statement regarding 1906 ultras protest

yeah, if you stay away, the team might get moved to Hou.. oh wait.

 

I love when life imitates Spinal Tap...

"Smell the Glove" anyone?

 

interesting point of view, and might hold true if seattle's supporters werent doing the same thing:

take them all
watch them fall
line em up against a wall and shoot em
short and tall
watch them fall
cmon boys take them all

seattle shouldnt be complaining if thats whatthey wish to sing., i may as well lodge a formal complaint about their singing songs about killing our players.

 

No, the Ultra/FO spat has nothing to do with it.

After three + years in a craptastic stadium the fans patience is wearing thin.

 

"There's a fine line between clever and..."

 

The whole point is to intimidate, I thought. Did not David Kaval himself state on Demolition Day that he wanted the Quakes fans to have their own home, where they could impose their will on visiting sides? How did he imagine that would happen, by singing love songs?

Taken out of context, I can certainly see how the tifo would be considered inappropriate, but anyone who knows anything about the relationships these teams have to each other would instantly see that it had everything to do with the game. The most important thing to my thinking is not whether it was appropriate or not, but rather was the reaction by the front office constructive or not. Clearly not. As an ordinary fan, what has gotten me coming back again again has been the knowledge that the Ultras would be there, to lead us cheering our club, to make us laugh with the mad antics. It's just not a football match, for me at any rate, without them.

I may have apprehended this wrong, as I am looking from the outside in, but I can understand that the FO wants to keep the noise up, but keep things as watered down as possible, so as not to offend any partners or potential partners, and see the Ultras as a painful indulgence at best, and a threat at worst. I can also see that the Ultras are the most committed fans we have, are working to make the football experience as intense and exciting and unique as possible, and that many have the perception, right or wrong, that the FO is at war with them.

One of the most telling moments for me in this whole sad affair has been the response from a woman on Facebook to a discussion about this, saying, in effect, that 'you don't see Ultras at Sharks or Giants games.' Isn't that precisely the point, that football is different?

I personally wish that both sides would take a deep breath, accept they need each other, and work out a deal in the matter, for the good of the team. I'll just close with this: Just before leaving the railing where I stood at the end of the match, I spied an Earthquakes player (I will not name him) walking past on the pitch headed for the tunnel, and I shouted "Give us back our Ultras". And he looked at me and gave me a thumbs up. 'Nuff said.

 

The Tifo was in poor taste... and it was funny. Which is what supporter's groups do. Yeah, it probably crossed the line; hell, it erased the line, but a 5 game "probation"? How do you enforce a "probation". Ban the Ultras from entering future games if they break "probation"? Way to drive up attendance #s. By the way, the less than 9K crowd looked and sounded awful last night on TV and from the sounds of it, just as bad if not worse in person. I was one of the handful watching via justin.tv and the comments there aside from an ongoing convo about Indian women (??) were negative about the crowd. Gee, Ultras sitting on their hands have anything to do with that?

There is a lot of posturing taking place here in this thread; this thread is real life as we are seeing, hearing and reading about reactions to the "probation": I'll take the "" off "probation" when someone can give me a clear explanation of what a supporter's group "probation" is. Long time Quakes supporters are threatening to stop attending. Recent supporters are threatening the same. I think the FO over-reacted to a Seattle supporter and in try to look "corporate" enough, are "cleansing" the Ultras for the good of the soccer mom and dads who think their children have virgin ears and minds. Hey, folks, your kids cruise the internet, talk crap in the schoolyard and sext back and forth before jr. high school. I don't think a tacky Tifo and a few f-bombs are going to deflower their innocence. And it is a professional sporting event. I know there is an Epicenter for the kids to play in, but be realistic...quit sitting on your hands, sipping your wine cooler or what not and get off your asses and support the club.

Everyone should take a deep breath, reassess their emotional reactions to this "probation" (it's not a free speech issue as Congress has not abridged the free speech rights of the Ultras). The FO needs to get their heads out of their asses and setup a convo with the supporters; the supporters need to get their heads out of their asses and respond. Both groups have something in common...a desire for the club to succeed on the pitch and off.

And last point: if Seattle fans can sing about players being maimed and taken off the pitch in ambulences AT Buck Shaw, could you explain to me why the Seattle supporter group that came to Buck Shaw are also not on probation? Hey, Quakes FO, have you actually listened to the ever so delicate Seattle supporter's chants and songs? That complaint that came from a Seattle supporter...hey, Quakes FO, you fell hook, line and sinker and have embarrassed the organization for falling for it. Seriously. Seattle is laughing it's collective ass at SJ. Way to go, hey hey San Jose. Thanks, Mr. Kaval. Great moral boost for the troops. Give a shite what a Seattle fan thinks, not what SJ fans do. That's what happens when you hire a NON-soccer exec.

 

And that's the problem. The Quakes FO is catering to HER and not to the soccer fans. They want her (Muffie), husband (Biff) and 2.3 kids to attend the games, eat lots of food, buy lots of goodies and go home having had a great time at the "event". Oh, yeah, by the way, Biff, do you remember the score? Did we win?

 

It's more complicated than that.

"[T]he California Supreme Court held in Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Center, 592 P.2d 341 (1979), that the free-speech and petition provisions of the California Constitution grant mall visitors a constitutional right to free speech that outweighs the private-property interests of mall owners . . . In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the state court's decision, noting that its own [jurisprudence] "does not ex proprio vigore limit the authority of the State to exercise its police power or its sovereign right to adopt in its own Constitution individual liberties more expansive than those conferred by the Federal Constitution.' Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robbins, 447 U.S. 74, 81 (1980)."

http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentid=14193

You know, THAT Pruneyard, in suburban San Jose.

 

Didn't that decision allow free speech in California's private shopping centers normally open to the general public and the wording calls for reasonable regulation by the shopping centers. One person's "reasonable" could still be deemed "unreasonable" by another. This ruling was based on the language in the California Constitution. Students had set up a table to get signatures to oppose a UN resolution condeming Zionism and were told by a security guard to close it down. I was a freshman in college when this happened and had just moved out of SJ. And I use to shop at the Pruneyard all the time!

The process of admission into a sporting event is a license, which can be revoked. I'm not sure how a Tifo that could be viewed by some as sexually offensive (I saw the pix and thought it silly and funny and yes distasteful) would fall into this ruling. But then again, I'm not a lawyer And at what point would there be a consensus that a Tifo or any other banner was over the line?

Don, if you could expand on your statement that the Quakes possibly violated that ruling, it would be appreciated!

As it is, I think the FO over reacted and made a silly situation into a serious one.

 

Because blowjobs are mentioned, but there's not a chance in hell of one actually happening...?

 

I am not suggesting that the Quakes "violated" the Pruneyard decision. I cited it and the accompanying hyperlink in response to your assertion that free speech rights aren't implicated because Congress is uninvolved. They evidence that there are circumstances when free speech rights are extended into private property.

 

Need to point this out to the folks on here who claim to be offended. Where were you after the banner was displayed? Not a single person posted about being offended in any way shape or form. It simply was not a big deal.

The ONLY reason this is even being discussed is because a Sounders Fan pointed it out and complained. For people on here to come out and openly support a Sounders fan complaint is just sad and sheepish in my humble opinion.

 

If we could have a sidebar, you have asserted that the Quakes may have infringed upon the free speech rights of the Ultras. In what way has the FO infringed on their free speech rights based upon rulings of the US Supreme Court and the California Supreme Court. As you have asserted in this thread:

"Or, under my reading of the California Constitution, by discriminating based on the content of your speech in a quasi-public forum. The Quakes, and/or their sponsor, Amway are subsidizing the Casbah banner to promote their own commercial speech while simultaneously punishing the adjacent Ultras based on the non-commmercial speech of their banner."

 

I'm confused, Don. Is the Ultra's organization purpose and goal to support the team, or is it to probe the legal limits of free speech in a private venue? I think you are letting your legal background drown out the real issue here.

I like the Ultras and what they bring to the game experience. I hope you guys figure out a way to work with the FO.

I think the Ultras need to figure out what they want. Do they want to support the team in a reasonable way by using their own judgement on where the line of offensive/objectionable is? Or do they want to be subjected to having a babysitter review all their signage and such prior to entry because they want to push the limits on free speech?

 

The Ultras push the envelope. They're irreverant and sometimes they're offensive. That's what they're about. That's how they support the team.

Kind of like the Stanford Band.

 

Indeed, you left the Front Office with no choice. It's a family event.


What's the purpose of that tifo (or your supporters group even)? Did it support the team in anyway? If not, then it was a fail.

 

Actually, it was posted by one person in the post game thread.

 

Did not find it in 5 pages I read...

 

As mentioned several times in this thread, the FO had the option of talking with the Ultras respectfully without imposing punishment for something the Ultras did not do.

To reiterate: The Ultras are under a five-game probation for an allegedly "obscene" banner. Yet, whether or not offensive to some, the banner is not obscene, so the Ultras are innocent.

The Ultras are also under probation for the actions of a woman who I am informed is not an Ultra but who may have associated with one or more Ultras. (The FO cannot be confused about the matter because they are aware that an Ultra is by definition a season ticketholder in the Ultras section; the FO has a list of names and seats for every Ultra.) So, the Ultras have been tarred with "guilt by association."

At least four separate appeals were levied under the so-called "supporters bill of rights" before last Friday, including a call by me, all respectful and all rejected out of hand. Indeed, to my knowledge, no penalty imposed on the Ultras under the supporters bill of rights has ever been overturned or even reduced in scope, no matter how well taken was the appeal.

The FO had choices last week and still does. As suggested, they should commute the probation to time-served for the Toronto game.

 

Look specifically for posts in the Seattle post game thread made by Quite Type if it matters to you to know.

 

Does this supporters bill of rights have a process written into it?

 

I seem to remember the Stanford Band being banned a time or two as well...

You can't support the team if you don't show up.

 

Page 7:
https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1700076&page=7

I didn't think much of it at the time, just really surprised the Ultras thought hoisting that up was a good idea.