The APL/FA Management Thread

[Tony999]

5 minutes ago, Blackout said:

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.

There was an increase? My membership price stayed the same. Or are we talking about buying tickets at the door as l thought concession was $15-16 last season but now it's $24??

[Ray]

I think the out clause for FFA is the wording in the document with their stamp indicates "....and the relevant Statutes".

They are obliged to divulge such information to relevant bodies including the Police and others to ensure the safety of the attending public. Your rights of privacy are not guaranteed by them if they have to divulge such information by law. Of course if you have evidence to prove that the FFA are wrong, you have a case to show that someone has suffered damage to themselves or perhaps even their reputation and can take action. Again if you can prove Alan Jones breached some sort of confidentiality then you can attempt a remedy in court. However, if such information comes into the public domain for any reason, then I think it can and will be re-transmitted without penalty by those people. It is the original "leaker" that is responsible.

You also give up certain freedoms to act when you purchase a ticket. These tickets are a contract which requires certain codes of behaviour and probably a clause which advises that you will be ejected or refused admission to the venue. You need to read the agreement that you make when you purchase the ticket. Ignorance of these details are not an excuse in a court of law.

 

[Tony999]

Do you even study law?

[Chez]

It's just the vibe of the thing

[cadete]

2 hours 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. 

2 hours ago, n i k o said:

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. 

 

Of course the stadium needs photos of banned supporters how else can therefore prevent banned people from entering the stadium? The League has been using this system since it first began it regards to banned supporters even at Youth Games. (It's worked without a hitch for ten years maybe that's because its only now PPL like Rebecca Wilson have started really digging for such information.)

And as much as you want to paint all FFA Bans as unfair I think you have to concede that at least some of the PPL on the large list probably did something ban worthy inparticular those with bans spanning eight years and longer for violence.

(What does makes sense now is why I could see how list did look inaccurate in parts because this leak is from the SCG Trust and not the FFA.)

.................................

But this also raises the question on why you keep saying the FFA did not protected PPL's privacy? The only PPL that they gave the photos to were the PPL they needed to enforce the bans otherwise what is the point of a ban. The Google search scenario you mention is fucked but it appears to be the SCG Trust's mismanagement of classified information and not the FFA's. 

In fact how is this story even good for the A-League or the FFA? I actually think this story could be more likely to be viewed as a negative by the FFA as it could be viewed as a positive because it certainly does not help the image of game when crowds are down.

..................................

You also need to get your head around the very old fact that the FFA can ban anyone for anything with no reason. They are private organisation and dont have to allow someone entry if they dont want to and nor do they have to provide a reason just like if a Owner of a Pub decides he does not to serve you because of how you dress.

The whole thing about their being no appeal process of course sounds/well is very unfair... but it is actually completely legal.

And amongst the innocent you claim that there are on that list, a quick look on YouTube will show likewise there are some PPL who know they belong it as well.

.....................................

3 hours 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. 

 

3 hours ago, thisphantomfortress said:

This guy get it.

But he doesn't...

Basically we have leak that was caused by the SCG Trust and not the FFA of a list of supposed banned Soccer Fans (So its the SCG Trust's fault and some combative investigative journalism) and on that list there are four "listed" MCFC fans.

Now at least 3/4 of those supporters were banned in MHFC days and are not members of MCFC Active Support or even MCFC Members, it's highly likely that this also is the case with the fourth of the three because I can tell the list looks pretty old.

So if this is the case Melburnians are calling for a complete game protest against the FFA (Who are not really at fault) because of Supporters being named and shamed in a paper who have never been members of MCFC the club or more importantly an MCFC Terrace.

Edited November 23, 2015 by cadete

[belaguttman]

10 minutes ago, cadete said:

Of course the stadium needs photos of banned supporters how else can therefore prevent banned people from entering the stadium? The League has been using this system since it first began it regards to banned supporters even at Youth Games. (It's worked without a hitch for ten years maybe that's because its only now PPL like Rebecca Wilson have started really digging for such information.)

And as much as you want to paint all FFA Bans as unfair I think you have to concede that at least some of the PPL on the large list probably did something ban worthy inparticular those with bans spanning eight years and longer for violence.

(What does makes sense now is why I could see how list did look inaccurate in parts because this leak is from the SCG Trust and not the FFA.)

.................................

But this also raises the question on why you keep saying the FFA did not protected PPL's privacy? The only PPL that they gave the photos to were the PPL they needed to enforce the bans otherwise what is the point of a ban. The Google search scenario you mention is fucked but it appears to be the SCG Trust's mismanagement of classified information and not the FFA's. 

In fact how is this story even good for the A-League or the FFA? I actually think this story could be more likely to be viewed as a negative by the FFA as it could be viewed as a positive because it certainly does not help the image of game when crowds are down.

..................................

You also need to get your head around the very old fact that the FFA can ban anyone for anything with no reason. They are private organisation and dont have to allow someone entry if they dont want to and nor do they have to provide a reason just like if a Owner of a Pub decides he does not to serve you because of how you dress.

The whole thing about their being no appeal process of course sounds/well is very unfair... but it is actually completely legal.

And amongst the innocent you claim that there are on that list, a quick look on YouTube will show likewise there are some PPL who know they belong it as well.

.....................................

But he doesn't...

Basically we have leak that was caused by the SCG Trust and not the FFA of a list of supposed banned Soccer Fans (So its the SCG Trust's fault and some combative investigative journalism) and on that list there are four "listed" MCFC fans.

Now at least 3/4 of those supporters were banned in MHFC days and are not members of MCFC Active Support or even MCFC Members, it's highly likely that this also is the case with the fourth of the three because I can tell the list looks pretty old.

So if this is the case Melburnians are calling for a complete game protest against the FFA (Who are not really at fault) because of Supporters being named and shamed in a paper who have never been members of MCFC the club or more importantly an MCFC Terrace.

My suggestion would be to complain in writing to the Press Council pointing out that she never checked to see if those people where connected with active supporter groups and write a letter to her paper pointing that out. If there's been a press council complaint they will publish the letter. Saying 'this has nothing to do with us' whilst just not being present as an active supporter group is contradictory IMHO

Edited November 23, 2015 by belaguttman

[jw1739]

15 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 was once find for a littering offence, even though (it was the days when airline tickets were real tickets) I could prove that I was on a flight between Los Angeles and Melbourne at the time the offence was committed. A statutory declaration to that effect was ignored by the Victorian Government authority issuing the fine.

[Red or Dead]

Sue their asses!

[n i k o]

55 minutes ago, cadete said:

Of course the stadium needs photos of banned supporters how else can therefore prevent banned people from entering the stadium? The League has been using this system since it first began it regards to banned supporters even at Youth Games. (It's worked without a hitch for ten years maybe that's because its only now PPL like Rebecca Wilson have started really digging for such information.)

And as much as you want to paint all FFA Bans as unfair I think you have to concede that at least some of the PPL on the large list probably did something ban worthy inparticular those with bans spanning eight years and longer for violence.

(What does makes sense now is why I could see how list did look inaccurate in parts because this leak is from the SCG Trust and not the FFA.)

Its no surprise you spent a lot of time around politicians, it certainly shows. I never wanted to paint any of those that deserved bans as being unfair. I stand by that every person that's been guilty of flares or violence deserves to be punished to the extent of the law. I never said or insinuated anything like what you said so can you stop spinning stories. 

.................................

But this also raises the question on why you keep saying the FFA did not protected PPL's privacy? The only PPL that they gave the photos to were the PPL they needed to enforce the bans otherwise what is the point of a ban. The Google search scenario you mention is fucked but it appears to be the SCG Trust's mismanagement of classified information and not the FFA's. 

In fact how is this story even good for the A-League or the FFA? I actually think this story could be more likely to be viewed as a negative by the FFA as it could be viewed as a positive because it certainly does not help the image of game when crowds are down.

The FFA is the first party that is in possession of the banning notice. They in turn send it to the offender and pass this information on to those responsible for security at the stadiums. Before they send it out they garuntee that your information will only be used to enforce the Banning Notice. This is clearly completely wrong. They have not ensured this because now a third party which they are obligated to pass these details onto has released private information of these people. 

..................................

You also need to get your head around the very old fact that the FFA can ban anyone for anything with no reason. They are private organisation and dont have to allow someone entry if they dont want to and nor do they have to provide a reason just like if a Owner of a Pub decides he does not to serve you because of how you dress.

The whole thing about their being no appeal process of course sounds/well is very unfair... but it is actually completely legal.

And amongst the innocent you claim that there are on that list, a quick look on YouTube will show likewise there are some PPL who know they belong it as well.

Well that's great that it's legal for FFA to decide and do as they please. What is disappointing is you don't find anything wrong with it. They seem to like to market how active support represents our game but can be negligent towards certain people that have been wrongfully accused within that support. 

.....................................

But he doesn't...

Basically we have leak that was caused by the SCG Trust and not the FFA of a list of supposed banned Soccer Fans (So its the SCG Trust's fault and some combative investigative journalism) and on that list there are four "listed" MCFC fans.

Now at least 3/4 of those supporters were banned in MHFC days and are not members of MCFC Active Support or even MCFC Members, it's highly likely that this also is the case with the fourth of the three because I can tell the list looks pretty old.

So if this is the case Melburnians are calling for a complete game protest against the FFA (Who are not really at fault) because of Supporters being named and shamed in a paper who have never been members of MCFC the club or more importantly an MCFC Terrace.

I learnt like others that there was a leak from someone else. At the time though it appeared to be from the FFA as they had the information of all these people. So I do get it. I still stand by FFA having some form of responsibility in this matter. 

 

Edited November 23, 2015 by n i k o

[Red or Dead]

8 minutes ago, n i k o said:

 

Sue Cadete for dafamation!

[belaguttman]

54 minutes ago, jw1739 said:

I was once find for a littering offence, even though (it was the days when airline tickets were real tickets) I could prove that I was on a flight between Los Angeles and Melbourne at the time the offence was committed. A statutory declaration to that effect was ignored by the Victorian Government authority issuing the fine.

You threw that piece of paper a long way then jw

[Deviant]

No active??? But where will i be able to sit and take selfies and FB all day while not participating in chanting but claim im supporting the team on social media??? How will i get likes now??

[hedaik]

19 minutes ago, Red or Dead said:

Sue Cadete for dafamation!

https://youtu.be/J88BxI2FRhY?t=3m42s

 

[ecguymer]

Regardless of who the leaker is/was, the FFA as the primary custodian of the information has to take some responsibility, and should at least publicly condemn the leak. Ideally they should ensure that the matter is properly investigated and insure that those responsible are appropriately punished, as well as conduct a review as to how and where the information is distributed. While the venues do need to be provided with the information, the trustees/boards of the venues do not need, and should not have access to this information (except where a member also has an active on the day management role at the venue)

I would also like to see the management of the clubs also stand up and condemn the leak and demand that the FFA look into the matter properly

[cadete]

Niko, you dont have to work in Politics to see how the FFA have given out bans over the past ten years... a lot of PPL on here like myself know how it works...

1. The first is the pretty straight forward finding of PPL handling of flares/Committing Violence in Stadiums/Pitch Invasions on CCTV at matches.

2. The second is by targeting groups (And particular individuals they dont like) and catching them in the act/doing a bannable offence and then banning them. So in effect building cases on individuals, hence why if you look at the photos you will find the most come from MV who they targeted first, then WSW and more recently SFC.

Fine, you accept there are some PPL who deserve bans but who are all these PPL you know of that dont deserve bans?

Which comes back to my point that this really is not a MCFC issue, in fact it really was not a MHFC issue because the FFA and Hatamoto have never targeted MCFC/MHFC fans hence the really small amount of bans (And only one for violence) in comparison to the three other clubs from Australia's two biggest cities all with multiple bans for violence.

Also if u still think the FFA are responsible for this leak you are the one spinning things because if they really wanted to Hools on the back page of the paper they would have done as such the day after the last derby.

[tomby]

21 hours 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? 

Too fucking true.

[Tesla]

Don't have time to read all the posts so maybe it was mentioned but those whose information has been leaked should consider contacting the OAIC. 

Not sure what remedies are in place, probably not much (really don't see what they can do in this matter, the information is leaked and can't be undone) , but I saw people suggesting court action and the like which is going to be a more difficult and costly process obviously, so maybe the OAIC is a good place to start to see what they can do.  

It  probably wouldn't be a bad idea to seek legal advice though just to see where you stand but my uneducated opinion is it will probably be difficult to achieve anything going down that route. 

Edited November 23, 2015 by Tesla

[morphine]

All of this calamity in support of (mostly) proven 'felonists'. Yet, we continue to support the flares. 

Completely laughable and absolutely true whoever said this is some sort of play to try and gain faux cred within the Ultras scene. 

[Tommykins]

Quote

“The biggest issue seems to be that Soccer Australia, or as it calls itself Football Federation Australia, don’t want to admit the problem,” Jones said at the beginning of the segment. (The governing body has been known as Football Federation Australia since 2005.)

 

Jones concluded the interview by asking Wilson, “Just finally, is this like terrorism in Paris? The leaders have no guts?

 

“That’s exactly right,” Wilson said. “That’s exactly right, Alan.”

This is the single greatest quote I've ever heard.

Edited November 23, 2015 by Tommykins

[Murfy1]

FFA denies fan problems are out of control in the A-League
 

November 23, 2015

Dominic Bossi

 

 

Football Federation of Australia has hit back at reports suggesting crowd violence is growing in the A-League and getting out of the control of the governing body and authorities.

Head of the A-League, Damien De Bohun issued a statement criticising reports in News Limited that football faces a hooligan problem and cites the number of banned spectators as highlighting the active role the FFA has taken to combat antisocial behaviour. 

All 198 spectators who had received FFA stadium bans were named and shamed in a report over the weekend despite offences ranging from minor to violent incidents and carrying anywhere between year-long bans and 20 years. The identity of all banned spectators are sent from the FFA to venues, clubs and police to help enforce the bans and the leaking of such documents would constitute a significant breach of the organisation's confidentiality clause. 

"FFA works with all stakeholders [police, governments, security, clubs and venues] to have strong banning processes and robust security planning for matches, which includes listing banned spectators, showing we take the safety of our true fans seriously," de Bohun said.

Despite ongoing tensions and security debates between Western Sydney Wanderers, their supporter group and NSW police, there have been no major incidents of fan violence this season. 

 

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/sport/soccer/ffa-denies-fan-problems-are-out-of-control-in-the-aleague-20151123-gl5wnv.html

Edited November 23, 2015 by Murfy1

[agoalie]

Piss poor response. 

[HOLLYWOOD]

Yeah agree, that's a pathetic response tbh.

[hakz7]

Wait, is the protest for the whole game or first half?

Cos, we might need to pull out the "JVS OUT" chants towards the end of the game (if we're not winning obviously) .

Edited November 23, 2015 by hakz7

[Luke]

When are these cunts going to stand up for football fans ? 

[wombegongal]

They have stake holders that include the media and non active fans as well as active terraces. There would be no storage of family run of the mill supports who are scared of wsw active support (rightly or wrongly). The ffa has to walk the line here and make sure it doesn't alienate those groups whilst balancing the desires of the active support. In short they are damned if they do and damned if they don't as what ever they do will offend someone.

[cadete]

4 hours ago, wombegongal said:

They have stake holders that include the media and non active fans as well as active terraces. There would be no storage of family run of the mill supports who are scared of wsw active support (rightly or wrongly). The ffa has to walk the line here and make sure it doesn't alienate those groups whilst balancing the desires of the active support. In short they are damned if they do and damned if they don't as what ever they do will offend someone.

This

The reality is that the League is going to make more cash from Families than from Active Support, now I know Active Support is clearly one of the reasons Families enjoy Soccer Games however the FFA obv thinks it can have the elements it likes about Active Support without the more unsavoury stuff.

Edited November 23, 2015 by cadete

[bt50]

31 minutes ago, cadete said:

This

The reality is that the League is going to make more cash from Families than from Active Support, now I know Active Support is clearly one of the reasons Families enjoy Soccer Games however the FFA obv thinks it can have the elements it likes about Active Support without the more unsavoury stuff.

Not an unreasonable belief imo

In saying that, I'm not so naïve to think that's anything close to easy to implement or achieve.

Edited November 23, 2015 by bt50

[cadete]

Its pretty obvious the FFA would like to see the Active Support Scene to be along the lines of The Den.

[Jestr]

I think that fair chunk of energy radiating from active area has direct and positive influence on the rest of the crowd in the stadium. 

In my opinion it would be a disaster to the feel and game experience if active had to "tone down" their work. 

 

[bt50]

Just now, Jestr said:

I think that fair chunk of energy radiating from active area has direct and positive influence on the rest of the crowd in the stadium.

In my opinion it would be a disaster to the feel and game experience if active had to "tone down" their work.

 

I don't think that FFA want active to tone down as such, just remove the casual/ultra element from the game in Australia. For the all the passion, effort and devotion that those elements bring in, they are also the cause of most of the games off field issues.

[carlings]

3 hours ago, bt50 said:

I don't think that FFA want active to tone down as such, just remove the casual/ultra element from the game in Australia. For the all the passion, effort and devotion that those elements bring in, they are also the cause of most of the games off field issues.

Are you proposing a league wide ban on bucket hats?

[Imperial Pints]

5 minutes ago, carlings said:

Are you proposing a league wide ban on bucket hats?

Fred Perry & Ben Sherman polos

[sheepdog]

So the Cove have come out and said they won't be boycotting. 

You sure you guys don't want to change it to a JVSOUT protest?

 

[bt50]

24 minutes ago, carlings said:

Are you proposing a league wide ban on bucket hats?

Depends. Whats the difference in definition between broad brim hat v bucket hat? 

Perhaps a compromise of club branded bucket hats only is a more appropriate measure 😵

[Bannon]

just wear fedoras then everyone is happy.

[hedaik]

25 minutes ago, sheepdog said:

So the Cove have come out and said they won't be boycotting. 

You sure you guys don't want to change it to a JVSOUT protest?

 

The JVSOUT movement needs something bigger than a terrace boycott, and that one thing is an internet petition from change.org

[sheepdog]

Not ultra enough hedaik. 

[thisphantomfortress]

2 minutes ago, sheepdog said:

Not ultra enough hedaik.

I'm thinking of writing Adam Bandt, as my local member and the member for Melbourne JVS is becoming an issue that might need to be addressed at a parliamentary level.

[sheepdog]

2 minutes ago, thisphantomfortress said:

I'm thinking of writing Adam Bandt, as my local member and the member for Melbourne JVS is becoming an issue that might need to be addressed at a parliamentary level.

I'd be more concerned at the level of wackness of this protest to be brutally honest. 

[bt50]

4 minutes ago, thisphantomfortress said:

I'm thinking of writing Adam Bandt, as my local member and the member for Melbourne JVS is becoming an issue that might need to be addressed at a parliamentary level.

Isnt Adam Bandt really Scott Munn?