Exclusion of a fan following incident at Brighton v Crystal Palace 27/09/11 [Merged]

[Dick Knights Mumm]

In many ways I am agreeing with most of what you say, ie there shouldn't be retribution but there are certain issues that need to be addressed, possibly additional training for the steward (which may or may not already have been done) and as previously mentioned protocols for dealing with disputes in the future. I don't think the club were forced into making changes as I'm not sure the IFO have that authority but if they had kept the status quo then that would make them look even worse.

"protocols for dealing with disputes in the future" - these should have been in place - this type of process should have been in place at Withdean. The Albion did not start at the Amex.

" I don't think the club were forced into making changes as I'm not sure the IFO have that authority but if they had kept the status quo then that would make them look even worse. " - just makes no sense on any level.

 

[Acker79]

It seems like some of you are arguing that water is wet, and the other that the sky is blue.

I have no comment on Hebbard's position. But I do agree an important aspect of this whole situation is that the club have learned from their mistake. The report referenced the change in procedure, so it must have come about before the ruling, not as a result of it. Whether Hebbard's position is untenable or not and that the club have now changed their procedure are not mutually exclusive. It's not one or the other, but it's like some of you are trying to make it so to win an argument you don't need to have.

As for the initial incident, I don't know much about it, so will only say, I don't think I would get so worked up about opposing fans celebrating their team's success over us that I confront them about it, even for palace. By most accounts, it seems the majority of people managed to file out of the stand without confronting him, too.

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

It seems like some of you are arguing that water is wet, and the other that the sky is blue.

I have no comment on Hebbard's position. But I do agree an important aspect of this whole situation is that the club have learned from their mistake. The report referenced the change in procedure, so it must have come about before the ruling, not as a result of it. Whether Hebbard's position is untenable or not and that the club have now changed their procedure are not mutually exclusive. It's not one or the other, but it's like some of you are trying to make it so to win an argument you don't need to have.

As for the initial incident, I don't know much about it, so will only say, I don't think I would get so worked up about opposing fans celebrating their team's success over us that I confront them about it, even for palace. By most accounts, it seems the majority of people managed to file out of the stand without confronting him, too.

Well your a better Man than me Acker. If a Palace fan was larging it, in an area where I thought would be BHAFC exclusive in a very emotive situation when I was pissed off about about my team's abject performance I would not have punched them as I have never punched a person in my life but I would have turned around and told them to f*ck off in no uncertain terms. Are you seriously telling me you would go to the Palace exclusive hospitality area when BHAFC were playing and give it large there in front of Palace fans if we won ?

 

[tedebear]

I think a comment from the club is in order. It probably won't answer anything but at least they should acknowledge that we as a club have been taken to the IFO and what we will change as a result of it.

Personally I'd like to understand the structure of stewarding / security in relation to the Director of Football Operations. If the report from the IFO is accurate it shows that complaint handing needs to be done by someone with experience and efficiency and separate to the day to day running of the stadium. The operating model needs ammending for the new stadium environment.

 

[Bozza]

Well your a better Man than me Acker. If a Palace fan was larging it, in an area where I thought would be BHAFC exclusive

You wouldn't think it to be a BHA exclusive area though - the club have made it abundantly clear that the 1901 club permits, nay encourages, the use of tickets for hospitality purposes and, as such, there is always the chance of opposing supporters being present there.

Are you seriously telling me you would go to the Palace exclusive hospitality area when BHAFC were playing and give it large there in front of Palace fans if we won ?

Again, in most stadia the hospitality areas are not exclusively for home fan use. A number of NSCers make use of away hospitality from time to time. At Liverpool, for example, it was made very clear that Albion fans could use the hospitality facilities. And, at the return leg at Selhurst Park, our very own [MENTION=236]Papa Lazarou[/MENTION] was in Palace hospitality for the evening.

Now, don't get me wrong - when you are in these situations you should act with respect and keep emotions in check to a degree - I'm not disputing any of that. I am merely saying that everyone who bought into the 1901 club should have been aware that opposing fans will be present from time to time.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

What was a gloating palace fan doing there in the first place ?

Therein lies the fundamental problem.

As I read it, the 1901 Club was originally imagined by the Club to be a relatively small area of the stadium, where premium "customers" would pay premium prices for a classy matchday experience. They would be encouraged to bring guests and the guests would be treated like the business associates of a premium customer. No rules were envisaged to exclude away supporters, because premium customers and their chums will always behave themselves impeccably.

However ... what actually happened was that the 1901 Club turned out to be like the rest of the stadium - a place that is populated by passionate football supporters, who are not in the slightest bit interested in being "premium customers". And many of them simply don't get the idea that "away fans are welcome here".

Business culture meets football culture. It's no surprise that this presents issues. This episode is one such.

 

[hola gus]

Were they though Bozza? The people I know in 1901 have said they had no idea when purchasing 1901 that they would be mixing with away fans

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

Opposing fans are argueably ok , although I don't agree with that overall. A gloating Palace fan most certainly is not.

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

Therein lies the fundamental problem.

As I read it, the 1901 Club was originally imagined by the Club to be a relatively small area of the stadium, where premium "customers" would pay premium prices for a classy matchday experience. They would be encouraged to bring guests and the guests would be treated like the business associates of a premium customer. No rules were envisaged to exclude away supporters, because premium customers and their chums will always behave themselves impeccably.

However ... what actually happened was that the 1901 Club turned out to be like the rest of the stadium - a place that is populated by passionate football supporters, who are not in the slightest bit interested in being "premium customers". And many of them simply don't get the idea that "away fans are welcome here".

Business culture meets football culture. It's no surprise that this presents issues. This episode is one such.

I think the 1901 should be BHAFC exclusive.

 

[Acker79]

Well your a better Man than me Acker. If a Palace fan was larging it, in an area where I thought would be BHAFC exclusive in a very emotive situation when I was pissed off about about my team's abject performance I would not have punched them as I have never punched a person in my life but I would have turned around and told them to f*ck off in no uncertain terms. Are you seriously telling me you would go to the Palace exclusive hospitality area when BHAFC were playing and give it large there in front of Palace fans if we won ?

I wouldn't. But that doesn't go against my not confronting someone who does. I'm not saying the guy was right for enjoying his teams success over us in the corporate hospitality section of the ground, I'm just saying I wouldn't feel so aggrieved by it I felt the need to confront him.

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

I wouldn't. But that doesn't go against my not confronting someone who does. I'm not saying the guy was right for enjoying his teams success over us in the corporate hospitality section of the ground, I'm just saying I wouldn't feel so aggrieved by it I felt the need to confront him.

We are both overall passive people. I have never been violent in my life but on numerous occassions and in the heat of the moment, the opposing fans are the enemy , especially Palace fans. That's just the way it is. After the 90 minutes is over however I would share a pint with any fan even including a Palace fan if there was some mutual respect.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

I think the 1901 should be BHAFC exclusive.

But it's not. And it was never intended to be. And it's too late to change this.

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

But it's not. And it was never intended to be. And it's too late to change this.

Why is it too late to change this Lord ?

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Why is it too late to change this Lord ?

Because a good few 1900 Club members have signed up to this and the Club won't want to alienate them. Not everyone buys into the "premium customer" bollocks, but some do.

 

[cjd]

It seems like some of you are arguing that water is wet, and the other that the sky is blue.

I have no comment on Hebbard's position. But I do agree an important aspect of this whole situation is that the club have learned from their mistake. The report referenced the change in procedure, so it must have come about before the ruling, not as a result of it. Whether Hebbard's position is untenable or not and that the club have now changed their procedure are not mutually exclusive.

I,m not arguing about whether the 'water is wet' or that 'the sky is blue'.

I,m not arguing about whether 'away' fans should be in the 1901 area.

I,m not arguing about who did what to whom in the 'incident'....(albeit, the Palace fan, the off-duty policeman, the steward and Mr.Hebberd have clearly been,( from the report) somewhat economical with the truth.

My 'argument' as such, is the part played by Mr. Hebberd. You call the way it was handled by the club (effectively in this case, Mr.Hebberd)...'a mistake'....hmmmmmmmmmm. Mr. Hebberd is not, to my knowledge, a young man learning his trade. Mr.Hebberd, to my knowledge, is an 'experienced' employee of the club, with a history of football fans involvement. Mr. Hebberd was surely responsible for the manner in which disputes for these cases are handled. Having met Mr. Hebberd in the past and spoken to him 2-3 times, he strikes me as a person entrenched in his own values. I have to say, his values re; these issues are far, far removed from mine.....and indeed in the society of required transparency, that we live in today.

You cannot teach an old dog new tricks.

 

[tedebear]

I think the 1901 should be BHAFC exclusive.

In order to attract corporates I don't think that would work?

I think the problem is, that the 1901 ticket price was not high enough to ensure that it would be corporates only, so you have corporates, mixing with more affluent families and of both of those the ability to lend their tickets without question. So situations like these are going to happen. Its inevitable.

I return to my previous point though in that the management and stewards should be trained to cope with this possibility. We aren't at Withdean anymore.

 

[Acker79]

I,m not arguing about whether the 'water is wet' or that 'the sky is blue'.

I,m not arguing about whether 'away' fans should be in the 1901 area.

I,m not arguing about who did what to whom in the 'incident'....(albeit, the Palace fan, the off-duty policeman, the steward and Mr.Hebberd have clearly been,( from the report) somewhat economical with the truth.

My 'argument' as such, is the part played by Mr. Hebberd. You call the way it was handled by the club (effectively in this case, Mr.Hebberd)...'a mistake'....hmmmmmmmmmm. Mr. Hebberd is not, to my knowledge, a young man learning his trade. Mr.Hebberd, to my knowledge, is an 'experienced' employee of the club, with a history of football fans involvement. Mr. Hebberd was surely responsible for the manner in which disputes for these cases are handled. Having met Mr. Hebberd in the past and spoken to him 2-3 times, he strikes me as a person entrenched in his own values. I have to say, his values re; these issues are far, far removed from mine.....and indeed in the society of required transparency, that we live in today.

You cannot teach an old dog new tricks.

OK, but that isn't contradictory to the fact the club has changed how they will handle things in the future, which is Drew's position. 'It can be both' is my point.

 

[cjd]

OK, but that isn't contradictory to the fact the club has changed how they will handle things in the future, which is Drew's position. 'It can be both' is my point.

Did you read the post by the person who went as witness to the signing of the ABO....? With the greatest of respect, it appears to me from the report, that the club has agreed with the IFO.....ONLY after having been brought, kicking and screaming to the table. If the witness account of the signing of the ABO is remotely correct, then it appears to me.......that this is not a willing agreement by Mr.Hebberd.

We have seen on THIS FORUM, how Mr.Hebberd re-acted when criticised in the past. Spite was his response.

While he remains in the Clubs employ.....I fully expect the same from him, in one guise or another.

His position is untenable.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

In what way? That fact that I don't think Hebberd should be sacked for this? If there are no changes and the same thing happens again then yes he should go. If changes are implemented (and one already has been) and a fairer more transparent procedure adopted then no, he shouldn't go.

It shouldn't have happened in the first place - i.e. the lack of valid procedure by the club. To then take an off duty police officers word over a number of witnesses is unforgivable and reminiscent of Free Mason membership. I say this despite the fact I've worked with RH and found him to be reasonable and fair. In this case he made a complete and utter f*** up and in many companies would have been sacked. Why should such a blatant miscarriage be acceptable just as long as the club have changed their procedures since ?

 

[Albion Dan]

You should think about what drivel you post. So you're suggesting that when the complainant had 'words' with the palace fan, Hebberd was immediately on to it and got his off duty buddy to intervene straight away to.

If you read the report the off duty policemans statement was taken LONG after the event. Hmmmm.