Football, public order and change

RBB - Rather strangely I can relate to what you are saying, for long before I wore a "Brisbane Lions Hat" I was involved in football politics through running a team under the auspices of the then Queensland Soccer Federation. I decided very early to challenge the type of management that was in existence (but never stopped going to games) but was earmarked as a hell raiser almost from day one., and then when asked to join the Lion's board in the NSL days found to my dismay exactly the same type of management was going on at national level. I walked out on the Lions job after 3 years when I felt some gains had been made in the management structure, not because I had fallen out with the club but unknown to the club I had been approached to join the then ruling body in Queensland ,the QSF and I had decided to challenge the status quo at that higher level .This I did with high hopes in the back of my mind but ultimately,after 4 years of effort, had to admit defeat,even though the code was still struggling against what could only be described as "rank bad management practices" However I did not boycott a game or two,but walked away from it completely just as Frank Lowy had done 4 years earlier,for exactly the same reason., After 20 years of involvement in trying to change the way things were run I had had enough and turned my thoughts to other important things in my life like the job of raising a young family. so now you know my story you will understand that, with my family raised and the return of Frank Lowy to form the HAL,my interest was once again piqued, but with many years "passed under the bridge", it was as an interested onlooker only. So ,as an onlooker who appreciates both sides of a dispute I like to think my experiences have shown me how to assess a situation and as I said,although the FFA are not lily white in this dispute I do think pressure could be brought to bear on them by means other than by "boycotting", for in my mind that is simply punishing a game that we all love just to supply more excuses for a biased media to report on our "troubles" . Right at this time you will know I have been ridiculed on here for highlighting the falling numbers attending our games and I have laid that problem squarely at the feet of the FFA but if this boycott idea is seen by some to be a success,and spreads,our figures are going to dive to a level we had back in the days when the HAL was born. Is that progress??? for tonight we have just seen the worst HAL crowd figure since Heart played Perth in December 2012.Can you start to imagine what those same journos who started this shenanigan,will do with that info. I hate to think. A not so cheerful jb

marron -I do still follow Scottish football,which between you and me is in a worse state than ours,and I have read about the "Green Brigade boycotts" (note the use of the plural)but to be honest don't really know how you can possibly compare the instances the Celtic Supporters Association (their proper name)have used the "boycott threat" against various aspects of football in Scotland with what has happened here. The SCA over the years have threatened boycotts against not only the SFA.the Scottish League ruling body,fellow clubs,et al, in fact so often that the "threats" became a laughing stock in the Scottish game. I think the one you may refer to is when they threatened to boycott their "away" games at the grounds of any club that voted for Rangers being given an entry back into the top division. In that way they would have, due to their huge travelling support , financially hurt those clubs,but no matter ,the Rangers "re-entry" never happened so the boycott threat died. By the way that was 3 years ago in 2012.They have also threatened to boycott over perceived bad refereeing performances,decisions apparently made that favoured other clubs ,etc etc etc. so I would not read too much into what your "Green Brigade" has threatened in the past. Cheers jb.

Times change jbinnie, scotland back then was a different context. Interestingly the green brigade, a celtic supporter group, have in fact boycotted over treatment they've received.

Well JB, Put on your Brisbane Lions administrator hat on for a moment and think what would your reaction be if the governing body at the time made a decision or indecision which directly resulted in the crowds of your club game on the weekend being halved. Let me guess you would be the first one on the phone to the governing body asking what the hell is going on and looking for a resolution to a problem. Whether or not you agree , this is what will happen. The clubs themselves will pressure the FFA into coming up with a solution. Unfortunately for all the fans who have rightly or wrongly been banned the FFA will be unwilling to provide this information. This is because the methods used to attain some of this information has been gathered by methods, which in itself, would be a breach of privacy. Hence why the FFA is unwilling to show you the evidence. You see the FFA uses a company called Hatomoto which frequently spies on its own fans, gathers information, compiles a dossier file. They are by and large a counter intelligence organisation. Now if the methods used by the FFA were as robust as they say then allowing fans to review the evidence should be an easy matter. This is why David Gallop and Damien DeBohun are dancing around these questions. This is why they want fans to prove their innocence. I would say a good majority of these bans would have to be overturned and that will unleash its own set of problems for the FFA. They simply want this to go away and its all of their making. WHY? Simply because they are not a transparent organisation.

marron - What you describe to me is the normal football supporter who goes along to watch and cheer on his team.Whether he uses a song,a chant,a banner or flag does not matter a hoot in my mind for as I say I have been in crowds ie Rangers v Celtic where 80,000 spectators knowingly walked up to a ground and separated into either end of the field where they hurled abuse,at each other, at the officials ,sang rebel songs yet on the following Monday all went back to work and discussed the game with each other. I don't recollect either of these club supporters ever suggesting the use of a boycott to get back at the governing body,instead they would bombard media outlets by phone ,by letter or by concentrated booing when the ruling body dared out in front of them,but boycott,you'd have to have fought hard to keep them away from a game I can assure you. A boycott is only harming their club,the game and giving the general perception that they are an unruly mob and this in turn is only adding to the ammunition stocks of the perceived "enemy" .jb

NUFC Thanks for the reply and explanation,though to be honest I think this whole episode numerically is a "storm in a teacup" that has got completely out of control ,no doubt much to the joy of the pair who initiated the whole thing. While agreeing in principal the FFA have not come out of the whole mess lily white I still cannot see where a boycott of the home games of their teams is helping the cause so to speak.for in my mind it is only supplying more and more ammunition to a branch of media that everyone knows has a "cross to bear" when it comes to the apparent rise of our football into the Australian mainstream. Maybe someone can explain for I am a complete loss as to how staying away from your team's home games is in any way hurting the FFA in a direct manner,on the contrary it is playing right into the well recognised media bias that has been in vogue for years. jb

A very quick search doesn't find me any reference to the term outside Australia.

In terms of public order this is spot on: Privacy hooliganism: Alan Jones, the NSW police and the 'secret soccer shame file' http://www.canberratimes.com.au/national/public-service/privacy-hooliganism-alan-jones-the-nsw-police-and-the-secret-soccer-shame-file-20151129-glaoje.html#ixzz3t9L15UQY

Have a read of Kevin airs articles on the subject. http://www.fourfourtwo.com/au/news/opinion-kicking-stink#:i6MU6F9uujjqoA http://www.fourfourtwo.com/au/news/opinion-looking-leader-troubled-times#:ONcJCjriapHmAQ Then have a read of this as well. http://outside90.com/ugly-truth-behind-a-league-policing-812/

Jbinnie, "active" in this context refers to organized coordinated support, as opposed to the spontaneous (and usually more sedate) kind of support. Different kinds of activity yes - but "active support" denotes the former. I'm not actually sure if it's just an Australian term either to be honest.... some research required. ... back soon...

Steve the active groups don't have an issue either. What they do have an issue with is the lack of transparency. There's no way if banned unfairly to get redress. People have had proof good enough for courts and been rebuffed or ignored. FFA use security firms to do the legwork. Some of these firms have a background in counter terrorism and a vested interest in getting results to prove they are needed. The result of this is surveillance of people away from game day to find reasons for banning orders. It's only a suspicion but I'd be surprised if FFA do anything other than accept their word and sign off on it. Is this an environment in which ordinary law abiding fans are going to feel supported by the organization who uses them to sell their product?

NUFC - You've got me there. As a student of the English tongue for many years I obviously don't understand the meaning of the word "active"when used in reference to a football spectators behaviour. Having stood many times in crowds of well over 100,000 and participated in what was known as the Hampden Roar every time our team scored,would you please explain why and how that sort of experience differs from today's meaning of the word "active".Believe me I am truly interested in the difference. You mention year 2008 as perhaps the start of this problem and then point out that the offenders list has risen in those years from 43 accelerating to the present 198. That is not surprising to me for in 8 years the number of people participating in football match attendance has grown quite considerably measurable by using growth figures generated season by season and I'm sure "natural growth" would have taken that figure to somewhere around 100,but we have also to consider that WSW and their huge support (when compared with GCU) contributed to only 4 of those 6 years the FFA 's "security approach"has been in place so if we allow another 25 for that alone,not to mention the excitement generated now with "derby matches" the 198 really appears to be insignificant,even more so when it is remembered in those WSW participation years over 5,000,000 people have attended HAL matches. .As I have asked before ,what is all the fuss about,??? jb

Certainly Waleed put the view forward on Offsiders that they collectively see the banning of the 198 as an attack against themselves and the manner in which they choose to support the game. Alternavely, one could view it all as juvenile, illogical and totally selfish behaviour. There was a case to be made at the very start that the publishing of the list (names and even photos) was a step too far and may even have infringed the privacy principles. At that point, it would have been appropriate for Gallop to publicly express disappointment at the event, and for Lowy to go behind the scenes to use his influence to make sure it didn't happen again - and then for everyone to forget out about - all over (that is, if he even has any influence, and if he doesn't, you have to wonder why he is even in the position, oh wait, don't bother). In the end, it's taken on an obscure, vague, incomprehensible life of its own that does absolutely nothing to support the actual game (even if some arguing that it's all about the game).

I don't have an issue at all if fans are being banned for anti social behaviour. The FFA are exactly right to ban fans who engage in such actions, so I'm not sure why the Clubs active fan groups are not right behind this action also.

The banned fans are the catalyst for the past few weeks nay months Football has been attacked in the general media ... Fans are sick of it and want FFA to protect their backs and stand up for Football culture ... this is a clear message to Gallop to stand up for the game and the fans....

I'm still struggling to work out what the walk outs are all about? Just because people have been banned for anti social behaviour? I say its good that they have been banned.

NUFC- a thought provoking article that poses more questions than it answers. Lets try & be totally objective about what is happening & trying to work out if the measures taken are achieving their goal. If we go back to the start it seems a list which was supposed to be confidential but was "leaked" to a journalist & subsequently was made public, then commented upon by another media figure to the detriment of thinking that would be described as "normal and decent" is the root cause of what is going on. Under normal circumstances the FFA should have come out with all guns blazing but let's remember, the "source" perhaps to be "sued" for criminal actions, is also the major financial benefactor of the game,the Socceroos,the HAL,& others further down the pyramid. So what to do????? We find football identities staging walkouts,& now projected boycotts as a way to hurt the FFA. but who or what is really being hurt by these actions, is it their franchise?,is it their fellow supporters,is it the food suppliers "in stadium", is it the publicans near the grounds,etc. for there is little doubt they will be hurt, but what is just as sure is that the people who set this ball rolling ,those so called "top journalists", will no doubt be on bonuses for causing so much more ammunition for those who wish to stymie football in this country. All this over 198 people out of the millions who have attended HAL games since it's inception just over 10 years ago, think about it 198 out of approx 10,000,000, doesn't make sense does it??????? In the past we have seen forums arranged where the opinions of fans were sought and acted upon to create something that is good and has gone on to achieved success, Why don't the organisations within the game do the same now,get a forum arranged, ,invite the top FFA brass along and let them see and hear the objections, that way no one can say the top body didn't know. If that were done the "opposition ammunition" would dry up and we could get on with growing the game ,not damaging it from within. What actually is the aim of the protests,is it justice for some of the 198?,is it disillusionment Iin FFA performance?,is it with the police? is it with stadia security personnel?, or is it just plain cussedness on the part of a few in contaminating the mass?. Until that is clarified then it is difficult to assess who or what is being "punished" by mass boycotts. Not so cheerful jb