Unite The South End

[Abou Sky]

so what would the ideal outcome be? if a realistic (ie: no bullshit casual, standing around taking selfie, etc) section was a possibility, would other groups be open to the concept?

And what is so wrong about taking selfies?

[Belfast_Boy]

so what would the ideal outcome be? if a realistic (ie: no bullshit casual, standing around taking selfie, etc) section was a possibility, would other groups be open to the concept?

Hey wowza, like I said I'm for GA. Would other groups be open to it? I guess you'd have to ask them.
Our group is pro GA. I know many supporters that are avoiding the south end now would come back. FO would have to be creative with tickets to avoid overcrowding, perhaps have swipe cards for the section or something like that.
I believe the result would be flags and singing for 90. People would be in the stands an hour before the game to get a spot. Like other stadiums with GA the atmosphere would be electric by game time.
Would there be problems? of course, security would have to deal with crowded sections instead of seat disputes. there'd be growing pains but at least there'd be growth.

[Abou Sky]

You know... in a perfect world we could all move to the top half of 110 & 111 where we would actually get to see the game properly <RUN AWAY>

[FluSH]

My post times out! Fck! Anyhow I am strongly against GA for many reasons, and I am more then willing to tell u why. However any discussion about the operations of our group - RPB - should be done in the Members area in my opinion.

[RedRum]

My post times out! Fck! Anyhow I am strongly against GA for many reasons, and I am more then willing to tell u why. However any discussion about the operations of our group - RPB - should be done in the Members area in my opinion.

Flush - sorry you post timed out, would love to have read your debate. I know you, you know me - many years. You admirably are passionate about chants and vocal support. GA is the way to fix that dude. It works on the road, it works everywhere else in MLS at home where groups have either decided or been forced into it. We don't need to re-invent the wheel here.

An umbrella group like Section 8 has in Chicago is absolutely the way to go. Most people probably don't even know they aren't a single group but instead oversee multiple groups with everyone having a say, come to consensus, and then they all pull together.

Pipe dream though. RPB exec are against GA, it's been explained to me for years and was re-enforced at Joes just last Saturday. usector same thing ( guys who have been around know me and feel free to to shoot me a pm on your board).

Anyone can read my posts going back 3 or 4 years on this same topic. Never changed my tune, made predictions that came to fruition. Or... just go read Jack's and Belfast Boy posts in this thread. THEY SPEAK THE TRUTH.


tl;dr:

People with titles would rather be a small fish in a big pond instead of swimming in an ocean.

[Abou Sky]

I thought that the 'official' RPB stance was pro GA

"Timbers Army" is similer to 'Section 8' in that they are an amalgamation of groups. My idea was something like 'One Red Army' type thing. I think part of the problem is that with the teams performance, poor foresight on the part of SGs (can't blame them, who would have known that 112 wouldn't be enough?) and really mostly, the fact that the FO didn't want to work with anyone for a long time stuff broke apart. It is easier to build a Lego Set the first time around (Philly) than it is to try to find all the pieces in a bin and remake it off of a half torn picture. (yes, I have had a couple, hard night OK)

As for the 'Big Fish' thing, that is a bit unfair man. Just because you don't agree with every decision made, doesn't mean it is wrong or self serving.

[RedRum]

I thought that the 'official' RPB stance was pro GA

"Timbers Army" is similer to 'Section 8' in that they are an amalgamation of groups. My idea was something like 'One Red Army' type thing. I think part of the problem is that with the teams performance, poor foresight on the part of SGs (can't blame them, who would have known that 112 wouldn't be enough?) and really mostly, the fact that the FO didn't want to work with anyone for a long time stuff broke apart. It is easier to build a Lego Set the first time around (Philly) than it is to try to find all the pieces in a bin and remake it off of a half torn picture. (yes, I have had a couple, hard night OK)

As for the 'Big Fish' thing, that is a bit unfair man. Just because you don't agree with every decision made, doesn't mean it is wrong or self serving.

GA as in in GA in 112, or GA? If you think it's the latter... uh no.

Lego is a great analogy. Walk to the bathroom in the middle of night. Step on a piece of lego (ouch). Plead your concerns with builders of the lego. 3 and 4 years later, lego bits are still strewn about and not built into a structure.

Last point you made: Don't matter what I agree or disagree with. My statement is 100% valid and factual. It is what it is.

[Oldtimer]

I'm going to weigh in here, my own personal opinion, in no way representative of how the Red Patch Boys, our leadership, etc. feels.

I think that it's laughable that Section 8 is being held up as some kind of ideal. Chicago has poor support compared to the better cities.

I used to think that what we had in Toronto was good... a diversity of groups to embrace diversity of support styles. RPB, U-Sector, even TRN all doing their thing. I now see that I was too idealistic.

What I see is a large number of uncoordinated groups each doing their thing to the detriment of real support. Whenever people don't like how group "D" is doing things, they splinter off and form group "F," and so it goes.

So I am in the stadium and I hear 3 or more groups each singing something different, because no one wants to listen to anyone else. Do you think that's good? Do you think a section 8 structure would fix that? I certainly don't.

Where you get the absolute best support, there is only one significant supporter group. I'm talking Seattle.

Even Montreal is better than us these days.

That's my 2 cents, and personal opinion, with all the disclaimers.

[Parkdale]

Pipe dream though. RPB exec are against GA, it's been explained to me for years and was re-enforced at Joes just last Saturday. usector same thing (guys who have been around know me and feel free to to shoot me a pm on your board).

The RPB exec are against dismantling 112 and tossing out all the work that's gone into establishing good relationships there.
It seems like that's what the GA camp is asking for but it doesn't matter because:
General Admission is a pipe dream at BMO because of our management, and I'm against tossing out what we have for what might happen, maybe, but probably not ever.

It's not in the best interest of the RPB, or support in general to tear down what's been built over the last 8 years for an academic concept (more on this later). There is no denying that the south east corner of BMO field is the beating heart of support, and generally the voices who shout "Let's move to the promised land of General Admission" aren't in sections where things are working well. Usector and RPB are both very happy with their respective areas of the south end, so why should we move to accommodate people who aren't in our group? It wouldn't be for the general betterment of TFC support and it wouldn't "unite the south".

and what about the douchebags? Every single game we have to defend the drum from packs of drunken Bros who want to smash their fists on the drum, and girls who hiss at us because we don't let them play on the drum while taking selfies. How would these people be dealt with in a GA setting? It would require the section to self-police and regulate, which is exactly what happens in 112 at present. How would that happen in a new GA section? My guess would be badly.

So why is General Admission an academic concept?

Because it's strictly a theoretical discussion while we play at BMO field with MLSE managing the building. It's never really been put on the table, so all of the "100% fact" arguments aren't actually based on our situation. We can look at Chicago and Portland, but their situations are different from ours. We've never been offered an open and empty section, so all this talk of GA would mean relocating or displacing people from their current seats. And who's going to make that call? Should the casual fan in section TBC have to be able to justify their seats? Not only would that be completely unfair, but it would be impossible to accomplish.

People with titles would rather be a small fish in a big pond instead of swimming in an ocean.

And where is this ocean you speak of?

At present it doesn't exist, and there's no plan from MLSE or BMO to make one. They could have offered us the North Stands but it didn't happen. The might make a new section, but unless it's next to the pitch, it's not going to be effective. We've already seen that every section of BMO has a unique character and doesn't respond well to a batch of newcomers arriving and dictating how things should be done.

Unless BMO offers all supporters a brand new section that's big enough to accommodate all the current groups (and unaffiliated supporters) then the General Admission will remain a nice idea in theory. Personally, the idea of abandoning 112 for an in theory but probably not home isn't a smart risk.

[Belfast_Boy]

Montreal rocked the shit out of it last night. flags for almost 90 minutes and non-stop singing. The pyro and smoke was sexy too.

Another good example is Kansas. they have two GA sections, one for supporters and another for family. The FO even gives tickets to the fans for some away games. Great support working with a good FO.

My personal opinion. I wouldn't mind if our group disappeared for the good of support. Support in Toronto needs help. Continuing as we have won't change things. Ego's need checked and a fresh open-minded approach is needed.

[OgtheDim]

...Because it's strictly a theoretical discussion while we play at BMO field with MLSE managing the building. It's never really been put on the table.....

So let me get what you are saying straight:

RPB don't want to rebuild the supporter efforts that have occurred already in 112 and 111. Ok that I get.

Those that want GA want the RPB to be in that GA area. Ok, I can see that opinion, but there is a possibility that GA would work without the RPB's active involvement in that area.

And this discussion is academic anyways because MLSE has not brought up GA as an option. Now, that I don't see.

The North end is going to be rebuilt, as is the south. And, given how MLSE has been actively discussing with teams like SKC and Portland how their stadiums work atmosphere wise, you still think MLSE would not consider GA in areas? I know they are learning on the fly, but GA works in some stadiums.

MLSE would have no qualms using the rebuild as cover for GA in areas, if they thought it would increase revenue / atmosphere. Maybe not in 111 and 112. But, to say this is an academic concept only is a bit of an over reach.

RPB may not support GA where they are, and for good reasons.

[Parkdale]

MLSE didn't offer us GA in the north end last time, so until they DO offer us something..... it's a theoretical discussion.
At present we haven't been told specifics about any new seating or relocation options, so it's all guess work.

You know, it's like planning the parade route for after we win the MLS Cup.

RPB may not support GA where they are, and for good reasons.

that's the thing - we have a pseudo GA already happening in 112, and it works nicely for that area. The pseudo GA that 113 enjoys also works well for them. Trying to impose a General Admission policy on a section in one fell swoop will result in blowback from the people who are already there. It would have to be a new section if it's going to work at all, and until that's on the table - it's academic - like the parade route.

[Oldtimer]

My personal opinion. I wouldn't mind if our group disappeared for the good of support. Support in Toronto needs help. Continuing as we have won't change things. Ego's need checked and a fresh open-minded approach is needed.

I wish more people thought that way.

[FluSH]

So, both Usector and RPB are against GA?!? Let's call this a wrap.

People talking about GA are making promises that can not be guaranteed on "what might happen, maybe, but probably not ever." Let's talk real facts:

There are some people who hate RPB and attack the group on social media - that's a fact
Threats have been made to some of our group members in the past - that's a fact
There have been fights within our own supporters - that's a fact
Former members have left RPB because of differances in support (flares etc) - that's a fact

I don't care about MTL or Portland... There has been too much bad blood spilled, and personally speaking I trust only one guy in this thread that is pro GA (and not RPB) and that's RedRum.

If both Usector and RPB are against GA I suggest that others look elsewhere for a change - maybe built up their section. We will be more than happy to co-ordinate on chants. If Usector wishes to discuss a closer P-GA with our two groups then our top guys from each group can discuss that together.

[BuSaPuNk]

The RPB exec are against dismantling 112 and tossing out all the work that's gone into establishing good relationships there.
It seems like that's what the GA camp is asking for but it doesn't matter because:
General Admission is a pipe dream at BMO because of our management, and I'm against tossing out what we have for what might happen, maybe, but probably not ever.

It's not in the best interest of the RPB, or support in general to tear down what's been built over the last 8 years for an academic concept (more on this later). There is no denying that the south east corner of BMO field is the beating heart of support, and generally the voices who shout "Let's move to the promised land of General Admission" aren't in sections where things are working well. Usector and RPB are both very happy with their respective areas of the south end, so why should we move to accommodate people who aren't in our group? It wouldn't be for the general betterment of TFC support and it wouldn't "unite the south".

and what about the douchebags? Every single game we have to defend the drum from packs of drunken Bros who want to smash their fists on the drum, and girls who hiss at us because we don't let them play on the drum while taking selfies. How would these people be dealt with in a GA setting? It would require the section to self-police and regulate, which is exactly what happens in 112 at present. How would that happen in a new GA section? My guess would be badly.

So why is General Admission an academic concept?

Because it's strictly a theoretical discussion while we play at BMO field with MLSE managing the building. It's never really been put on the table, so all of the "100% fact" arguments aren't actually based on our situation. We can look at Chicago and Portland, but their situations are different from ours. We've never been offered an open and empty section, so all this talk of GA would mean relocating or displacing people from their current seats. And who's going to make that call? Should the casual fan in section TBC have to be able to justify their seats? Not only would that be completely unfair, but it would be impossible to accomplish.



And where is this ocean you speak of?

At present it doesn't exist, and there's no plan from MLSE or BMO to make one. They could have offered us the North Stands but it didn't happen. The might make a new section, but unless it's next to the pitch, it's not going to be effective. We've already seen that every section of BMO has a unique character and doesn't respond well to a batch of newcomers arriving and dictating how things should be done.

Unless BMO offers all supporters a brand new section that's big enough to accommodate all the current groups (and unaffiliated supporters) then the General Admission will remain a nice idea in theory. Personally, the idea of abandoning 112 for an in theory but probably not home isn't a smart risk.

I agree with Parky 1000% on this.

[phonzo]

Stating the executive are strongly against GA is a misrepresentation and I think Parkie has tried to shed light on what we really think. Either that or I have not paid attention to anything that the exec have discussed . As Parkdale says it's never been brought forth by the team and I think most people know our group enough to know that if something like that was brought up a small collective wouldn't decide it on behalf of the entire membership.

The thing is other then being brought up by fellow supporters it's never been something the team has entertained; perhaps with the upcoming work at BMO this may come up and if it doesn't it's worth discussing then. For now it isn't and rather then bash our heads non-stop into a wall that is not moving it's better to put that energy elsewhere.

As for the concept of an umbrella group; as much as I love the idea and have always supported it I don't think any of the groups are at a point where this is something they want sadly we can't even come to an understanding of when to wave a flag and when not too.

[phonzo]

To further elaborate on my point; in order for an umbrella group to work it has to be made up of individuals which all chapters/sub-groups respect but more importantly the chapters/sub-groups actually respect decisions made by the board in the end. Lets be frank we can't even do that with simple conversations today let alone for larger discussions or issues.

[__wowza]

And this discussion is academic anyways because MLSE has not brought up GA as an option. Now, that I don't see.

The North end is going to be rebuilt, as is the south. And, given how MLSE has been actively discussing with teams like SKC and Portland how their stadiums work atmosphere wise, you still think MLSE would not consider GA in areas? I know they are learning on the fly, but GA works in some stadiums.

MLSE would have no qualms using the rebuild as cover for GA in areas, if they thought it would increase revenue / atmosphere. Maybe not in 111 and 112. But, to say this is an academic concept only is a bit of an over reach.

RPB may not support GA where they are, and for good reasons.

what's being overlooked in the GA discussion is that SGs for columbus, chicago, portland, KC are all lumped together but remain independant. the timbers army is comprised of NINE different groups all flying under the same "timbers army" banner, and each member is accountable to both their section SG and the timbers army as a whole. the keyword here being accountable. if someone from 104th charlie (portland) got into a fight, then 104 would deal with them. if everyone 104 thought it'd be a great idea to riot, then the timbers army would go to the FO and cut ties with the section and their SG status would be revoked because it looked bad on the group as a whole.

at the end of the day, someone answers to everyone. with GA in 112, EVERYBODY in 112 would answer to the RPB, because the RPB would still be held accountable for the actions of supporters in their section. we can see why that's something many of the exec are not willing to accomodate.


if they rebuilt the supporters sections and offered each of the supporters groups their own slice of the pie, i could see it working.. but that brings about the next problem:


you rebuild the stadium, and designate the south side for supporters. that means you have to relocate anyone whose not affiliated with one of these groups. that means there's a lot of people who have seasons seats in the south who get moved and are really, really pissed off and possibly threaten to drop their tickets. that's not something MLSE would be willing to deal with. don't get me wrong, MLSE fucked up to begin with, but this requires them to correct their mistake which they most likely won't be willing to do. they shit the bed on not giving supporters the north stand, but they're going to have to bite the bullet eventually.. so i'm hoping the just fucking wise up when the renovations start.

[FluSH]

I'm moving forward from this GA discussion. We need to focus on getting in the early discussions of the roof. If this roof does not provide acoustic support it will be a huge fail. We have one chance to get this right and shape the voice of the stands, the roof needs to project sound first and foremost.

[Supporting]

Okay well this thread has gone of in a different direction then I intended. I was wondering why don't all of the support groups get season tickets in the South End and unite under one large group. We would all sing the same chants and work together, but the groups could still remain separate with regards to leaders, banner teams, ect. I just think a larger group together is better than 5 smaller groups spread out. Right now, it seems like no one really cares about expansion/there's no opportunity for it. I don't know if it's better to convert the people already in the south to better fans, but it could be a lot better. Near the field, chants are doing great but as you go higher up in 113/112 they become very weak. My dream is to have 112-118 united as one and everyone going fucking crazy.

[Oldtimer]

To further elaborate on my point; in order for an umbrella group to work it has to be made up of individuals which all chapters/sub-groups respect but more importantly the chapters/sub-groups actually respect decisions made by the board in the end. Lets be frank we can't even do that with simple conversations today let alone for larger discussions or issues.

Just imagine too that it wouldn't be one vote per group, groups would get representation based on actual membership. So the controlling vote would be held by RPB and U-Sector together, as those two groups vastly outnumber all other supporters together.

Now let's take one issue, smoke. If both RPB and U-Sector say "we like TFC's solution for controlled smoke, no one of any group is to bring in their own smoke of any kind," would that really be respected by 100% of the membership of all the myriad groups? Really?
Same thing if decisions were made say covering what kind of chants we will sing. Would we get 100% co-operation? If yes, then you can talk section 8. If not, then let's stop discussing something that simply will not work.

[Supporting]

First off, there are different groups for a reason. Everyone sees support differently and that's okay. Groups are split all over the world but they still work well together. That's what I'd like to see here. Every group working together recognized under one banner (South Stand Supporters, whatever) while still holding onto their individual identity

You can also put me into the pro GA crowd. The only reason being growth.

As much as the SG's are comfortable in 112-114, the current setup is not allowing any growth and to grow, things have to change.

Think of it from a newcomers perspective. How difficult is it for any newcomer to just join a group and become involved in the stands? When I first joined RPB, I bought my membership, a year later I helped on my first banner, and by the next year I finally was regularly in 112. It's not an easy process for anyone who doesn't necessarily have the drive that I did at the get go. GA would allow all current like minded supporters to be together without the hassle as well as make it MUCH easier for any newcomer who has any interest to go where the action is and learn how to become a part of it.

At one point we were the top supporters in MLS. Now we are at the bottom 1/3 easily because we have not evolved. To get back to the top we must change.

+1 great point!!

[Bardown Snipes]

what's being overlooked in the GA discussion is that SGs for columbus, chicago, portland, KC are all lumped together but remain independant. the timbers army is comprised of NINE different groups all flying under the same "timbers army" banner, and each member is accountable to both their section SG and the timbers army as a whole. the keyword here being accountable. if someone from 104th charlie (portland) got into a fight, then 104 would deal with them. if everyone 104 thought it'd be a great idea to riot, then the timbers army would go to the FO and cut ties with the section and their SG status would be revoked because it looked bad on the group as a whole.

at the end of the day, someone answers to everyone. with GA in 112, EVERYBODY in 112 would answer to the RPB, because the RPB would still be held accountable for the actions of supporters in their section. we can see why that's something many of the exec are not willing to accomodate.


if they rebuilt the supporters sections and offered each of the supporters groups their own slice of the pie, i could see it working.. but that brings about the next problem:


you rebuild the stadium, and designate the south side for supporters. that means you have to relocate anyone whose not affiliated with one of these groups. that means there's a lot of people who have seasons seats in the south who get moved and are really, really pissed off and possibly threaten to drop their tickets. that's not something MLSE would be willing to deal with. don't get me wrong, MLSE fucked up to begin with, but this requires them to correct their mistake which they most likely won't be willing to do. they shit the bed on not giving supporters the north stand, but they're going to have to bite the bullet eventually.. so i'm hoping the just fucking wise up when the renovations start.

Finally, someone acknowledges that MLSE screwed up, they had no clue what they were doing in 2007 when the stadium opened for TFC and they still don't know. Like Wowza said they're going to have to bite the bullet eventually and make a move because this simply can not go on anymore. With one SG starting one cheer and another starting another cheer, people are drowned out and it just sounds awful. It all comes down to MLSE making a move and re-organizing the seating at BMO Field

[Supporting]

The Red Patch Boys are already mostly situated in the South End. U-Sector is already mostly situated in the South End. That's a big chunk of the recognized supporters right there, and as seats open up more of our respective members are able to make the move into 112/113. If you really want to unite the South End, shouldn't this be posted on the forums of all those various smaller groups? Or is it already? I mean, we're already there and we're already pretty united.

Or is this another example of our group being asked to bring an issue to the FO on behalf of someone else? Understand that I'm not bothered with that if that's the case - I just want some no-bullshit clarification for once, because it tends to happen more than most people may think.

Well, I haven't posted on other forums if that's you want me to do...? I was just thinking to myself wouldn't it be amazing if all the groups were together in the South section, which would help us with people not singing in these sections. Yes, I admit the bottom of 112-113 is united but we still need to work on the upper portion.

[__wowza]

Finally, someone acknowledges that MLSE screwed up, they had no clue what they were doing in 2007 when the stadium opened for TFC and they still don't know. Like Wowza said they're going to have to bite the bullet eventually and make a move because this simply can not go on anymore. With one SG starting one cheer and another starting another cheer, people are drowned out and it just sounds awful. It all comes down to MLSE making a move and re-organizing the seating at BMO Field

no one acknowledges it because everybody knows it .
from the number of supporters seats they originally offered (which was so ridiculously low that they released 3 extra blocks seperately because they kept selling out), to the amount they spent on the stadium ($60 million, which was supposed to be $120 million), MLSE started this organization with a mentality that they wouldn't lose a whole lot of money if the team turned out to be a flop.

then.. in an ironic twist, they were HANDED support from a city that was crazy-in-love with the sport.
support that most teams in the league would kill for was just dropped in their lap.

it's been an uphill battle ever since, and renovations are finally their chance to fix it.

[Flint]

Montreal rocked the shit out of it last night. flags for almost 90 minutes and non-stop singing. The pyro and smoke was sexy too.

Another good example is Kansas. they have two GA sections, one for supporters and another for family. The FO even gives tickets to the fans for some away games. Great support working with a good FO.

My personal opinion. I wouldn't mind if our group disappeared for the good of support. Support in Toronto needs help. Continuing as we have won't change things. Ego's need checked and a fresh open-minded approach is needed.

Montreal support was absolutely amazing last night. Definitely put us to shame.

I'll agree 100% with his last point. People shouldn't be putting group issues ahead of overall support. Groups aren't around to serve their own interests. They are there to be part of a greater supporters culture for TFC. If groups disappear but support improves altogether, we should be all for that.

"Ego's need checked and a fresh open-minded approach is needed."

[FluSH]

Montreal support was absolutely amazing last night. Definitely put us to shame.

I'll agree 100% with his last point. People shouldn't be putting group issues ahead of overall support. Groups aren't around to serve their own interests. They are there to be part of a greater supporters culture for TFC. If groups disappear but support improves altogether, we should be all for that.

"Ego's need checked and a fresh open-minded approach is needed."

No organization and no accountability = greater support?!

Somehow i just don't follow that math.

I do agree with the ego part, people should trash their God like ego mentality of how someone should support and embrace our differances, but that's not happening and fellow supporters aren't being respected.

[FluSH]

Also, there are too many generalizations in this thread:

At one point we were the top supporters in MLS. Now we are at the bottom 1/3 easily because we have not evolved. To get back to the top we must change.

It should read:

At one point RPB, Usector and NEE were the top supporters in MLS. Now RPB and Usector are at the bottom 1/3 easily because they have not evolved. To get back to the top they must change.

And the last two sentences are inaccurate to say the least... The complexity of what has transpired with all three groups can't be covered with "they have not evolved".

[Flint]

^
I didn't want to point fingers at any group and I know how complex the issues were. I know it wasn't the fault of any one party but a collective series of events that led to our current state. That being said, I think the first step in recovery is self realization of how low we've gotten (easily bottom 1/3 in the league) and then evolve from there because the status quo isn't working for anyone.

[Supporting]

Also, there are too many generalizations in this thread:



It should read:



And the last two sentences are inaccurate to say the least... The complexity of what has transpired with all three groups can't be covered with "they have not evolved".

What ended happening to NEE? I have been looking over the internet for a while but nothing comes up and I cant join their forum?