Bossorange 696 Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 Guilty till proven innocent Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForeverAndEver 71,505 Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 Just now, Blue1872 said: Sorry I don't understand you here, are you saying you agree if it's one supporter then the club have the rights to ban but if it's more then they don't ? No, you said "In the defence of the club why should they allow a supporter who has entered the pitch, the potential to be cautioned or charged by the police represent them as a fan at other grounds again when this type of person is a clear risk to the club." It's happened once after a major incident, how are they a clear risk? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dude 20,026 Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 3 minutes ago, Inigo said: Disagree. They could have done it differently and protected that part of the image whilst behaving more reasonably. Something akin to what RFC52 mentioned in some earlier post somewhere. They should have shown that they wouldn't tolerate violence whilst being more reasonable. I think the Board have some smart guys on it. I think they could have achieved that if they'd thought about it. Unless they're doing this for some other reason and they had thought about it, but decided to go down this route anyway. But if so the real politic stuff doesn't cut it for me when it comes to dealing with individuals fairly. The kind of sacrificial lambs mentioned above aren't great for the club's image either. I don't disagree they could have done things more reasonable. One wee thing that's been missed is this hasn't come from the board. It's come from head of security. I'd be surprised if the board knew much more than some fans arrested wrt the final had been banned. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
K.A.I 36,183 Posted July 27, 2016 Author Share Posted July 27, 2016 4 minutes ago, Inigo said: Disagree. They could have done it differently and protected that part of the image whilst behaving more reasonably. Something akin to what RFC52 mentioned in some earlier post somewhere. They should have shown that they wouldn't tolerate violence whilst being more reasonable. I think the Board have some smart guys on it. I think they could have achieved that if they'd thought about it. Unless they're doing this for some other reason and they had thought about it, but decided to go down this route anyway. But if so the real politic stuff doesn't cut it for me when it comes to dealing with individuals fairly. The kind of sacrificial lambs mentioned above aren't great for the club's image either. Maybe I'm easy pleased but you know what I think could have happened to avoid all this ... the guys that got the letters, in the old days the letters included a phone number/personal extension to phone .. you phoned it and arranged a meeting inside Ibrox a time that suited you and then the head of security (with the directive from above ala Robertson) could then say something along the lines of "look, it's nothing too personal ... we are doing this, here's why, hope you understand ... we gotta do what we gotta do in spite of our earlier statement" ... I'd actually be proud of my club if they went out their way to do that one little thing and spoke to you like a human being instead of hung, drawn and quartereing you in a cowardly manner like they have, Inigo, gmcf and bombaybadboy08 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
siddiqi_drinker 14,635 Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 Just now, Blue1872 said: I don't know I never wrote the club statement. I'm taking my view from the ban letter that's been sent. Did you read the club statement ? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'Artagnan 13,319 Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 Just now, Blue1872 said: I don't know I never wrote the club statement. I'm taking my view from the ban letter that's been sent. Yes but you are defending the right of the club to ban supporters for encroaching onto the park when the club themselves have already issued a statement defending/justifying the fans who did so. Ozblue 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
K.A.I 36,183 Posted July 27, 2016 Author Share Posted July 27, 2016 Just now, The Dude said: I don't disagree they could have done things more reasonable. One wee thing that's been missed is this hasn't come from the board. It's come from head of security. I'd be surprised if the board knew much more than some fans arrested wrt the final had been banned. The head of security get's his directive from Rangers, specifically Robertson. I know you never believe a word I say but trust me. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue1872 11 Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 3 minutes ago, K.A.I said: Another really low post counter that pops up ... that's half a dozen or you's now. Hmmm. What's the correct amount of posts I can post before its ok to express my views/opinions mate? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue1872 11 Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 1 minute ago, D'Artagnan said: Yes but you are defending the right of the club to ban supporters for encroaching onto the park when the club themselves have already issued a statement defending/justifying the fans who did so. Then that's a contradiction of the club, not me mate. I'm only saying they they are within their rights to ban the fans for an incident like this that's all. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
born a blue nose 90,786 Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 2 minutes ago, Blue1872 said: What's the correct amount of posts I can post before its ok to express my views/opinions mate? 1690 bluenose1975 and Blue1872 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
K.A.I 36,183 Posted July 27, 2016 Author Share Posted July 27, 2016 2 minutes ago, Blue1872 said: What's the correct amount of posts I can post before its ok to express my views/opinions mate? 1690. Blue1872 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post gogzy 31,195 Posted July 27, 2016 Popular Post Share Posted July 27, 2016 22 minutes ago, CoplandStandBear said: The club disagrees that's why it is banning them. The club issued a statement after the match saying that they understood the fans actions and they only acted under severe provocation and in an attempt to protect fans and players. They are now banning two people for doing exactly that. Hypocrisy of the highest order. Courtyard Bear, K.A.I, D'Artagnan and 5 others 8 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Inigo 32,533 Posted July 27, 2016 Popular Post Share Posted July 27, 2016 2 minutes ago, K.A.I said: Maybe I'm easy pleased but you know what I think could have happened to avoid all this ... the guys that got the letters, in the old days the letters included a phone number/personal extension to phone .. you phoned it and arranged a meeting inside Ibrox a time that suited you and then the head of security (with the directive from above ala Robertson) could then say something along the lines of "look, it's nothing too personal ... we are doing this, here's why, hope you understand ... we gotta do what we gotta do in spite of our earlier statement" ... I'd actually be proud of my club if they went out their way to do that one little thing and spoke to you like a human being instead of hung, drawn and quartereing you in a cowardly manner like they have, That's the problem when you start to act more like a company than a club. Companies are normally pretty shit in communicating with people in my experience. Mostly because they don't actually care about you. Anyway, over to the board to communicate with their head of security and get this dealt with more reasonably. Courtyard Bear, D'Artagnan, Ozblue and 2 others 5 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
born a blue nose 90,786 Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 Too slow Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoplandStandBear 995 Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 15 minutes ago, K.A.I said: But they haven't or at least in a final sense the way rangers have done - how many do you need this explaining to you? Well Rangers do and you know that before you buy a book. Hibs will more than likely get round to it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dude 20,026 Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 5 minutes ago, K.A.I said: The head of security get's his directive from Rangers, specifically Robertson. I know you never believe a word I say but trust me. I don't dispute an member of senior management takes his instructions from the chief executive. Although if folk at that level need spoon-fed at every turn there's a serious problem with the mangement team within Ibrox. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
K.A.I 36,183 Posted July 27, 2016 Author Share Posted July 27, 2016 2 minutes ago, CoplandStandBear said: Well Rangers do and you know that before you buy a book. Hibs will more than likely get round to it. Agree with you there. As I said, you'd be mental to buy a Rangers season ticket if that's how they treat you. No argument from me. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoplandStandBear 995 Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 16 minutes ago, siddiqi_drinker said: You do fukking realise that GETTING ARRESTED does not automatically mean you are guilty or that in fact you have done anything wrong. As I said earlier the club have been premature. It said on the letter in black and white you get arrested you brought the club into disrepute you get banned. The club won't give two fucks about what excuses you're dreaming up and neither do the millionaire players. Acting a hardman gets you fuck all. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue1872 11 Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 11 minutes ago, ForeverAndEver said: No, you said "In the defence of the club why should they allow a supporter who has entered the pitch, the potential to be cautioned or charged by the police represent them as a fan at other grounds again when this type of person is a clear risk to the club." It's happened once after a major incident, how are they a clear risk? If they have entered the pitch once then they are more of a risk than a person who hasn't, so they are a risk to do this again. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRITNEY IS NOT FEELING IT 8,293 Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 Absolutely unreal reading that , what happened to "Innocent till proven guilty" As for the withdrawal of ST without refund , as others have mentioned ,it'll be tucked away in the terms and conditions somewhere , still worth reading over it , could be a loophole Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
K.A.I 36,183 Posted July 27, 2016 Author Share Posted July 27, 2016 3 minutes ago, Blue1872 said: If they have entered the pitch once then they are more of a risk than a person who hasn't, so they are a risk to do this again. why does this keep getting said? the one who's been treated harshest has denied entering the pitch and not been tried for it yet. I keep seeing the same thing churned out "but he was on the pitch" ... no that's no been established gogzy 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue1872 11 Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 2 minutes ago, K.A.I said: why does this keep getting said? the one who's been treated harshest has denied entering the pitch and not been tried for it yet. I keep seeing the same thing churned out "but he was on the pitch" ... no that's no been established I wasn't aware of this, I've read through this thread not the other one and haven't seen this or possibly missed it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
K.A.I 36,183 Posted July 27, 2016 Author Share Posted July 27, 2016 Just now, Blue1872 said: I wasn't aware of this, I've read through this thread not the other one and haven't seen this or possibly missed it. Fair do's was speaking more generally anyway Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoplandStandBear 995 Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 21 minutes ago, gogzy said: The club issued a statement after the match saying that they understood the fans actions and they only acted under severe provocation and in an attempt to protect fans and players. They are now banning two people for doing exactly that. Hypocrisy of the highest order. The club obviously changed their mind when folk started pleading guilty and they saw what the case against them was like. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
K.A.I 36,183 Posted July 27, 2016 Author Share Posted July 27, 2016 2 minutes ago, CoplandStandBear said: The club obviously changed their mind when folk started pleading guilty and they saw what the case against them was like. OK then Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.