The fight against modern Soccer(football)

We heve hade some media fuzz the last couple of weeks towards Klanen here in Norway. The media got the taste of blood because of some small issue.
So Klanen had a little banner before their last match. After this match some people have reacted a bit on the way Klanen behaves. So a central person in the fan community said , and i quote :
The action was thoroughly discussed between the parties on the board, Enga sang and EngaTifo ahead. We landed on an action that shows that we do not allow us to dictate. Our stands, our grandstand culture. Klanen and its founders as defined grandstand culture in Norway. It is today we and the rest of the supporters clubs who decides what is good and bad practice grandstand - not gnomes in Dagbladet and Nettavisen that have never been on a stand and created the atmosphere to support their own football team.

If someone tries someone to stop us, our form of expression and our right of expression, will we go a little higher up on the barricades, sing a little higher with even more offending lyrics. No one will ever get to dictate what the Klanen should sing and not sing.

You van`t stop us, we are Vål'enga supporters!

... and the gnomes in the news that will hurt Vålerenga got a rough stone. Their attacks on supporters led to a campaign that gave highest annual catch in the atmosphere at Ullevaal - with the subsequent highest annual Vålerenga Score at Ullevaal.

New 100% successful!

Well spoken

 

FA cup Filnal 1923. estimated crowd of 2 - 300 000 spectators.

 

The Swedish movement Positiv grandstand culture positivly welcomes the Swedish association`s decisions to stop the zero tolerance against pyro.

http://www.positivlaktarkultur.se/d...komnar-svffs-beslut-att-slopa-nolltoleransen/

 

Well there where two episodes.
1: Some Vålerenga fans where singing during a greeding from a Brann player on the big screen before the match.The Brann players heart stopped in match before. Media reacted because some fans sung during his greeding.

2: 2-3 days later a lillte group of 20-25 Vålerenga fans tok the tour to watch the Vålerenga Juniors play Lyn Juniors. ( VIF - LYN is the old derby in Oslo. But LYN was declared bankrupt a couple of years ago)
During this match there war light a few flares , sung songs that has been sung in Klanen for 20 years without any reaction before. 3-5 of the fans had brought a balaklva in the clubs colours that they put on during the flaring , and then rulled up to a cap.
The media presented it as it where 20-25 fans with balaklava that had come to the match whering balaklavas and sung kill them , kill them.


The media wrote about the two cases for one week. So the Vålerenga fans decided to put up a banner with the text . 90 min officially marking. shut up farmers
And if i know Klanen right i do not thing we have seen the last of this case from Klanen.

 

Here is the banner .

 

The police in Sweden have now decided to charege the clubs for the job the police does during the matches. This applies to all sports events.


AIK Hockey threatens to close down

http://www.svd.se/sport/aik-hockey-hotar-lagga-ner_6558643.svd

If the decision is not torn up, we need to put down, said AIK Hockey's chairman Peter Mellqvist.

The first match will be hockey derby between AIK and Djurgården on 14 November. The compensation is intact to the State.

In order to clubs to adapt becomes allowances reduced by 75 percent until 1 July next year.


TT: Is there any chance that this makes the rowdy supporters shape up in order not to damage the club further?

- On the contrary. This is completely counterproductive. We have less resources to invest in the preparatory security work we do today. There is no benefit at all with this.




And from another paper.

http://www.aftonbladet.se/sportbladet/fotboll/sverige/allsvenskan/article13797531.ab

The New police decisions are so dumb that I want to turn the light off and never turn on again.


Less disturbances?
No, on the contrary Of course. If clubs get less money they will spend less money on security which gives more problems. To fine and punish clubs for things that happen in the stadium has also been shown to be completely ineffective, historically, but it should perhaps have gone to the football to understand.

 

http://fm4.orf.at/stories/1689190/

The enemy within

In early August the riots rocked London and other English cities to their foundations. The football has its place in the debate over the riots, says the psychologist Clifford Stott. Instead, as part of the solution but it is usually perceived as a problem.

Interview: Nicole Selmer

Ballesterer: a "frenzied mob" - as the rampaging youths were often described in England. What do you think about this statement, and what are the link to view it to football fans?

Clifford Stott (46) is a lecturer in psychology at Liverpool University and is working on the topics of mass psychology, soccer and police tactics. Together with Geoff Pearson 2007 he published the book 'Football' hooliganism. 'Policing and the War on the' English Disease '. " He is currently writing with Steve Reicher an e-book on the riots under the title "Mad mobs and Englishmen? Myths and Realities of the 2011 riots".


Clifford Stott
Clifford Stott: The terminology surrounding the riots has actually focused heavily on the concept of "mindlessness" of blind rage,: a blind, criminal mob. The idea is that the cause of the riots in humans is even. That those who riot, criminal in nature or otherwise problematic. When football is also often spoken of uncontrollable violence and hooliganism from the fact that the excitement and tension of the crowd is contagious and otherwise law-abiding citizens feel attracted to violence and become rabid idiots.

What impact has this attitude to the handling of the riots?

She dismisses the state, government and police of their responsibility. Because the riots happened in this view, because of certain characteristics of the rioters, or because the mass is contagious. Violence spreads almost like a disease. Such declarations are made by rulers and governments have been used for centuries, when it comes to public riots, and they have always proved wrong. The analysis shows that it's not about the characteristics of people, but about the social conditions under which they live. Nevertheless, government and police put on especially repression.

They train police officers for use in international football tournaments. How the police can behave differently, as they can gain a different perspective?


The interview can be found in the current issue of Ballesterer

In Europe, the trend is to put in police operations around football tournaments in less confrontational behavior. This is based on a modern view of the behavior of crowds and the so-called legitimacy. If it manages to communicate football fans or other masses the impression of a legitimate police conduct that prevents the occurrence of riots. The target may not be the containment of riots, but a "public order management."

With explosive game pairings, there are a number of fans from both teams, which represent a certain risk. This risk must be managed, and this is best done by the police is hoping to build a relationship with these groups to negotiate with them. So much so that conflicts do not arise.

As this tactic would have looked at the riots?

The riots began in Tottenham, following a peaceful protest by the family of Mark Duggan, who two days earlier was shot by the police. Even the residents, especially from the black community have protested. Up to this point, the soldiers had received from the police no explanation for Mark's death, there was no "family liaison officer".

For me - as well as many other observers - is obvious that it would not protest this Saturday afternoon and if it does not result in the riots, if the police had placed on dialogue and communication. So the police have done nothing else than to fight the violence. And it's only at the end more a question of how big the damage.

During the riots soccer games were seen as a threat to public order ...

Some media - even an editorial in the liberal-left Guardian - spoke in favor of canceling the football games during the riots. Fans have been pathologized in much the same way as the Rioter. As if they were a disease that could be disseminated. Football games would be for a nationwide mobilization of supporters and thus provide even more riots. Here fans can not be equated with hooligans or racists. They are ordinary citizens who come together on match day. That would have helped to restore normality and to overcome the fear of many people.

Football games were no additional problems, but an opportunity to return to everyday life. Just as today, the rioters were sweeping the football fans in England not too long ago as the "enemy within" shown. But this representation corresponds in both cases is not the truth. We are talking here of arguments with far-reaching ideological consequences. It is not about solutions, but to the government to provide the basis for a reactionary law-and-order policies.

Do football fans in the riots actually played a role?

It was in London a mobilization of fan groups, or more precisely of "firms" given - large groups of white fans who have joined forces to attack the Rioter. Among them were right-wing activists. We currently have in England an infiltration and mobilization of football fans by right-wing organizations like the English Defence League and the British National Party.


After the London Riots
For them, the rioters were the same as blacks. Therefore, the groups are drawn by certain London boroughs, and have young blacks attacked. That was a very dangerous situation, racial unrest was in the air.

Soccer players like David James and Rio Ferdinand during the riots have also taken a position. What do you think?

Today, football is governed rich, powerful, elite oligarchy: multi-millionaires who have no connection to the lives of the people who were involved in the riots, their disenfranchisement and despair. In the socially underprivileged districts there is a lack of hope for advancement - a millionaire who can understand that, no matter where it comes from yourself?

David James is considered the most intellectual of English football, and I respect him very much. His words speak to realize that football can be a way to reach people who see violence as a legitimate response to their situation. Football has a responsibility - for more commitment and for the development of a positive identity.

The football in the Premier League has distanced itself here in a way that part of the problem. In Germany there is a concern for fair ticket prices for cheap standing room, so that the underprivileged of society a stadium visit is possible. And there are fan projects seeking access to problematic young fans. All that we have in England. My point is that we must stop to consider football and fans as part of the problem, because in fact they can be part of the solution of social conflicts.

 

Wisla Krakow

Ajax

 

To Auriaprottu.

I guess what i was trying to say to you when you said:
I guess what I'm saying is that no one wants to watch AA anyhow but people who live near the stadium. So it's no big deal what they do- they ought to be able to use fireworks or stand on terraces and do chants or whatever, because no one cares about that level of the Game. But the world wants to watch Real Madrid, Barcelona and United. Why lump them with the same protests when they've proven over generations that they know how to conduct business and play football well enough that theirs (and not AAs) is the model for success?

Was that all clubs should play on as equal terms as possible .
Even though you and many other foreigners like Man U, Barcelona or Real Madrid, I think that one should treat other clubs with the same respect and the same considerations as you do for the big clubs. No matter if the clubs play in Poland, England, Austria or France.
In terms of to foreigners, play times, limit salaries, etc. If a club in England wants to have a stadium with all seater they should be alowed to have allseater stadium. And if a club in Italy wants a stadium with a safe standing for their supporters i think they should be alowed to do just that.
One should in my eyes, first and foremost take into account the local fans who have always been there and who have helped make the club what they are today.
And if possible they will be there until the day they die.
The fact that Americans have found out that they think football in the Premier League is exciting or some other foreigners that wants to follow CL should not be taken into consideration to the extent some want .
One should primarily focus on the locals.
And when foreign owner says they wants to approach the kind of model they have in NHL and NFL with applications to be allowed to play in the top league in England instead of promotion or relegation or qualification, you know you are on the wrong track .


As you see on the pictures the clubs that you might not see come a long way in CL is still quite popular .

 

First supporter liaison officer workshop in Berlin

http://www.uefa.com/uefa/stakeholders/supporters/news/newsid=1700134.html

 

Im not going to try to explain this for you.
You are entitled to your opinions just as me. But you should maybe begin to understand that there are parts and aspects of the case that you do not know about. Since you are expressing yourself as strong as you do.
Things might be very different from your world.

 

UEFA 11/12 Week 11: EL and CL third round of group stages

No surrender.

http://ultras-tifo.net/news/575-uefa-1112-week-11-el-and-cl-third-round-of-group-stages-.html

 

Things are not always what they seem to be CCUltra

 

Things are not always what they seem to be CCUltra

 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-ntAKHnjag"]Against Modern Football - de steward van PSV - YouTube[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHTdLi89FzA"]GATE9 AGAINST MODERN FOOTBALL - YouTube[/ame]