A-League season 2015-16

[RB]

The kick-off time for United v Perth at Hindmarsh on Sunday has been moved from 4.30 back to 7.00. Unfortunately for the W-League side, they still have to play at 4.00...

[therisingblues]

So have I read this right, the "red army" is going to boycott next game in support of people who've been banned from soccer?

[whufc]

So have I read this right, the "red army" is going to boycott next game in support of people who've been banned from soccer?

No they are boycotting because of the lack of rights people who are kicked out get including no appeals process.

They are also boycotting because of the leaks which enable Rebecca Wilson to print the names and photos of people who had been evicted from the soccer. These people were called criminals in the article yet not all of them had been charged with any crimes, there were people who lost their jobs because of this many of these people had committed no criminal offense.

[Jim05]

So have I read this right, the "red army" is going to boycott next game in support of people who've been banned from soccer?

No they are boycotting because of the lack of rights people who are kicked out get including no appeals process.

They are also boycotting because of the leaks which enable Rebecca Wilson to print the names and photos of people who had been evicted from the soccer. These people were called criminals in the article yet not all of them had been charged with any crimes, there were people who lost their jobs because of this many of these people had committed no criminal offense.

Yep, all clubs are having some form of protest. WSW and Victory supporters are boycotting completely and others are walking out at the 30 minute mark. Watched the Sydney v Newcastle game tonight and the Cove end was empty

[therisingblues]

Okay, while I agree everybody deserves a fair trial, and trial by media is anything but fair, haven't these people committed acts to distance themselves from regular soccer supporters? I don't get why they'd go so far to defend the rights of people who made the soccer a less friendly place to begin with.

[RB]

I agree, TRB. It seems to be a pretty minor procedural matter to boycott matches for. I think it's just a bit of fun for these supporters...

[Jim05]

I agree, TRB. It seems to be a pretty minor procedural matter to boycott matches for. I think it's just a bit of fun for these supporters...

It's much more than that.
Good on the supporters for standing up to the pricks running the FFA, hopefully this will force changes

[Wedgie]

Hopefully the Red Army wankers boycott the game for life, it would leave the game in better shape.

[JK]

Hopefully the Red Army wankers boycott the game for life, it would leave the game in better shape.

Yep, the 19 year olds that are tough with a whole bay behind them but are piss weak when they lay down in the streets after a game. The sport in this country needs a social behavior adjustment, or it stifles the huge potential it has to progress. Im no fan of the FFA, but for the long term growth of the game they're heading down the right path (imho).

[mickey]

I agree, TRB. It seems to be a pretty minor procedural matter to boycott matches for. I think it's just a bit of fun for these supporters...

Far from 'minor procedural matters'

Lets equate it back to an SANFL scenario..

We all know SANFL fans are a rowdy bunch who love to let flares off on special occasions at the footy. During a closely fought, highly emotional game someone lets a flare off, or gets into a vocal stoush with someone from the opposing team.

Now Weslo come and get involved, being heavy handed like they usually tend to be, they grab RB and TRB out of the crowd and say that they are the parties responsible for the disturbance and will be evicted from the game. Of course in this instance they are innocent bystanders who had no involvement with the flare. After the game the SANFL and the host club meet and decide that these 2 hooligans will be banned from attending any games for at least the next 5 years, maybe life for the trouble they caused. Citing CCTV footage as proof that they are the guilty parties, the decision to ban the pair is final.

Now RB & TRB are obviously pretty pissed off with the banning and wish to plead their case. Unfortunately this is not possible as no appeals process is possible or allowed. To further rub salt into the wounds the SANFL and club refuse to release the CCTV footage which would prove 100% that they are innocent.

Now if u replicate this situation over and over again and include the media releasing the names of those involved, you can start to see why the supporters groups are starting to take these protest actions.

* Obviously not all the banned people are inncocent parties, but a fair % are

[Wedgie]

So far one ban has been overturned so we can safely assume its less than 1%.
Better strike rate than the courts!
I wish they'd ban more of these wankers, it'd be in the thousands, not hundreds if I was in charge.

[Jim05]

So far one ban has been overturned so we can safely assume its less than 1%.
Better strike rate than the courts!
I wish they'd ban more of these wankers, it'd be in the thousands, not hundreds if I was in charge.

All for banning the idiots but you should be able to appeal if you are innocent no matter what %

[therisingblues]

Thanks Mickey, I think you explained the situation pretty well. I just want to clarify though, are they really able to cite evidence yet not actually produce it? As with the example of CCTV footage.
If this was an ongoing issue with united, and the process was allowing the real culprits to escape on a regular basis, I too would protest. But I've since heard a bit in the media, it seems that united have very few people on this list and they are all minors. The vast majority are from West Sydney, Melbourne Victory and one other club. I think there might be cultural problems specific to those clubs. I am also guessing that if you go to their games and sit in a certain area, you know there's a good chance you're going to be near where the problems begin. I imagine if there were any innocents amongst those charged they were still possibly cheering on those that were truly responsible. None of this condones the release of names to the media but I don't think united fans need to get caught up in a struggle involving other parties where blame issues are not black and white.
Finally, only "those clubs" I remember an A league final between Adelaide City and the Melbourne Knights, and although the Knights won they still found cause to smash shop windows, bash unfortunate fans who happened to be near them (I never saw violence in all my years as a City fan but for some reason you get a few thousand Knights fans over and....) and they threw marbles and various objects under the hooves of police horses that came to break them up, which enabled them to "occupy and hold the street".
No need to act like that in Australia, generally Adelaidians don't. If this is how those scum behave, perhaps the authorities are dealing with it the best way they can. Not Adelaide's problem so far as I can see.

[Magellan]

Okay, while I agree everybody deserves a fair trial, and trial by media is anything but fair, haven't these people committed acts to distance themselves from regular soccer supporters? I don't get why they'd go so far to defend the rights of people who made the soccer a less friendly place to begin with.

As a passive outsider and viewer of the round-ball football code I have to agree with this. Certainly an appeals process need to be put in place for banned fans, I think that's fair and common sense from a game management perspective.

The leak (presumably from the FFA) of the naughty fans was poor form in hindsight - perhaps the FFA thought this was a way to promote their low tolerance of hoons? However, I wonder if the fans are also protesting the newspaper who, by its own free editorial will, chose to run with the story in the manner that it did?

Perhaps those closer to the game can clarify, hypothetically, whether those boycotting fans continue to stay away indefinitely if the FFA elected to not change the status quo re: appeals and an apology? If so, it seems like a case of cutting your nose off to spite your face, given the A-League needs arses on seats because (from what I understand) the crowds have plateaued and TV ratings are not that great. The only way the game can expand and take on the established footy codes is by getting crowds to games - both traditional football fans and encouraging new fans.

The A-League has a tough gig in balancing the interests of maintain existing fan bases and attracting new ones. But isn't the long-term future of the game in currying favour with new fans, and this means removing the elements that interfere with a 'family friendly' atmosphere (which is where footy codes now want to position themselves in order to maximise attendances)?

[mighty hounds]

So far one ban has been overturned so we can safely assume its less than 1%.
Better strike rate than the courts!
I wish they'd ban more of these wankers, it'd be in the thousands, not hundreds if I was in charge.

All for banning the idiots but you should be able to appeal if you are innocent no matter what %

Apparently someone was banned for jay walking at a stadium!

[RB]

I agree, TRB. It seems to be a pretty minor procedural matter to boycott matches for. I think it's just a bit of fun for these supporters...

Far from 'minor procedural matters'

Lets equate it back to an SANFL scenario..

We all know SANFL fans are a rowdy bunch who love to let flares off on special occasions at the footy. During a closely fought, highly emotional game someone lets a flare off, or gets into a vocal stoush with someone from the opposing team.

Now Weslo come and get involved, being heavy handed like they usually tend to be, they grab RB and TRB out of the crowd and say that they are the parties responsible for the disturbance and will be evicted from the game. Of course in this instance they are innocent bystanders who had no involvement with the flare. After the game the SANFL and the host club meet and decide that these 2 hooligans will be banned from attending any games for at least the next 5 years, maybe life for the trouble they caused. Citing CCTV footage as proof that they are the guilty parties, the decision to ban the pair is final.

Now RB & TRB are obviously pretty pissed off with the banning and wish to plead their case. Unfortunately this is not possible as no appeals process is possible or allowed. To further rub salt into the wounds the SANFL and club refuse to release the CCTV footage which would prove 100% that they are innocent.

Now if u replicate this situation over and over again and include the media releasing the names of those involved, you can start to see why the supporters groups are starting to take these protest actions.

* Obviously not all the banned people are inncocent parties, but a fair % are

You make some good points there, Mickey. Although I think they'd be pretty sure that the people they ban are in fact guilty, and I doubt a 'fair %' are innocent.

[carey]

Players where they should be in a starting line up and it takes 2 minutes to score! It's not rocket science.

[Brodlach]

Should be 5 goals up

[Brodlach]

If Berisha played for the Reds tonight he would have scored 5 on his own

[Brodlach]

Finally get a win

1-0