[Football] Liverpool and Manchester United lead ‘European League’ breakout league idea

[*Gullsworth*]

I'm not sure I would describe bottling a Policeman just as 'direct action' or 'an unlawful way'!

The fans should organize more protests but they will always attract those that seek confrontation, just as any protest in this country seems to do. However, if there is a plethora of protests that gets games banned and teams docked points, we'll start to see titles, promotions, relegation etc being decided off the pitch rather than on it.

That is very true but I would think no one on here or the majority of the thousands peacefully demonstrating outside OT would want someone injured as a result of direct action, it is always a minority that steps well over that line. However even though the direct action we took at the York match could be frowned upon at the time, I look back with pride that with the more lawful contributions of the campaign against Archer something was achieved by passionate club supporters that knew the club was being taken in the wrong direction. I would imagine a vast majority of the Man U fans feel the same. As we did i expect they will have to face the consequences of a points deduction but this will be a price worth paying if their objectives are realised.

 

[Stat Brother]

Someone posted on the thread mocking Newcastle fans for not having their own pitch invasion. I raised an eyebrow when I read that.

That's far from the point I was making.

 

[Questions]

Picking up on no ones post in particular I would say it is much easier to oust someone like Archer who has already milked the cow dry than a mob like the Glaziers who have billions and billions left in their club/business

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

One of the things that I think is worth pointing out is that Archer was clearly seeking to destroy our club. Like them or loathe them, since the Glazers took over, Utd have won the Champions league once and were twice more in the final. They've won the EPL 5 times and the FA cup and Europa league once each and losing finalists in the FA cup twice more. They're odds on to be in the Europa league final again this season and the Champions League next season. It isn't in the interest of the Glazers for the club to fail.

The manner of the purchase by the Glazers is heavily criticised but it doesn't appear to have to held the club back! It does make you wonder that apart from taking a pay cheque for the club, what have the Glazers done wrong (ESL obviously excepted)

I think the cost of half time pies and indeed season tickets has gone up, the latter explaining why Old Trafford is normally half empty on non-Covid match days. Oh, hang on....

I'm glad someone else has posted this and not me. When I watched the yellow and green united supporters yesterday I asked myself the same questions. What apart from taking a mass of money out of the club have the Glazers done? Has the club had any successon the pitch since they took over in 2005? Yes, yes they have:

One FA cup
Four league cups
One champions' league won
One Europa league win
Five premier league titles

So is the protesting about this tally of trophies being not enough?
Or is it because English football suppoters should not be subjected to This Sort Of Thing.
Moneymen should not be allowed to own English football - clubs should have 51% fan ownership, like in Germany
Indeed, Tony Bloom shuld be made to hand over 51% of the Albion to the fans.
Mmmmm.....we need to draw the line....Glazers OUT, But Bloom, er, NOT OUT.

Actully if I were a Manc I'd prefer to see the back of the Glazers, but primarily because I simply don't like the smell of them, and their obvious lack of interest in the club as anythng other than a cash cow. I'm not sure exactly how upset about that I'd be, though. Would I bin twelve trophies to see them gone? Well, as someone who supports a club that has been as close to a trophy as I've been close to David Bowie, I'm not sure I have the right to comment.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Picking up on no ones post in particular I would say it is much easier to oust someone like Archer who has already milked the cow dry than a mob like the Glaziers who have billions and billions left in their club/business

Quite.

And Archer wasn't ousted. He sold a franchise after turning it into a shell.

As an aside, I have had rows with people over the years who 'boycotted' going to Gillingham. I can understand people not going because of the costs and time, but as a protest?

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

That's far from the point I was making.

I normally understand what you're on about but sometimes I don't. On this occasion I apparently didn't.

 

[Chicken Run]

You are David Starkey and I claim my five guineas.

Cause and effect in history can rarely be categorised in such simplistic terms.

While you were charging about like a toddler I was sitting in the West stand, shaking my head sadly at the futility of it all. But of course I was wrong - the very next day Archer bought back the Goldstone, sold the club to Knight, and we all lived happily ever after. Oh, hang on.

If I really thought the pitch invasion did anything important I'd be fully in favour of pitch invasions. I just heard Kieran Maguire on the radio saying that owners want a quiet life (implying that pitch invasions are a good thing). In that context, and with a cost benefit analysis, he could be right. But I'm still asking the same question - show me the evidence that the pich invasion caused Archer to sell to Knight. There is a massive difference between 'it did no harm and seemed to be a good idea at the time' and 'it changed everthing'. I maintain that the York pitch invasion did not change everything. That is unequivocal. It may have changed something, but that's arguable. And we certainly did get 3 points docked.

I appreciate that NSC is a Brighton and Hove Albion echo chamber, but.....even when it comes to football, sometimes I want to know the truth, not simply accept the folklore.

Anyway, I am clearly not going to get a sensible answer to my question, and am beginning to feel like I'm in church and have foolishly asked for proof that Jesus really is the son of God and will save me, if I just believe.

Charging about like a Toddler? Are you actually for real, I may have my differences with [MENTION=616]Guinness Boy[/MENTION] but I can assure you I have nothing but thanks for him and all the others that put themselves at risk that day and many others like it!

I too was in the West Stand that day and remember a bunch of people muttering and indeed booing and I turned to my late father and said it’s those on the pitch that make the difference not the nodding dogs sat up here!

Those that can DO, those that can’t lecture….


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Guinness Boy]

I'm not. My point was that I question the supposition that without the pitch invasion Archer would never have sold the club to Knight (the only thing that would save the club in the long run - the Goldstone had already been sold). This, if it wasn't obvious, and I would have elaborated had I not been met with rather aggressive responses from some - not you I hasten to add, is in a wider context of wondering how supporters can best get their way.

The first way to get your way is to work out what works and what doesn't. Analysis of what happened in the past can be useful. Several people have quite reasonably suggested that the York pitch invasion was just part of an overall successful campaign to save the club. Yes, OK, but it is still worthwhile to look back and consider what worked and what didn't. The York pitch invasion very certainly cost us a 3 point deduction (1 plus the 2 suspended from an earlier pitch invasion - I checked this yesterday when someone said we weren't deducted points). The organisers of the pitch invasion (it was organised, even I knew the exact minute it would happen) knew we would get at least a 2 point deduction so they must have calculated that adding this to our risk of relegation to the conference was less potentially damaging in the long term than not having the pitch invasion. Cost benefit analysis. You might tell me that doing that sort of cost benefit analysis was not appropriate in those heady times, but if so you would add to my increasing perception that pitch invasions are an extremely risky part of an overall campaign to get what one wants, and that the consequences are not always properly evaluated (either before the event or indeed after).

Someone posted on the thread mocking Newcastle fans for not having their own pitch invasion. I raised an eyebrow when I read that.

You're really overanalysing this and I suspect you did at the time.

 

[Stat Brother]

I normally understand what you're on about but sometimes I don't. On this occasion I apparently didn't.

Newcastle fans have spent x years telling everybody who'll listen how much they hate Ashley.
Newcastle fans have spent x years going to games, buying the shirts, eating the pies.

Had they spent x years treading the path of passive resistance Ashley would no longer be at Newcastle.

One, just one, in a very long series of options open to them would be having high profile game(s) postponed and have it resonate around the world - There's no such thing as bad publicity.


In order to protect the 'brand' The Premier League would have acted for the greater good - the greater good!
Ashley would be gone.



Newcastle fans have done no such thing so f**k'em.


After 16 years I do wonder if trophyless Manchester United fans are being a little West Hammy about this.

As it stands their club really isn't theirs at all, it's a show pony, a Crufts Best In Show, it's not the mutt you roll around in the mud with.

It's not the club of Busby & Ferguson, and hasn't been for years although ironically that's exactly what was being bought by the current owners.

 

[cjd]

Several people have quite reasonably suggested that the York pitch invasion was just part of an overall successful campaign to save the club. Yes, OK, but it is still worthwhile to look back and consider what worked and what didn't. The York pitch invasion very certainly cost us a 3 point deduction (1 plus the 2 suspended from an earlier pitch invasion - I checked this yesterday when someone said we weren't deducted points). The organisers of the pitch invasion (it was organised, even I knew the exact minute it would happen) knew we would get at least a 2 point deduction so they must have calculated that adding this to our risk of relegation to the conference was less potentially damaging in the long term than not having the pitch invasion. Cost benefit analysis. You might tell me that doing that sort of cost benefit analysis was not appropriate in those heady times, but if so you would add to my increasing perception that pitch invasions are an extremely risky part of an overall campaign to get what one wants, and that the consequences are not always properly evaluated (either before the event or indeed after).

I was the poster yesterday who wasn't certain that we got points deduction for the York City match. That was incorrect. We did receive a three point penalty but this was suspended.

Furthermore the suspended three point deduction had no impact on us being relegated to the Conference that season as we were in League two not League three.

We were of course relegated the season of the York City match to League 3. Quite why you think the organisers of the York City invasion had already considered a two point deduction is odd.

The following season more pitch invasions followed and the Football League finally lost patience and imposed only a two point deduction and not the full three suspended points from the previous season. Thefootball League of course had to impose some punishment, but were aware of the corrupt Chairman Bill Archer.

I think at the time we were already 9 points from safety in League Three, so another two points was thought at the time going to make little difference to our survival, but at least the Football League would be seen to have acted.

 

[father_and_son]

Picking up on no ones post in particular I would say it is much easier to oust someone like Archer who has already milked the cow dry than a mob like the Glaziers who have billions and billions left in their club/business

I didn't realise there was that much money in windows, but yes, Glaziers frequently overcharge.

 

[mikeyjh]

Newcastle fans have spent x years telling everybody who'll listen how much they hate Ashley.
Newcastle fans have spent x years going to games, buying the shirts, eating the pies.

Had they spent x years treading the path of passive resistance Ashley would no longer be at Newcastle.

One, just one, in a very long series of options open to them would be having high profile game(s) postponed and have it resonate around the world - There's no such thing as bad publicity.


In order to protect the 'brand' The Premier League would have acted for the greater good - the greater good!
Ashley would be gone.



Newcastle fans have done no such thing so f**k'em.


I do wonder if trophyless Manchester United fans are being a little West Hammy about this.

The problem is that, fundamentally, as football fans we want to watch the team on a Saturday afternoon (ha!), play well and sometimes win. We want to be able to do that in an affordable fashion and many of us want to do it within a febrile atmosphere. Win and we go home happy, lose and we go home and kick the dog and carry one with whatever else we're doing with the rest of the weekend. What happens outside of that, to many, is largely irrelevant and if there is not an organised, co-ordinated campaign that taps in to the large % of people that don't spend their lives in the interweb reading about this stuff, nothing happens.

Importantly, football fans are entirely tribal, very very few opinions are garnered from people who aren't thinking about if from the angle of their particular club. Fans of may PL clubs were up in arms about the ESL but think the PL is a tremendous success, in a sense it's an hypocrisy, our elite league is okay but we don't like one that takes away from US, that's not okay. Likewise as you go down the pyramid.

I've seen club owners (including Derby in this) been blamed for all the woes of the their clubs but the inequality is basically the problem. Almost without exception, every club that's made it to the PL has done so by overspending, normally over a period of years. The difference between those and the likes of Derby and many others can be the whim of a referee or the slip of a Keogh, goes one way and everything is rosy, the other and you're in a world of financial pain.

Most football clubs in this country are on the breadline and/or p*ss money week after week, I think it's quite sad.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Newcastle fans have spent x years telling everybody who'll listen how much they hate Ashley.
Newcastle fans have spent x years going to games, buying the shirts, eating the pies.

Had they spent x years treading the path of passive resistance Ashley would no longer be at Newcastle.

One, just one, in a very long series of options open to them would be having high profile game(s) postponed and have it resonate around the world - There's no such thing as bad publicity.


In order to protect the 'brand' The Premier League would have acted for the greater good - the greater good!
Ashley would be gone.



Newcastle fans have done no such thing so f**k'em.


After 16 years I do wonder if trophyless Manchester United fans are being a little West Hammy about this.

As it stands their club really isn't theirs at all, it's a show pony, a Crufts Best In Show, it's not the mutt you roll around in the mud with.

It's not the club of Busby & Ferguson, and hasn't been for years although ironically that's exactly what was being bought by the current owners.

So you think Newcaste fans don't want Ashley gone 'enough'? Or they are too stupid to realise that if the copy the Manu U fans yesterday Ashley will be gone, just like the Glazers are now gone? Oh...hang on.

Well, you may be right and more of this may well force the Glazers (and Ashley out). We shall see. Or, let's rephrase ithis, we won't see because it won't happen.

Oh, another reply to someone else. When I commented critically about the ManU pitch invasion not being the reason why the ESL plan collapsed (unless you have a Tardis) I had the Chelsea protests brought up. I have no problem with the Chelsea protests - they did not involve a pitch invasion and a postponement, or an injured policeman.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

You're really overanalysing this and I suspect you did at the time.

Of course! It's part of my mental make up. I mean no offense by it. My mental make up requires that I question and hypothesize, which is what I do for a job. Apologies if it doesn't quite fit with the viscerality of football support (the viscerality which, paradoxically, is one of two main reasons why I love football and The Albion).

All the best!

 

[drew]

That is very true but I would think no one on here or the majority of the thousands peacefully demonstrating outside OT would want someone injured as a result of direct action, it is always a minority that steps well over that line. However even though the direct action we took at the York match could be frowned upon at the time, I look back with pride that with the more lawful contributions of the campaign against Archer something was achieved by passionate club supporters that knew the club was being taken in the wrong direction. I would imagine a vast majority of the Man U fans feel the same. As we did i expect they will have to face the consequences of a points deduction but this will be a price worth paying if their objectives are realised.

Just to be clear, I'm not frowning on the pitch invasion against York but the morons that then proceeded to smash the goalposts. It could have been even worse. The press then focus on that more than what the fans wanted them to focus on. Like yesterday, a protest at Old Trafford is a big thing but the injuries will detract from the cause rather than add to it.

 

[dangull]

I think the cost of half time pies and indeed season tickets has gone up, the latter explaining why Old Trafford is normally half empty on non-Covid match days. Oh, hang on....

I'm glad someone else has posted this and not me. When I watched the yellow and green united supporters yesterday I asked myself the same questions. What apart from taking a mass of money out of the club have the Glazers done? Has the club had any successon the pitch since they took over in 2005? Yes, yes they have:

One FA cup
Four league cups
One champions' league won
One Europa league win
Five premier league titles

So is the protesting about this tally of trophies being not enough?
Or is it because English football suppoters should not be subjected to This Sort Of Thing.
Moneymen should not be allowed to own English football - clubs should have 51% fan ownership, like in Germany
Indeed, Tony Bloom shuld be made to hand over 51% of the Albion to the fans.
Mmmmm.....we need to draw the line....Glazers OUT, But Bloom, er, NOT OUT.

Actully if I were a Manc I'd prefer to see the back of the Glazers, but primarily because I simply don't like the smell of them, and their obvious lack of interest in the club as anythng other than a cash cow. I'm not sure exactly how upset about that I'd be, though. Would I bin twelve trophies to see them gone? Well, as someone who supports a club that has been as close to a trophy as I've been close to David Bowie, I'm not sure I have the right to comment.

A big reason for Man Utd's success on the pitch was Alex Ferguson rather than a lack of funds in the squad Imo

 

[*Gullsworth*]

Of course! It's part of my mental make up. I mean no offense by it. My mental make up requires that I question and hypothesize, which is what I do for a job. Apologies if it doesn't quite fit with the viscerality of football support (the viscerality which, paradoxically, is one of two main reasons why I love football and The Albion).

All the best!

Thats alright then without sounding patronising clubs need supporters of all differential thought process. We all love our club and we are a lucky set of supporters with the current incumbent running it.....long may it continue.

Happy Bank Holiday HWT

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I was the poster yesterday who wasn't certain that we got points deduction for the York City match. That was incorrect. We did receive a three point penalty but this was suspended.

Furthermore the suspended three point deduction had no impact on us being relegated to the Conference that season as we were in League two not League three.

We were of course relegated the season of the York City match to League 3. Quite why you think the organisers of the York City invasion had already considered a two point deduction is odd.

The following season more pitch invasions followed and the Football League finally lost patience and imposed only a two point deduction and not the full three suspended points from the previous season. Thefootball League of course had to impose some punishment, but were aware of the corrupt Chairman Bill Archer.

I think at the time we were already 9 points from safety in League Three, so another two points was thought at the time going to make little difference to our survival, but at least the Football League would be seen to have acted.

Thanks for that.Yes, you're right. In the end we apparently received no punishment for the York pitch invasion (having lost two points for the lincoln pitch invasion). I was a bit surprised when I read that. In the end it didn't matter, as you say, but it is worrying that supporters didn't care at the time because at 9 points adrift they already thought we were doomed.

I prefer to remember the glorious Hartlepool game. That 5-0 win kept us up and, I'm sorry, but I suspect that had we been relegated we would have gone out of business. Anyway....

Wikipedia

Brighton's league form steadily improved under Gritt, although their improving chances of survival were put under further threat on 9 December by a two-point deduction from the Football League imposed as punishment for a pitch invasion by fans who were protesting against the sale of the Goldstone Ground in a league game against Lincoln City on 1 October 1996. The club later appealed against the points deduction but their appeal was rejected.

From another source "http://www.emfootball.co.uk/table1996-7.html" it clearly shows we got 47 points for results that should have given us 49.

From fourfourtwo (https://www.fourfourtwo.com/features/brighton-brink-extinction-premier-league-told-fourfourtwo) it says: "The pitch invasions continued. When the fans ran on once more against Lincoln, the FA deducted Albion two points, leaving them 11 points off safety after a nightmare start."

From the goldstone wrap (where I looked yesterday; https://thegoldstonewrap.com/2014/04/30/the-york-rampage/) it says "Brighton also incurred a suspended three point deduction, two of which were docked after another pitch invasion, on Tuesday 1st October 1996, in the match against Lincoln."

The Independent "https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/brighton-have-two-points-deducted-1313939.html" says the 2 points were deducted for the earlier pitch invasion against Lincoln.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Thats alright then without sounding patronising clubs need supporters of all differential thought process. We all love our club and we are a lucky set of supporters with the current incumbent running it.....long may it continue.

Happy Bank Holiday HWT

Cheers, mate. We are off out for jollity, now. All the best

 

[Dave the OAP]

I read Build a Bonfire when it came out. I don't recall anything about how pitch invasions pushed Archer into selling the club to Knight.

The campaigns were brilliant, especially as a template for others, but Paul Samrah triggering the rule changes that now prevent owners selling grounds with no contingeny is the primary lasting outcome. I'm not convinced even the peaceful protests are what forced Archer out, because he'd sold the Goldstone, and the club he sold to Knight was worthless. He'd got what he wanted. The pitch invasions mostly cost us 3 points.

Goodness me.