Objectionable fan banner against Ashley

[amms 0]

I think some folk need to make a decision whether they are going to a match to support the team or to protest.....

 

I imagine the people with the banner felt they were trying to protect the club.

 

Most of the people I hear swearing are supporting the team, at least in their own way they are.

[simplythebest 0]

What do you feel was achieved by that?

 

No less than a rude banner would have. I'm generally skeptical about what fan protests can achieve anyway, even when people go on about the fans and Whyte, any boycott of season tickets etc would surely just have seen him take us into ruin earlier? Would he seriously have just reconsidered his plans because of some protest?

 

But you said yourself it's about people wanting to think they have a voice, and I just feel something like the Hampden march is a more appropriate way to go about it.

[Zappa 0]

The point you highlighted in my post, who decides what can and can't be waved, displayed or chanted, that point. My reading of your reply was that you feel no one can. That felt like dodging it to me.

 

I didn't dodge it and I didn't say I feel that no one can. What I pointed out is that for various reasons no one will. I wasn't talking about chanting or singing either, just banners or items displaying messages such as the one in question. As I said, I think the club should be the decision maker on what's acceptable and what's not, but I don't think the club will be willing to take the risk of confiscating or asking for the removal of such banners and messages. The risk to the club is clearly one of losing customers.

 

It could be argued that selling the name of the stadium, an act being done mainly by Charles Green, someone who doesn't support the club, has only been at the club for a matter of months and who has himself explained that he'll leave soon with a lot of money, is unfair to the club. The banner is expressing a sentiment that a number of people agree with and a number don't. But it is fair comment, it isn't unfair on the club, it is reminding the club how some feel about it.

 

You're correct, but the issue can be argued from multiple stand/view points. For example, one alternative viewpoint is that a lot of fans were complaining about the service provided by JJB for years due to poor stocking and displaying of our kits in their stores. When you consider that point and the fact that the club have now done the deal with SD, it could indeed be considered a bit unfair to the club that fans are turning up with banners such as this.

 

It's extremely difficult to say what's right and what's wrong (if there even are such black and whites) though because for a kick off, we don't know the full details of the SD deal and we don't know whether it's a good deal for the club or not. We also don't know whether Ashley's involvement is going to be a good thing for the club or not.

[amms 0]

Ah, Zappa, you write well, but I'm really not sure the difference between can and will. Okay, I don't see why banners are treated differently from songs/chants and I'm not sure club directors are the correct arbiters of taste in this.

 

I've no particular axe to grind with Sports Direct, I'm just not sure the club should censor supporters who do, however misguided.

[Zappa 0]

Ah, Zappa, you write well, but I'm really not sure the difference between can and will. Okay, I don't see why banners are treated differently from songs/chants and I'm not sure club directors are the correct arbiters of taste in this.

 

I've no particular axe to grind with Sports Direct, I'm just not sure the club should censor supporters who do, however misguided.

 

Oh, I don't think Green & co should be the arbiters of taste in this, but there's already people working for the club such as Jim Hannah & David Martin who liaise with fan group reps.

 

As for the censorship issue in general (of this type of banner message), I'm undecided in all honesty, but it's a bit of a moot point really because as I said previously, I don't think anything will be done beyond discussions such as this.

[der Berliner 3,263]

I asked about Hertha's ownership because I understood German clubs have a very different ownership structure than Rangers and most other British clubs. Aren't they owned by their supporters with no one person having control? I could well be wrong about that.

 

That being the case then supporters can actually affect change and influence decisions in a very real way. there is no real need to take banners in, they have a voice and it is listened too. That's not the case here, supporters are usually marginalised and often disaffected. As such sometimes protesting inside the ground is the only way to make your voice heard.

 

Man City fans unfurled a banner at Arsenal a few weeks ago regarding the price of the away tickets. It contained no swearing, it was removed by stewards on the instruction of the police. In my book that's just wrong, like the other night this type of protest is often the voice supporters have.

 

German football fans may at various clubs have a word in the way the club is run, but those decisions are made at AGMs et al, when e.g. the president et al are voted for. They have e.g. by default no influence about who is appointed as manager or with which companies sponsorship deals are being done or not. Usually, if supporters raise concerns, they are listened to. Most clubs' prsedients are former players or managers of the clubs too and thus know what their support "thinks" about certain topics. But that does not touch the topic at hand, i.e. the use of swear words et al on banners. Half a dozen home games with loud cries like "*insert manager's name* out!" usually gives a German board the clue.

 

Again, as I said above, if the banners are not offensive, they should stay in place. It all depends on the people supervising a certain game and what the respective club's "house rule" says. There is a lot of grey area here, but Tuesday's sample simply did not belong into a football ground.