Club statement please on police activity in W7

[Wendy Saintss]

Clears it up.  
Discussion took place prior to the match, permission to display the banner was refused. The fans in question went ahead anyway. 
Nothing to complain about when the banner was subsequently removed.  

Ah, but their human rights were violated! [emoji23]

[linwood-bud]

5 minutes ago, div said:

A small but relevant point. St.Mirren FC is not fan owned. Yet.

I know from reading various articles that Celtic's Green Brigade have to have every banner they plan to display pre-approved. Obviously they have also ignored the club in the past which led to their area being closed for a couple of matches as a result.

The displaying of football related banners is not under question here. There have been dozens of great displays that the group in W7 have carried off without any incident.

I've no idea what information the police asked the club for but I can't really imagine a scenario where the club would be allowed to tell them to f**k off.

Similarly I doubt the cops would really have a hard time working out where individuals live. It's kind of their job.

I'd certainly be pissed off if the police visited me at home and I had done absolutely nothing wrong, but my gripe would be with the police, not the club.

 

We can all agree that the Green Brigade are on a different level when it comes to political banners.

I just feel sorry for a group of friends who go out of their way to help the football club but now seem to be under scrutiny.

Can they now request to move their season tickets to W1 and show off banners without approval?

They aren’t even referred to by a group name, they are simply “boys who choose to sit in W7”.

[Wendy Saintss]

No, no, no. Unless you own the venue (stadium) you have no rights to display what you want without approval. You and your pal can sit in your garden and hold up your banner.

But surely their human rights are being violated? [emoji23]

[linwood-bud]

19 minutes ago, Sonny said:

FFS. EVERY venue (and every Football Club) has entry rules of what those gaining entry can do. The management have the right to enforce or ignore any breaches of rules.

In this case W7 were told no but decided to flagrantly ignore the instruction. St Mirren clearly state in their policies that banners supporting the team are admissible (and probably encouraged).

Try reading the Club Policies for more information. https://www.stmirren.com/club/about-st-mirren/club-policies

 

 

I agree for the need of policies, but also for a little common sense.

These boys could simply say they’ve had enough and stick to sitting in the pub on a Saturday at 3 o’clock.

Then the only losers are St Mirren football club, less income, less atmosphere for other fans and according to the players less chance of a result.

[div]

6 minutes ago, linwood-bud said:

We can all agree that the Green Brigade are on a different level when it comes to political banners.

I just feel sorry for a group of friends who go out of their way to help the football club but now seem to be under scrutiny.

Can they now request to move their season tickets to W1 and show off banners without approval?

They aren’t even referred to by a group name, they are simply “boys who choose to sit in W7”.

In fairness I don't really know what the group refer to themselves as.  St.Mirren Active? Northbank Aggro?

I feel disappointed that at a time when we should all be positive about the performance on the pitch on Friday and looking forward to a big game on Saturday we are all sidetracked by this issue.

I think the police should not have visited houses, I think the group should not have gone against the wishes of the club with the banner, and I think the club have made more of it than they should have.

It's all unfortunate and a bit of a mess. Hopefully everyone can get around a table and sort out a way forward. This isn't helping ANYONE.

 

[barrhead saint]

2 minutes ago, div said:

In fairness I don't really know what the group refer to themselves as.  St.Mirren Active? Northbank Aggro?

I feel disappointed that at a time when we should all be positive about the performance on the pitch on Friday and looking forward to a big game on Saturday we are all sidetracked by this issue.

I think the police should not have visited houses, I think the group should not have gone against the wishes of the club with the banner, and I think the club have made more of it than they should have.

It's all unfortunate and a bit of a mess. Hopefully everyone can get around a table and sort out a way forward. This isn't helping ANYONE.

 

Would disagree, the club asked them not to show the banner, and they went ahead anyway.

[Sonny]

Just now, linwood-bud said:

I agree for the need of policies, but also for a little common sense.

These boys could simply say they’ve had enough and stick to sitting in the pub on a Saturday at 3 o’clock.

Then the only losers are St Mirren football club, less income, less atmosphere for other fans and according to the players less chance of a result.

Common sense works two ways. The group sat down with the Club and showed them a banner that they wanted to display. This was something they had done many times in the past. The Club said no on the grounds it was political (to air a grievance against the police) and not supporting the team. However W7 threw common sense out the window and displayed the banner anyway thereby eroding their relationship with the Club and undermining trust between them and the Club. Not much common sense shown there was there?

[pozbaird]

38 minutes ago, div said:

A small but relevant point. St.Mirren FC is not fan owned. Yet.

I know from reading various articles that Celtic's Green Brigade have to have every banner they plan to display pre-approved. Obviously they have also ignored the club in the past which led to their area being closed for a couple of matches as a result.

The displaying of football related banners is not under question here. There have been dozens of great displays that the group in W7 have carried off without any incident.

I've no idea what information the police asked the club for but I can't really imagine a scenario where the club would be allowed to tell them to f**k off.

Similarly I doubt the cops would really have a hard time working out where individuals live. It's kind of their job.

I'd certainly be pissed off if the police visited me at home and I had done absolutely nothing wrong, but my gripe would be with the police, not the club.

 

If the displaying of football related banners is not under question, then surely, if I wanted to, I could hold up a ‘Stubbs Out’ card or banner fron my W3 seat, every bit as much as I could hold up one saying ‘Give Stubbsy More Time’. The W7 crew, as some sort of loose collective, fans group, singing section, or whatever they are, as a condition of them being allowed to congregate there, would require permission.

I am, however, merely an individual supporter. So would my ‘negative’ card have been confiscated, and any ‘positive’ one let go, should a director spot them from the main stand?

If my banner said ‘Get to f**k Stubbs, you Scouse caaant, and take that weasel Jackson with you’, then fine, here come the stewards, but something of a non-offensive nature?

Edited September 18, 2018 by pozbaird

[Doakes]

15 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

It's up to the W7 guys who deliberately displayed a banner they were told not to, to come on here and explain why they attempted to sabotage the relationship with the club.

You are targetting the wrong people here.

If you look at my post on Twitter from the night of the game- ( if Twitter wasn't blocked in work I would post the screenshot, @stmirrenactive )

I tweeted that the club told us not to display the banner, but it was displayed on principle. I still maintain that this wasn't breaking any stadium policies, the SLO agreed. The club didn't. 

-----------------

 

I've tried my best to see both sides of the debate.

I've spoke with some of the guys in the W7 group and will be asking the club for a meeting. I've also asked Div if he will come along as someone impartial to ensure things are dealt with properly and as adults. The feedback I've had from the boys is that these meetings can feel like they're getting told off for being bad - rather than making any actual progress. 

I've never had any issues with the club in the past, so might be good to try a fresh approach. I think I'm in a good position to be able to see both sides.

Won't say much more on here as I feel like this matter should now be between myself and the club, until everything has been discussed fully. 

 

[melmac]

Its amazing how the smallest issues get the most attention.

[LargsBud]

What a mess this has ended up. 

Ultimately this is first time the club has ever had to deal with any form of "ultras" group with banners smoke bombs etc. 

They club arent going to get their reaction correct straight away and there will be teething problems but they should look to get it right over time. They are making a bit of an arse of it at the moment and behaving like we are a tiny wee club. 

They should look at the way Celtic handle the GB and take lessons from that. They need to let more go and not shite themselves every time a banner goes a bit close to the bone. 

Edited September 18, 2018 by LargsBud

[Lord Pityme]

1 minute ago, Sonny said:

Common sense works two ways. The group sat down with the Club and showed them a banner that they wanted to display. This was something they had done many times in the past. The Club said no on the grounds it was political (to air a grievance against the police) and not supporting the team. However W7 threw common sense out the window and displayed the banner anyway thereby eroding their relationship with the Club and undermining trust between them and the Club. Not much common sense shown there was there?

I think like in most cases the devil lies in the detail. In his statement Scott says "the banner had nothing to do with the club, team or manager" which is correct. It had to do with the FANS, and how that group were feeling, given the recent shambolic police activity.

the club can ban any, or all banners flags etc being brought into the stadium. But to state banners will not be allowed unless they are positive about only "the club, the team or the Manager" misses out the only group who actually fund the whole thing "The Fans"..

so if a couple of Buddies want to raise a banner in support of a sick young fan, that's out? Or to mRk the passing of a lifelong saints fan thats out too?

common sense is a two way street, and whilst it's advantageous to work with the police, telling fans they cant criticise a body they all fund through taxes seems a bit Thought Police like. 

And finally how do you square the circle of evicting families & kids from their seats and closing the panda club to accommodate non stop sectarian singing, abusive behaviour and seemingly no action taken by stewards or police... just to take a few more quid..? Yeah you can see where trust can be lost, and it will be a long road back from there... perhaps generations..?

[pod]

7 minutes ago, melmac said:

Its amazing how the smallest things get the most attention.

Wish I could believe you. 

[linwood-bud]

If Gordon Scott had released a statement saying the banner was agreed not to be shown and was subsequently removed, but that he understood the boys feeling aggrieved and going against the clubs wishes. The issue would be gone”

Talking about a “soured” atmosphere and how “chaos wins” can’t help the relationship.

All of this has no real bearing on my support for the club as I’m not directly involved, but it just leaves a sour aftertaste.

[Spam_Valley]

11 minutes ago, LargsBud said:

Ultimately this is first time the club has ever had to deal with any form of "ultras" group with banners smoke bombs etc. 

Was there not the 'Supras' group a few years ago that also used banners etc circa '09?

Also, I've never seen our guys use smoke bombs etc either home or away...

[rabuddies]

If people want to protest about "political" or "quasi-political" topics then I have no problem with that.  I have been on a number of political protests over nearly 50 years but it must be done in the proper manner and in the proper place - on the street.  When the club refused permission why didn't the aggreived lads in W7 take to the streets - Paisley Cross, the High Street, the Town Hall or even outside the Police Offices in Mill Street.  For LPM to use the two situations he quoted above without a shred of proof speaks volumes for the manner this debate has descended to.

Edited September 18, 2018 by rabuddies
Forgot to say Div talked sense as usual.

[barrhead saint]

11 minutes ago, linwood-bud said:

If Gordon Scott had released a statement saying the banner was agreed not to be shown and was subsequently removed, but that he understood the boys feeling aggrieved and going against the clubs wishes. The issue would be gone”

Talking about a “soured” atmosphere and how “chaos wins” can’t help the relationship.

All of this has no real bearing on my support for the club as I’m not directly involved, but it just leaves a sour aftertaste.

The statement is about the only thing on the official site, that you can view without having to pay for!

[waldorf34]

28 minutes ago, Doakes said:

If you look at my post on Twitter from the night of the game- ( if Twitter wasn't blocked in work I would post the screenshot, @stmirrenactive )

I tweeted that the club told us not to display the banner, but it was displayed on principle. I still maintain that this wasn't breaking any stadium policies, the SLO agreed. The club didn't. 

-----------------

 

I've tried my best to see both sides of the debate.

I've spoke with some of the guys in the W7 group and will be asking the club for a meeting. I've also asked Div if he will come along as someone impartial to ensure things are dealt with properly and as adults. The feedback I've had from the boys is that these meetings can feel like they're getting told off for being bad - rather than making any actual progress. 

I've never had any issues with the club in the past, so might be good to try a fresh approach. I think I'm in a good position to be able to see both sides.

Won't say much more on here as I feel like this matter should now be between myself and the club, until everything has been discussed fully. 

 

SMiSA and the SLO should be there to put the fans angle on this subject  a framework agreed for future banners

[WeeBud]

25 minutes ago, Doakes said:

If you look at my post on Twitter from the night of the game- ( if Twitter wasn't blocked in work I would post the screenshot, @stmirrenactive )

I tweeted that the club told us not to display the banner, but it was displayed on principle. I still maintain that this wasn't breaking any stadium policies, the SLO agreed. The club didn't. 

-----------------

 

I've tried my best to see both sides of the debate.

I've spoke with some of the guys in the W7 group and will be asking the club for a meeting. I've also asked Div if he will come along as someone impartial to ensure things are dealt with properly and as adults. The feedback I've had from the boys is that these meetings can feel like they're getting told off for being bad - rather than making any actual progress. 

I've never had any issues with the club in the past, so might be good to try a fresh approach. I think I'm in a good position to be able to see both sides.

Won't say much more on here as I feel like this matter should now be between myself and the club, until everything has been discussed fully. 

 

Doakes, just for clarification are you saying the SLO agreed before or after the club said no. I think there is a big distinction to be made here as, if taken the wrong way, you could be suggesting that he was agreeing with you after the instruction "no" was given by the club and therefore validating your actions. I don't think statements like these are left open to interpretation, we do have some mischievous wee monkeys around these parts!!

[Sonny]

19 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

so if a couple of Buddies want to raise a banner in support of a sick young fan, that's out? Or to mRk the passing of a lifelong saints fan thats out too?

 

I would suggest that if you ask you would get approval for the examples you give. But all banners will be at management discretion which is a common stance in any venue.

[oaksoft]

1 hour ago, Iamhammer said:

I wasn't asking about the police, I can see the club asking and some individual turning up at a game to find his season ticket revoked.  Also who's to say the club won't class criticism of a player as an online attack?

Thee is absolutely no chance of the club ever removing your season ticket for criticising a player and there is no reason to either believe that it might happen or spread suspicion that it could be a possibility.

 

[Lord Pityme]

34 minutes ago, rabuddies said:

If people want to protest about "political" or "quasi-political" topics then I have no problem with that.  I have been on a number of political protests over nearly 50 years but it must be done in the proper manner and in the proper place - on the street.  When the club refused permission why didn't the aggreived lads in W7 take to the streets - Paisley Cross, the High Street, the Town Hall or even outside the Police Offices in Mill Street.  For LPM to use the two situations he quoted above without a shred of proof speaks volumes for the manner this debate has descended to.

Proof about what? The banner, the reaction, the sectarianism, the abuse, the threats, the statement are all fact. Was the banner displayed in the "FAMILY" stand congratulating "Shagger" deemed worthy of sending a snatch squad in to grab? Of course not! The sectarian hordes can do what they like at our place as long as most of them pay in!

Edited September 18, 2018 by Lord Pityme

[Sonny]

Just now, waldorf34 said:

SMiSA and the SLO should be there to put the fans angle on this subject  a framework agreed for future banners

There is a framework. Banners should be in support of the team or permission should be sought. Pretty simple IMHO.

[linwood buddie]

2 hours ago, oaksoft said:

And so the utterly shocking news that the guys in W7 DID know full well why the banner was removed and have spent the last few days trying to persuade us that they had no idea why.

Bastards.

Remember the story of the boy who cried wolf folks.

Maybe next time we won't have 90% of the forum backing you up by default.

Priceless response which made me laugh . How did you obtain the information that the guys were born out of wedlock?

[magnus]

2 minutes ago, Sonny said:

There is a framework. Banners should be in support of the team or permission should be sought. Pretty simple IMHO.

Would an "Alan Stubbs must go" banner be deemed as in support of the team? I would say yes.