[Albion] IFO adjudication on Albion fan's indefinite ban

[Bozza]

This latest IFO adjudication reads as though the club are in disagreement with the IFO's recommendations...

Recommendations ​

​

62. The IFO recommends that Club considers, as a matter of course, taking steps to structure independence on appeals and sanction panels. ​

​

63. Although the IFO recognises that the Club aren’t bound by the decision of the Court, but given that another tribunal of fact has weighed the risk and lifted the FBO, the IFO finds it difficult to resist weighting the outcome of this adjudication in favour of the Supporter and recommends the Club reconsiders the sanction. The District Judge, Amanda Kelly, was quoted as saying ‘if a police officer says you have learned your lesson… then [the Supporter] had “earned the right to attend” matches again.’ The IFO does consider this relevant given that it understands the police officer referenced, PC Darren Balkham is the Sussex Police’s dedicated football police officer.​

An indefinite ban at Brighton and Hove Albion - Independent Football Ombudsman

A Brighton Supporter complained about a Club suspension imposed on them and a deduction of loyalty points after a ticket was purchased in the Supporter’s name and using the Supporter’s fan number by the Supporter’s son, who was under 18 years old.

www.theifo.co.uk

 

[Horses Arse]

Club make decision, decision appealed, club stand by decision.

Never going to be different regardless of the event, facts presented, mistakes made (such as claiming the supporter showed no remorse).

Sounds like the supporter behaved like an arse but the club still come across as an organisation unable to think beyond the certainty that what they say or do is always correct.

 

[portlock seagull]

In another era, or rather division, they’d be begging the fan to come back…and choose which stand they wanted to themselves! Can count themself a bit unlucky. Heels firmly dug in, human nature not to admit wrong. No point appealing because no one’s listening.

 

[Yoda]

Anyone else find it odd that the club were happy to take into relevence of the original court hearing when it come to applying their ban: "The Club referred to the Supporters’ Charter, noting that the Supporter ‘had been to court and pleaded guilty to assaulting a member of staff."

Yet, when it come to the appeal and FBO being lifted they don't: "The Club stated that the criminal case ‘is totally separate to the Club sanctions’ and ‘irrelevant as mentioned in the notes from the meeting.’"

Even though the club also admit the 'assult' was out of circumstances and in no way intentional: "Within the Minutes, the Security Manager described the incident and ‘confirmed that whilst this was not intentional, it was a repercussion of [the Supporter’s] sudden arm movements.’"

Sorry BHAFC, but if you apply it to the first instance, you have to again on the second and his appeal.

 

[Pretty Plnk Fairy]

Just as well the club hadn’t been thinking of singing Charlie Oatway

Regards

DF

 

[AmexRuislip]

In another era, or rather division, they’d be begging the fan to come back…and choose which stand they wanted to themselves! Can count themself a bit unlucky. Heels firmly dug in, human nature not to admit wrong. No point appealing because no one’s listening.

All about the club setting a precedent, not really giving a thought on common sense.
As you say, if we were a mid table Championship side, the fan might have been given a chance.
But as we're PL........

 

[B-right-on]

Fan punches steward in the face

Club bans fan

Fan complains about ban. Certain individuals jump on their high horse.

 

[happypig]

I'm Team Barber on this.
Fan behaves like a dick and gets convicted of assaulting a member of staff, conviction includes being banned from every football ground in the country for a period of time. Club issues fan with permanent ban in addition.
It's a bit of a slap in the face (another one) for the member of staff that got assaulted if the club welcome him back.
People need to realise that actions have consequences, often further reaching than their beer-addled brain can comprehend at the time.

 

[HangletonGull]

Bloke gets banned relises he can’t take his son to games for 5 years shits himself begs to be allowed back in club says no , complete non story

 

[drew]

Did he pay any compensation to the steward? Also, the club had a charter and this guy acted like a complete prat. Firstly with his behaviour to the away fans which sounds like it was way over the top and secondly by not leaving quietly. However, think the club should change the ban from indefinite with a review in 2025 to just a ban till 2025.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

The club don’t want his support. I agree with them. Nobody ‘has the right to attend matches.’ That was a stupid comment. Simple as that.

 

[Tim Over Whelmed]

As with all offences don't we at least consider whether, or not, that person has or is being rehabilitated? Even with a conviction it becomes spent and isn't referenced. My fear is if people are continually punished they get to the point where there's nothing to lose, without doubt the act was stupid and irresponsible, but the punishment should fit the crime, I'd say, after maybe five years, you should have learnt your lesson and served your time?

 

[Arthur]

In another era, or rather division, they’d be begging the fan to come back…and choose which stand they wanted to themselves! Can count themself a bit unlucky. Heels firmly dug in, human nature not to admit wrong. No point appealing because no one’s listening.

They've done that in this era.

Pal of mine, a season ticket holder, was banned for 18 months by the club. Didn't see the point in renewing his season ticket. Covid happened, lots of people didn't renew. He was contacted by the club asking why he wasn't renewing his two seats. Explained the situation to the ticket office. A couple of days later he got a letter from the club saying his ban had been reduced to 6 games (guess how many games were left of the current season?!?) and he was welcome to renew his season ticket for the next season. Was a good move by the club as come next season he now has 4 1901 seats.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

This latest IFO adjudication reads as though the club are in disagreement with the IFO's recommendations...

Recommendations ​

​

62. The IFO recommends that Club considers, as a matter of course, taking steps to structure independence on appeals and sanction panels. ​

​

63. Although the IFO recognises that the Club aren’t bound by the decision of the Court, but given that another tribunal of fact has weighed the risk and lifted the FBO, the IFO finds it difficult to resist weighting the outcome of this adjudication in favour of the Supporter and recommends the Club reconsiders the sanction. The District Judge, Amanda Kelly, was quoted as saying ‘if a police officer says you have learned your lesson… then [the Supporter] had “earned the right to attend” matches again.’ The IFO does consider this relevant given that it understands the police officer referenced, PC Darren Balkham is the Sussex Police’s dedicated football police officer.​

An indefinite ban at Brighton and Hove Albion - Independent Football Ombudsman

A Brighton Supporter complained about a Club suspension imposed on them and a deduction of loyalty points after a ticket was purchased in the Supporter’s name and using the Supporter’s fan number by the Supporter’s son, who was under 18 years old.

www.theifo.co.uk

But it is not the prerogative of a police officer to decide that the person has learned their lesson. If someone has been referred to the club for something or other, presumably by said policeman, and then sanctioned, at what point is the police officer even in a position to declare the person has learned their lesson?

In which case the decision of the club stands, surely?

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Fan punches steward in the face

Club bans fan

Fan complains about ban. Certain individuals jump on their high horse.

If that is what happened (I can't be arsed to read the details) then there is nothing to see here, as you suggest.

The 'inconsistency' of the club's actions and reasons given for them seems far too nuanced for anyone to pick this as a hill to die on.

How very queer

 

[Bozza]

But it is not the prerogative of a police officer to decide that the person has learned their lesson. If someone has been referred to the club for something or other, presumably by said policeman, and then sanctioned, at what point is the police officer even in a position to declare the person has learned their lesson?

In which case the decision of the club stands, surely?

In around 45 years of supporting the club, I've never been asked to leave a ground, nor found myself in a situation which has led me to hit a steward in the face, accidentally or otherwise.

I'm not surprised regarding the club's stance towards someone who has done this - I doubt any of us are.

From memory, I think I've read three IFO adjudications regarding the Albion and, on each occasion, the club have essentially said "No, you're wrong and we're right - we're not changing anything" which raises questions about the role of the IFO and/or the club's stance towards it.

I can certainly see merit in the IFO's recommendation to seek more balanced independence when it comes to fan rulings and appeals, but I can't see the club wanting to cede control of this in any way.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

In around 45 years of supporting the club, I've never been asked to leave a ground, nor found myself in a situation which has led me to hit a steward in the face, accidentally or otherwise.

I'm not surprised regarding the club's stance towards someone who has done this - I doubt any of us are.

From memory, I think I've read three IFO adjudications regarding the Albion and, on each occasion, the club have essentially said "No, you're wrong and we're right - we're not changing anything" which raises questions about the role of the IFO and/or the club's stance towards it.

I can certainly see merit in the IFO's recommendation to seek more balanced independence when it comes to fan rulings and appeals, but I can't see the club wanting to cede control of this in any way.

Yup. There is no reason why they should.

 

[CheeseRolls]

The IFO have reviewed the case based on the relevant facts. The club have possibly made a decision, based upon their broader expereince of dealing with this individual. What that experience has been we may never know.

If the appeal had contained, I have spent the last 2 years volunteering in my spare time for AITC to demonstrate my remorse and the required change in my behaviour, would the club have viewed the appeal differently?

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

In around 45 years of supporting the club, I've never been asked to leave a ground, nor found myself in a situation which has led me to hit a steward in the face, accidentally or otherwise.

I'm not surprised regarding the club's stance towards someone who has done this - I doubt any of us are.

From memory, I think I've read three IFO adjudications regarding the Albion and, on each occasion, the club have essentially said "No, you're wrong and we're right - we're not changing anything" which raises questions about the role of the IFO and/or the club's stance towards it.

I can certainly see merit in the IFO's recommendation to seek more balanced independence when it comes to fan rulings and appeals, but I can't see the club wanting to cede control of this in any way.

Thanks - that clarifies things for me, elegantly and eruditely (and succinctly).

So the nuance is about the role of the IFO, not the case itself.

I presume that if the IFO were to rule that a ban should not be overturned the club would go along with that. However this is irrelevant and the elephant in the room is simply that the IFO can do nothing other than recommend.

I see a lot of this in my line of work. An example. Author guidelines for submitting research papers. Unless the journal says 'you must' and checks the outcome, authors do what they like. Most research journals act like the IFO here, making recommendations without any intention of enforcing them. In the case of academic journals this is deliberate and designed to signal an intention to subscribe to good practice without doing anything to achieve good practice. Box ticking.

With the IFO it looks like it has been set up to signal that football is being seen to be fair without there being any need to be fair. I am not saying whether this decision is fair or not, by the way (that seems to be almost irrelevant).

In other words the IFO is yet another load of old bollocks, typical of this current era of Old Bollocks, exemplified by the almost deliberate creation of systems that won't work, set up with the sole purpose of box ticking - appearing to take an issue seriously while doing absolutely f*** all about it.

And large gin and tonics all round!

 

[Bozza]

Did he pay any compensation to the steward? Also, the club had a charter and this guy acted like a complete prat. Firstly with his behaviour to the away fans which sounds like it was way over the top and secondly by not leaving quietly. However, think the club should change the ban from indefinite with a review in 2025 to just a ban till 2025.

Assuming I've found the correct report on the original incident - I won't link to it in case not - he was ordered to pay compensation to the steward when this originally went to court.