I'm assuming you read agreement between FO and SGs? The same agreement that was presented to all SGs long time ago and they all agree on that?Originally Posted by OgtheDim
You know the agreement that led to FO giving Inebriatties code of conduct letter to be signed.
Toronto FC baby...best team everrrrrrrrrr -Jozy
Wait a second, are you saying the tweeted wording that is out there running around the internet isn't accurate? That wording pretty much says the SG's can be held responsible for somebody within their section, regardless if they are a member or not?
Larson was saying that wording didn't mean SG's could be held responsible for random SSH's wandering by.
That's the crux of this arguement.
I'm assuming you read agreement between FO and SGs? The same agreement that was presented to all SGs long time ago and they all agree on that?
You know the agreement that led to FO giving Inebriatties code of conduct letter to be signed.
just some corrections on what I see posted - the big TIFO was a joiont project by all the groups.
The idea that we are being asked to police sections we don't sell tickets for is incorrect and out of context. The published line is only one from a more comprehensive outline regarding conduct. It is clearly a misunderstanding and one I hope to see the affected parties clarify.
Road Trips: July 7 2007 Chicago, July 22nd 2007 Columbus, August 11 2007 NY, October 13 2007 LA, March 29 2008 Columbus, May 24th 2008 DC, May 26 2008 Montreal, June 28th 2008 NE, March 7-11-14 2009 Charleston, March 28 2009 Columbus, April 10 2010 New England, May 12 2010 Montreal, April 7 2012 Montreal, March 16 2013 Montreal , June 3 2014 Montreal, March 14 2015 Columbus
Twitter: @RPBPhil
Thank you!!!
I don't agree with many things FO is doing or with some things from Kurt's article, but if this is not clear wording from that agreement I don't know what is "the group is responsible for individuals in their sections ALLOCATED seats" .
you probably don't know that U-sector guys "leaked" single line out of context from that agreement,I'm sure Pint who as member of Kings probably knows that agreement has 3 lines not only one that was leaked by U-Sec,right?
We all know this was Ineebs 3rd big offense,1st Montreal,2nd ripping seats at 1st home game and now 2 stick banner ,1,2,3 strikes and they were asked nicely to sign code of conduct letter.
It is time for all SGs to take responsibility and accountability for what is going in their allocated seats in their allocated sections,we are all adults it's time to start acting like ones,we should not be playing politics 3 games before playoffs.
that's irrelevant to his very poor assumption that the group dissolved after "they lost their big boy seat at the table".....
no problem Jack.....I fail to see how this situation can be viewed as anything else other than a shared responsibility, which is the gist of why the SGs are so up in arms with this contract, and refuse to do security's job moving forward.....
Sorry man, but I don't want to me on vacation in Vancouver, watching the game on TV, then finding out it banned for BMO cuz somebody I've never met did something TFC didn't like while I was away.
well,make sure you don't sell or give your ticket to a person you don't know,and even if you do and something happens,you wont be banned,since you didn't do it.
Your SG might get punished with,no flags-drums,banners etc,but not you,but all SGs and TFC agree to the conditions in the Agreement before season started,so no surprises there
thanks for at least writing what you believe regardless of the negative feedback from many , who years ago couldn't even imagine pro soccer in TO . Not only are the SG's paying significantly less for their seats compared to the rest of the stadium they now want to dictate the crowd rules . Slowly we are losing the family , fun atmosphere at BMO field . Yes security and mgmt are , simply that boorish non-conformists but I'm paying for a complete season what it costs for maybe 2 leaf games (for 2) . I have friend with 4 seats paying approx $3400 for 4 . That's not the highest price and this family have zero problem with the seating rules as demanded at a game , sometimes enjoyed by rowdy drinkers looking for trouble . We threw a bottle thrower out at the Montreal game at the risk of us being caught up in the conflict . We need rules and responsibilities . Maybe giving all the seats in a certain section to each group IS the only way , then making the group responsible . But I have no fear of being thrown out , unless I deserve it . Now that the groups basically crapped on the team (yup) in a huge game which could determine whether or not we get a home playoff game . I as a TEAM and PLAYERS supporter am trying to decide how to show at the next game regardless how the 'followers' , decide it upon themselves at what appropriate time they will try to prove how great and important their cheering is . If the groups don't like the rules . Stay home . But they will never give up those cheap seats will they ....😂
Last edited by jazzy; 09-30-2016 at 12:02 PM.
^ I don't know about that. My wife and I brought our 15 month old daughter to that game. Ironically my wife thought the two stick was funny in a bad taste sort of way. Didn't effect our enjoyment of the game.
Our diaper bag gets extensively searched every time we go to BMO btw. How security couldn't find a banner between two large sticks is beyond me.
A few thoughts, not all related to Jack's post, but to all the posts that followed as well.
1. "I don't read the Sun" - then you can't comment on the article, can you? You haven't actually read it.
2. "I won't talk to Larson" - then you can't complain that he didn't (try to) solicit comment from SGs, can you?
3. "FO should bear some of the blame" - agreed, and if you had read the article (see point 1), you'd have seen this gem:
So Larson and his source *did* try to address the FO responsibility. Perhaps not fully, IMO - it shouldn't hinge on whether the banner was inspected and allowed, it should also hinge on whether it was inspected at all.The question of how the banner entered the facility is another point entirely. Security personnel are supposed to check every banner that enters the venue, meaning there’s an assumption that the banner was somehow snuck into the facility.
If security indeed saw and missed it, the informed source added that security should have been “fired.” But it’s hard to believe BMO Field personnel would knowingly allow the racy banner into the venue. The former scenario seems far more likely.
(Although I suppose security could plead ignorance based on the idea that someone snuck it in, that is just as weaselly as claiming that it was an unaffiliated tourist holding the sign, who just happened to be dressed in the group uniform.)
But the main points stand - you have to read the stories to ensure that you understand all the "facts" that are being presented (and judge those facts' merits on your own). And if you're invited to participate in the story, you don't get to decline and then complain that your side isn't presented.
Lastly, I'd like to single out denime's posts. Partial disclosure is not cool, because it strips context. Everyone is getting upset over the idea they have to police beyond their borders (or at all, I guess), but they've conveniently left out the bit about "allocated" seats to get their fellow-travellers upset. It makes people look silly if it turns out they've been protesting over, well, not much.
I bolded the most important parts of your comments...
Maybe they (FO) should just revoke their priviliges as a supporter group if they continue to want to be ultras and cause issues.
After years and years of in fighting between groups, I find it surprising that this is what is uniting them all.
At the end of the day we are all adults and we should act like it....
Ha
I guess having a fairly open iron fence surrounding the stadium isn't fool proof? There are tons of ways to get things in if someone wants to and has a friend. It should have been caught by in section security though, no question in my mind there.
Road Trips: July 7 2007 Chicago, July 22nd 2007 Columbus, August 11 2007 NY, October 13 2007 LA, March 29 2008 Columbus, May 24th 2008 DC, May 26 2008 Montreal, June 28th 2008 NE, March 7-11-14 2009 Charleston, March 28 2009 Columbus, April 10 2010 New England, May 12 2010 Montreal, April 7 2012 Montreal, March 16 2013 Montreal , June 3 2014 Montreal, March 14 2015 Columbus
Twitter: @RPBPhil
To be fair we are getting all ramped up over what looks lie an out of context quote that was leaked. I have asked for a meeting with the club to find if this information is legitimate in its interpretation and how this may or may not affect support going forward.
Lastly, I'd like to single out denime's posts. Partial disclosure is not cool, because it strips context. Everyone is getting upset over the idea they have to police beyond their borders (or at all, I guess), but they've conveniently left out the bit about "allocated" seats to get their fellow-travellers upset. It makes people look silly if it turns out they've been protesting over, well, not much.
Road Trips: July 7 2007 Chicago, July 22nd 2007 Columbus, August 11 2007 NY, October 13 2007 LA, March 29 2008 Columbus, May 24th 2008 DC, May 26 2008 Montreal, June 28th 2008 NE, March 7-11-14 2009 Charleston, March 28 2009 Columbus, April 10 2010 New England, May 12 2010 Montreal, April 7 2012 Montreal, March 16 2013 Montreal , June 3 2014 Montreal, March 14 2015 Columbus
Twitter: @RPBPhil
My point about the FO was more about Kurt saying the supporters groups should "put their big boy pants on" (I believe that's how he framed it), and just cheer. I was only pointing out that the FO was the one who through this grenade, somehow deciding now was the time to pick this fight. They share the responsibility in blowing this thing up into something that is now effecting the team at a crucial time in the season.A few thoughts, not all related to Jack's post, but to all the posts that followed as well.
1. "I don't read the Sun" - then you can't comment on the article, can you? You haven't actually read it.
2. "I won't talk to Larson" - then you can't complain that he didn't (try to) solicit comment from SGs, can you?
3. "FO should bear some of the blame" - agreed, and if you had read the article (see point 1), you'd have seen this gem:
So Larson and his source *did* try to address the FO responsibility. Perhaps not fully, IMO - it shouldn't hinge on whether the banner was inspected and allowed, it should also hinge on whether it was inspected at all.
(Although I suppose security could plead ignorance based on the idea that someone snuck it in, that is just as weaselly as claiming that it was an unaffiliated tourist holding the sign, who just happened to be dressed in the group uniform.)
But the main points stand - you have to read the stories to ensure that you understand all the "facts" that are being presented (and judge those facts' merits on your own). And if you're invited to participate in the story, you don't get to decline and then complain that your side isn't presented.
Lastly, I'd like to single out denime's posts. Partial disclosure is not cool, because it strips context. Everyone is getting upset over the idea they have to police beyond their borders (or at all, I guess), but they've conveniently left out the bit about "allocated" seats to get their fellow-travellers upset. It makes people look silly if it turns out they've been protesting over, well, not much.
Here's the thing that bugs me; the outrage over this does, in part, seem a bit retroactive. I suspect whatever security did see the sign had similar reactions.
Were it recognized as such - a multifaceted failure that was not recognized at the time - there would have been a better PR way to handle this.
FO should have accepted some responsibility and issued a mea culpa on that front, including some mealy-mouthed promise of "training" or something for their involved staff. This could have been followed by a separate statement by the SG regretting the use and pledging to avoid similar faux pas later. And it's done.
Last edited by paul-collins; 09-30-2016 at 11:35 AM. Reason: speeling
Fair enough, but it seems to be more of a firecracker than a grenade. Someone else is yelling "fire in the hole!"
Cool, that's a good way forward. I was trying to compliment denime, by the way, hope that came through.
speaking of lack of security..at half time of the orl game 2 dudes running across the field i think after Kaka and were stopped at the dressing room entrance by a cop,how did they get that far?
I could not be convinced to care any less about what Larson writes for that sorry excuse for a website/paper. The fact that he even takes money from that despicable company turns my stomach.A few thoughts, not all related to Jack's post, but to all the posts that followed as well.
1. "I don't read the Sun" - then you can't comment on the article, can you? You haven't actually read it.
2. "I won't talk to Larson" - then you can't complain that he didn't (try to) solicit comment from SGs, can you?
3. "FO should bear some of the blame" - agreed, and if you had read the article (see point 1), you'd have seen this gem:
So Larson and his source *did* try to address the FO responsibility. Perhaps not fully, IMO - it shouldn't hinge on whether the banner was inspected and allowed, it should also hinge on whether it was inspected at all.
(Although I suppose security could plead ignorance based on the idea that someone snuck it in, that is just as weaselly as claiming that it was an unaffiliated tourist holding the sign, who just happened to be dressed in the group uniform.)
But the main points stand - you have to read the stories to ensure that you understand all the "facts" that are being presented (and judge those facts' merits on your own). And if you're invited to participate in the story, you don't get to decline and then complain that your side isn't presented.
Lastly, I'd like to single out denime's posts. Partial disclosure is not cool, because it strips context. Everyone is getting upset over the idea they have to police beyond their borders (or at all, I guess), but they've conveniently left out the bit about "allocated" seats to get their fellow-travellers upset. It makes people look silly if it turns out they've been protesting over, well, not much.
I formed my opinion based on what information I had from my sources, not from reading Larson's "reporting". I am making my points based on the FO's policy. I will not police supporters. They pay people to do that, so those people can do their jobs and I will support my team and occupy my place in the stands with the ticket I pay for. If I see an RPB doing something they shouldn't be doing, I will call them on it. If I don't know the person, you can bet I'm not going to get into a confrontation in the stands where I go to support my team. And you can also bet I'm not going to inform security of the breach of rules unless it is causing danger to others. That's their job.
The FO has equal responsibility for this situation and they need to work to find middle ground, just as much as the supporters do. Otherwise, they get zero of the atmosphere they so heavily market and trumpet to all and sundry.
Toronto FC baby...best team everrrrrrrrrr -Jozy
Until the whole contract is posted and not edited or selected parts leaked can you say the FO is throwing a grenade?
Maybe they had been warned due to multiple infractions, yet think they can do what every they want with no consequences.
The problem is people don't want to take responsibility for their actions. If the two stick was the first incident then I don't think the FO would have come down like this. Every time there is an incident with that specific SG their first response it isn't them. But yet it always seems to happen where they are???
Hmmm makes you think doesn't it
Last edited by TheGoodson; 09-30-2016 at 11:46 AM.
A flare?
We should just be thankful we have a team and roll over to whatever the FO wants? Because our tickets are affordable? And you say others are "followers"...
And I ask myself, if your group's leadership decides to continue to support the protest, are you in or out?
Toronto FC baby...best team everrrrrrrrrr -Jozy
What isn't disputable is they are asking everyone to sign it. So they took an incident where they could single out a "bad" supporters group (I use the quotes specifically) and chose to pick a fight with all supporters groups. So yeah, they made it bigger at a time where there were lots of ways to de-escalate.
What about scalpers tickets in the area? My row in 113 is mostly from scalpers thus different folks every match and I am about half way up. That's a recipe for problems if those people get juiced and act like idiots. And who sets the "allocated" seats and where? Since most of the area is basically general admission, sometimes I am quite a few seats from my actual seat during a match. What if some guy acts like a dick in my seat because he got a few of his buddies from abroad to squeeze in to my row? What if they use the super surveillance camera to identify the seat number and I or U-Sector get burned when I wan't even in that seat?
All in all, this whole thing is stupid. Two stick was stupid, reaction of people to that two stick was stupid, FO's reaction was stupid, everything is stupid.
This is a level of absurdity that I thought we left behind after the Anselmi era.
Last edited by Ultra & Proud; 09-30-2016 at 11:51 AM. Reason: Forgot how to spell Anselmi - selective memory doing it's job
This.
Toronto FC baby...best team everrrrrrrrrr -Jozy
Again, what is the issue...
As earlier in the thread Denime stated the full paragraph about policing the section is to the allocated seats for the SG not the entire section. Until the full contract is posted there is no way to determine the issues fully.
Actually, Rollins tweeted the opposite.
Your point about de-escalation is reasonable though.
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