Mass Boycotts

[FFC Mariner]

Fair few boycotting I hear.

Each to their own and everyone has the right to protest

 

[Wombat]

What the f**k are we boycotting for?????

Lemmings?

 

[sydmariner]

Maybe for hektik hektor after he got banned on Sunday

 

[Wombat]

Who gives a f**k about him.
Nice to see him and PP have a few cuddles but what have they got to do with us.
They used to be cockheads but are much improved.....so what.....maybe banning 90 dickheads helped.
Wanderers have been spoon fed by the shonks at FFA while we have been consistently raped by the crooks.
f**k the FFA......as usual......but if you are boycotting your team because of a smooth talking Sydney renigade.....then you are dumber than a FFA linesman.
Wilson and Jones are a disgrace, especially the more male of the two (RW) and i support anything to rub out those two grubs...but lets not be stupid.

Be Load and Proud on Thursday when we shock the Melbourne silver tails.

 

[dibo]

Fair few boycotting I hear.

Each to their own and everyone has the right to protest

Yeah, I don't know whether it'll help though. Fans actually need to be clearer in what we want.

"Stop killing active support" needs to be fleshed out.

That's not the same as asking for the right to get in fights and rip flares, it's the right to sing and have tifos and flags and drums and megas and whatnot.

We also need to (collectively across the clubs, not CCM fans in particular) be clear that we don't support flares and fighting and general f**kwittery.

If FFA shows evidence that proves someone has committed a bannable offence, ta ta, seeya later sunshine.

But as long as FFA has an opaque process where the burden of proof is on the accused to prove their innocence then there's a problem.

We need to be nuanced with that message though. I don't for a second "support the 198".

If you're gone for flares or fighting, then that's your own stupid fault.

But if you've been banned for nothing (and it seems some might have been) then that should be addressed.

My guess is that about 10 have legitimate grievances and the rest are legitimately gone, but that's no comfort. Nobody should be unjustly banned.

 

[Atomic]

When the story was first released, I went looking for CCM fans that have been banned... and couldn't find any. Can anyone confirm if any CCM fans have received bans? Not that it matters really, I'm just curious.

 

[dibo]

Apparently there is exactly 1 CCM fan banned

 

[sydmariner]

Fair few boycotting I hear.

Each to their own and everyone has the right to protest

i heard that 1 of the reasons was that it kick's off @ 8pm on a weeknight which is a bit late for some people i also heard that the mbb might not be there

 

[sydmariner]

Apparently there is exactly 1 CCM fan banned

sadly it isnt cheeseguy

 

[Atomic]

i heard that 1 of the reasons was that it kick's off @ 8pm on a weeknight which is a bit late for some people i also heard that the mbb might not be there

Boycotting because of an 8pm start and no brass band??? Wow, we're a hard lot.

Yet again, you're missing the point.

 

[VicMariner]

"Mass boycotts" league wide apparently.
https://twitter.com/davidmanuca/status/671664796484263937

I watched Gallops presser today and it was woeful. He didn't stand up for the majority of fans who do the right thing or stand up for the game in general. He also didn't call out the biased anti-football agenda some sections of the media are running.
He's out of touch. Failed to show leadership.

Fans have been wearing it for decades. This might be the last straw?

 

[adz]

IMO there are a few reasons to boycott the game.

Firstly, it most definitely is not to support people who have actually done the wrong thing.

The thing that kicked all this off; the list of banned fans was leaked, people's personal details plastered all over the news. Apart from the issues of some of those people being innocent, some of them just kids, the FFA didn't speak out against the media outlet and journalists involved. Why not? Is this sort of thing acceptable?

The FFA refuses to provide evidence of wrongdoing when banning someone. They say people have the right to appeal, as long as they provide evidence they didn't do something. They, however, will not provide evidence the person banned did something wrong. Why not?

Then we get bandwagon journalists jumping onto the story, calling ALL football fans terrorists. This sort of stuff in the media has gone on too long. The FFA stays silent.

Even we, a small club with zero incidents over the years, are over policed and made to feel like criminals when we attend games.

So there are a few things the FFA needs to sort out.
- Condemn the articles that started all this trouble.
- Provide evidence that someone committed an offence when banning them, and have a proper appeals process.
- Look at the over policing of A-League games, which brings an unnecessary edge to the atmosphere, and gives ammunition to journalists who just want to take pot shots.
- Stand up for the fans.

So really, it's up to each individual whether they boycott the game or not. I think most other supporter groups will be. The fan walkouts only got a condescending response from the FFA ("point made"), so maybe a round with no fans there will help prompt them into action?

 

[Forum Phoenix]

I agree with Wombat re the boycotting. And I clearly don't see this all the same way as most.

It would be best if the banning process had an appeals process that could protect anyone falsely accused among its offenders, but bare in mind, for every supporter and the benefit of the whole league, this process also needs to ensure that it is not one that makes it easy for said offenders and their mates to just lie their way out of most incidents. Anyone who has ever moved in or around any such circles knows deliberate offenders have no compunction whatsoever in lying to get off, and in crowd situations, where surveillance is difficult, and some cowards even cover their faces with scarves, hoodies and hats, and almost all will happily lie to protect mates (while a good argument for possible wrongful identification) it is also not the simplistic case of a merely an unjust system that many peoples outrage would like to make it.

In the criminal justice system the price we pay for helping prevent people being wrongly convicted is that some people we know are guilty also go free. The system is geared to the defendant. The price of incarceration is so severe it needs to be this way.
Should the position be similarly geared when - the penalty we are actually discussing - for say a violent assault is to be banned from football games? Remembering that any criminal charges will enjoy the same safe guards of the legal system they always have, so let's not conflate those facts.

Well the FFA doesn't think so, and the current popular view is that an ugly truth has been unearthed in that the process or lack thereof is clearly geared to the prosecution, not the defendant, and this is enraging people. After all, innocent till proven guilty is a corner stone of our society right? Yet pubs and clubs and all kinds of businesses reserve the right to refuse service or entry and implement bans for a reason. I've seen them get it wrong, I'm sure most of us have. But nor do I expect them to run a tribunal and provide a case of evidence every time they want to refuse someone entry. It's beyond impractical. They err on the side of safety with their decisions. They must. Because the consequences of not doing so are potentially so much worse than those of stopping someone who should be allowed to come in for a beer or in this case to watch a game.

Do we want innocent people not being able to go to the football games they love. Of course not. That sucks.
Do we want some low life who has already violently assaulted other people before to get off because of the lack of a good camera angle or some false witnesses, and who then bashes someone else's kid, husband, father... Of course not. That worse than sucks.
Any solution will always be imperfect. So the discussion needs to be nuanced. And all the outrage and rhetoric in the world does not change or help this fact. But unfortunately, and increasingly, in our society of soundbites, tweets, constant outrage and causes, many people can rarely be bothered with nuanced discussion anymore. Accepting there may not be a good or easy answer is not very popular, whereas a polarisation of every issue is.

We now live an a age where more than ever people like to be offended, they like to be victims, and the righter of wrongs. And that requires an enemy. So we love enemies. The bigger the better. Just look at the forums and comments sections in most places. Everyone is a demon hunter.
So much so that all over the interwebs people readily conjure them even where they clearly don't exist. It's a bizarre phenomenon. Everywhere you go people are literally looking for Nazi's. But there appears to be a supply and demand issue.
Lots of people wanting to fight Nazi's... but there's just not that many around any more, so people repeatedly make do with whoever seems to hold an opposing viewpoint to their own.

The great and evil FFA? Really? Give me a break. I'm a long way form an apologist for anything or anyone. I'll never forgive the f**kers for ripping us off in our GF and have done some other shit things, play the flute etc... but they've done plenty of good thing too and are not some vast evil empire we must rise up against. As far as typically imperfect governing bodies of sport go, I'd rate them above average. And whether people like the reality of it or not, they cannot enjoy the same luxury of flying off the handle that we do. Outrage is easy. But the fact remains it is rarely helpful and often costly.
Jones and Wilson pitched this as documented, violent hooliganism, and they would love any opportunity to say the FFA is condoning it and have the story grow even more legs. This fact is fortunately not lost on the FFA, although it does seem to be lost on many others.

You can't blame the FFA for providing a list of offenders so security can keep out said offenders. Which people were. Personally I think people should think very carefully before blaming the FFA for not wanting to dilute their ability to keep violent offenders out. You certainly can't blame them for the actions of police, or of thugs and ultras and f**kwit bigoted jornos. Though they all seem pretty happy to blame the FFA for much lesser evils as far as I can see. Ok sure, I admit, I would have enjoyed if they came out and said two of the biggest cnuts in the entire country are being cnuts again - even though it's hardly f**king news - and it would only perpetuate the news cycle - but are my feelings hurt? What?

You know what does really gall me in all this...
The two clear Villains in this are Wilson and Jones.
But do we set up picket lines at 2GB and the Telegraph?
Does walking out or boycotting our games hurt Wilson and Jones?
Or does it hurt, our clubs, our players. our sponsors and our game?
You can be guaranteed that the two people most at fault will be pissing themselves with laughter at what is now occurring.
And now I'm hearing most rhetoric targeted at the FFA. Jones and Wilson must be thrilled to bits. FFA must be shaking their heads.

As to over policing...
If there are large amounts of police at games. Is the correct response to;
A) Feel persecuted, blame the FFA and walk out of your teams next football match.
B) Lobby the RELEVANT representatives and protest peacefully at the RELEVANT offices/locations if you still feel unheard.
C) Just ignore them and enjoy the game.
D) Eyeball and bait them and have your mate with his phone out ready to record and upload.
E) Be happy there is good security.
F) Scream and jump in front of the police as aggressively as possible - in a purported "celebration of football culture" -- because I'm sorry but I have to mention it as I have personally witnessed some of the RBB do this twice to police. The police managed to ignore it, but this was way beyond the norm,
and was highly antagonistic and clearly meant to be disrespectful. It read as a challenge. Much more similar to what I've seen at heated protests and rallies than in active football support. It was deliberately exploiting the social construct and restraints of the police. That was three years ago. So while saddened, I'm not at all surprised to hear relationships between these two groups has so badly degenerated.

For what it's worth, I just honestly don't feel threatened by a line of cops. Why should I be. They're not in opposition to me. Their purpose is to stop anyone who starts trouble.
Sure there are some nobs in the force. But the days of Blue Murder are long gone. As to police presence making the whole event more "volatile". I'm sorry, but that's just a total fallacy when compared to an experience where you are somewhere dangerous and there are no police.
I've been in situations where a line of cops is to be greatly preferred to the unapologetically and very deliberately malicious reality you can face. The media beat up on Socca hooliganism is alive and well, but the hooliganism does still exist as well, so a strong police presence should not be of any particular surprise to anyone. Least of all the hooligans. Nor does it need to be of any particular concern or an obstacle to just relaxing and enjoying yourself.

 

[FFC Mariner]

http://www.smh.com.au/sport/soccer/...llop-comments-widen-rift-20151201-glcrv4.html

This will run and run as the FFA have clearly demonstrated that they don't stand up for the game.

That's what's widening the rift.

 

[Luke]

I agree with Wombat re the boycotting. And I clearly don't see this all the same way as most.

It would be best if the banning process had an appeals process that could protect anyone falsely accused among its offenders, but bare in mind, for every supporter and the benefit of the whole league, this process also needs to ensure that it is not one that makes it easy for said offenders and their mates to just lie their way out of most incidents. Anyone who has ever moved in or around any such circles knows deliberate offenders have no compunction whatsoever in lying to get off, and in crowd situations, where surveillance is difficult, and some cowards even cover their faces with scarves, hoodies and hats, and almost all will happily lie to protect mates (while a good argument for possible wrongful identification) it is also not the simplistic case of a merely an unjust system that many peoples outrage would like to make it.

In the criminal justice system the price we pay for helping prevent people being wrongly convicted is that some people we know are guilty also go free. The system is geared to the defendant. The price of incarceration is so severe it needs to be this way.
Should the position be similarly geared when - the penalty we are actually discussing - for say a violent assault is to be banned from football games? Remembering that any criminal charges will enjoy the same safe guards of the legal system they always have, so let's not conflate those facts.

Well the FFA doesn't think so, and the current popular view is that an ugly truth has been unearthed in that the process or lack thereof is clearly geared to the prosecution, not the defendant, and this is enraging people. After all, innocent till proven guilty is a corner stone of our society right? Yet pubs and clubs and all kinds of businesses reserve the right to refuse service or entry and implement bans for a reason. I've seen them get it wrong, I'm sure most of us have. But nor do I expect them to run a tribunal and provide a case of evidence every time they want to refuse someone entry. It's beyond impractical. They err on the side of safety with their decisions. They must. Because the consequences of not doing so are potentially so much worse than those of stopping someone who should be allowed to come in for a beer or in this case to watch a game.

Do we want innocent people not being able to go to the football games they love. Of course not. That sucks.
Do we want some low life who has already violently assaulted other people before to get off because of the lack of a good camera angle or some false witnesses, and who then bashes someone else's kid, husband, father... Of course not. That worse than sucks.
Any solution will always be imperfect. So the discussion needs to be nuanced. And all the outrage and rhetoric in the world does not change or help this fact. But unfortunately, and increasingly, in our society of soundbites, tweets, constant outrage and causes, many people can rarely be bothered with nuanced discussion anymore. Accepting there may not be a good or easy answer is not very popular, whereas a polarisation of every issue is.

We now live an a age where more than ever people like to be offended, they like to be victims, and the righter of wrongs. And that requires an enemy. So we love enemies. The bigger the better. Just look at the forums and comments sections in most places. Everyone is a demon hunter.
So much so that all over the interwebs people readily conjure them even where they clearly don't exist. It's a bizarre phenomenon. Everywhere you go people are literally looking for Nazi's. But there appears to be a supply and demand issue.
Lots of people wanting to fight Nazi's... but there's just not that many around any more, so people repeatedly make do with whoever seems to hold an opposing viewpoint to their own.

The great and evil FFA? Really? Give me a break. I'm a long way form an apologist for anything or anyone. I'll never forgive the f**kers for ripping us off in our GF and have done some other shit things, play the flute etc... but they've done plenty of good thing too and are not some vast evil empire we must rise up against. As far as typically imperfect governing bodies of sport go, I'd rate them above average. And whether people like the reality of it or not, they cannot enjoy the same luxury of flying off the handle that we do. Outrage is easy. But the fact remains it is rarely helpful and often costly.
Jones and Wilson pitched this as documented, violent hooliganism, and they would love any opportunity to say the FFA is condoning it and have the story grow even more legs. This fact is fortunately not lost on the FFA, although it does seem to be lost on many others.

You can't blame the FFA for providing a list of offenders so security can keep out said offenders. Which people were. Personally I think people should think very carefully before blaming the FFA for not wanting to dilute their ability to keep violent offenders out. You certainly can't blame them for the actions of police, or of thugs and ultras and f**kwit bigoted jornos. Though they all seem pretty happy to blame the FFA for much lesser evils as far as I can see. Ok sure, I admit, I would have enjoyed if they came out and said two of the biggest cnuts in the entire country are being cnuts again - even though it's hardly f**king news - and it would only perpetuate the news cycle - but are my feelings hurt? What?

You know what does really gall me in all this...
The two clear Villains in this are Wilson and Jones.
But do we set up picket lines at 2GB and the Telegraph?
Does walking out or boycotting our games hurt Wilson and Jones?
Or does it hurt, our clubs, our players. our sponsors and our game?
You can be guaranteed that the two people most at fault will be pissing themselves with laughter at what is now occurring.
And now I'm hearing most rhetoric targeted at the FFA. Jones and Wilson must be thrilled to bits. FFA must be shaking their heads.

As to over policing...
If there are large amounts of police at games. Is the correct response to;
A) Feel persecuted, blame the FFA and walk out of your teams next football match.
B) Lobby the RELEVANT representatives and protest peacefully at the RELEVANT offices/locations if you still feel unheard.
C) Just ignore them and enjoy the game.
D) Eyeball and bait them and have your mate with his phone out ready to record and upload.
E) Be happy there is good security.
F) Scream and jump in front of the police as aggressively as possible - in a purported "celebration of football culture" -- because I'm sorry but I have to mention it as I have personally witnessed some of the RBB do this twice to police. The police managed to ignore it, but this was way beyond the norm,
and was highly antagonistic and clearly meant to be disrespectful. It read as a challenge. Much more similar to what I've seen at heated protests and rallies than in active football support. It was deliberately exploiting the social construct and restraints of the police. That was three years ago. So while saddened, I'm not at all surprised to hear relationships between these two groups has so badly degenerated.

For what it's worth, I just honestly don't feel threatened by a line of cops. Why should I be. They're not in opposition to me. Their purpose is to stop anyone who starts trouble.
Sure there are some nobs in the force. But the days of Blue Murder are long gone. As to police presence making the whole event more "volatile". I'm sorry, but that's just a total fallacy when compared to an experience where you are somewhere dangerous and there are no police.
I've been in situations where a line of cops is to be greatly preferred to the unapologetically and very deliberately malicious reality you can face. The media beat up on Socca hooliganism is alive and well, but the hooliganism does still exist as well, so a strong police presence should not be of any particular surprise to anyone. Least of all the hooligans. Nor does it need to be of any particular concern or an obstacle to just relaxing and enjoying yourself.

There's a lot in there but I'll reply to one part.What's happening isn't a knee jerk reaction.Groups have tried to communicate their issues to the FFA.The Cove did it last week and were given lip service by an FFA rep and lied to.Gallop comes out in his press conference and uses that as leverage to make people think they are meeting with groups when in fact the only reason they met was because The Cove organised it. There becomes a point where talking clearly isn't working and this is it.

 

[adz]

I think this explains it well. Nobody is defending the people who do the wrong thing. But then, the FFA isn't defending the majority of us who do the right thing.
IMO it even sounds like Gallop is supporting the crap about all football fans being thugs and suburban terrorists, by not condemning the articles and instead pointing the finger at fans, and the condescending "use your energy in a positive way" as if that's not what most of us do anyway.

 

[FFC Mariner]

This is a far bigger issue than banned fans (sure there are obvious fan groups with agendas to get people who have done the wrong thing off their bans).

This is about the people who currently run the game NOT backing supporters, not being serious about a potential breach of privacy laws and generally proving that they arent fit to run the comp (2008 GF anyone?)

The number of current players, senior club execs and football journos who have picked up on THESE issues indicates that longstanding grievances with the FFA are coming out.

 

[FFC Mariner]

http://www.fourfourtwo.com/au/news/...ague-fans#BCv1GrCByvvpK0gV.99#:kqAE0tEPClqQ6A

Case in point

 

[Forum Phoenix]

Yeah read that FFC, it's well put and while I don't think they could have done anything to stop Wilson or Jones - there's no point now arguing if the FFA got their response wrong or not, because the current situation demonstrates they did and now a range of issues - and I'm not arguing they're not also valid - have all been conflated into one giant leadership and trust issue.

As long as as a hanging verdict is reached rationally I have no problem with it. But I'm not a fan of hype, trash talk, and our culture of taking offence and extreme polarisation on every issue. I also despise seeing the initial perpetrators of this chaos (Jones, Wilson and the banned dick heads) wreak havoc and then get to laugh in the background while we seek to dismantle our governing body and conduct protests that will pound for pound directly hurt our game.

You're right, it is clearly no longer about the issue of banning, the lack of advocacy has been taken as a betrayal, so now it's about leadership and anything that fits with that narrative is being brought up, ok, but we should make no mistake that Jones and Wilson were playing their typical race game that they have been playing for a long time and will play it long after this is a memory, and the FFA would have been strongly advised not go get into it to ensure that the press had no angle to paint them as complicit in the acceptance of violence and hooliganism in our code. They took a high ground and just assumed the fans were already on their side. You could see this in their earliest statements.Which just read as WTF to most fans. But they clearly under estimated the toll that all of those years of being kicked by the media have taken on us football fans and how badly people wanted them to champion the sport and it's supporters against the two biggest axe grinders in Australia - that was a catastrophic mistake it would seem - but I can see how it was made given Wilson and Jones would heartily embrace that battle and who are unfortunately much better equipped to fight and win that kind of war.

Anyway, bottom line, I'm happy to go look at all the issues where people believe the FFA is failing. But in regards to the initial key issues, I still think the over policing stuff and views on the banning process were being leveraged into causes and made simplistic. And above all, I was never convinced that by aggressively focusing our ire on the FFA and using our games as our platform of activism, that football is not the only real loser. But it's gone beyond that now. So I hope the losses we will suffer now, will lead to a better future for the game and not a worse one.

 

[FFC Mariner]

9/10 clubs active support behind the boycotts - Nix cant according to them

Your move FFA