Pyros - please stop

[grizzlyg]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/c3dm87lnn1eo

I know its only 50 fans that will miss out but hopefully a message to the lads to please give this a rest.  I know other clubs guilty but I am.only interested on our special club.

Continue the support and great tifos but leave the pyros at home and self police your section better.

COYW

[Onthefringes]

There is nobody missing out, nor is it costing the club. Matter already been dealt with internally in advance of the sanction delivery.

This is not any endorsement for its use either before the usual suspects offer opinion.

Very much pressure from government forcing SPFL to take action. Can tell they aren’t comfortable with the approach

[grizzlyg]

4 minutes ago, Onthefringes said:

There is nobody missing out, nor is it costing the club. Matter already been dealt with internally in advance of the sanction delivery.

This is not any endorsement for its use either before the usual suspects offer opinion.

Very much pressure from government forcing SPFL to take action. Can tell they aren’t comfortable with the approach

If dealt with internally then that's fine bud  and will see what happens going forward.

[coldonmac]

10 minutes ago, Onthefringes said:

There is nobody missing out, nor is it costing the club. Matter already been dealt with internally in advance of the sanction delivery.

This is not any endorsement for its use either before the usual suspects offer opinion.

Very much pressure from government forcing SPFL to take action. Can tell they aren’t comfortable with the approach

"The sanctions apply to Rangers' trip to face Hibs on 1 February and Motherwell going to Dundee on 4 February, and both clubs must pay the cost of the 50 missing tickets to the home clubs"

So it is costing the club.

[Onthefringes]

1 hour ago, coldonmac said:

"The sanctions apply to Rangers' trip to face Hibs on 1 February and Motherwell going to Dundee on 4 February, and both clubs must pay the cost of the 50 missing tickets to the home clubs"

So it is costing the club.

Read what was posted above and not just look at the words…

Responsibility been taken - without spelling it out, it won’t cost the club financially.

[dennyc]

3 minutes ago, Onthefringes said:

Read what was posted above and not just look at the words…

Responsibility been taken - without spelling it out, it won’t cost the club financially.

On the basis we are selling out away fixtures, please inform us how reducing that allocation by 50 will not result in 50 fans missing out. What am I missing? Also, if the Club are having to meet the cost of those 50 tickets to ensure United are not penalised please explain why that will not cost the Club financially. 

And maybe  also comment as to why part of the reason for the sanction is that both Clubs " failed to identify and/or take proportionate disciplinary measures against the supporters responsible for the pyrotechnic displays." 

 

 

[Stuwell2]

17 minutes ago, dennyc said:

On the basis we are selling out away fixtures, please inform us how reducing that allocation by 50 will not result in 50 fans missing out. What am I missing? Also, if the Club are having to meet the cost of those 50 tickets to ensure United are not penalised please explain why that will not cost the club financially.

 

 

Maybe the comment “responsibility taken…..won’t cost the club..” means those responsible have agreed to pay for the tickets?

 

[Kmcalpin]

1 hour ago, Onthefringes said:

There is nobody missing out, nor is it costing the club. Matter already been dealt with internally in advance of the sanction delivery.

This is not any endorsement for its use either before the usual suspects offer opinion.

Very much pressure from government forcing SPFL to take action. Can tell they aren’t comfortable with the approach

Good post OTF.

This is a load of bollocks from the SPFL. Who dreamt this nonsense up? Maybe they had a few sherries too many when they wrote this punishment. We'll leave aside the issue of the rights and wrongs of pyros for the time  being. I don't doubt that the Scottish Government is behind this action as OTF suggests and it needs to get its own house in order first with regards to the use of pyros in society full stop, before singling out football.  Also it needs to grow a set and tackle bigger issues in Scottish football, but thats too controversial. It does need to grow a set. For the record, successive Scottish Governments have swerved the huge issue of sectariansism. 

Anyway onto the SPFL. So, in terms of pyros we have strict liability. What about decades of tolerated sectarianism?  I get that higher powers might not be happy if the SPFL addressed this head on. It can't pick and choose when to apply strict liability. Going back to 2024's league cup semi, who was in 100% charge of stewarding and security?  Thats right,  the SPFL itself. Now onto these particular punishments. 

Hibs have been handed down a suspended sentence.  If that is implemented, they will be both the victim and beneficiary of financial penalties, as Sevco will be required to pay them for unused ticked. How inconsistent is that? As for us, our penalty will apply against Dundee. Will that game be a sellout? Of course it won't, so the loss of 50 tickets is purely academic.  If it were to be a sellout, what guarantee would there be that the "culprits", if I may call them that, didn't get tickets?  We could end up with a situation whereby the culprits get in and 50 innocent parties lose out.  Not only that, in terms of the detailed compensation, it could be that the culprits are concessions but we have to pay Dundee FC full whack. How will the cost of tickets be calculated? Finally, whilst I have no grouse with Dundee, why should they benefit from an additional 50 ticket sales when they are in no way involved? 

A far fairer solution, although far from perfect, would be to hand down a straightforward fine, if we go down the controversial route of strict liability,  and to initiate a review of the SPFL's own security arrangements. 

[Onthefringes]

30 minutes ago, dennyc said:

On the basis we are selling out away fixtures, please inform us how reducing that allocation by 50 will not result in 50 fans missing out. What am I missing? Also, if the Club are having to meet the cost of those 50 tickets to ensure United are not penalised please explain why that will not cost the Club financially. 

And maybe  also comment as to why part of the reason for the sanction is that both Clubs " failed to identify and/or take proportionate disciplinary measures against the supporters responsible for the pyrotechnic displays." 

We’ve sold out allocations with limited numbers though, tomorrow is a different circumstance again. Were it to be reduced capacity on the limited numbers I’d agree with your point.

The responsibility taken is a paying of any penalty by others on behalf of the club. The club aren’t making a big deal out of it. We move on.

As for your closing request, ruling is open to ambiguity in my opinion.  If Police Scotland and the stewarding provider can’t identify real time or by using images available to them, club will face same. Club obviously took the group(s) to task & dealt with matter how they seen fit. SPFL don’t agree, like I said, they’re uncomfortable in this approach given our government are driving the issue.

[dennyc]

1 minute ago, Onthefringes said:

We’ve sold out allocations with limited numbers though, tomorrow is a different circumstance again. Were it to be reduced capacity on the limited numbers I’d agree with your point.

The responsibility taken is a paying of any penalty by others on behalf of the club. The club aren’t making a big deal out of it. We move on.

As for your closing request, ruling is open to ambiguity in my opinion.  If Police Scotland and the stewarding provider can’t identify real time or by using images available to them, club will face same. Club obviously took the group(s) to task & dealt with matter how they seen fit. SPFL don’t agree, like I said, they’re uncomfortable in this approach given our government are driving the issue.

Thanks.

The numbers explanation could lessen the impact but only if we do not sell out our full allocation. If we don't sell out then nobody needs to be disadvantaged. That is a loophole the SPFL will probably look to close. 

Do all Clubs advise SPFL of their allocations to visiting Clubs at season start?  How else would the Authorities know how many tickets were heading our way to start with? Or what reduction to apply.  How many tickets do Dundee usually allocate to us. Thousands? 500? And are Dundee able to increase the numbers as they see fit? 

If the 'Group' are coughing up it sounds to me like those Authorities are not happy with that approach as it means MFC escape a financial penalty.  In other words they opted to fine MFC, but in a round about way? And they wanted fans banned. 

But the only solution moving forward is either that the fans' pyro stops or is allowed at all football grounds.  The latter is not going to happen. 

[Kmcalpin]

34 minutes ago, dennyc said:

Do all Clubs advise SPFL of their allocations to How many tickets do Dundee usually allocate to us. Thousands? 500? 

The Bob Shankly Stand holds about 3,000 fans although numbers of our fans have been a point of contention in the past, especially at cup games. 

[Onthefringes]

Don’t see allocations how big or small affecting the decision making - these are token amounts, the uncomfortable approach to appease government.

I’d doubt the authorities would have known of any offer to pay penalty by another party. Wanting fans banned would only serve to raise statistics when representing to government.

Refraining is the only option to avoid future censure. The rights and wrongs of the issue are for another debate.

[purestate]

5 hours ago, Onthefringes said:

There is nobody missing out, nor is it costing the club. Matter already been dealt with internally in advance of the sanction delivery.

This is not any endorsement for its use either before the usual suspects offer opinion.

Very much pressure from government forcing SPFL to take action. Can tell they aren’t comfortable with the approach

I don’t often get on my high horse but this is a sanctimonious and entitled  reply.   I have read the rest of the thread and replies and the dismissive attitude doesn’t get better.  

This  DOES matter regardless of who is asking for the sanction and I am no fan of SPFL or Scottish Government hypocrisy. 
Use of pyros is not some political stance it is an outright danger to the people using and others in the vicinity. 
 

If the club is willing to accept that they don’t lose out financially because inconsiderate and negligent morons, or their excusers, have paid the cost of 50 tickets then I’m seriously worried about that attitude towards the safety and wellbeing of majority of the rest of us fans.  
 

As per the original post if Block E stuck to the tifos, joyful exuberance, and carnival atmosphere they can and do create they would continue be a credit to the club.  
Covering up and dismissing the dangerous behaviour risks totally undermining all the good. 
 

Multiple wrongs and hypocrisy from other “fans” behaviours is deflection and no excuse. 

[Onthefringes]

1 hour ago, purestate said:

I don’t often get on my high horse but this is a sanctimonious and entitled  reply.   I have read the rest of the thread and replies and the dismissive attitude doesn’t get better.  

This  DOES matter regardless of who is asking for the sanction and I am no fan of SPFL or Scottish Government hypocrisy. 
Use of pyros is not some political stance it is an outright danger to the people using and others in the vicinity. 
 

If the club is willing to accept that they don’t lose out financially because inconsiderate and negligent morons, or their excusers, have paid the cost of 50 tickets then I’m seriously worried about that attitude towards the safety and wellbeing of majority of the rest of us fans.  
 

As per the original post if Block E stuck to the tifos, joyful exuberance, and carnival atmosphere they can and do create they would continue be a credit to the club.  
Covering up and dismissing the dangerous behaviour risks totally undermining all the good. 
 

Multiple wrongs and hypocrisy from other “fans” behaviours is deflection and no excuse. 

Morally superior? Entitled? Hypocritical? Strange takes, but, as you say you’re on your high horse.

The SPFL being ‘uncomfortable’ and government approach analogy was relayed from inside the club.

Nobody mentioned it doesn’t matter nor covering up and dismissing any behaviours dangerous or not. The club certainly didn’t & dealt with the matter on their terms ahead of any sanctions.

As has been said it has to stop which I support to avoid further censure. And again, rights and wrongs of its use are for another debate.