tommykins]

9 minutes ago, johnno cpfc said:

Hediak, i sit in Prem B  so not realy interested in protests but i do think there has been a big breach of confidentiality here. So there needs to be an investigation into who leaked the list and total banning of Alan Jones .

 

QFT

[n i k o]

So Alan Jones spoke on the radio to Rebecaa Wilson and likened these people on the banned list to the terrorists in the Paris disaster. I find it disgusting that these people feel they can use such a tragedy as comparison to fulfil their own agendas. 

Jones also happens to be a trustee for SCG. As is Rebecca Wilsons partner, John Hartigan. It seems obvious where this breach of privacy may have come from. 

Edited November 23, 2015 by n i k o

[Blackout]

56 minutes ago, Tony999 said:

By the way, why are crowds significantly low this season?

Well anecdotally, I was surprised at the ticket price increase (something like a 23% increase from last season) when I finally got to my first game of the year against West Sydney. Is that something happening across the board?

Sorry to go off-topic.