Page 8 of 13 FirstFirst ... 456789101112 ... LastLast
Results 211 to 240 of 385
  1. #211
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,102
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    If it turns after all this that inebs were involved in the two stick, thats not cool.

  2. #212
    RPB Member
    Past President

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Dichio Country
    Posts
    12,251
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Red4ever View Post
    If it turns after all this that inebs were involved in the two stick, thats not cool.
    Even if they were, the fact that the FO is hammering down with these new rules about groups being responsible for any actions in their section if their security fails to catch someone is BS. I don't go to a match to police other supporters, I go to support the team. Don't they pay a bunch of people to watch the south end? Never mind the fact that their security let the banner in, so they carry part of the blame for it going on display. The banner was bad and the guy responsible should be sanctioned, but so should the team accept its part in this and not try to use this as a catalyst to impose draconian measures on sections where they have happily sold seats to scalpers and others who aren't affiliated with any group.
    Toronto FC baby...best team everrrrrrrrrr -Jozy

  3. #213
    RPB Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    116
    Posts
    21,718
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by paul-collins View Post
    From the article: "..Inebriatti, which didn’t immediately respond to the Sun’s request for comment..."
    Larson is conspicuously and knowingly not discussing the larger issue underneath this:

    Armstrong did it better.

    https://www.thestar.com/sports/tfc/2...oronto-fc.html

  4. #214
    RPB Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    116
    Posts
    21,718
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CBTFC View Post
    It was a very police union/brotherhood type stance to take...which as a PR move, backfired.

    Sorry guys, but standing in unity with another SG that did something so obviously wrong...
    Read the Star article.

    This is not about that two stick.

  5. #215
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    275
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OgtheDim View Post
    Larson is conspicuously and knowingly not discussing the larger issue underneath this:

    Armstrong did it better.

    https://www.thestar.com/sports/tfc/2...oronto-fc.html
    The "two-stick" is the issue. It's what started all of this. And Inebriatti haven't been honest in addressing it.
    The "contract" doesn't bother me one bit. Either you have a supporters group/section, or you don't.
    If you have one, then everyone is accountable to one another, and a single supporter's actions can impact the group.
    This BS about "what if a stranger comes in and sabotages our section?" is just silly.
    Hold each other accountable. Realize you're part of a larger group and that your actions impact those around you.
    My piece in today's Sun was more about how Inebriatti aren't victims in all of this. They've been part of the problem.
    My view on the contract is that it's pretty standard in terms of how supporters groups operate within the league.

    http://www.torontosun.com/2016/09/29...am-with-antics
    Last edited by KurtLarSUN; 09-30-2016 at 07:25 AM.

  6. #216
    RPB Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Somewhere, Anywhere.
    Posts
    11,228
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Kurt, love that you wrote this piece and called them out. Their antics need to stop, dating back to last season in Montreal and then defying the actions taken against them. The just simply do not get it.


    Quote Originally Posted by KurtLarSUN View Post
    The "two-stick" is the issue. It's what started all of this. And Inebriatti haven't been honest in addressing it.
    The "contract" doesn't bother me one bit. Either you have a supporters group/section, or you don't.
    If you have one, then everyone is accountable to one another, and single supporter's actions impacts the group.
    This BS about "what if a stranger comes in and sabotages our section?" is just silly.
    Hold each other accountable. Realize you're part of a larger group and that your actions impact those around you.
    My piece in today's Sun was more about how Inebriatti aren't victims in all of this. They've been part of the problem.
    My view on the contract is that it's pretty standard in terms of how supporters groups operate within the league.

    http://www.torontosun.com/2016/09/29...am-with-antics

    Remember The Man, The Legend, The Goal 5-12-07 and All That #9 Left On The Pitch, Thanks For The Memories !!!

  7. #217
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    275
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack View Post
    Even if they were, the fact that the FO is hammering down with these new rules about groups being responsible for any actions in their section if their security fails to catch someone is BS. I don't go to a match to police other supporters, I go to support the team. Don't they pay a bunch of people to watch the south end? Never mind the fact that their security let the banner in, so they carry part of the blame for it going on display. The banner was bad and the guy responsible should be sanctioned, but so should the team accept its part in this and not try to use this as a catalyst to impose draconian measures on sections where they have happily sold seats to scalpers and others who aren't affiliated with any group.
    Any examples of SGs being punished after a non member did something in the section?
    Because, if you read today's Sun, that's certainly not the case in this instance...

  8. #218
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    275
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Red CB Toronto View Post
    Kurt, love that you wrote this piece and called them out. Their antics need to stop, dating back to last season in Montreal and then defying the actions taken against them. The just simply do not get it.
    I've received many notes like this...

    It's funny how they always seem to point the finger somewhere else in every instance.

    As my source told me. "There's a lot of smoke with these guys..."

  9. #219
    RPB Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Somewhere, Anywhere.
    Posts
    11,228
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KurtLarSUN View Post
    I've received many notes like this...

    It's funny how they always seem to point the finger somewhere else in every instance.

    As my source told me. "There's a lot of smoke with these guys..."
    Well considering their tag line is "No Pyro No Party", that says it all. If you look back at TFC supporter history, a previous group North End Elite that disbanded, took on a somewhat Ultra approach too, got the ire of the front office and eventually former TFC executive Paul Beirne just chose to stop engaging them. Over time they just disappeared. Guess when they lost their seat at the big boy table, they simply lost interest.

    Remember The Man, The Legend, The Goal 5-12-07 and All That #9 Left On The Pitch, Thanks For The Memories !!!

  10. #220
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    948
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Thank you for telling it how it is Kurt.

    It's sad that some can't accept and handle the truth, and just want to point fingers in every other direction.

  11. #221
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    275
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CBTFC View Post
    Thank you for telling it how it is Kurt.

    It's sad that some can't accept and handle the truth, and just want to point fingers in every other direction.
    One of the big problems I see here is that supporters groups want all the privileges that come with belonging to a group.
    But when it comes to overseeing the content in their sections, they want to turn a blind eye. I struggle to comprehend that logic.

  12. #222
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    275
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    One more thing...

    I find the contract a bit silly. But I don't disagree with the language. I'm just not sure why TFC needs a signed document to enforce said rules.
    I think it was originally conjured up to basically set boundaries with supporters. Not to threaten them.

  13. #223
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,102
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KurtLarSUN View Post
    One of the big problems I see here is that supporters groups want all the privileges that come with belonging to a group.
    But when it comes to overseeing the content in their sections, they want to turn a blind eye. I struggle to comprehend that logic.
    Would you agree the club should do what they can to consolodate sections to include only supporters? I would have fewer problems (ie none) if that were the case.

    When changing direction after the fact it seems like a necessay component no?

  14. #224
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,469
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The responsibility has and should fall mostly on the individual, if that individual is part of a group then yes we do and have taken some of the responsibility for those actions. Having some punishment for a group based off of 1 members actions can dissuade certain types of behavior, we get that. What we won't take responsibility for is overserved tourist 15 rows above us ripping out seats or starting a fight. That person has no reason to listen to us even if we somehow glance up and see something taking place, that's security's job.

  15. #225
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    5,267
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KurtLarSUN View Post
    The "two-stick" is the issue. It's what started all of this. And Inebriatti haven't been honest in addressing it.
    The "contract" doesn't bother me one bit. Either you have a supporters group/section, or you don't.
    If you have one, then everyone is accountable to one another, and a single supporter's actions can impact the group.
    This BS about "what if a stranger comes in and sabotages our section?" is just silly.
    Hold each other accountable. Realize you're part of a larger group and that your actions impact those around you.
    My piece in today's Sun was more about how Inebriatti aren't victims in all of this. They've been part of the problem.
    My view on the contract is that it's pretty standard in terms of how supporters groups operate within the league.

    http://www.torontosun.com/2016/09/29...am-with-antics
    You do realize that groups don't control the whole section right?
    You realize that they don't control every single ticket and SSH in there section as members right?

    Whatever as far as I'm concerned the FO and especially Manning can't fuck right off.
    I'm out.
    I can't knowingly hand over money to a club that treats its paying supporters/fans like this.

  16. #226
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    275
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Red4ever View Post
    Would you agree the club should do what they can to consolodate sections to include only supporters? I would have fewer problems (ie none) if that were the case.

    When changing direction after the fact it seems like a necessay component no?
    I don't see why this needs to be part of the conversation.

  17. #227
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    275
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BuSaPuNk View Post
    You do realize that groups don't control the whole section right?
    You realize that they don't control every single ticket and SSH in there section as members right?

    Whatever as far as I'm concerned the FO and especially Manning can't fuck right off.
    I'm out.
    I can't knowingly hand over money to a club that treats its paying supporters/fans like this.
    They're not being asked to control random season ticket holders. They're being asked to hold each other accountable.
    Let's not forget ... All of this came about because an Inebriatti member was caught holding a disgusting sign. What's the solution, do nothing?

  18. #228
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    112
    Posts
    2,839
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff s View Post
    Well, i mean, Kurt just posted this in his article.


    "But a well-placed source in the position to know told the Toronto Sun this week that BMO Field’s enhanced security cameras caught two fans holding the banner at separate moments — one of which was donning an inebriatti shirt
    Correct me if I'm wrong but he's the only one writing such stuff. I personally find it very hard to believe that an external journalist would be given access to view MLSE internal security footage. Very skeptical.

  19. #229
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    275
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ryan View Post
    Correct me if I'm wrong but he's the only one writing such stuff. I personally find it very hard to believe that an external journalist would be given access to view MLSE internal security footage. Very skeptical.
    Either I'm lying, or I'm good at my job.

  20. #230
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    5,267
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KurtLarSUN View Post
    They're not being asked to control random season ticket holders. They're being asked to hold each other accountable.
    Let's not forget ... All of this came about because an Inebriatti member was caught holding a disgusting sign. What's the solution, do nothing?
    Oh you mean the second person that had a hand on it?
    Not the person that made it and brought it in through security at the gate that let it in?
    Not the TFC employees that seen it on the concourse before the game for 10-15 mins?
    Not the security in the stands that would have obviously see it but let it continue to go up?

    Whatever.
    This is a straight up attack on support and one group in particular.
    Funny how they want marketing material they go to them, but they "hold no monetary value"

    Whatever I'm done. No playoff tickets and not renewing my season seats, can't justify supporting this.

  21. #231
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    275
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BuSaPuNk View Post
    Oh you mean the second person that had a hand on it?
    Not the person that made it and brought it in through security at the gate that let it in?
    Not the TFC employees that seen it on the concourse before the game for 10-15 mins?
    Not the security in the stands that would have obviously see it but let it continue to go up?

    Whatever.
    This is a straight up attack on support and one group in particular.
    Funny how they want marketing material they go to them, but they "hold no monetary value"

    Whatever I'm done. No playoff tickets and not renewing my season seats, can't justify supporting this.
    Two things:

    I'm confused by the logic of: "Well, security missed it so that absolves us of any and all responsibility."

    Also, you should try enjoying the football rather than concerning yourself with silly politics that have been kicked up by a certain faction of fans.

  22. #232
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,469
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    It could be true, but what does holding mean? did the non member need to grab a beer so he handed it to the person next to him for 2 min?

    Nobody has even pretended to say a member brought it in and prominently displayed it. It got past security, nobody snuck anything in. Anyone who comes through gate 3 or 3b knows security is pretty relaxed and doesn't really check much.

  23. #233
    RPB Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Ajax (Top O'114 on gameday)
    Posts
    3,413
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I have had my issues in the past two seasons on a few occasions with some immature members (using my polite words) of the Inebriatti and I am not particularly fond of the way they go about some things but I am trying not to let that cloud my judgement on this. Groups should be held accountable for their actions as a group if there is evidence any issue is coordinated by the group but in a general sense they do not control the whole section so I don't see how they can be accountable for random people in it. In this case they said they have found and dealt with the people involved with the two stick so not sure why they don't leave it at that.

    I do not agree with any supporter group having to police their section, if that is indeed what is being asked, unless TFC can prove that 100% of the people in it belong to that group and you know that ain't going to happen. They are not paid or trained to do that especially with non-affiliated people in their section. I am in 114 and part of RPB and I don't want any Inebriatti guys trying to tell me what to do. That is what security is there for and paid/trained to do. Supporter groups can only be responsible for people that belong to their group and if any member is involved they work with the club to handle it. No group can be responsible for people that wander into a section and we know that not everyone in the section at any point in time belong to each group. In fact, in 114, RPB get the un-renewed tickets for the top of the section if I recall. They were given tickets in that section as overflow from 112 because U-Sector had 113. So does that mean RPB are responsible now for anyone at the top of 114? Or should RPB be partly responsible as well for the two stick thing because they have people in the section? Where do you draw the line?

    In my opinion just let security secure and let supporters support. Use your new high tech camera system along with paid security to address the issues with the individuals that are involved in any incident and leave the groups out of it unless there is evidence it is a group effort. That is my two cents.

  24. #234
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    275
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pint View Post
    It could be true, but what does holding mean? did the non member need to grab a beer so he handed it to the person next to him for 2 min?

    Nobody has even pretended to say a member brought it in and prominently displayed it. It got past security, nobody snuck anything in. Anyone who comes through gate 3 or 3b knows security is pretty relaxed and doesn't really check much.
    "Non member" is just another term for "a guy we know who sits with us and is pretty much a member..."

    And a security breach doesn't absolve those in the section. It just means an employee or employees decided to not do their jobs that day.

    Or, the banner was snuck in.

    But back to my first sentence. It doesn't really matter how or why it appeared. It appeared.
    Last edited by KurtLarSUN; 09-30-2016 at 08:26 AM.

  25. #235
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    112
    Posts
    2,839
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KurtLarSUN View Post
    Either I'm lying, or I'm good at my job.
    I'm 99.9% confident it's both.

  26. #236
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,469
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KurtLarSUN View Post
    "Non member" is just another term for "a guy we know who sits with us and is pretty much a member..."

    And a security breach doesn't absolve those in the section. It just means a member or members of security decided not to do their jobs that day.

    Or, the banner was snuck in.

    But back to my first sentence. It doesn't really matter how or why it appeared. It appeared.
    Completely incorrect. Sections 113, 114, and 116 have a varying range in terms of % of SG members and non members and if you ask many in those sections they do not identify as a member of a SG and in fact would be a little insulted you may have lumped them in. 116... 120ish kings, 50ish O109's in a 500-700 seat section... but ya make us responsible for everyone esle.

  27. #237
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    489
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    So let me understand these issues with that specific SG:

    they didn't cause the damage in Montreal (it was someone else)
    some random fan is going to make a two stick bring it into their section? (and no where else in the southend and it was someone else)

    They act like they want to be so ultra then can't handle the heat when they get their hands slapped..

    They should grow a set a balls and man up period, don't be the victim all the damn time.

    For the first time in out ten year history, we are in first place in our conference, we have the best player in the league and we have a legitimate chance of making a deep run in the playoffs and this is what we are talking about. I am saddened that they have become a bigger story then our club and the success we have had this year to date.

    I think the conversation with FO about this issue should be done in the offseason, and for the balance of the games have all the supporters group understand that they (FO) will be more vigilant in making sure no banners like that get through / more security to make sure that the people that are in the section have tickets their and that the SG should report anything if they see anything that is not right regardless if they are members of a SG or not...
    Last edited by TheGoodson; 09-30-2016 at 08:36 AM.

  28. #238
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Oakville
    Posts
    1,979
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Im in 113 and not a member of a SG

  29. #239
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    275
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pint View Post
    Completely incorrect. Sections 113, 114, and 116 have a varying range in terms of % of SG members and non members and if you ask many in those sections they do not identify as a member of a SG and in fact would be a little insulted you may have lumped them in. 116... 120ish kings, 50ish O109's in a 500-700 seat section... but ya make us responsible for everyone esle.
    I'm talking about a single incident, involving a "non-member" and an actual member. Both have been suspended.
    I'm not going to spend my time disputing how affiliated a supposed "non-member" was. It's childish.

  30. #240
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    2,189
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Red CB Toronto View Post
    Well considering their tag line is "No Pyro No Party", that says it all. If you look back at TFC supporter history, a previous group North End Elite that disbanded, took on a somewhat Ultra approach too, got the ire of the front office and eventually former TFC executive Paul Beirne just chose to stop engaging them. Over time they just disappeared. Guess when they lost their seat at the big boy table, they simply lost interest.
    NEE continued to exist a couple of years after Paul left.....some members are still active with other SG's.....some had "life" get in the way.....and considering their numbers were comparitively less, sometimes shit happens....you shouldn't talk about things you don't know about......

 

 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •