Originally Posted by Ivy
Means I was right with my previous post, ineebs had 3 strikes, and FO call them out on it.
Other SGs are playing by the rules and dont have to sign anything, until they have 3 offenses.
I don't know what to tell you,don't hang around them ,move your seat somewhere else, or if you wanna be an ultras,make sure you can deal with punishment,seems to me they can't and now we have big drama 3 games before playoffs.
Sounds good to me.
MLS is a tough, physical league, that emphasizes speed, and features plastic fields, grueling travel, extreme weather, and incompetent refs. - NK Toronto
I heard the FO said in that meeting SGs provide no monetary value.
Yup, you're right.
Inebriatti is the only group TFC meets with. RPB, USec, Kings, have never sat in the basement under the ACC, spending hours talking about in-stand, and out of stands drama. Never happened. Nobody ever got in trouble before Inebriatti existed.
And I know you don't know what to tell me, because simply, you don't know.
Look, Inebriatti never asked you or anybody else to join the protest. If you disagree with it, go to your seat, stand, clap, and sing.
If you, or anybody else wishes ill will on that SG, don't complain when they sit and stay quiet. You should rejoice.
Nothing to do with what I posted, but sure.
Well as it has been made very apparent, people can support whatever way they want. So I imagine 112 will follow suit and do what they want.
#
I never wrote anything about other SGs , read my post.I said in this case FO had Meeting with ineebs and punished them.
I did not complain about protest,or anything else, nor do I have problem with ineebs, I just wanted to clarify, why ineebs got code of conduct letter and other SGs didn't, now I know 3 stupid incidents and that is.
Sounds like an old Anselmi quote. Is there any real truth to this or is it just pouring more fuel on the fire to increase the divide?
^ That's what heard from someone on Twitter who was at the meeting.
Love the Inebriatti. They should probably take down these fake tough guy posts.
Potty Humour:
https://twitter.com/inebriatti/statu...29114178527232
Violence:
https://twitter.com/inebriatti/statu...99886884106240
https://twitter.com/inebriatti/statu...16298559684610
Potty humour is just that, potty humour...
There are no violent tweets there, it's lyrics from a song bud...
WE HATE MONTREAL
We hate Montreal
And that is just a fact!
When we come to your town, youd better watch your back!
We come into your stands
Were gonna fuck them up!
Were from Toronto and we dont give a fuck!
Ole! Ole! Ole!
Ole! Ole! Ol-ohh!
Ole! Ole!
Ole! Ole! Ol-ohh!
I'm enjoying the dueling secret sources here.
Clearly those who talk to Larson are untrustworthy, but those who are allied with 114 are completely honest and forthcoming.
O_o
easy ...out
I stayed with RPB instead of going the root of people I know , to the 'other' SG, who thought we were 'old' and not 'ultra' enough . I thought many who I've met and respected were amazing , not only supporters but thoughtful community members . Parents , children , loved ones etc....so if that is now off the menu and we are The other SG number 2 , why not be their junior branch since we don't seem to making our OWN stand as referenced by our 10 year history . You know no one will ever lose their seats or position if they are not guilty . Childish .
ALL HELL'S BROKEN LOOSEhttp://gfycat.com/SharpKindArrowana
It strikes me that MLSE are being arrogant and treating the support with contempt. Something MLSE has a track record of throughout the Toronto franchises they own. They want you to pay your money and buy their merchandise, but then expect you to sit down, shut up, and don't cause them any problems. The fans are the lifeblood of sports and its time these corporate suits treated them with some respect.
Having said that, three games form the playoffs is not the best time to for a silent protest. A coordinated boycott of the concessions MLSE profit from would hit the FO harder and in a way they understand. Buying your food and drink outside of BMO and avoiding giving MLSE extra profits from the concession stands would drive home the supporters point much more directly than withdrawing support for the team. Mind you, 90 minute without beer is a tough ask...
You make great points, pissing on the team is unbelievable . I thought mgmt was their problem .
ALL HELL'S BROKEN LOOSEhttp://gfycat.com/SharpKindArrowana
I actually spoke to my rep today. she says she has always had the utmost respect for RPB SG because we get stuff done and we take care of our own. She personally thanked me for being part of a group that was looked upon highly. This is what we have to take away. The more we discuss, get mad, call people out, the more we are destroying ourselves and lowering our standard. Don't fuel the flame. The beef is with FO and Inebs. They are adults, they got themselves into this mess and now they gotta figure out how to clean this shit up.
Going forward at the beginning of each game, we take direction from our leads. And for now close this topic. We are giving these guys more than the 15 minutes of fame that they don't deserve.
And further more the media is stirring the pot and you know they will be there Saturday to stir some more. I say we support cause that's what supporters do. Show the press we are much bigger than all this drama and let our Prez and VP handle matters that's why we voted them in.
By the way Phil and Chris - props to you guys for keeping a cool head and handle on things.
Years have gone by and Ive finally learned to accept myself for who I am: a beggar for good football.
I go about the world, hand outstretched, and in the stadiums I plead: A pretty move, for the love of God.
And when good football happens, I give thanks for the miracle and I dont give a damn which team or country performs it.
-Eduardo Galeano
Me thinks there is a lot of acquiescing happening – why should a group have to police people who buy game day tickets from an institution that has responsibility for security?
Maybe I’m missing something – in fact often I am
If someone destroys seats or other property then charge them under the criminal code and permanently ban them – pretty simple.
If there are rules that are clearly enunciated then enforce them; be it banners, language or other. Make the offending individual(s) accountable – not the group who is not offending, but supporting.
I agree that the SGs should also be involved and understanding what the rules are and agreeing to, as best they can, support them.
But ultimately the stadium is the team’s owner’s security’s responsibility.
If they want to be heavy handed and draconian – that is their right and so be it – but the consequences will be a change in the game day atmosphere and environment.
If they want Chicago or plastic Seattle – no issue they can have it
I personally don’t want it. Ultimately I don’t matter, but I will make my choice as to attending based on the outcome…I like an active, somewhat edgy ultras atmosphere, within the rules of the stadium. To me it makes the game day much more fun – otherwise I’d stay home and watch it on TV.
My point is these rules should be enforced individually by the stadium security to the individual infraction – not the group.
If, and I think this is the way they should ultimately go, they give the south end to the supporters to sell and determine who sits in that section, then the group is responsible for the sections activities. The rules would be determined by MLSE/MLS and to be SGs you would have to abide by them and make sure your members understood and adhered to them.
Last edited by backbeat; 09-30-2016 at 07:46 PM.
6
" If no individual(s) or group(s) is identified as responsible, Toronto FC reserves the right to assign responsibility for the act to the Supporter Group if the act occurs in your Supporter Group’s assigned seating areas, or if information collected allows for reasonable assignment of responsibility. "
always read the fine print.
well i guess that allows the interpretation to be as wide open as it gets - a catch-all clause, as it were - one can pin it any-which-way-one-wants type of clause - again i've no issue if that's what they're looking to do - it's their team from a financial ownership perspective.
i fully accept that but....
it just might not be what i want - and i completely accept that i matter not in the end - that's ok with me
as i stated above:
"If they want Chicago or plastic Seattle – no issue they can have it
I personally don’t want it. Ultimately I don’t matter, but I will make my choice as to attending based on the outcome…I like an active, somewhat edgy ultras atmosphere, within the rules of the stadium. To me it makes the game day much more fun – otherwise I’d stay home and watch it on TV."
not trying to cause a big sensation - just talking about my interpretation....
Just curious what you thought of the Star article then. Cause it gives a different view point.
i.e. Don't make this about Larson vs. those who don't know.
Im actually curious on your take as well.
I mean one was a news article the other was a column. If one were to read coyne, selley, regg cohn, etc. They expect opinion.
What facts in the sun piece gave you pause?
Last edited by Red4ever; 09-30-2016 at 09:25 PM.
The phrase "assigned seating area" is really broad...too broad in my opinion, to the point of being a big net if necessary. I see the interpretations you are suggesting it is and others disagree. RPB leadership is seeking clarification. Good enough for me.
There is no context and that context has has yet to be provided by the FO or the media BTW. And that lack of context was worth a protest IMHO- once. I would suggest that a company like MLSE would vet this phrasing through lawyers - if it doesn't, I would be very surprised. Ambiguity allows wiggle room - all companies do that with policies. I do it where I work too. Its how you operate in an ambiguous world - you want room to maneuver.
Others in here have mentioned there are other points in that document that have not been published and the breadth of application to all SG's is unknown. Until all information is provided, I would be leery of suggesting said document is only for x group or only can be interpreted in one way.
What I don't like is the phrase "get your big boy pants on" used in concert with tweets that dismiss supporter groups as unimportant - and that is what Larson has done this week and for people on here to defend him strikes me as strange.
See my point above. Larson is being hypocritical. He wants media to latch onto TFC as an event. And he tweets that he doesn't notice/care when SG's are not vocal during games. And he has flat out said SG's are being childish. All within the last 3 days.
And people on here think he's great for doing so?
Yes, its a column.
And I can disagree with him on that column.
Sure but i might not be following you as i dont understand how those points relate. How does that illustrate hypocracy. (full disclosure, i think hes been hyprocrical before)See my point above. Larson is being hypocritical. He wants media to latch onto TFC as an event. And he tweets that he doesn't notice/care when SG's are not vocal during games. And he has flat out said SG's are being childish. All within the last 3 days.
And people on here think he's great for doing so?
Yes, its a column.
And I can disagree with him on that column.
You disagree and youre entitled. As is eveyone. I guess im asking where hes "wrong".
I didn't think that the Star article was bad, but I felt it was missing some of the details that Kurt had (secret source and all that). One thing I thought Laura had, that Kurt did not, was a response from U-Sector. But we know U-Sector won't talk to him, and that Inebriatti had not responded to him by the time the Sun published his story.
I actually thought that, by and large, the two were pretty compatible.
Kurt has been inferring from what evidence Inebriate have given as to why they are protesting - that it is specifically about the two stick. That was what all the early tweets were about - of course, as it has gained momentum, the motive seems to have changed. Laura says that it is about the self-policing, which is the cause du jour. But I'm still seeing misinterpretation of that as "we have to police the whole south end" even though, as Laura writes fairly clearly:
As for duelling secret sources, I'm more referring to people on the board who are giving us the details of the SG/MLSE meeting, as told by friends of friends, and we are to take them seriously, while we can't take Kurt's source seriously because there's an agenda (like the friends of friends, and the posters themselves, don't have an agenda, right?).Manning told the Star he believes the issue between Inebriatti and the club rests in language. Supporters groups, he said, are not responsible for the section as a whole, just the seats members occupy.
Oh, one other thing - Laura split her writing into two stories, with the "protest is hurting the play" being a whole separate story.
https://www.thestar.com/sports/tfc/2...-need-you.html
Karma is getting us - I don't care who put up that crude banner. We lost at home to our bitterest rivals, had our best player injured, drew three games in a row and have descended into the most ridiculous infighting I've ever seen. The season is falling apart in typical TFC fashion. The Impact fans are having the biggest laugh of them all...
Nothing less than a win tomorrow is acceptable.
Posting Permissions
Great love does not exist without joy and without great suffering ,that's why One club is worth only as much as its fans !
Reply With Quote