The APL/FA Management Thread

[n i k o]

4 minutes ago, Jimmy said:

It seems like the vast majority of the masses are correctly interpreting the point of the protest, Who'd have thought? 

 

Definitely not everyone though...  

http://www.foxsports.com.au/video/?v=phil-moss-on-walkout_1227627172950&vc=207

Edited November 29, 2015 by n i k o

[hedaik]

Expecting a full evidence based trial with both parties will never happen as the FFA will want to reserve the right to ban people when they either dont have evidence, or suspect they will cause trouble. No different to a nightclub not letting people in to protect the nightclubs reputation. 

Too many people worried about protecting criminals rights than the image of the game. 

[BeardedHeart]

I have haven't posted about this yet and not going into a big statement

I think people are getting lost about what the protests were about its not about protecting people who have done stuff wrong , even though they still deserve their privacy , its about a appeal process where they want people to prove they innocent well how can they do that when stadium, club and FFA staff wont show us the footage proving we are Guilty 

[hedaik]

4 minutes ago, BeardedHeart said:

I have haven't posted about this yet and not going into a big statement

I think people are getting lost about what the protests were about its not about protecting people who have done stuff wrong , even though they still deserve their privacy , its about a appeal process where they want people to prove they innocent well how can they do that when stadium, club and FFA staff wont show us the footage proving we are Guilty 

See my post above yours. 

[Dylan]

This is all probably going to lead to the aleague splitting off from the FFA which is a good thing. Apparently we have been the driving force behind it for some time.

[Jimmy]

49 minutes ago, Dylan said:

This is all probably going to lead to the aleague splitting off from the FFA which is a good thing. Apparently we have been the driving force behind it for some time.

I think clubs need more power and reform is needed to achieve that but I'm not sure if the league is ready to split off completely. What happens when the next club goes belly up and the FFA isn't there to run them?

Something in the middle for the time being. 

Edited November 29, 2015 by Jimmy

[belaguttman]

14 hours ago, BeardedHeart said:

I have haven't posted about this yet and not going into a big statement

I think people are getting lost about what the protests were about its not about protecting people who have done stuff wrong , even though they still deserve their privacy , its about a appeal process where they want people to prove they innocent well how can they do that when stadium, club and FFA staff wont show us the footage proving we are Guilty 

Its about more than that, the overall issue is about the real relationship between the fans and the governing bodies. FFA (quite correctly at the time) took a very direct control of the peak competition when it formed the A League. It went with the MSL franchise model rather than clubs specifically so that they could retain control. 10 years in though FFA haven't evolved in their management style and that is causing tensions with both the franchises and with the fans. FFA still act like they own football in Australia rather than being the custodians appointed by all the stakeholders. Fans aren't even stakeholders in the present models, but from the TV broadcast model down to ticket and seat prices we exist only so that they can find creative new ways to gouge as much money from fans as possible. Now I accept that the game is expensive and requires money but its an issue about the relationship. The appeals process is only one example of the problem

Edited November 30, 2015 by belaguttman

[strider]

#FFAout

[SF33]

9 hours ago, n i k o said:

NEWS, SQUADRON

SQUADRON LAUNCH EMAIL & BOYCOTT CAMPAIGN

NOVEMBER 29, 2015 FURNS LEAVE A COMMENT

We also call for a total boycott of News Limited publications from football supporters. Dont buy their papers and dont click their links online. If we can cost them enough advertising money through decreased circulation and website clicks, they will have to change their ways to try to win the customers back they have lost.

Hopefully, with enough people sending these emails and boycotting their businesses, we will be able to force some real change and the Daily Telegraph, 2GB, Rebecca Wilson, Alan Jones and 2GB will remember next time to provide some balance in their reporting on football matters.

They will Never Tear Us Apart

Squadron Novocastria

Is anyone else detecting a bit of irony here? I don't go out of my way to read or listen to anything that Rebecca Wilson or Alan Jones have to say/write, or really anything that the Murdoch media publishes in general, if there is a decent alternative. Hence, I was blissfully unaware that any of this had happened until Sunday.

At the risk of making a sweeping generalisation, I don't think Jones' and Wilson's target audiences are your average A-League member/supporter. I don't listen to SEN either, but I'm sure they can't wait to get Wilson back on, because there will be scores of people that can't resist calling in to have a crack at her.

[strider]

How about we go to news limited headquarters with pitchforks and torch the joint

Edited November 29, 2015 by strider

[Jimmy]

7 minutes ago, strider said:

How about we go to news limited headquarters with pitchforks and torch the joint

U post-protest pro-protest, but no pro-protest pre-protest bro?

Edited November 29, 2015 by Jimmy

[strider]

16 minutes ago, Jimmy said:

U post-protest pro-protest, but no pro-protest pre-protest bro?

jim pls ban urself 

[thisphantomfortress]

1 hour ago, belaguttman said:

Its about more than that, the overall issue is about the real relationship between the fans and the governing bodies. FFA (quite correctly at the time) took a very direct control of the peak competition when it formed the A League. It went with the MSL franchise model rather than clubs specifically so that they could retain control. 10 years in though FFA haven't evolved in their management style and that is causing tensions with both the franchises and with the fans. FFA still act like they own football in Australia rather than being the custodians appointed by all the stakeholders. Fans aren't even stakeholders in the present models, but from the TV broadcast model down to ticket and seat prices we exist only so that they can find creative new ways to gouge as much money from fans as possible. Now I except that the game is expensive and requires money but its an issue about the relationship. The appeals process is only one example of the problem

I must say throughout this whole "issue" I think I've seen you hit the nail on the head on just about every comment you've made. The no appeals process has been the spark that seems to have ignited this all but it has been building throughout active supporterd at the very least for some time.

[jw1739]

1 hour ago, belaguttman said:

Its about more than that, the overall issue is about the real relationship between the fans and the governing bodies. FFA (quite correctly at the time) took a very direct control of the peak competition when it formed the A League. It went with the MSL franchise model rather than clubs specifically so that they could retain control. 10 years in though FFA haven't evolved in their management style and that is causing tensions with both the franchises and with the fans. FFA still act like they own football in Australia rather than being the custodians appointed by all the stakeholders. Fans aren't even stakeholders in the present models, but from the TV broadcast model down to ticket and seat prices we exist only so that they can find creative new ways to gouge as much money from fans as possible. Now I except that the game is expensive and requires money but its an issue about the relationship. The appeals process is only one example of the problem

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)?

[playmaker]

I think the solidarity across the a league actives has got some traction, well done. Change is happening.

People are talking with passion, actives, non actives and supporters.

if the a league don't change things i think people will just stop going.

Well done.

 

Edited November 30, 2015 by playmaker

[kingofhearts]

2 hours ago, strider said:

How about we go to news limited headquarters with pitchforks and torch the joint

We should send death threats to Rebecca Wilson. Try and scare her good

[strider]

2 minutes ago, kingofhearts said:

We should send death threats to Rebecca Wilson. Try and scare her good

yes, straight to her home. pillage the women and children 

[belaguttman]

3 hours ago, hedaik said:

Expecting a full evidence based trial with both parties will never happen as the FFA will want to reserve the right to ban people when they either dont have evidence, or suspect they will cause trouble. No different to a nightclub not letting people in to protect the nightclubs reputation. 

Too many people worried about protecting criminals rights than the image of the game. 

I wonder what damages the FFA and the competition more, excluding people without access to natural justice when they claim mistaken identity, or providing a transparent review process that overturns a ban on someone who can show that they are no threat to the reputation of the competition? Why would anyone who can show that they haven't damaged the reputation of the competition be a threat to the reputation of the competition?

It concerns me that people can receive long bans for swearing, no wonder crowd numbers are down. 

[belaguttman]

50 minutes 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)?

Ultimately FFA has a stranglehold through their link as the FIFA recognised local authority (although Australia only joined FIFA in the early 1960s and Soccer Australia existed long before then). AFAIK the FFA Board are elected from stakeholder organisations (of course fans aren't stakeholders and so are unrepresented) at a state and national level so there are no direct elections and no direct accountability to grassroots or fans.

8 minutes ago, kingofhearts said:

We should send death threats to Rebecca Wilson. Try and scare her good

I know that you are being ironic here although our 'friends' at Hamatomo will choose to read it differently but we need to be careful that any response to someone as unimportant as Rebecca Wilson doesn't tip over into bullying.

Its interesting to read what she hasn't written about though, in all her anti-football hyperbole she hasn't attacked FFA over the appointment of Stephen Lowy as Chairman. Even she would find that a bit close to home given that her own husband is editor of her newspaper.

[hedaik]

12 minutes ago, belaguttman said:

I wonder what damages the FFA and the competition more, excluding people without access to natural justice when they claim mistaken identity, or providing a transparent review process that overturns a ban on someone who can show that they are no threat to the reputation of the competition? Why would anyone who can show that they haven't damaged the reputation of the competition be a threat to the reputation of the competition?

Banning people has never hurt any other sports reputation, so I don't see why the ALeague should be any different. I can't imagine any other sport in Australia where the supporters would have a cry because people have been banned. Im actually surprised it is only 200 banned tbh, to me that says they are being pretty selective about who gets banned. 

Quote

It concerns me that people can receive long bans for swearing, no wonder crowd numbers are down. 

Do you really think the fact that there are less than 200 people banned in the last x years, when there are probably 100 flares lit a year, and probably 100 involved in the riot between Victory and WSW fans a couple of seasons ago, that people are being banned from swearing? How many swear words have you heard in the terrace in the last 5 years?

Edited November 30, 2015 by hedaik

[belaguttman]

3 hours ago, BeardedHeart said:

I have haven't posted about this yet and not going into a big statement

I think people are getting lost about what the protests were about its not about protecting people who have done stuff wrong , even though they still deserve their privacy , its about a appeal process where they want people to prove they innocent well how can they do that when stadium, club and FFA staff wont show us the footage proving we are Guilty 

Incidentally its exactly the issue that asylum seekers face when they are refused asylum because of an adverse security assessment but are refused access to the information on security grounds so it is unable to be challenged.

[belaguttman]

1 minute ago, hedaik said:

Banning people has never hurt any other sports reputation, so I don't see why the ALeague should be any different. I can't imagine any other sport in Australia where the supporters would have a cry because people have been banned.

Do you really think the fact that there are less than 200 people banned in the last x years, when there are probably 100 flares lit a year, and probably 100 involved in the riot between Victory and WSW fans a couple of seasons ago, that people are being banned from swearing? How many swear words have you heard in the terrace in the last 5 years?

Banning people isn't the issue, its about an unfair process being used to impose the bans and how that relates to the wider issue of the relationship between fans and FFA. There are a number of people who are alleged to have been banned for swearing, this may or may not be accurate but in the present relationship and with the present processes few find this statement surprising. I haven'r read of anyone advocating that there be no bans, nor suggest that all bans are inappropriate, its about the process. If the bigger issue of the relationship between FFA and fans were addressed then this issue would take care of itself during that process.

I suppose that it becomes an issue in this sport because this is one sport with a tradition of active fan culture and often very political fan culture. I'm pleased that this issue has come up because I see it as an inevitable consequence of the growth in our game. It never would have happened in the first few A League seasons for instance. The relationship between FFA, the franchises and the fans needs to evolve in order to grow the game. Enough fans have clearly stated that they don't want an AFL/NRL type passive spectator experience and are prepared to complain about more that the price of pies. If AFL fans had done this years ago then AFL arguably wouldn't be the sanitised corporate experience that it is today.

[hedaik]

13 minutes ago, belaguttman said:

Banning people isn't the issue, its about an unfair process being used to impose the bans and how that relates to the wider issue of the relationship between fans and FFA. There are a number of people who are alleged to have been banned for swearing, this may or may not be accurate but in the present relationship and with the present processes few find this statement surprising. I haven'r read of anyone advocating that there be no bans, nor suggest that all bans are inappropriate, its about the process. If the bigger issue of the relationship between FFA and fans were addressed then this issue would take care of itself during that process.

If somebody had been banned for swearing, then I'm sure the reasoning would be plastered all over the uLTrAsZ facebook pages. And if somebody has been banned for swearing, then there'd be a particular reason why that 1 person in the crowd has been chosen out of a whole bay of people who are swearing. 

The only sympathy 'I didnt do it' sob story Ive seen from all of this was from the WSW fan who lost their job, and they've since been found to be taking part in and glorifying the WSW/Victory riot. 

Quote

I suppose that it becomes an issue in this sport because this is one sport with a tradition of active fan culture and often very political fan culture. I'm pleased that this issue has come up because I see it as an inevitable consequence of the growth in our game. It never would have happened in the first few A League seasons for instance. The relationship between FFA, the franchises and the fans needs to evolve in order to grow the game. Enough fans have clearly stated that they don't want an AFL/NRL type passive spectator experience and are prepared to complain about more that the price of pies. If AFL fans had done this years ago then AFL arguably wouldn't be the sanitised corporate experience that it is today.

Active support, and defending thugs/criminals right to appeal with the FFA are two separate conversations. I don't get why the two always have to be linked together.  

 

Edited November 30, 2015 by hedaik

[belaguttman]

14 minutes ago, hedaik said:

If somebody had been banned for swearing, then I'm sure the reasoning would be plastered all over the uLTrAsZ facebook pages. And if somebody has been banned for swearing, then there'd be a particular reason why that 1 person in the crowd has been chosen out of a whole bay of people who are swearing. 

Active support, and defending thugs/criminals right to appeal with the FFA are two separate conversations. I don't get why the two always have to be linked together.  

Allegedly some people have been banned for swearing, true there may have been other behaviour that contributed to them being identified but then why not state that? Why not give them access to the videos etc that are used to justify the bans? I'll remind you that they are not thugs or criminals, they are alleged thugs, and AFAIK there has been very few criminal charges or convictions arising from the alleged behaviour. I don't know anybody (apart from the perpetrator) who would suggest anything other than a life ban for the person who king hit the WSW fan at AAMI for instance. People who deliberately damage property should also be banned although I appreciate that there is some difficulty in identifying the correct people. I think that other fans need to accept responsibility for this and help with identification, its in all our interests.

The reason why the 2 things are linked is because there is a common issue linking them, the relationship between the FFA and fans. Even Damian deBohun's comments last night suggesting that there will be an appeal process where banned spectators have an opportunity to prove their innocence (from a position of assumed guilt) without suggesting that they would have access to statements or video evidence is another example of the assumptions that determine the relationship.

Lets look at some more assumptions, why should all fan banners have to be pre-approved? The FFA should consult with stakeholders (including fans) and publish banner guidelines and fans should then be able to produce anything they like as long as it falls within those clear guidelines. If there is anything questionable then a club representative should approach the fan group at the time, not security.

Edited November 30, 2015 by belaguttman

[hedaik]

2 minutes ago, belaguttman said:

Allegedly some people have been banned for swearing, true there may have been other behaviour that contributed to them being identified but then why not state that? Why not give them access to the videos etc that are used to justify the bans? I'll remind you that they are not thugs or criminals, they are alleged thugs, and AFAIK there has been very few criminal charges or convictions arising from the alleged behaviour.

I don't feel the FFA need to, its a private venue and they can not allow anybody in that they feel has a stink about them. Theres also a big difference between knowing somebody has done something and being able to provide clear evidence. 

As I said before, only 200 have been banned in the last 5(?) years, they aren't just banning anybody because somebody feels like it. The people involved with a punch up with the Victory supporter  who wore the Muscat shirt a few years ago didn't even get kicked out let alone banned. 

2 minutes ago, belaguttman said:

Lets look at some more assumptions, why should all fan banners have to be pre-approved? The FFA should consult with stakeholders (including fans) and publish banner guidelines and fans should then be able to produce anything they like as long as it falls within those clear guidelines. If there is anything questionable then a club representative should approach the fan group at the time, not security.

My understanding is that banners never had to be pre-approved, but Sydney fans made a big banner calling Victory tards, and then Victory unveiled a banner telling Heart to fuck off back to Morwell which changed things. And yes, a club rep is really going to get to the banner in time (which only needs to be up for at least 10 seconds to be effective) and be able to do a better job of taking it down before a few meathead seccos can. 

[playmaker]

How about a banner like

'Rebecca Wilson is a Pichka'. 

I hear Massos saying it all the time, it must have some relevance.

 

Edited November 30, 2015 by playmaker

[belaguttman]

46 minutes ago, hedaik said:

I don't feel the FFA need to, its a private venue and they can not allow anybody in that they feel has a stink about them. Theres also a big difference between knowing somebody has done something and being able to provide clear evidence. 

As I said before, only 200 have been banned in the last 5(?) years, they aren't just banning anybody because somebody feels like it. The people involved with a punch up with the Victory supporter  who wore the Muscat shirt a few years ago didn't even get kicked out let alone banned. 

My understanding is that banners never had to be pre-approved, but Sydney fans made a big banner calling Victory tards, and then Victory unveiled a banner telling Heart to fuck off back to Morwell which changed things. And yes, a club rep is really going to get to the banner in time (which only needs to be up for at least 10 seconds to be effective) and be able to do a better job of taking it down before a few meathead seccos can. 

The FFA do need to obey the laws of the land, anything after that is optional however whatever they do or don't do will influence their relationship with fans. If FFA was as powerful and cashed up as AFL they could afford to ignore fans and concentrate on their corporate and media stakeholders but even this may be financially lucrative in the short-term but affects the relationship with fans longer term.

I agree that it may be difficult for someone from the franchise getting to active support in time... if they spend all their time in the corporate areas, wouldn't it be good if someone from the franchise spent time in their official capacity with the fans? Scott Munn to his credit used to do that but it would be helpful to see others. I've seen and spoken to Damian deBohun at the FFA Cup semifinal at Bentleight Greens, we was just spectating in the crowd and should happen more often.

[SF33]

2 hours ago, belaguttman said:

Banning people isn't the issue, its about an unfair process being used to impose the bans and how that relates to the wider issue of the relationship between fans and FFA. There are a number of people who are alleged to have been banned for swearing, this may or may not be accurate but in the present relationship and with the present processes few find this statement surprising. I haven'r read of anyone advocating that there be no bans, nor suggest that all bans are inappropriate, its about the process.

"WE SUPPORT THE 198"

A good percentage of whom, I'm sure, thoroughly deserved their bans. And a good percentage of those probably just copped it on the chin and didn't even want to appeal. Anyone that was responsible for making that banner and putting it up presumably doesn't even know what they are protesting about and is a dickhead of the highest order.

[NewConvert]

1 hour ago, hedaik said:

I don't feel the FFA need to, its a private venue and they can not allow anybody in that they feel has a stink about them. Theres also a big difference between knowing somebody has done something and being able to provide clear evidence. 

As I said before, only 200 have been banned in the last 5(?) years, they aren't just banning anybody because somebody feels like it. The people involved with a punch up with the Victory supporter  who wore the Muscat shirt a few years ago didn't even get kicked out let alone banned. 

My understanding is that banners never had to be pre-approved, but Sydney fans made a big banner calling Victory tards, and then Victory unveiled a banner telling Heart to fuck off back to Morwell which changed things. And yes, a club rep is really going to get to the banner in time (which only needs to be up for at least 10 seconds to be effective) and be able to do a better job of taking it down before a few meathead seccos can. 

That is yet to be tested in the courts. For starters AAMI Park is not a private venue as it is owned by the Victorian Government, unlike Etihad. Secondly, it is not a private company but a parent organisation. And as Bela has pointed out, they do need to obey the law of the land. There have been plenty of decisions where public policy has been overturned on appeals to courts/tribunals. If as some claimed that they have lost their jobs because of the leak and they are able to go through the legal process then a number of these questions would be answered.

[belaguttman]

3 minutes ago, SF33 said:

"WE SUPPORT THE 198"

A good percentage of whom, I'm sure, thoroughly deserved their bans. And a good percentage of those probably just copped it on the chin and didn't even want to appeal. Anyone that was responsible for making that banner and putting it up presumably doesn't even know what they are protesting about and is a dickhead of the highest order.

 

3 minutes ago, SF33 said:

"WE SUPPORT THE 198"

A good percentage of whom, I'm sure, thoroughly deserved their bans. And a good percentage of those probably just copped it on the chin and didn't even want to appeal. Anyone that was responsible for making that banner and putting it up presumably doesn't even know what they are protesting about and is a dickhead of the highest order.

I agree, it was poorly worded at best. Presumably there's a variety of behaviours amongst the 198, some of the allegations are well deserving of a ban or of Police charges. The only thing that the 198 have in common that I support is an examination of the process used to exclude them and also a resolution of issues between FFA and fan groups

[Jimmy]

7 minutes ago, SF33 said:

"WE SUPPORT THE 198"

Anyone that was responsible for making that banner and putting it up presumably doesn't even know what they are protesting about and is a dickhead of the highest order.

You're not wrong here. 

[hedaik]

10 minutes ago, NewConvert said:

 If as some claimed that they have lost their jobs because of the leak and they are able to go through the legal process then a number of these questions would be answered.

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. 

Edited November 30, 2015 by hedaik

[playmaker]

4 minutes 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. 

Except when you are the one who is wrongly banned.

The story will change then wont it!

What a ridiculous logic.

[belaguttman]

9 minutes 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. 

It isn't an either/or situation surely? We can see the result of poor ethical decisions and injustice everyday. It isn't always the easiest path, in fact its often the most difficult path but it usually ends up being less work in the end. Imagine how strong we will be as a code and how attractive we will be to sponsors and the community in general?

[hedaik]

9 minutes ago, belaguttman said:

It isn't an either/or situation surely? We can see the result of poor ethical decisions and injustice everyday. It isn't always the easiest path, in fact its often the most difficult path but it usually ends up being less work in the end. Imagine how strong we will be as a code and how attractive we will be to sponsors and the community in general?

Well I'm assuming FFA have some cases where its impossible to prove conclusively or they have information from a source they dont want to reveal (maybe the forum photographer is passing on photographs)

With only 200 people being banned in the last x years, and this so called Hamtomato terrorist expert spy group studying active groups I'm comfortable that the ban list is pretty accurate.  

Edited November 30, 2015 by hedaik

[playmaker]

All of a sudden we have a bunch of egomaniac security mercenaries being judge, jury and executioner more interested in keeping their jobs than being just, when people being treated unjustly having no right of appeal.

Judge Dread....... Prepare to be Judged

 

[belaguttman]

Yes I accept that you're comfortable however there are such a significant number of supporters of the game that are uncomfortable with it that it will create problems with sponsorship and growth unless that discomfort is resolved. 

Let's assume 100% accuracy in identification and totally appropriate evidence of wrongdoing in every case, what has FFA got to lose? i would hope that if any supporter saw a king hit or serious property damage they would act as they would outside the stadium and alert Police.

If FFA have a situation where they are unable to conclusively establish identity then on what basis are they excluding people? "we are giving you a multi-year stadium ban because we think that it might be you'?

Edited November 30, 2015 by belaguttman

[hedaik]

5 minutes ago, belaguttman said:

Yes I accept that you're comfortable however there are such a significant number of supporters of the game that are uncomfortable with it that it will create problems with sponsorship and growth unless that discomfort is resolved. 

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. 

[belaguttman]

18 minutes 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. 

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

[jw1739]

1 hour ago, NewConvert said:

That is yet to be tested in the courts. For starters AAMI Park is not a private venue as it is owned by the Victorian Government, unlike Etihad. Secondly, it is not a private company but a parent organisation. And as Bela has pointed out, they do need to obey the law of the land. There have been plenty of decisions where public policy has been overturned on appeals to courts/tribunals. If as some claimed that they have lost their jobs because of the leak and they are able to go through the legal process then a number of these questions would be answered.

Unfortunately I think you'll find that the actual ownership of the premises is irrelevant. For the purposes of an FFA sanctioned match the venue and certain defined areas around it are hired out for a specified time period to a body that is either the FFA or the A-League (it doesn't matter which it is technically) and thus the venue and the additional defined areas become private property for that specified period. And everyone becomes subject to whatever conditions the hirer wishes to impose.