Melbourne Victory’s active supporters are claiming to have been victimised by their club, stadium operators, FFA, its security contractors and the police forces of all the mainland states.
Why would anyone associated with football be mistreating its highly valued active supporters? Surely the police have enough on their hands already with outlaw biker gangs and serial killers? The picture doesn’t seem to check out.
According to one Victory supporter, that’s because most of it’s missing.
James, a Victory foundation member and one of the 90-plus per cent of Victory’s members not aligned with a supporter group, says there is scant regard around the club for active supporters. “No one objects to active support per se, but that’s not to say there’s a lot of respect for our active supporters.”
It goes back to the club’s inception, he says: “It was a shambles at first, lots of queues, lots of inconvenience … too many supporters should have been a good problem for the club to have … a few of the supporter groups made sure it wasn’t.”
James says the supporter groups first flexed their muscles at Olympic Park, Victory’s original match venue, insisting upon preferential treatment on the grounds they were active supporters. “The stands were full, there was hardly any decent general-admission viewing but for the north terrace and they reckon they’d earned the right to have entry to it restricted to only those they approved of.”
When Victory couldn’t accommodate their demands, he says, “they ramped it up, made anonymous threats to the club and on internet forums about taking matters into their own hands to get rid of the blow-ins.” When more security was assigned to the north terrace to forestall trouble, he says active supporters arced up again.
“That was clear evidence they were being victimised. It’s been the pattern ever since—a refusal to discriminate in their favour is victimisation and a deliberate attempt to undermine football culture, which is their signal to hop online and savage someone’s reputation.”
The club moved to the largely all-seated Docklands and acceded to active supporters lobbying for their own area by introducing “Home End Membership”. “But that was insulting to football culture because now it wasn’t general admission and active supporters couldn’t bring their mates along any more. Get it? The blow-in they wanted out of their area previously was the guest of another active supporter. They saw that as being the club’s responsibility to sort out because it was too hard for them.”
He says Victory’s supporter groups tolerate misbehavior so they can exploit it. “They need some idiots, they’re the only bargaining chip they’ve got. It’s blackmail, basically. ‘Grant us privileges or we’ll claim victimisation and make the club look bad.’ They must fall off their chairs when the likes of Les Murray and Foster legitimise the rubbish they go one with.
“It confuses absolutely everyone, the smokescreen about football culture.” He disputes the notion that supporters groups are the essence of football. “How can that be? Soccer thrives elsewhere without gangs in the stands taunting the cops, ripping flares and chanting filth at opposition teams.”
He disputes the theory that Victory’s attendances have fallen because of the authorities’ treatment of its supporters; he says that’s more likely due to active supporters’ disregard for other supporters. “Everyone suffers when security and the cops are on a hair-trigger but idiots see that as a triumph, they think it proves their case. Against the Jets they were running around the stadium and ripping flares around families and trying to get them caught up in the police response.”
The only solution, he says, is for the terrace to police itself. “But that’s not going to happen, the idiots say it’s against their code of ethics. That’s ultimately what separates them from other supporters — not having the guts to tell a mate to pull his head in.”
James would like to see go ahead Victory’s active supporters’ threatened boycotts of the forthcoming A-League finals, “so long as they’re advertised by both the supporter groups and FFA. Ask the question: Do football supporters prefer the atmosphere of a half-full stadium with supporter groups playing cat-and-mouse with security and the cops, or a full stadium without them?
“Give real football supporters out there the opportunity to make a clear statement about that and see what happens then.”
spud murphy
Guest
James does not exist.
TomC
Guest
Dugald, the rest of us think its pretty poor form writing an article on the basis of secondhand comments from an anonymous source that appear to contradict the experiences of the vast majority of Melbourne Victory fans. Perhaps the above post has some meaning for yourself and NUFCMVFC, but it means absolutely nothing to me. I've never seen any comments by 'Peter Wilt' on the roar and I couldn't care less what he has to say on other forums, or what aliases are used.
Chris
Guest
Dugald, Firstly, kudos for digging a bit deeper! Secondly, and I think this is perhaps getting to the crux of the issue, which supporter groups pressured which clubs? While I'd guess that the idea was probably thrown around by the BWB et al. in Melbourne, I'm not sure if it was ever part of the broader NT ideology. I think the desire for an 'exclusive' or ‘member’s only’ active section was much stronger in Sydney. In fact, and I could be wrong here, I think either currently, or in the past, it has cost more to stand in the cove than some other parts of the stadium. If this pricing was introduced in the NT, I personally know a number of fans that would abandon the more expensive area on principal – (the Latin American idea of the ‘populares’ strikes a chord with active fans in Melbourne) The point being that, despite still being relatively embryonic, different A-League clubs have different cultures. An FFA directed, top-down, one-size-fits-all solution simply does not work! Irrespective of opinions on active support, what this current fiasco has shown is that it’s time the FFA allows clubs more autonomy over match-day operations.
Dugald Massey
Roar Guru
Thanks for that clarification, "Peter Wilt". I do think it's pretty poor form submitting articles here under multis and then heading off to other websites as NUFCMVFC boasting to militant active supporters about your successful manipulations of the debate. What are you people really on about? Finding and delivering solutions? Or a tiny and very atypical minority busily misrepresenting the levels of support you've got so you can exercise control over discussions and have an inordinate say over their outcomes? How very Justin Madden. Clearly you are anxious about how much support there really is for your position or you would feel no need to manufacture its appearance with this call and response nonsense between "NUFCMVFC" and "Peter Wilt". Sadly, it does tend to confirm James' and others' theories about Victory's active supporters being control freaks.
Rob McLean
Guest
Fauntleroy, your post is the best on this thread, purely for the use of the word zeitgeist ;)
Axelv
Guest
/facepalm
Fauntleroy
Guest
Gotta say as a "moderate supporter" who understands a thing or two of what has transpired over the last six years, and has a pretty good reading of the zeitgeist of the average MV supporter, this article is a load.
MyLeftFoot
Roar Guru
Exactly Dugald - the NT want the right to create the same "no go" areas thare are to be found in Italy and Sth America where whole parts of stadiums are controlled by the ultras, and where certain members of those grouips profit from that control. Once again - why on Earth would any well managed club give this sort of eventuality any consideration whatsoever. This is about the club's right to control the seating at its stadiums, and to not leak revenue to some other group making out that they are "passionate" supporters of the club. The are no such thing. They are passionate supporter of themselves.
Dugald Massey
Roar Guru
Now, as implausible as you're saying, NUFCMVFC, that active supporters would ever have deigned to assume control over who came and went into a general admission area back in 2006, only YESTERDAY I see NUFCMVFC himself argue on this very website that the issues arising from the abolition of HEM and reverting to GA might be addressed by, say, active supporters handing out passes to active-support areas at pre-game social events. It sounds a lovely way to go about it. So who gets knocked back and on what grounds? There is no point in passes if no one gets rejected. How would it work? Haphazardly and unfairly isn't an option, not without Hatamota in your corner. And what is that if it isn't deigning to have the right of veto of who comes and goes? It adds considerable weight to James assertions about Victory's active supporters. Would the supporter group get together and vote on who's in and who is out? Maybe a blackball system like Augusta National GC's? What measures would be in place to protect the interests of the supporter groups' members if the club handed the passes over to the Yarraside mole? I don't get the impression there has much considered discussion among active supporters about the mechanics involved. What controls would there be in place to ensure at least a veneer of fairness and equity to keep everyone out of the courts? Does the NT even have lawyers?
Dugald Massey
Roar Guru
Chris, I have looked into it and the sequence of events was: - active supporter groups claimed they were being invaded and pressured the club to do something about it. - Club responded and introduced HEM. - Supporter groups rejected HEM as soon as they got wind of it. I don't doubt the club decided to press ahead in the face of the protests after it did the maths and saw in HEM an opportunity to grab a few extra dollars as well exercise control over the supporter groups -- cynical stuff. The fact remains that active supporters complaints to the club about other supporters opened the door for the introduction of HEM. I can understand why those spokespeople for active supporters would be loath to concede that now given the reception HEM is said to have received when the club announced it. I've taken a look at the Unofficial Melbourne Victory Forum but its archives appear not to go back as far as the club's so we can't examine active supporters' stated grounds for dissatisfaction at Olympic Park, which is a bad luck because the club's and newspapers' say HEM was instigated in response to active supporters' calls for their own designated area. I'm happy to be stand corrected, just point me to some archives of the discussions of the da. The forum's current threads makes for intriguing enough reading anyway, although I'm not sure it's a very broad cross-section of the Victory church represented there--you'd hope not. I'm not sure the club or its supporters are on a winner having so many toxic persona rubbing up against each other in a public place under the Victory banner.
NUFCMVFC
Guest
By the way, I'm not so sure it is accurate to say they are claiming to be "victimised" by all and sundry from all mainland states There are some good examples of policing, for example I recall from the Gold Coast a few years back the police were quite decent and were willing to talk and engage in a quite positive fashion. Needless to say a few people were pleasantly surprised and the approach got a generally positive response On some matchdays there is often a curious mix of good and bad practices, for example people generally think the police were OK on Friday vs AUFC, Weslo were a bit funny. The march was handled well people feel, in the ground people don't think the barrier segregating them from the locals was quite wide enough The opening assertion is really quite a simplistic assertion
NUFCMVFC
Guest
oh dear I would consider this to be an excellent wind up, if I wasn't concerned at how some people seem to subscribe to this as being accurate
Football United
Guest
well that was pure trash.
MyLeftFoot
Roar Guru
This is precisely what I have been warning about the past week. This is all about a small supporter group telling the club how it should be running its club, and being quite aggressive in the manner it confronts the club. It has all the hallmarks of European and Sth American ultras. We can see it in this quote: "... the supporter groups first flexed their muscles at Olympic Park, Victory’s original match venue, insisting upon preferential treatment on the grounds they were active supporters. " This is precisely what I have been saying all week, this is the crux of the issue, one supporter group dictating to club management where people should be allowed to sit - the supporter group trying to cordon off its own area, as ultras do in places like Italy.
Chris
Guest
As another foundation member, one who has been involved with the NT, I can categorically state, that at no point in the club's six year existence has the NT actively sought to have an area restricted for its own members. The source of this article is simply wrong. The quality of this piece is not in keeping with the standards of The Roar. If I wanted to read incorrect statements from an essentially anonymous source, I’d visit News Ltd sites!! The NT actively campaigned against the so called 'home end membership' If the author was to spend 10 minutes searching on this topic on MVFC fan forums he would see this to be the case. I know this topic has been dominated by those in favor of active support, however if you’re looking for balance, this is simply not the answer!
Dugald Massey
Roar Guru
Thanks NUFCMVFC. James obviously has his own strong opinions on the matter, as do you, as would many other Victory supporters--as do I. As I said in the piece, I fail to comprehend how it has come to this, football's traditional constituency being portrayed as its natural enemies. FWIW, I'm impressed by the solidarity the terrace has shown over these issues and the work you've done drawing attention to them, which is what got me interested. Active supporters sticking together on this will inevitably wear criticism but I''m reminded of the EM Forster quote: “If I had to choose between betraying my country and betraying my friend, I hope I should have the guts to betray my country.” After reading your contributions here NUFCMVFC, corresponding with James and speaking with some less quotable Victory members, I'm no closer to understanding exactly what it is that Victory now wants from its active supporters or what they ultimately want from the club that will bring you together again. Where did the good faith go? I would like to know. How can it be restored? Outside parties can't impose a solution, it's up to the supporters and the club. Your calm and considered disagreement with the piece only muddies the issue further for me--hardly the response of a bovver boy. You didn't even shoot the messenger. Hopefully we'll get some more articulate responses from Victory supporters casting light on why relations have broken down between them and their club.
collin
Guest
damn right: this article is complete and utter rubbish. if you dont understand the importance of active fans then dont write about it. go back to watching afl and going 'carlton clap clap clap'
collin
Guest
and thats the exact attitude that is making attendances drop. the standard is poor but the atmosphere makes the game (for me and all the people i know that attend). take away the atmosphere and your stuck with poor quality football in a dull matchday environment = lower attendances
Peja
Guest
Dugald, you seem to have fabricated a lot of this. There goes any potential credibility you might have had, enjoy the rest of the flaming you're about to get. Your article is a joke and so are you.
Axelv
Guest
I suspected the same , haha