The APL/FA Management Thread

[jw1739]

1 minute ago, belaguttman said:

I agree that we shouldn't focus on a couple of people, the issue is the relationship between FFA and fan groups. The exclusions are a small part of that

And given the response to what has happened it is appropriate that we move forward away from the issue of bans on to the whole issue of how FFA manages the game in Australia. No-one in the game except a self-satisfied handful of people known as FFA has been happy with that for as long as I rekindled my interest in the game when Heart came on the scene.

If we can go on from here to get some real change in the administration of the game right across the board then the protest was a well-aimed arrow indeed.

[thisphantomfortress]

11 minutes ago, jw1739 said:

 

If we can go on from here to get some real change in the administration of the game right across the board then the protest was a well-aimed arrow indeed.

That's the goal. Apparently, and I say this very cautiously because it's one of those "I'll believe it when I see it" things, there will be an FFA rep at the next FRG. If this becomes a semi-regular occurance (i don't expect them at all FRG meetings) this will be a great result in my opinion as fans will be getting a direct contact with the FFA. If anything this past week has hopefully taught the FFA that they can not take fans for granted. 

I am sceptical that any meaningful change will occur but the dialogue has at least begun and the FFA might step down from its ivory tower at least every now and then.

[Nate]

I don't really care about the whole appeals process/198 bans thing as it doesn't interest me that greatly, but the biggest concern I have coming out of this whole saga is the inadequacy of the FFA and their clear lack of respect and care for A-League fans and supporters.

No leadership has been shown by any of the head honchos whatsoever this week, De Bohun in particular is an absolute joke.

[jw1739]

Here's a new one for you Rebecca. Let's see how you go with it. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-30/dockers-fan-cody-yarran-sentenced-for-crowd-assault/6986564

[Deviant]

On the bright side... The Melburnians sounded louder than ever on Friday night.

Whatever you guys have done... KUTGW! 

[playmaker]

20 minutes ago, jw1739 said:

Here's a new one for you Rebecca. Let's see how you go with it. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-30/dockers-fan-cody-yarran-sentenced-for-crowd-assault/6986564

Should be banned for life too due to the findings of a proper judicial process where the accused was give a fair and just trial.

[bt50]

11 minutes ago, Nate said:

I don't really care about the whole appeals process/198 bans thing as it doesn't interest me that greatly, but the biggest concern I have coming out of this whole saga is the inadequacy of the FFA and their clear lack of respect and care for A-League fans and supporters.

No leadership has been shown by any of the head honchos whatsoever this week, De Bohun in particular is an absolute joke.

Pretty much this. The no or near enough to no appeals side of things is understandable to a degree imo but the lack of defence of the fans in regards to a smear campaign and the publication of those names has been a real black mark on the FFA.

[hedaik]

46 minutes ago, jw1739 said:

Here's a new one for you Rebecca. Let's see how you go with it. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-30/dockers-fan-cody-yarran-sentenced-for-crowd-assault/6986564

Im pretty sure shes known for her dislike of AFL as well.....

[bt50]

2 minutes ago, hedaik said:

Im pretty sure shes known for her dislike of AFL as well.....

Pretty sure she dislikes all sports and is just a fear mongerer to be honest. Even the NRL fans can't stand her.

[NewConvert]

2 hours ago, hedaik said:

The leak, like the rights of active supporters, are a different conversation than the appeal process. 

I just think the reputation of the league and being attractive to sponsors far outweighs the rights of 1 or 2 people who may have been incorrectly banned (even though they are probably hanging around the wrong groups to be banned in the first place). The ALeague/FFA have a right to be over protective given what they've managed to do after the NSL. 

Well regarding sponsors (which could be another thread), the FFA should have within hours of the article being published have released a statement, any statement, stating that the existence of the list proves that they are being hard on unruly fans. They waited and waited and waited. This would signal to any corporate suits that the head of the A-League and FFA are asleep at the wheel. I have worked with large organisations and at least these companies were very keen not to have their public image trashed by journalists.

[Torn Asunder]

Possible FFA representative attending the next FRG meeting in late Jan ...  I'm sure that this issue will be something that is discussed.

In terms of the issues between the A-League, the FFA and the Active supporters, I think that there needs to be much better (ongoing) engagement between all parties.  

Some quick thoughts for consideration:

• There should be an ongoing dialogue between Active group leaders, clubs, the FFA, the A-League, VicPol & stadium security - this already exists (in part) and I know that there is an excellent ongoing dialogue in place between the Melburnians and the Melbourne City 
• This dialogue / chain of communication should be in place on match day
• Active group leadership AND the FFA, etc, should formally acknowledge codes of behavior in terms of what is allowed and what is not allowed, including concessions for ongoing good behavior
• If something occurs that is not allowed (i.e a flare, a fight, abusive behavior, damage to property), there should be an agreed process in place to deal with the matter.  For lessor incidents, IN THE FIRST INSTANCE the matter should be controlled / managed by the Active group, led by its leadership group.
• Even for more serious matters, (other than if someone is being attacked or is at imminent risk of being hurt), before security or the police rush in and create more of an issue than what really exists, security should deal direct with someone within the leadership group to try and manage the situation ... a leadership steward should always be in talking distance to security.
• Hordes of security and / or police should not surround / confront / intimidate Active supporters, as part of their general operating procedure
• If there is an incident that is not allowed beyond a certain degree of severity (i.e, a flare or damaged property) then their should be a report / review process and Active leadership should provide a response on their knowledge of the incident, and on how it was handled and what could be done better next time.  This would always kick in if someone was given a ban.
• If their is an incident outside of the venue, before or after the game, the leadership group should have the ability to report what happened if they deem it necessary
• As Bella mentioned, a framework for allowable banners should be drawn up and agreed to between all parties
• There obviously needs to be a review process for supporters that are given bans 
• There should be some agreed punishments for banned incidents, subject to how the incident came about and how it was managed overall.

 

Would be interested to get people's view ...

I know some of the above already happens and I am certainly not trying to step on the Melburnian's toes, however there are obviously gaps and certain parties that just wont come to the table...

Perhaps out of all this drama, there is a chance to rebuild and set up arrangements that can allow all parties to move forward, as it is clear that unless there is genuine engagement, the matter will remain unresolved (and who knows what the FFA would end up doing - banning Active?)

 

[ecguymer]

8 hours ago, jw1739 said:

One thing you could perhaps enlighten me on, Bela, is how the people who run FFA are actually elected? I mean, any organization that elects the son of the former Chairman as its new Chairman smacks to me as one that is not a representative body at all but more like a privately-owned company. I understand that football has the highest junior participation rate of all sports in the country, so how is their voice heard? And so on up through the various levels of the game here. Or is it that FFA has a stranglehold on the game simply because it is part of FIFA (which is hardly a redeeming quality is it)?

The chairman is elected by the board from among themselves, and the appointment is then ratified by the members at the AGM; most of the board are elected by the members on rotating 3 year terms at the AGMs (so 1/3 are replaced or re-elected each year), but there are also provisions to appoint a small number of additional board members - such appointments still need to be ratified at a general meeting. The current FFA constitution only allows for 10 members; the 9 state bodies, represented by the chairmen of there boards; and one if the A-league teams/clubs IF one can be successfully be nominated by at least half of the other clubs. The FFA as an organisation has only existed as an organisation since 2004, prior to which Soccer Australia (legally a separate entity) did the job currently done by the FFA.

That said, the role if the board is mostly limited to appointing the CEO and setting major policy procedures; almost everything else is decided and acted upon by the CEO and/or the other management staff

Edited November 30, 2015 by ecguymer

[Jimmy]

4 hours ago, hedaik said:

I accept that theres unrest, and that the FFA will need to look like they've done something, but my original opinion remains with that too much energy and time is being spent protesting over a couple of people at most that may have been incorrectly banned on a system thats designed to protect the games reputation. 

To echo what Bela said, I think you and many others aren't taking a broad enough look at the issues. I completely agree with what you're saying about the vast majority of fans that are banned almost definitely deserve to be for one reason or another but there still should definitely be a proper and transparent appeals process. 

But all that is just one small part of the greater issue which is in general it seems as though the FFA just don't have their supporter's backs. The Rebecca Wilson article was just the straw that broke the camel's back.

I wish S16 didn't make that horrific banner as their view isn't consistent with the majority of active supporters imo. 

Edited November 30, 2015 by Jimmy

[malloy]

2 hours ago, Jimmy said:

To echo what Bela said, I think you and many others aren't taking a broad enough look at the issues. I completely agree with what you're saying about the vast majority of fans that are banned almost definitely deserve to be for one reason or another but there still should definitely be a proper and transparent appeals process. 

But all that is just one small part of the greater issue which is in general it seems as though the FFA just don't have their supporter's backs. The Rebecca Wilson article was just the straw that broke the camel's back.

I wish S16 didn't make that horrific banner as their view isn't consistent with the majority of active supporters imo. 

There already is an appeals process in place, however this is very distinct to a right of appeal.  I believe that the current limited appeals process is fine and as Hedaik has stated previously I doubt there is many on that list that can honestly say they don't deserve being banned, regardless of whether the reason given was legitimate or just one used by the FFA to get rid of a known trouble maker.  Had I received a ban during my time in active I definitely would have 'copped it on the chin'.  I know many people in YS who were expecting bans to be coming their way (myself included), but they never did.  The fact of the matter is that it is pretty hard to get banned for anything other than flares and even with flares it is pretty hard to get banned unless they have clear footage of you doing it or are caught in the act (this is after having witnessed two people who were kicked out for apparently lighting flares and received nothing, one of whom did actually light the flare).  I also see bans as an "occupational hazard" of being an ultra/casual or what ever that person believes they are.

My biggest issue with the protests that are going on at the moment (more so victory and WSW) is that they do seem to be focusing to a certain extent on those who have been banned and their "supposed" rights of appeal and evidence etc. (which annoys the shit out of me as numerous people keep trying to hold the FFA to the same standards as a court of law and as Hedaik and myself have both pointed out they have the right to refuse entry to patrons).  When the real (first) issue is the privacy of those who have been banned. 

Of course the protests have some what evolved into a stand against the, at times, draconian restrictions imposed by the FFA and this is something everyone feels comfortable supporting, however some of these restrictions have come about as a direct result of the behaviour of persons in the terraces (e.g. using pullover tifos as cover to light flares). 

[thisphantomfortress]

4 minutes ago, malloy said:

There already is an appeals process in place, however this is very distinct to a right of appeal.  I believe that the current limited appeals process is fine and as Hedaik has stated previously I doubt there is many on that list that can honestly say they don't deserve being banned, regardless of whether the reason given was legitimate or just one used by the FFA to get rid of a known trouble maker.  Had I received a ban during my time in active I definitely would have 'copped it on the chin'.  I know many people in YS who were expecting bans to be coming their way (myself included), but they never did.  The fact of the matter is that it is pretty hard to get banned for anything other than flares and even with flares it is pretty hard to get banned unless they have clear footage of you doing it or are caught in the act (this is after having witnessed two people who were kicked out for apparently lighting flares and received nothing, one of whom did actually light the flare).  I also see bans as an "occupational hazard" of being an ultra/casual or what ever that person believes they are.

My biggest issue with the protests that are going on at the moment (more so victory and WSW) is that they do seem to be focusing to a certain extent on those who have been banned and their "supposed" rights of appeal and evidence etc. (which annoys the shit out of me as numerous people keep trying to hold the FFA to the same standards as a court of law and as Hedaik and myself have both pointed out they have the right to refuse entry to patrons).  When the real (first) issue is the privacy of those who have been banned. 

Of course the protests have some what evolved into a stand against the, at times, draconian restrictions imposed by the FFA and this is something everyone feels comfortable supporting, however some of these restrictions have come about as a direct result of the behaviour of persons in the terraces (e.g. using pullover tifos as cover to light flares). 

For the most part I agree with or at very least appreciate your view.

 I was living overseas for most of seasons 2&3 and rarely pay attention to the tards displays, so I'll put my hand up and say you are a hell of a lot more reliable source than me. But I can't think of a time when flares have gone off under pull overs. Do you have any examples of when it's happened?

[malloy]

3 minutes ago, thisphantomfortress said:

For the most part I agree with or at very least appreciate your view.

 I was living overseas for most of seasons 2&3 and rarely pay attention to the tards displays, so I'll put my hand up and say you are a hell of a lot more reliable source than me. But I can't think of a time when flares have gone off under pull overs. Do you have any examples of when it's happened?

I am sure there was one or two at victory at least and possibly WSW.  There was also a group who used to stand at the front of NT and put up a very small "pull over" of nothing just to shield themselves so they could light flares.  I believe there is a video on youtube of this, but CBF spending time finding it.

I didn't really get my point across too well with my last paragraph and was rather vague.  I support protests by active support (more so Melburnians than other terraces) trying to improve the conditions under which they are required to operate as I know it is hard and I the restrictions you guys operate under are alot tougher than what we had to deal with (except towards the very end when MU5s tifo was blocked at the last minute).  What I was trying to point out is that it is far from black and white as many actions by members of various active support groups cause FFA to act like this whether rightly or wrongly. 

[mjake1234]

4 hours ago, Torn Asunder said:

Possible FFA representative attending the next FRG meeting in late Jan ...  I'm sure that this issue will be something that is discussed.

In terms of the issues between the A-League, the FFA and the Active supporters, I think that there needs to be much better (ongoing) engagement between all parties.  

Some quick thoughts for consideration:

• There should be an ongoing dialogue between Active group leaders, clubs, the FFA, the A-League, VicPol & stadium security - this already exists (in part) and I know that there is an excellent ongoing dialogue in place between the Melburnians and the Melbourne City 
• This dialogue / chain of communication should be in place on match day
• Active group leadership AND the FFA, etc, should formally acknowledge codes of behavior in terms of what is allowed and what is not allowed, including concessions for ongoing good behavior
• If something occurs that is not allowed (i.e a flare, a fight, abusive behavior, damage to property), there should be an agreed process in place to deal with the matter.  For lessor incidents, IN THE FIRST INSTANCE the matter should be controlled / managed by the Active group, led by its leadership group.
• Even for more serious matters, (other than if someone is being attacked or is at imminent risk of being hurt), before security or the police rush in and create more of an issue than what really exists, security should deal direct with someone within the leadership group to try and manage the situation ... a leadership steward should always be in talking distance to security.
• Hordes of security and / or police should not surround / confront / intimidate Active supporters, as part of their general operating procedure
• If there is an incident that is not allowed beyond a certain degree of severity (i.e, a flare or damaged property) then their should be a report / review process and Active leadership should provide a response on their knowledge of the incident, and on how it was handled and what could be done better next time.  This would always kick in if someone was given a ban.
• If their is an incident outside of the venue, before or after the game, the leadership group should have the ability to report what happened if they deem it necessary
• As Bella mentioned, a framework for allowable banners should be drawn up and agreed to between all parties
• There obviously needs to be a review process for supporters that are given bans 
• There should be some agreed punishments for banned incidents, subject to how the incident came about and how it was managed overall.

 

Would be interested to get people's view ...

I know some of the above already happens and I am certainly not trying to step on the Melburnian's toes, however there are obviously gaps and certain parties that just wont come to the table...

Perhaps out of all this drama, there is a chance to rebuild and set up arrangements that can allow all parties to move forward, as it is clear that unless there is genuine engagement, the matter will remain unresolved (and who knows what the FFA would end up doing - banning Active?)

 

Great post Torn. Totally agree that a lot of face to face with the parties needs to happen.  There are lots of issues all stemming from a lack of understanding of each other.  MCFC seem to be very keen to have dialogue and it would be good if we were seen to be the front runners in establishing rules/protocols/understanding.  Hope some of your ideas are taken on board and discussed in a proper forum (LOL)

[Shahanga]

On 26 November 2015 at 10:34:55 PM, n i k o said:

 

[belaguttman]

43 minutes ago, malloy said:

There already is an appeals process in place, however this is very distinct to a right of appeal.  I believe that the current limited appeals process is fine and as Hedaik has stated previously I doubt there is many on that list that can honestly say they don't deserve being banned, regardless of whether the reason given was legitimate or just one used by the FFA to get rid of a known trouble maker.  Had I received a ban during my time in active I definitely would have 'copped it on the chin'.  I know many people in YS who were expecting bans to be coming their way (myself included), but they never did.  The fact of the matter is that it is pretty hard to get banned for anything other than flares and even with flares it is pretty hard to get banned unless they have clear footage of you doing it or are caught in the act (this is after having witnessed two people who were kicked out for apparently lighting flares and received nothing, one of whom did actually light the flare).  I also see bans as an "occupational hazard" of being an ultra/casual or what ever that person believes they are.

My biggest issue with the protests that are going on at the moment (more so victory and WSW) is that they do seem to be focusing to a certain extent on those who have been banned and their "supposed" rights of appeal and evidence etc. (which annoys the shit out of me as numerous people keep trying to hold the FFA to the same standards as a court of law and as Hedaik and myself have both pointed out they have the right to refuse entry to patrons).  When the real (first) issue is the privacy of those who have been banned. 

Of course the protests have some what evolved into a stand against the, at times, draconian restrictions imposed by the FFA and this is something everyone feels comfortable supporting, however some of these restrictions have come about as a direct result of the behaviour of persons in the terraces (e.g. using pullover tifos as cover to light flares). 

If nothing else we need to make sure that the right person is banned. An appeal is likely to lead to a thorough examination of any supporting or refuting evidence. I don't want some poor schmuck to be banned whilst the real seat breakers etc escape to repeat their damage at another game. 'You're guilty because we say you are guilty' is not particularly reassuring.

Tom I think that you've made some great points.

[Jimmy]

@malloy Just out of curiosity, wwere you guys repeatedly threatened with the removal of flags and instruments every time something unsavory happened like a flare or a scrap? That shit fucking irked me more than anything else. 

[Shahanga]

Well said Malloy. This was my point ages ago. Active is restricted because of the actions of the tards and WSW. TBH I thought everyone had seen them light flares under TIFOs and it didn't need explaining.

I was probably very brief in making my point, I thought everyone knew this. Same as tards having big banners swearing (at us). Look no further as to why your banners need approval now. 

If you want to know why FFA has cracked down on active in any area look no further than the collection of drongos and want to be criminals who inhabit the active of these 2 clubs. 

As I said earlier, I really feel if you have a point of protest it's that you are completely unfairly being tarred with the same brush. I would use "the natural justice" argument. Is it fair to be punished for a crime committed by someone else?

[belaguttman]

The grand irony in all of this for someone like Rebecca wilson is that at this stage the dreaded fans look like they may come out of this stronger than before.

I wonder what AFL fans think about this? Football has the most active organised fans of any major sport, AFL fans grumble but do little else as the AFL fan experience gets worse every season

[malloy]

6 minutes ago, Jimmy said:

@malloy Just out of curiosity, wwere you guys repeatedly threatened with the removal of flags and instruments every time something unsavory happened like a flare or a scrap? That shit fucking irked me more than anything else. 

 

We had some pretty big threats made towards us. I believe Sidwell at one point was ready to scrap active support all together.

 

A few people on here always bag YS for sticking up for Scott Munn and saying the only reason we like him was because he bought us drinks a few times, but part of the real reason was that Scott Munn pretty much supported us all the time (to the FFA and the board).

Very off topic, but I like this feature of being able to tag people in posts.

[belaguttman]

25 minutes ago, Shahanga said:

Well said Malloy. This was my point ages ago. Active is restricted because of the actions of the tards and WSW. TBH I thought everyone had seen them light flares under TIFOs and it didn't need explaining.

I was probably very brief in making my point, I thought everyone knew this. Same as tards having big banners swearing (at us). Look no further as to why your banners need approval now. 

If you want to know why FFA has cracked down on active in any area look no further than the collection of drongos and want to be criminals who inhabit the active of these 2 clubs. 

As I said earlier, I really feel if you have a point of protest it's that you are completely unfairly being tarred with the same brush. I would use "the natural justice" argument. Is it fair to be punished for a crime committed by someone else?

Not quite, active support is restricted in every supporter group indefinitely because of the actions of some visitors and WSW fans. Indefinite collective punishment is disproportionate and adversely affects the atmosphere at all games. It doesn't even offer visitors or WSW any incentives to improve their behaviour or self policing

[kingofhearts]

26 minutes ago, malloy said:

 

@belaguttman If i remember correctly after the punch up between the RBB and the visitors at the royal Melbourne both clubs were threatened that if their active areas played up again their respective teams would be stripped of premiership points.

Would this be the way to go in regards to implementing strict guidelines to stop crowd trouble? It seemed to work in this aspect that the RBB nor the tards acted up again.

Edited November 30, 2015 by kingofhearts

[belaguttman]

@kingofhearts I think that would be a troubling response to a serious incident. The incident happened outside the stadium and was a criminal act, affray. Its a matter that quite rightly should be dealt with by the Police. It doesn't seem logical to punish the franchise for the behaviour it 'fans' outside the stadium. In Europe they play games behind locked doors but I can't imagine Fox being happy with that. I think that long term the resolution will come with education and peer pressure to behave, effective self policing is the most effective way to deal with large group behaviour.

[SHERLOCK]

@ kingofhearts,@ belaguttman and @ malloy I concur. 

[dr lime]

2 hours ago, Shahanga said:

Well said Malloy. This was my point ages ago. Active is restricted because of the actions of the tards and WSW. TBH I thought everyone had seen them light flares under TIFOs and it didn't need explaining.

I was probably very brief in making my point, I thought everyone knew this. Same as tards having big banners swearing (at us). Look no further as to why your banners need approval now. 

If you want to know why FFA has cracked down on active in any area look no further than the collection of drongos and want to be criminals who inhabit the active of these 2 clubs. 

As I said earlier, I really feel if you have a point of protest it's that you are completely unfairly being tarred with the same brush. I would use "the natural justice" argument. Is it fair to be punished for a crime committed by someone else?

I agree with a lot of this. My initial very negative reaction to "our" protest was based on the fact that the banned "fans" are largely a Victory, WSW and Sydney Cove problem. A chunk of these groups have shown that they are complete fuckwits. So I was upset that we were appearing to act in "solidarity" with them. Let them fight their own wars. I think that the City active are quite different to these numpties so we lose our "point of difference" by jumping on their bandwagon. 

In retrospect, it's clear that the pent up frustration from active groups was just waiting for something to be the catalyst for a backlash against the heavy handed policing and other restrictions. As someone whose only negative experience of the policing issues is shaking my head at how many there seem to be for a regularly very well-behaved crowd, it seemed to me that the protest was overblown. But obviously being on the receiving end of the security overkill is a lot worse than those just going along with their kids and seeing too many cops standing around. Anyway, it's ironic that fuckwits being outed in a rag of a newspaper by a sad excuse for a journalist has been the catalyst for perhaps a faster rate of change to restrictions on active supporters than may have been the case by other means. However I think the changes (if and when they arrive) would probably still have been achieved by other means. 

I am still very uncomfortable with City supporters "apparently" choosing the 198 as the issue to go to the barricades about. I know it was about a lot more than this. But we now have hitched our wagon, in a sense, to the Victory/WSW active supporter horse. That was probably not our intention, but it is partly an outcome of protesting on the same weekend on "apparently" the same issue(s). My fear is that we have lost our point of difference: that is, that we are active without a significant dickhead element. If, down the track the WSW and Victory dickheads cause mayhem and there is a policing/security backlash, it will be across the whole league. Good luck trying to tell the coppers "we are different, we are not like them" as we have now clearly been seen (especially by those who don't analyse these things too deeply) as acting in "solidarity" with them. 

I hope the protest ends up being worth it. I suppose only time will tell. 

Edited November 30, 2015 by dr lime

[possiblygeorge]

Went to my first match this season and sat with my mates in the Active Area (or whatever was left of it), very quiet for the first 10 minutes or whatever it might have been, but after the first goal the Active Area bay was brought to life.

My mates said it was the best match in the Active Area they've had, kind of agreed. Seemed a lot more louder at time as well.

 

I guess that's what happens when you f**k off all the train painting lads.

[Jovan]

2 hours ago, possiblygeorge said:

Went to my first match this season and sat with my mates in the Active Area (or whatever was left of it), very quiet for the first 10 minutes or whatever it might have been, but after the first goal the Active Area bay was brought to life.

My mates said it was the best match in the Active Area they've had, kind of agreed. Seemed a lot more louder at time as well.

 

I guess that's what happens when you f**k off all the train painting lads.

I don't sit in active just above it. But we usually change ends at half time. Anyway Friday's game was strange. After the first 20 minutes or so which was very subdued and after the goal a few chants broke out they were actually spread out around the ground. As the game continued and there was an actual reason to cheer the noise continued and it was throughout the ground. 

Guess what I'm trying to say as half the active were in other parts of the ground the noise was more even. But the main reason IMO why is was relatively noisy because we scored 5 goals. If we were losing with a 6k crowd and no active it would have been a totally different situation.  

[thisphantomfortress]

20 minutes ago, Jovan said:

Guess what I'm trying to say as half the active were in other parts of the ground the noise was more even. But the main reason IMO why is was relatively noisy because we scored 5 goals. If we were losing with a 6k crowd and no active it would have been a totally different situation.  

This is 100% it. Active is great when we're winning not so great when we aren't. One of my favourite times in active was when we finally broke the losing streak. Was it any "better" or "louder" than countless other times? Probably not but we actually won for a change so it makes you want to sing 

[belaguttman]

8 hours ago, dr lime said:

 

I am still very uncomfortable with City supporters "apparently" choosing the 198 as the issue to go to the barricades about. I know it was about a lot more than this. But we now have hitched our wagon, in a sense, to the Victory/WSW active supporter horse. That was probably not our intention, but it is partly an outcome of protesting on the same weekend on "apparently" the same issue(s). My fear is that we have lost our point of difference: that is, that we are active without a significant dickhead element. If, down the track the WSW and Victory dickheads cause mayhem and there is a policing/security backlash, it will be across the whole league. Good luck trying to tell the coppers "we are different, we are not like them" as we have now clearly been seen (especially by those who don't analyse these things too deeply) as acting in "solidarity" with them. 

I hope the protest ends up being worth it. I suppose only time will tell. 

What needs to be the same are the respectful rules that inform the behaviour of all supporters, rules that enhance the match day experience whilst still providing a safe environment. What will remain different of course is how we behave.

[n i k o]

Live press conference on Fox Sports with David Gallop today @2pm  

https://mobile.twitter.com/FOXFOOTBALL/status/671499301030223872

[Deviant]

David Gallop's voice... hahahahaah "dats what we're saaaayin tarrrrayyy"

[bt50]

Fair to say Gallop has just made this issue considerably worse....

[thisphantomfortress]

5 minutes ago, bt50 said:

Fair to say Gallop has just made this issue considerably worse....

Can I hit the FFA up to my medical bills, nose is flattened?

[bt50]

14 minutes ago, thisphantomfortress said:

Can I hit the FFA up to my medical bills, nose is flattened?

That's what you get for being in the nosebleed section...

[jw1739]

26 minutes ago, bt50 said:

Fair to say Gallop has just made this issue considerably worse....

Absolutely. I can't belive what he is reported as having said here: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-01/ffa-boss-david-gallop-maintains-tough-stance-on-banned-fans/6990948

"Serious offences, many assaults, many ignitions of flares." WTF is he trying to do? FFA should be defending its sport, not attacking it publicly.

So easy to say something like  "We very much regret that information that should have been kept confidential to FFA , certain State agencies and organizations contracted by FFA, has been leaked and we're doing everything in our power to find the source of the leak and hold the person(s) responsible accountable." And "Yes, the so-called list consists of the names of people deemed to have been antisocial whilst attending A-League matches, but I wish to stress that this list has been compiled over (number of) years, and does not represent the behaviour of crowds at A-League matches in any way. We have renewed our commitment to working with our clubs and their supporters, State agencies and others to ensure that the family-friendly nature of our game improves on its already high standard."

FFS don't these guys do any media training? So fucking easy to turn the issue into a positive. What a dill he is.

Edited December 1, 2015 by jw1739

[morphine]

This is brilliant:

http://titusoreily.com/a-league-fans-to-destroy-us-all/

[Embee]

4 minutes ago, jw1739 said:

Absolutely. I can't belive what he is reported as having said here: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-01/ffa-boss-david-gallop-maintains-tough-stance-on-banned-fans/6990948

"Serious offences, many assaults, many ignitions of flares." WTF is he trying to do? FFA should be defending its sport, not attacking it publicly.

So easy to say something like  "We very much regret that information that should have been kept confidential to FFA , certain State agencies and organizations contracted by FFA, has been leaked and we're doing everything in our power to find the source of the leak and hold the person(s) responsible accountable." And "Yes, the so-called list consists of the names of people deemed to have been antisocial whilst attending A-League matches, but I wish to stress that this list has been compiled over (number of) years, and does not represent the behaviour of crowds at A-League matches in any way. We have renewed our commitment to working with our clubs and their supporters, State agencies and others to ensure that the family-friendly nature of our game improves on its already high standard."

FFS don't these guys do any media training? So fucking easy to turn the issue into a positive. What a dill he is.

His struggle to answer the questions regarding what evidence fans could supply to exonerate themselves was hilarious too.

Don't even worry about media training, it seemed to me like the bloke hadn't even prepared himself for any of the potential questions he was going to receive.

Moron.