At risk of being accused of being a troll *roll eyes emoticon*, that's a good article.
Gronk posted the article, but you were the one that said it was good. Which is why I have pressed the reply on your post, and not Gronks.
So, where do I start in my disagreement with your assessment?
Ok, let's start with the inaccuracies and
bias.
It's not by any measure an appropriate or sufficient sanction – or the solution to the awful, grubby end to last week's Sydney derby – for the Wanderers' hierarchy to take steps to suspend the memberships of only 14 fans, for 18 months apiece.
Plainly, this was the Wanderers getting in first to lessen the pain the FFA would otherwise inflict upon the club. That the FFA's own sanctions handed down on Thursday amounted to a measly $20,000 fine, and imposing its own sanctioning process on the same 14 people, is weak.
Really? 14 fans banned for 18 months for an offensive banner, backed up by the FFA, and this is not enough?
What did he want? Jail terms?
And the sting in the tail is that the conditions of the suspended three-point sanction, imposed on the Wanderers last year because of the RBB's penchant for flares, ceased to apply two weeks' ago.
Ahhmmm, if he managed to check his facts, no it didn't. It was extended to the full season.
Make no mistake – this is proper gutter stuff; thuggery and filth parading under the guise of fandom. Whether the Wanderers club ever apologises itself, or on behalf of its insolent supporters misses the point – saying sorry fixes nothing. Likewise, issuing a trifling $20,000 fine inflicts no damage.
Is that like the apology The Cove came out with this week about the damage caused to ANZ stadium last week by their own fans?
http://forum.insidesport.com.au/2490321/The-Cove-issues-statement-apologising-for-postderby-antics
I see he did not mention this. If saying sorry fixes nothing, would it not be prudent to mention in the cause of impartiality the same for The Cove?
If the FFA actually had the fortitude it would have properly activated the provisions of its National Banning Regulations – introduced in 2016 as a response to scores of RBB "supporters" having a collective cry, because the governing body banned them from A-League matches with no obvious recourse for appeal. And NOT only in relation to the same 14 people the Wanderers already identified.
Firstly, it wasn't in relation to scores of RBB fans having a collective cry, as he now claims. It was the active fans of EVERY club that came together to demand a fair and due process of right to appeal. So, he's wrong again.
Secondly, he made the above bolded comment now, even though he penned this article in Decemeber, 2015, defending the rights of A-League fans to the right of an appeal....
http://www.smh.com.au/sport/soccer/...ns-cop-raw-deal-from-ffa-20151203-glf1zf.html
Hypocrite much?
What the FFA should do, and could do easily enough, is obtain all of the ANZ Stadium CCTV footage, and all of Fox Sports' video from its various camera angles, and all of the available data relating to which RBB members bought tickets to what seats for last Saturday's match. Then, the FFA could have identified every single person who had anything to do with the bringing in, unfurling and flagrantly displaying the defamatory banner in question, or celebrating its use.
Just another example of how little he knows about active support in this country. Nobody in active support sits in their allocated seats. It's standing, and first in best dressed, so to say. Yet he would have been happy for possibly 14 innocent people to be banned for 18 months, with no recourse for appeal yet, because the FFA still haven't put into place the correct conditions of the said appeals process? And to show my lack of bias, the same could be said for any of the ESFC fans unfairly charged (if it indeed eventually comes to fruition) with seat Frisbee and bottle throwing.
From the footage I've reviewed, the number is closer to 514, not 14.
Lol. That comment is so salty. Could someone please explain why he would say that comment?
As a rule I'm no proponent of blanket bans, because it's all too easy for innocent bystanders to get caught out unfairly.
More f**king lol. So where does that leave your 514 people banned comment? Particularly where your "identifying purchased seats" comment most likely wouldn't have been the people who purchased those seats? This is just becoming more laughable by the paragraph.
It isn't football; it's criminal. ANZ Stadium is a football ground, not the exercise yard at Silverwater Jail.
Ahhmm, still no mention of the vandalism by ESFC fans. Go figure?
Panadol is a surefire fix for a headache; it's useless at treating a brain tumour. The Red and Black Bloc isn't a stain on the game of football in Australia – it's a cancer, which will get worse.
.
And if we needed any more proof on his bias, he provided it himself in his closing sentence.
Of all the hysteria this week over what I have already stated previously was an offensive banner and the likes of which is uncalled for and banning actions should have (and indeed were) put into place, this indeed, was the worst article on the subject of all.
Good article my arse.
