Football Media Discussion 2

[wendybr]

51 minutes ago, mack said:

Because they haven't taken any steps to actually support fans. If they ever cared about fans in general they'd never push for 7pm Sunday timeslots.

You're talking about management I think Mack??

Whereas I'm talking about the commentators, whom I feel warmly towards.

[mack]

Whatever the commentators say doesn't translate to what Fox Sports as a whole does in any meaningful way.

[wendybr]

10 hours ago, btron3000 said:

Wendy, you asked me a while back about why flares and active support had to be intertwined (something like that).  I can't answer for Legia or those closer to the people who actually rip (or ripped) flares (to remind you, I stand in RBB but don't know the main players), but I can answer your question with another question.  Think about the people that you have sat near in the stands. Ask yourself whether they will get up and encourage a whole area of people around them to sing and chant and jump when the team is down 0-3 in the rain at home?

The simplest reasons for why the two are related are:

a) it's part of football culture

b) you cannot expect to have thousands of people who want to jump and sing and go crazy and not expect some to "take it too far" (inverted commas here because I don't think it is too far of course!). The types of people creating "active support" are more likely to be the type who either rip flares or encourage and support their ripping. I, of course, am the latter - my days of getting arrested are over (I hope!).

The comments about the outrage are correct, primarily because the football media didn't start being outraged until the mainstream media did, and the mainstream media used flares as the very visual representation of their outrage (which was more protecting their own sports than actually hating on flares, as we have seen when flares turn up at their sports).

When we beat Uruguay in 05, there were a couple of flares when Bresc scored the goal in the home leg that took the tie to 1-1. All Simon Hill says in commentary is "there's a real buzz aroud the stadium" or something like that. As soon as it became an issue with mainstream media, the football commentators - who, let's remember, get paid to sit in comfy seats to watch the game, unlike the huddled masses on the terraces - jumped on the bandwagon, in most cases only because they thought it would be better for the sport's image to not have flares, and the ridiculous hooligan comparisons that come with them, showing up in the media .

What they clearly couldn't see - and what football supporters all over Australia tried to tell everyone - was that by using complete heavy-handedness to remove the "rogue element", they were going to ruin the atmosphere and thus take away the advantage that football has over other sports. Even looking at it from a business perspective, which clearly the FFA tries to do (not very well), in a league where the best players are all on the other side of the planet, the atmosphere was the A-league's biggest competitive advantage. We could have had proper football culture AND a business advantage.

Now they've gone and killed it and everyone would rather have it back. But how can they allow it now the horse has bolted and every media person will be on to it. And, more importantly, are those in positions of power willing to say what you just did? Are they willing to accept a few problems with authorities so that the league can get its atmosphere back? I doubt it.

Right from the start they should have done what the AFL do when they have crowd issues - publicly condemn it, say they're going to weed out the troublemakers causing issues for their sport (instead of basically admitting the sport has a problem), go on the attack by showing that violence at a-league is below other sports, and then do nothing to the flare-rippers. Maybe find and ban the odd one here and there just to look like they are doing something. NOT send in undercover security and ban people for ridiculous nothings.

Thank you Btron - that's a really great post!

Two forumites gave me  personal accounts of their connection with/appreciation of flares as part of football culture...some time after the flare debates had subsided, which I appreciated, and which helped me to somewhat understand the previously unfathomable!

With or without flares, when we get back to Parra,  I hope some semblance of what we once had will return.

If pride and passion for our new home and a hopefully decent team, mixed in with a capo, drums and a trumpet, tifos, movement, flags, clapping hands (up)  and voices can't recapture something of what we had, it will be very sad. 

 

[wendybr]

9 minutes ago, mack said:

Whatever the commentators say doesn't translate to what Fox Sports as a whole does in any meaningful way.

No - of course.

Sorry - I was on a different track to yours earlier.

[Hughesy]

Maybe now that a member of the FFA’s own media team has allegedly been involved first hand with stadium security heavy handedness , we may see some action? Or a statement? Or anything... yeah nah

Maybe the day that David Gallop gets pushed by a security guard or told to get down off a chair, we may see some action???

 

[StringerBellend]

On the flares thing I get the season 1 and 2 nirvana of flarefest was never going to be able to continue (safety, media perception etc)

But (and I hope I don’t sound like a tosser) but the beauty of the RBB (and other active groups like the NT) was (is) the somewhat anarchic, edgey, uncontrolled element.The flares being the most visible part of it. The flares raise a lot attention (which is their originally designed purpose). 

I don’t know if active support “needs” flares but to create the excitement and feel of the early days then it needs to be “on the edge”, and somewhat out of control of “The Man” the consequence of that is somebody will let of a flare (or 10) 

From somebody largely outside of the pressure of over policing, bans, fines hanging over clubs head, SOP being a hole, has lead to the loss of that “edge”

Basically it is the difference between being The Clash, or Mark E Smith to being Coldplay and Chris Martin.

Cove seemed to have taken an approach of a working within the boundaries which is all very sensible but it does mean that they feel more like Coldplay shooting a video in Newtown to show their indie rock credentials than actual rebellion, it’s kind of like Guy Sebastian doing a Public Enemy cover 

did I manage to jam enough Coldplay references  Into the above 

[wendybr]

29 minutes ago, StringerBellend said:

On the flares thing I get the season 1 and 2 nirvana of flarefest was never going to be able to continue (safety, media perception etc)

But (and I hope I don’t sound like a tosser) but the beauty of the RBB (and other active groups like the NT) was (is) the somewhat anarchic, edgey, uncontrolled element.The flares being the most visible part of it. The flares raise a lot attention (which is their originally designed purpose). 

I don’t know if active support “needs” flares but to create the excitement and feel of the early days then it needs to be “on the edge”, and somewhat out of control of “The Man” the consequence of that is somebody will let of a flare (or 10) 

From somebody largely outside of the pressure of over policing, bans, fines hanging over clubs head, SOP being a hole, has lead to the loss of that “edge”

Basically it is the difference between being The Clash, or Mark E Smith to being Coldplay and Chris Martin.

Cove seemed to have taken an approach of a working within the boundaries which is all very sensible but it does mean that they feel more like Coldplay shooting a video in Newtown to show their indie rock credentials than actual rebellion, it’s kind of like Guy Sebastian doing a Public Enemy cover 

did I manage to jam enough Coldplay references  Into the above 

Yes you did!    

And what you said makes sense.

I don't know what the future will bring. 

Unlike certain parts of the world, it seems to me that it will have to be compromise (which doesn't have to go as far as the Cove), or let active support as some envision it, die.

I'm not sure how many of the most passionate/diehard active supporters are prepared to make that compromise.

But I'd love to hear from the few that still hang out here.

Is compromise possible - or does it have to be "purity" (in the anarchic sense mentioned above) or nothing?

[stavup]

I think environment is having a massive impact on those questions currently

 

[Zelinsky]

The way the HAL is going the issue will sort itself out. No spectators = no problems. Family friendly to the max.The job is nearly done, Gallop as the NRL's trojan horse has done the trick. 

 

[Hughesy]

You mention compromise Wendy though if the processes originally in place were followed then we wouldn't need to be pursuing that route. Let me create a hypothetical scenario to explain....

Yoshi is an aleague fan who (has risen above the propaganda and decided to finally support his actual local club) is off to the football to partake in the active support. We must keep in mind that these 2 straight forward concepts are in place:

1) Legislation exists that prohibits the lighting of a flare in a non SOS situation. Therefore if a person lights one at the football, it does look great but they are caught and punished accordingly

2) The FFA has a banning process for individuals involved in illegal behaviour ie. flares and violence

Yoshi attends the football and walks into the active bays. The game is underway and his local team score a goal. Yoshi ignites a flare in a fit of passion. He thinks he is clever and throws it under a seat though is spotted by a security guard who marches him out of the bay. Yoshi is dealt with accordingly and given a ban for lighting the flare.

The active support bay for his club and the rest of the league remain untouched as the trouble maker; Yoshi, has been caught and dealt with. The FFA stand firm in the face of media sensationalism and clearly state that the offender has been dealt with and no further action is required as there is an effective and appropriate process in place. Active support remains loud and healthy and innocent people aren't punished for the actions of one individual. 

They all lived happily ever after. The end.

Let me just wake you up and bring you back to reality for those that found that to be a pleasant dream. This unfortunately is not what happens because the FFA are obsessed with seeking approval from the same media outlets who couldn't give two shits about football when there is no drama brewing. In the process of seeking approval they lose all confidence and self respect and completely ignore their own processes already in place that are more than effective. As a result we see blanket restrictions that impact the 99% of fans who are innocent and we then need to start talking about negotiation to simply stand, sing and display flags, banners and tifos at a football game as if we are school students.

Whilst I do like the visuals of a pyro display, my view of them remains black and white. Do the crime, then be prepared to do the time.

In regards to using flares in relation to the family friendly debate that society is obsessed, I will say this:

Families line up for hours, some even camping out every NYE to get a prime spot to watch the fireworks. Fireworks go off and families lose their collective rag in excitement. They are not considered dangerous as they are a distance away from them, just as they are when they are inside a stadium (unless they chose to be in an active bay). So to suggest that flares are not 'family friendly' is a load of crap. They are illegal, call it for what it is, don't use them to push the PC agenda onto others.

[Edinburgh]

3 hours ago, StringerBellend said:

On the flares thing I get the season 1 and 2 nirvana of flarefest was never going to be able to continue (safety, media perception etc)

But (and I hope I don’t sound like a tosser) but the beauty of the RBB (and other active groups like the NT) was (is) the somewhat anarchic, edgey, uncontrolled element.The flares being the most visible part of it. The flares raise a lot attention (which is their originally designed purpose). 

I don’t know if active support “needs” flares but to create the excitement and feel of the early days then it needs to be “on the edge”, and somewhat out of control of “The Man” the consequence of that is somebody will let of a flare (or 10) 

From somebody largely outside of the pressure of over policing, bans, fines hanging over clubs head, SOP being a hole, has lead to the loss of that “edge”

Basically it is the difference between being The Clash, or Mark E Smith to being Coldplay and Chris Martin.

Cove seemed to have taken an approach of a working within the boundaries which is all very sensible but it does mean that they feel more like Coldplay shooting a video in Newtown to show their indie rock credentials than actual rebellion, it’s kind of like Guy Sebastian doing a Public Enemy cover 

did I manage to jam enough Coldplay references  Into the above 

Most of your musical analogies went over my head.  The only Coldplay I know of is that monkey video Wendy uploaded. I don't know the others in that analogy. [Please don't bother uploading any examples - I wouldn't watch them].

I don't know Public Enemy either.  But I would have thought Guy Sebastian doing Guy Sebastian is worse than the Cove.

[wendybr]

2 hours ago, hughsey said:

In regards to using flares in relation to the family friendly debate that society is obsessed, I will say this:

Families line up for hours, some even camping out every NYE to get a prime spot to watch the fireworks. Fireworks go off and families lose their collective rag in excitement. They are not considered dangerous as they are a distance away from them, just as they are when they are inside a stadium (unless they chose to be in an active bay). So to suggest that flares are not 'family friendly' is a load of crap. They are illegal, call it for what it is, don't use them to push the PC agenda onto others.

Hi Hughsey

Not sure if you are still addressing me at the end of your post (as you did at the start) ...or...FFA? /those who take the "family friendly" approach...or others?

Apart from not being quite sure who you were addressing at the end, your post is a clearly expressed perspective on something that was contentious from day 1, and the consequences of that debate are still being felt, even though the issue hasn't surfaced for ...what? ... two seasons??

[Erebus]

On 1/16/2018 at 1:59 PM, hughsey said:

 Garbie is trying too hard to be everyone's friend and gave a pretty weak response regarding the FFA's role in it I thought.

That's because Garb as an absolute $#itkun7 with no opinion except to kiss everyone's arse. Has nfi about anything and all his responses on the pod and on twitter are just full of safe cliches.

Case in point. Listen to their part about Lowe vs Aloisi. For him, Lowe is under fire and has had 4 years to do something...oh sure they've made every finals and 2 FFA Cup finals...but STILL HE NEEDS TO BE SACKED!

But Johnny...oh no, he needs another season because someone stuffed up recruitment and fitness at Brisbane, but it wasn't Johnny. He gets a free pass.

Its so blatantly obvious.

 

Same as when they are talking about the security issue. Kossie is straight shooting saying "screw this, football loves passion, we want crazy people jumping on seats with tifos and flags and going crazy. We've lost that and now its all sanitised and no one cares anymore, There's an anti football agenda from stadiums and cops and security"

Garb "but...FFA, we want family friendly. They haven't taken it too far...ummm stuff..corporate line...<error>"

He's a friggen corporate robot.

[mack]

2 hours ago, Erebus said:

He's a friggen corporate robot.

There's a reason why the FFA prefer to have Garb handle the few interviews they give out. When the pack of clowns at the FFA like you, then you're doing something wrong.

[Hughesy]

4 hours ago, wendybr said:

Hi Hughsey

Not sure if you are still addressing me at the end of your post (as you did at the start) ...or...FFA? /those who take the "family friendly" approach...or others?

Apart from not being quite sure who you were addressing at the end, your post is a clearly expressed perspective on something that was contentious from day 1, and the consequences of that debate are still being felt, even though the issue hasn't surfaced for ...what? ... two seasons??

Yeah only the first half was addressed to you specifically Wendy. The last part was a general opinion on it all cause it does my head in haha

[Hughesy]

26 minutes ago, mack said:

There's a reason why the FFA prefer to have Garb handle the few interviews they give out. When the pack of clowns at the FFA like you, then you're doing something wrong.

They have no problem telling a football figure/journalist to bugger off because they don’t like what they’re saying. 

Yet some 2 bit journalist (if you could even call some of them that) who has nothing to do with sport, writes an article accusing A-League supporters of preventing world peace and they fall all over themselves to try and change their opinion...

 

[wendybr]

50 minutes ago, hughsey said:

Yeah only the first half was addressed to you specifically Wendy. The last part was a general opinion on it all cause it does my head in haha

Thanks mate - I wasn't sure if I needed to reply. 

[DinoPresinger]

On 16/01/2018 at 10:19 PM, mack said:

Because they haven't taken any steps to actually support fans. If they ever cared about fans in general they'd never push for 7pm Sunday timeslots.

I remember when a foxsports presenter called out the head of the aleague on live television and told him that he needed to listen to the fans. 

Most of the credit should go to bozza but there's no doubt that fox sports at least allowed him the freedom to do that.

[Hughesy]

I don’t think fox sports could care less what the FFA think of their presenters opinions when they’re the ones paying the bills. Look at Slater’s comments the other night

[tardotz]

44 minutes ago, hughsey said:

I don’t think fox sports could care less what the FFA think of their presenters opinions when they’re the ones paying the bills. Look at Slater’s comments the other night

Agreed.....they know that .....that's why they have full control on the scheduling.

[mack]

Fox Sports presenters occasional complaints about the FFA are controlled opposition. Every so often Bozza or Slater will rant and rave for 10 minutes but those rants don't result in any pressure being put on the FFA to make real permanent changes.

Fox don't participate in campaigns to remove the cancer that is the Lowy families influence on football.

Fox don't push for changes to cancel out the bias FFA always show towards helping Sydney FC (and as we know, with multiple ex-players & employees on their payroll the bias is just as pronounced at Fox).

Fox doesn't push to hold Lowy & Gallop accountable beyond the occasional softball "interview" with Daniel Garb.

Fox didn't stand with the supporters against the systemic attacks on active support by the FFA/Hatamoto/Police

Fox hasn't helped push for expansion, or for the FFA to do even a skerrick of work towards a second division.

Fox hasn't pushed against the obscene wages the FFA are paying themselves, or the ridiculously high wages our national team players are getting to fail at he Confeds and nearly get KO'd from the World Cup.

It's a charade.

[beatsurrender]

Thoughts on the HAL from Ross McCormack to a UK newspaper

He may have scored 13 goals but from my memory most have been pens or free kicks haven't they, so the stats are a bit skewed imo. ie "You score for fun over there" comments etc...

 

Ross McCormack talks about Aston Villa 'security' and A-League critics - Birmingham Mail

Ross McCormack has hit back at A-League critics and reiterated his desire to extend his loan spell at Melbourne City.

McCormack, 31, has scored 13 times in just 15 appearances since joining Melbourne on an injury replacement loan deal from Aston Villa in September.

And the striker reckons his current side - as well as some of their opponents - could compete with the likes of Villa in the Championship.

He told reporters Down Under: “Back home people turn their nose up at it a little bit. They say, ‘You score for fun over there, it’s not a great standard’, but - all of the teams we’ve played against - we haven’t had an easy game.

“There’s certainly teams in this league that could hold their own in the Championship, I believe.”

McCormack’s loan spell has been highly successful but there were fears it might have to be cut short due to injury in December.

The striker - who arrived at Villa Park from Fulham in a £12million deal in August 2016 - suffered a knee injury in City’s defeat to A-League leaders Sydney.

He was told by club medics that his injury was serious but he played just eight days later.

“I thought I was going to be out for a long period of time. It didn’t look good after the game.

“All the tests that the physios and doctors were doing were saying that my cruciate ligament had gone.

“I’m obviously not in a good position at Aston Villa as well. Luckily I’ve got two and a half years left on my contract there so the security is there but, in terms of the football side of it, if I was out for a year you don’t know what’s going to happen.”

McCormack has been red hot throughout the entirety of his time in Australia but he’s been particularly prolific in the last few weeks. Six goals in his last four games has seen City officials step up negotiations with Villa in an attempt to extend his deal until the end of the campaign.

And McCormack is happy to do just that with no reprieve on offer at Villa Park following his infamous falling out with Steve Bruce.

“The chance is there for me to finish the season. If Melbourne can agree a deal with Aston Villa then yes, definitely. We can definitely vie for a trophy. I don’t see why we can’t go and win the Grand Final.”

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/ross-mccormack-talks-aston-villa-14168941 

[Prydzopolis]

19 hours ago, mack said:

There's a reason why the FFA prefer to have Garb handle the few interviews they give out. When the pack of clowns at the FFA like you, then you're doing something wrong.

Remind me, who was the journalist who FFA handpicked to “interview” Lowy after the EGM 🤔

[Paul01]

Bossi in the SMH pushing the excuses for the Evil Ones for the draw against the Sea Bogans. Most of the team are getting over a gastro bug.

[StringerBellend]

23 minutes ago, Paul01 said:

Bossi in the SMH pushing the excuses for the Evil Ones for the draw against the Sea Bogans. Most of the team are getting over a gastro bug.

Maybe they have tried the stadium food

[Paul01]

30 minutes ago, StringerBellend said:

Maybe they have tried the stadium food

So it's not the Allianz that needs to be knocked down, it's the food outlets there. 

[StringerBellend]

12 minutes ago, Paul01 said:

So it's not the Allianz that needs to be knocked down, it's the food outlets there. 

If they contribute to gastro for the Smurf’s and their support then they should remain as is 

[lloydy136]

while I sit here streaming (free and legal) the nbl while I catch up on some work I am wondering why after a dozen years of the a-league that there isn't any means to subscribe to stream games. Not expecting something for nothing - would be happy to pay for it. I know foxtel want us to cough up $80 a month or whatever it is to get that but surely some sort of middle ground where I can pay $10 a month for every wanderers game would be a sensible option - that way they get something out of me rather than the current $0 they are getting.

[Zelinsky]

8 minutes ago, lloydy136 said:

while I sit here streaming (free and legal) the nbl while I catch up on some work I am wondering why after a dozen years of the a-league that there isn't any means to subscribe to stream games. Not expecting something for nothing - would be happy to pay for it. I know foxtel want us to cough up $80 a month or whatever it is to get that but surely some sort of middle ground where I can pay $10 a month for every wanderers game would be a sensible option - that way they get something out of me rather than the current $0 they are getting.

Because the game is run and broadcast by people who, essentially, do not understand their customer base. Instead of building and maintaining a solid foundation and grow the game from there they are eroding the base, and direct their energies towards castle-in-the-cloud projects.

[Carns]

30 minutes ago, lloydy136 said:

while I sit here streaming (free and legal) the nbl while I catch up on some work I am wondering why after a dozen years of the a-league that there isn't any means to subscribe to stream games. Not expecting something for nothing - would be happy to pay for it. I know foxtel want us to cough up $80 a month or whatever it is to get that but surely some sort of middle ground where I can pay $10 a month for every wanderers game would be a sensible option - that way they get something out of me rather than the current $0 they are getting.

Foxtel don't want you using a streaming service because it will (eventually) make their business model redundant. It's incredibly short sighted and indicative of Murdoch and his cronies wanting to keep the status quo for as long as possible. Milk the cow dry, if you will.

NBA and others are already making a motser from their own streaming services which are commissioned and run in house.