• Posts

    • September 30, 2016    Durham United FA    2    North Toronto Nitros    3   
      my take on the game at:   http://www.rocketrobinsoccerintoronto.com/reports16/16l1o069.htm
    • yup, agree with Jambo on this one ... the specifics of TFC -V- Inebriatti and the whys, whos, and whats of this particular incident are between those two to resolve (or not) ... As mentioned in a few posts they have walked a fine line between adhering to or breaking the rules and have come down on both sides of that line with regularity ..... However, if this second portion that Gary refers to makes it into the supporters code of conduct then you are living in cloud cuckoo land if you don't think it will be made applicable to all supporters across the south end and could and would be invoked inconsistently solely at the whim of the club, making us all subject to collective responsibility for the actions of random folk who may or may not identify themselves as U-Sector (or any other SG) as and when they felt like it. I feel this is something the club would keep in the arsenal to use when they need a sacrificial offering to appease social media or league outrage for some future indiscretions where punishing only the actual culprits would not be seen as sufficient. You could say this only means the first five or six rows of 113 would be affected as thats where the majority of those who identify as U-Sector stand, but there are plenty of "us" higher up in the section too. The whole section has seats that we know are regularly sold, scalped, or given away as well as a ton of folk who just push their way in at virtually every game so there is no way to know which category those who were getting belligerent and broke seats on Wednesday fell into ... or anyone who does so in future. The only way to tell who it is, is to have security to do their jobs and also to make use of the "enhanced" security cameras that Larson mentioned in his 'article' and identify them. They know every face in the south end supporters sections and every one of us has at one point or another seen swarms of security going into rows where no-one even knew something had happened to pull folk out for some indiscretion or another .... its not like they do not have the capability or the means to do it. From experience I also have to say that most of the "differences of opinion" I have viewed in 113 over the years have involved "tourists" either getting shitfaced and arguing amongst themselves or having a go at regulars for one reason or another and that's something security have to deal with. Most of the regulars (affiliated or not) have been there for 10 years and in your own littleportion of the stand you tend to either know people to see or to talk to so conflict is not an everyday thing. Even the newcomers who have maybe been there for less time but are still there regularly are typically there because they have some connection through friends, colleagues or have managed to get seasons in there too so they are not a factor in any hassle either !  
    • Absolutely agree 100% with this Gary. The legalese they are pushing (or will push) on us going forward is vague enough that there is so much room for interpretation of what constitutes a violation of the 'rules' to essentially mean tha the club is given a carte blanche not just to enforce whatever behaviour that they wish to but that they can mandate CULTURE.  Rollins did an excellent take on this on his podcast today (Sportspodcastingnetwork.com) where he stated that he feels that this is a wedge that will start to see things like mandatory supporters group registrations and having those lists given to the club... stuff like that start to take place. Jambo has it right on the nose here. the two stick is a fucking red herring at this point, its about the collective responsibility they are shoving down our gizzards here that has to be stopped. 
    • Is the entire 113 allocated to U-Sector?  It is my understanding that the group responsibility only extends to the group-allocated seats.    Also, wrt San Jose, isn't it a smoke bomb vs FAA (airport regulations) issue?
    • What was the outcome of the game? Oh, still 0-0? Oh, we had a man sent off after the cheering started? Settle down with the Science, boys. Again, two issues are being conflated. Inebriatti intends to continue their protest until the club backs down on implementing Article 2. My position on this is, AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN, that if they get stuck with Article 2, all SGs will (and there is evidence of it being imposed on other SGs at other teams). The club imposing SG privilege restrictions on Inebriatti is between them and the club, as it has been when we have had members sanctioned in the past. This will make us subject to punishment for the behaviour of random assholes who happen to be in 113, scalper tickets, whatever. Now, you can say that you don't believe Santa MLSE will do that to nice children like us, and I suggest that you are fucking dreaming. I believe that the imposition of section 2 of the code of conduct is OUR issue. How can you think they would re-write the code of conduct and then apply it to just one group? There's evidence of the same language being used in San Jose. Now, you can say you don't care. If some dickwad behaves badly and sanctions are imposed against U-Sector (up to and including denial of entry to the stadium, potentially?), you'll just ride it out. Sure, your call. I make it a habit to oppose this kind of draconian bullshit when I have the opportunity, and that is why I won't be making noise or buying crap in the stadium until the Code of Conduct issue is resolved.  The actual sanctions themselves that have been/were placed on Inebriatti is not my issue here, that's between them and the club, and they are dealing with it. It is the principle of the change to the code, making our group (and all SGs) responsible for every last fuckhead in 113 that I'm opposing. If that doesn't bother you enough to do anything about it, that's your perogative.
  • Posts

    • September 30, 2016    Durham United FA    2    North Toronto Nitros    3   
      my take on the game at:   http://www.rocketrobinsoccerintoronto.com/reports16/16l1o069.htm
    • yup, agree with Jambo on this one ... the specifics of TFC -V- Inebriatti and the whys, whos, and whats of this particular incident are between those two to resolve (or not) ... As mentioned in a few posts they have walked a fine line between adhering to or breaking the rules and have come down on both sides of that line with regularity ..... However, if this second portion that Gary refers to makes it into the supporters code of conduct then you are living in cloud cuckoo land if you don't think it will be made applicable to all supporters across the south end and could and would be invoked inconsistently solely at the whim of the club, making us all subject to collective responsibility for the actions of random folk who may or may not identify themselves as U-Sector (or any other SG) as and when they felt like it. I feel this is something the club would keep in the arsenal to use when they need a sacrificial offering to appease social media or league outrage for some future indiscretions where punishing only the actual culprits would not be seen as sufficient. You could say this only means the first five or six rows of 113 would be affected as thats where the majority of those who identify as U-Sector stand, but there are plenty of "us" higher up in the section too. The whole section has seats that we know are regularly sold, scalped, or given away as well as a ton of folk who just push their way in at virtually every game so there is no way to know which category those who were getting belligerent and broke seats on Wednesday fell into ... or anyone who does so in future. The only way to tell who it is, is to have security to do their jobs and also to make use of the "enhanced" security cameras that Larson mentioned in his 'article' and identify them. They know every face in the south end supporters sections and every one of us has at one point or another seen swarms of security going into rows where no-one even knew something had happened to pull folk out for some indiscretion or another .... its not like they do not have the capability or the means to do it. From experience I also have to say that most of the "differences of opinion" I have viewed in 113 over the years have involved "tourists" either getting shitfaced and arguing amongst themselves or having a go at regulars for one reason or another and that's something security have to deal with. Most of the regulars (affiliated or not) have been there for 10 years and in your own littleportion of the stand you tend to either know people to see or to talk to so conflict is not an everyday thing. Even the newcomers who have maybe been there for less time but are still there regularly are typically there because they have some connection through friends, colleagues or have managed to get seasons in there too so they are not a factor in any hassle either !  
    • Absolutely agree 100% with this Gary. The legalese they are pushing (or will push) on us going forward is vague enough that there is so much room for interpretation of what constitutes a violation of the 'rules' to essentially mean tha the club is given a carte blanche not just to enforce whatever behaviour that they wish to but that they can mandate CULTURE.  Rollins did an excellent take on this on his podcast today (Sportspodcastingnetwork.com) where he stated that he feels that this is a wedge that will start to see things like mandatory supporters group registrations and having those lists given to the club... stuff like that start to take place. Jambo has it right on the nose here. the two stick is a fucking red herring at this point, its about the collective responsibility they are shoving down our gizzards here that has to be stopped. 
    • Is the entire 113 allocated to U-Sector?  It is my understanding that the group responsibility only extends to the group-allocated seats.    Also, wrt San Jose, isn't it a smoke bomb vs FAA (airport regulations) issue?
    • What was the outcome of the game? Oh, still 0-0? Oh, we had a man sent off after the cheering started? Settle down with the Science, boys. Again, two issues are being conflated. Inebriatti intends to continue their protest until the club backs down on implementing Article 2. My position on this is, AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN, that if they get stuck with Article 2, all SGs will (and there is evidence of it being imposed on other SGs at other teams). The club imposing SG privilege restrictions on Inebriatti is between them and the club, as it has been when we have had members sanctioned in the past. This will make us subject to punishment for the behaviour of random assholes who happen to be in 113, scalper tickets, whatever. Now, you can say that you don't believe Santa MLSE will do that to nice children like us, and I suggest that you are fucking dreaming. I believe that the imposition of section 2 of the code of conduct is OUR issue. How can you think they would re-write the code of conduct and then apply it to just one group? There's evidence of the same language being used in San Jose. Now, you can say you don't care. If some dickwad behaves badly and sanctions are imposed against U-Sector (up to and including denial of entry to the stadium, potentially?), you'll just ride it out. Sure, your call. I make it a habit to oppose this kind of draconian bullshit when I have the opportunity, and that is why I won't be making noise or buying crap in the stadium until the Code of Conduct issue is resolved.  The actual sanctions themselves that have been/were placed on Inebriatti is not my issue here, that's between them and the club, and they are dealing with it. It is the principle of the change to the code, making our group (and all SGs) responsible for every last fuckhead in 113 that I'm opposing. If that doesn't bother you enough to do anything about it, that's your perogative.