The APL/FA Management Thread

[thisphantomfortress]

3 minutes ago, jeffplz said:

remove capo and "core", everyone had way more fun. odd innit. you guys should just provide the flares and thats it

It's easy to have fun when you're 3-0 up. Doesn't happen often though

[Bannon]

 well done melburnians for sticking it through, shocking that people are saying the terrace is better without them seems quick that people forget the past where tifos and such have been banned and all the various problems that come with a terrace if you guys honestley think so moves to GA its pretty much why there is a north n south terrace in MV.

[Fingman]

You can disagree with our method of protest, however, it doesn't mean we are self-absorbed. Everything we do is for the club and for the wider fan base. Less restrictions on active means better displays, more often, more noise, more colour, and a better match day atmosphere.

 

Hopefully the message was loud and clear and we will be back in action for the derby.

 

Cheers to everyone who was supportive even if they didn't agree with the protest.

[sheepdog]

1 hour ago, jeffplz said:

remove capo and "core", everyone had way more fun. odd innit. you guys should just provide the flares and thats it

Jeff. Please.

 

 

[thisphantomfortress]

8 minutes ago, sheepdog said:

Jeff. Please.

 

 

I reckon this guy is also Sherlock 

[NewConvert]

5 hours ago, Fingman said:

You can disagree with our method of protest, however, it doesn't mean we are self-absorbed. Everything we do is for the club and for the wider fan base. Less restrictions on active means better displays, more often, more noise, more colour, and a better match day atmosphere.

 

Hopefully the message was loud and clear and we will be back in action for the derby.

 

Cheers to everyone who was supportive even if they didn't agree with the protest.

Just finished watching the replay and certainly your protest garnered support from the SBS commentators.

FWIW News Ltd. always accuse or insinuate that their victims are self absorbed and deluded and there is always better ways to do things. Funny that.

[belaguttman]

7 hours ago, Fingman said:

You can disagree with our method of protest, however, it doesn't mean we are self-absorbed. Everything we do is for the club and for the wider fan base. Less restrictions on active means better displays, more often, more noise, more colour, and a better match day atmosphere.

 

Hopefully the message was loud and clear and we will be back in action for the derby.

 

Cheers to everyone who was supportive even if they didn't agree with the protest.

I really don't understand the FFAs attitude to active support. There's no better football atmosphere than the Bundesliga and the grounds are packed, and packed with families. Isn't this what we want?

[coys]

Found it funny that the chanting only started when we were 3-0 up. But if they want to start and run the terrace every week go for it. 

[jw1739]

10 hours ago, Fingman said:

You can disagree with our method of protest, however, it doesn't mean we are self-absorbed. Everything we do is for the club and for the wider fan base. Less restrictions on active means better displays, more often, more noise, more colour, and a better match day atmosphere.

 

Hopefully the message was loud and clear and we will be back in action for the derby.

 

Cheers to everyone who was supportive even if they didn't agree with the protest.

I'm not part of "active" nor the sort of person who likes protests very much. But in this case I think the message that needed to be sent to FFA was sent. I thought that it was done tastefully and got the message across. We cannot have an organisation (FFA) that blatantly uses "active" support as one of its prime marketing themes, and yet openly denies that it has any obligation to follow the principles of procedural fairness and natural justice. I don't want to overly dramatise what has happened, but evil occurs when good men stand idly by. Once individuals and groups in a society lose their ability to express themselves then we are on a slippery slope downwards.

Let's move forward.

[Kinnibari]

13 hours ago, belaguttman said:

Isn't that because the Melburnians are scattered throughout the stadium rather than being down one end? I thought that the protest was actually quite effective and the point of it was exactly illustrated when security over reacted and assaulted fans at the GA end when they dared to hold up a banner - what criminals and terrorists they must be!

Yeah, having people chanting all through the cat c area encouraged cat c people to join in the chanting more when it happened, at least around me.

2 hours ago, coys said:

Found it funny that the chanting only started when we were 3-0 up. But if they want to start and run the terrace every week go for it. 

I liked that they got behind the team as they put on one of their better performances.

[ecguymer]

From what I saw on the TV, it looked like a number of the active support guys moved back to there usual seats during the half time break.....kinda wish I'd actually gone......

[coys]

50 minutes ago, Kinnibari said:

Yeah, having people chanting all through the cat c area encouraged cat c people to join in the chanting more when it happened, at least around me.

I liked that they got behind the team as they put on one of their better performances.

But the point of the protests was to ensure that in the future we can support the boys in the best possible way. No restrictions on pullovers and tifos, stop the way the FFA uses the active support as marketing but at the same time refuse the basic rights of supporters. The players would of been aware of what had happened and as a result would understand that a 90 minutes of silence is much better then the following seasons becoming more and more silent before active support is finally killed off to a fraction of what it once was.

[jeffplz]

36 minutes ago, ecguymer said:

From what I saw on the TV, it looked like a number of the active support guys moved back to there usual seats during the half time break.....kinda wish I'd actually gone......

This. Even non-active supporters moved to the active area to help with the chanting. GA was half as full after half time.

[Jestr]

31 minutes ago, jeffplz said:

This. Even non-active supporters moved to the active area to help with the chanting. GA was half as full after half time.

it was a pretty fair effort by non active areas to help with chanting, you wonder why they fail to this every other week

[benzema23]

FFA is just gonna think were protesting against the telegraph, not them...

[Tony999]

Who was that dude with the red heart cap and blue city t-shirt yelling "traitors", "fuck off".... when the banners went up? A photographer started taking photos of the banners so he goes in front of the photographer waving his arms so he couldn't take any photos.

[dr lime]

13 hours ago, Fingman said:

You can disagree with our method of protest, however, it doesn't mean we are self-absorbed. Everything we do is for the club and for the wider fan base. Less restrictions on active means better displays, more often, more noise, more colour, and a better match day atmosphere.

Hopefully the message was loud and clear and we will be back in action for the derby.

Cheers to everyone who was supportive even if they didn't agree with the protest.

Self-important I'd say. Under the misconception that not showing up will actually make an impact and that you speak "for the club and/or the wider fan base". Thank you for the sentiment, but who elected you to speak on behalf of me, one small part of the "wider fan base"? If you want to mount a campaign for tifos and pullovers that is fine and something I would support. Ditto a decent appeals system for ground bans. But it seems the protest mixed a number of issues together, which lessens the impact of any protest. The message was loud and clear? Just which message was that? The 3 main banners were: "No Fans, No football" - good slogan but a bit esoteric, what does it actually mean? .The active fans weren't there and the game still went on. Not terribly specific or clear. "No appeals, No Justice" - okay a reasonable issue and one worth supporting. "Terraces, Not Terrorists" - okay a response to the Alan Jones' of the world, but do you really think a small banner in Melbourne will have any impact at all on pricks like that? A waste of effort IMHO. And the banner that was confiscated: "we support the 198".. Not in my name. I don't support the 198 at all, other than saying there should be a decent appeals system. If there have been 198 banned, let's be very very generous and say that perhaps there are 20-30 cases of mistaken identity or people that didn't actually do anything serious enough to warrant a ban. Which leaves about 170-odd dickheads who have been banned for lighting flares, fighting, etc. I most certainly do NOT support these people. Finally, no mention of perhaps the most serious of issues which is the privacy thing. So, a number of mixed and unclear messages in one "protest". We will see if anything changes with respect to FFA/ground management's attitudes to Active Support "restrictions". However, other than tifos/pullovers, what are the "restrictions" that cause so much trouble?...  is there a restriction on noise? A restriction on colour? Exactly how will supporting 170-odd wankers create a "better display"?  I support your right to voice your opinion and your right to protest.  I am a leftie from way back, so I love a good protest. But this wasn't one. 

[coys]

 

16 minutes ago, Tony999 said:

Who was that dude with the red heart cap and blue city t-shirt yelling "traitors", "fuck off".... when the banners went up? A photographer started taking photos of the banners so he goes in front of the photographer waving his arms so he couldn't take any photos.

Sounds like the same guy who spat at my brother at the Newcastle game a few weeks back

 

[Tony999]

Had long hair, not a compete fat cunt but fat enough. Defintely some scruff-haired yobbo

[neio]

23 minutes ago, Tony999 said:

Who was that dude with the red heart cap and blue city t-shirt yelling "traitors", "fuck off".... when the banners went up? A photographer started taking photos of the banners so he goes in front of the photographer waving his arms so he couldn't take any photos.

That bloke is an absolute nuffy

Was ready to punch on with supporters after jets game cause couple told him to shut up and support the team or Fuck off 

[hedaik]

55 minutes ago, Tony999 said:

Who was that dude with the red heart cap and blue city t-shirt yelling "traitors", "fuck off".... when the banners went up? A photographer started taking photos of the banners so he goes in front of the photographer waving his arms so he couldn't take any photos.

That was sheepdog 

[sheepdog]

6 minutes ago, hedaik said:

That was sheepdog 

Yeah, so?

You cunts got a problem? 

 

[jw1739]

38 minutes ago, dr lime said:

Self-important I'd say. Under the misconception that not showing up will actually make an impact and that you speak "for the club and/or the wider fan base". Thank you for the sentiment, but who elected you to speak on behalf of me, one small part of the "wider fan base"? If you want to mount a campaign for tifos and pullovers that is fine and something I would support. Ditto a decent appeals system for ground bans. But it seems the protest mixed a number of issues together, which lessens the impact of any protest. The message was loud and clear? Just which message was that? The 3 main banners were: "No Fans, No football" - good slogan but a bit esoteric, what does it actually mean? .The active fans weren't there and the game still went on. Not terribly specific or clear. "No appeals, No Justice" - okay a reasonable issue and one worth supporting. "Terraces, Not Terrorists" - okay a response to the Alan Jones' of the world, but do you really think a small banner in Melbourne will have any impact at all on pricks like that? A waste of effort IMHO. And the banner that was confiscated: "we support the 198".. Not in my name. I don't support the 198 at all, other than saying there should be a decent appeals system. If there have been 198 banned, let's be very very generous and say that perhaps there are 20-30 cases of mistaken identity or people that didn't actually do anything serious enough to warrant a ban. Which leaves about 170-odd dickheads who have been banned for lighting flares, fighting, etc. I most certainly do NOT support these people. Finally, no mention of perhaps the most serious of issues which is the privacy thing. So, a number of mixed and unclear messages in one "protest". We will see if anything changes with respect to FFA/ground management's attitudes to Active Support "restrictions". However, other than tifos/pullovers, what are the "restrictions" that cause so much trouble?...  is there a restriction on noise? A restriction on colour? Exactly how will supporting 170-odd wankers create a "better display"?  I support your right to voice your opinion and your right to protest.  I am a leftie from way back, so I love a good protest. But this wasn't one. 

With respect, Doc, I don't think the banners required any further explanation. With few exceptions (such as ground staff etc.) only interested people go to A-League matches, or watch it on TV (it's hardly riveting entertainment is, it?). Therefore most of the people who saw "the protest" are across the issue and completely understood the actual message. Which was not one of support for 198 people who have been rightly or wrongly banned from football matches, but one of criticising FFA for misusing, or allowing the misuse of, information that it should have kept confidential. When the CEO of Sydney FC (formerly CEO of Wellington) doesn't know the existence of a procedure that FFA claims to have in place then there are serious issues for FFA to address.

[malloy]

2 minutes ago, jw1739 said:

With respect, Doc, I don't think the banners required any further explanation. With few exceptions (such as ground staff etc.) only interested people go to A-League matches, or watch it on TV (it's hardly riveting entertainment is, it?). Therefore most of the people who saw "the protest" are across the issue and completely understood the actual message. Which was not one of support for 198 people who have been rightly or wrongly banned from football matches, but one of criticising FFA for misusing, or allowing the misuse of, information that it should have kept confidential. When the CEO of Sydney FC (formerly CEO of Wellington) doesn't know the existence of a procedure that FFA claims to have in place then there are serious issues for FFA to address.

As Dr Lime said there was a banner displayed that said "We support the 198" or something very similar which was held up in the north end.  That to me does indicate that the message was in part in support of those who had been banned.

[thisphantomfortress]

7 minutes ago, malloy said:

As Dr Lime said there was a banner displayed that said "We support the 198" or something very similar which was held up in the north end.  That to me does indicate that the message was in part in support of those who had been banned.

That banner wasn't done by core so don't quote me on this. but my understanding was meant to be a statement about the breach of privacy 

[gundam]

9 minutes ago, malloy said:

As Dr Lime said there was a banner displayed that said "We support the 198" or something very similar which was held up in the north end.  That to me does indicate that the message was in part in support of those who had been banned.

This all boils down to, Do the 198 deserve to be named and shamed on the front page of a newspaper?

They may not be innocent, they may have done some wrong and they might deserve their ban, but their privacy should be respected.

I don't mind their banner because I understand where they're coming from, but people could perceive it the wrong way.

Edited November 28, 2015 by gundam

[Jimmy]

3 minutes ago, malloy said:

As Dr Lime said there was a banner displayed that said "We support the 198" or something very similar which was held up in the north end.  That to me does indicate that the message was in part in support of those who had been banned.

That banner was pretty horrible and I have a very strong suspicion that it didn't come from core and came from another group of supporters. It definitely took away from what I thought was a pretty good display if nothing else.

Worth noting I had absolutely nothing to do with this protest and only learnt about it when it was announced on here so this is just personal opinion.

[coys]

My understanding is if you look at the We stand by the 198 banner you see it has S-16 on it. Which itself is a separate entity to Melburnians. I would say the banner was different to the display earlier on in the game otherwise it would of been showed at the start and at the yarra end of the ground 

[malloy]

13 minutes ago, thisphantomfortress said:

That banner wasn't done by core so don't quote me on this. but my understanding was meant to be a statement about the breach of privacy 

 

13 minutes ago, gundam said:

This all boils down to, Do the 198 deserve to be named and shamed on the front page of a newspaper?

They may not be innocent, they may have done some wrong and they might deserve their ban, but their privacy should be respected.

I don't mind their banner because I understand where they're coming from, but people could perceive it the wrong way.

 

13 minutes ago, Jimmy said:

That banner was pretty horrible and I have a very strong suspicion that it didn't come from core and came from another group of supporters. It definitely took away from what I thought was a pretty good display if nothing else.

Worth noting I had absolutely nothing to do with this protest and only learnt about it when it was announced on here so this is just personal opinion.

 

I understand that it wasn't by core I was just trying to point out to JW that he may have missed the fourth banner which Dr Lime mentioned as being a source of the confusion and the perceived mixed messages. 

As I have stated numerous times in my posts I agree it is disgraceful that their names were published.

[dr lime]

40 minutes ago, jw1739 said:

With respect, Doc, I don't think the banners required any further explanation. With few exceptions (such as ground staff etc.) only interested people go to A-League matches, or watch it on TV (it's hardly riveting entertainment is, it?). Therefore most of the people who saw "the protest" are across the issue and completely understood the actual message. Which was not one of support for 198 people who have been rightly or wrongly banned from football matches, but one of criticising FFA for misusing, or allowing the misuse of, information that it should have kept confidential. When the CEO of Sydney FC (formerly CEO of Wellington) doesn't know the existence of a procedure that FFA claims to have in place then there are serious issues for FFA to address.

Yes, I suppose the informed will know what it was all about. But one banner seemed to be aimed at News Ltd/Alan Jones (Terrorists one), who are unlikely to be watching as they are not "interested". And there was nothing that specifically (or even obliquely) referred to release/misuse of confidential information by FFA. So, my point is, if you have a short message to get across, make it clear. Like "JVS OUT". I am prepared to accept the "198" banner may have been a different group. But that is my point. A mish mash of different messages means the protest is really not worth the trouble. If it made the Melburnians feel good about themselves, that's great. But that's why I think this kind of thing smacks of deluded self-importance. If no-one other than fans/A League people are watching, you are either preaching to the converted or sending a message to people who don't give a shit anyway.    

Edited November 28, 2015 by dr lime

[playmaker]

The protest was good.

The active's absence was definitely felt around the whole ground. People were asking why they were missing and i heard a lot of people explaining the situation, including myself.  The usual reaction of those people was anger and disappointment with the FFA and media, especially the lack of an appeal process.

So you did well fellas.

 I hope all teams do it this round as a show of solidarity.

[thisphantomfortress]

7 minutes ago, dr lime said:

If it made the Melburnians feel good about themselves, that's great. But that's why I think this kind of thing smacks of deluded self-importance.   

We got over 1000 likes on Uma so mission accomplished I've racked up all those ultra points I was looking for since I'm such a pwopa casual.

just out of interest what membership category are you, you may have mentioned it I cbf going back and reading. I only ask because 90% of the dissenting voices have come from outside the active rather than in it.

Just on the issue of self importance I guess there are few on here, the ex-YS boys excluded, who can appreciate the effort that goes into running a terrace. It's a thankless job but we do it anyway out of our love for the football club. So you'll have to excuse me when I say who the fuck are you to call my selflessness, self importance?

[Baka1]

Easy to sing when we are winning but not when we are down 3-0 or losing 3-2. Plastics were the only people  in terrace last night to be honest. Protest was solid though lads.

[dr lime]

6 minutes ago, thisphantomfortress said:

We got over 1000 likes on Uma so mission accomplished I've racked up all those ultra points I was looking for since I'm such a pwopa casual.

just out of interest what membership category are you, you may have mentioned it I cbf going back and reading. I only ask because 90% of the dissenting voices have come from outside the active rather than in it.

Just on the issue of self importance I guess there are few on here, the ex-YS boys excluded, who can appreciate the effort that goes into running a terrace. It's a thankless job but we do it anyway out of our love for the football club. So you'll have to excuse me when I say who the fuck are you to call my selflessness, self importance?

You need to separate issues here. 

Running a terrace: yes, perhaps very difficult. But greatly appreciated by many, including me. 

Is the protest effective and will it change anything? That's a matter of opinion. What category of member I am is irrelevant. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. If you are saying that only "active's" opinions are to be respected then that kind of supports my "self-importance" argument. 

 

[Shahanga]

3 hours ago, coys said:

But the point of the protests was to ensure that in the future we can support the boys in the best possible way. No restrictions on pullovers and tifos, stop the way the FFA uses the active support as marketing but at the same time refuse the basic rights of supporters. The players would of been aware of what had happened and as a result would understand that a 90 minutes of silence is much better then the following seasons becoming more and more silent before active support is finally killed off to a fraction of what it once was.

On that note if I can be so bold, now that the leadership has gone down this protest route, its important to continue to advance your case in other ways, otherwise it just becomes a blip that everyone forgets about.

I would hope you will start up (or continue) a dialogue with the club in the first instance about these matters and the FFA as well.  I do think that's its unfortunate that the timing of many new restrictions occurred when CFG killed Heart and thus as a group our active supporters were more focused on getting up and running again rather than protesting about losing some rights you previously enjoyed (solely because Victree and WSW have a pack of animals as supporters).

[NewConvert]

37 minutes ago, dr lime said:

Yes, I suppose the informed will know what it was all about. But one banner seemed to be aimed at News Ltd/Alan Jones (Terrorists one), who are unlikely to be watching as they are not "interested". And there was nothing that specifically (or even obliquely) referred to release/misuse of confidential information by FFA. So, my point is, if you have a short message to get across, make it clear. Like "JVS OUT". I am prepared to accept the "198" banner may have been a different group. But that is my point. A mish mash of different messages means the protest is really not worth the trouble. If it made the Melburnians feel good about themselves, that's great. But that's why I think this kind of thing smacks of deluded self-importance. If no-one other than fans/A League people are watching, you are either preaching to the converted or sending a message to people who don't give a shit anyway.    

Yes Alan Jones and News Ltd will watch it. First because News Ltd purport to have a sports section and that information will filter through to Rebecca Wilson as required by the company; secondly, there are media organisations that scrutinise every event and then onsell the corresponding info to other media outlets, so both AJ and News Ltd. will receive the photos, SBS coverage, etc. Of course this would have no impact on the Jones & Wilsons of the world because they earn their money by enraging their audiences, and it is quite likely that they will use the protest for their own nefarious end.

Furthermore, you reduce the credibility of your own point when you say that you are either preaching to the converted or sending a message to people who don't care as you can never be certain of this. You are speaking on behalf of people you don't know.

[playmaker]

Well most people around me we very supportive. So just the fact that the active's absence in protest of the injustices of the last week's issues created awareness and support of the less active supporters is enough to claim it successful.

Also the media has noted the protest so that in itself puts more pressure on the powers at be to get their act together. Better than doing nothing and just accepting everything like servants to a master.

They were missed last night and I don't think the FFA would have liked it. Hopefully it happens at all matches this round.

Edited November 28, 2015 by playmaker

[belaguttman]

Of course Limited News are interested: News publishes the paper that creates the 'scandal' involving the poorly rating subscription TV service part owned by Limited News/ Self serving self promotion by the minions of the coiffured old troll of New York's minions.

Edited November 28, 2015 by belaguttman

[Jimmy]

3 hours ago, dr lime said:

You need to separate issues here. 

Running a terrace: yes, perhaps very difficult. But greatly appreciated by many, including me. 

Is the protest effective and will it change anything? That's a matter of opinion. What category of member I am is irrelevant. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. If you are saying that only "active's" opinions are to be respected then that kind of supports my "self-importance" argument. 

 

You're delusional if you think terrace leaders will give the same weight to opinions of those who sit on the wing and soak up the atmosphere as those who are in the terrace week in week out actually putting in.

You're the one with an inflated self worth in this scenario.

Edited November 28, 2015 by Jimmy

[belaguttman]

3 hours ago, Shahanga said:

On that note if I can be so bold, now that the leadership has gone down this protest route, its important to continue to advance your case in other ways, otherwise it just becomes a blip that everyone forgets about.

I would hope you will start up (or continue) a dialogue with the club in the first instance about these matters and the FFA as well.  I do think that's its unfortunate that the timing of many new restrictions occurred when CFG killed Heart and thus as a group our active supporters were more focused on getting up and running again rather than protesting about losing some rights you previously enjoyed (solely because Victree and WSW have a pack of animals as supporters).

Great idea, perhaps dr lime has some suggestions to make further actions about this more effective