Wolves fan in West Lower

[Paul Reids Sock]

Ony been brazen about being in the wrong stand once. That was at the Oxford friendly when the lad was in the home end in his Brighton shirt and shorts. However we were with a big group of Oxford fans and it was a friendly so probably slightly different

 

[Worried Man Blues]

Definitely shouldn't be allowed, all this liberal nonsense, we'll be politely clapping their goals next, all happy clappy

 

[Stat Brother]

Unbelievable.

In my day no Toby would dream of pulling this.
Modern football has gone to shite.

Regards
Stat.

 

[kingcole]

It's against ticket sale regs, home fans only in home areas.... just an observation.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

I know we are leaving Europe but still.

How is the team you support different from your sexuality, region or the colour of your skin?

I know clubs like to enforce segregation but if a well behaved fan was chucked out due to their 'belief' I think the clubs could be on a very sticky wicket

 

[Thunder Bolt]

I know we are leaving Europe but still.

How is the team you support different from your sexuality, region or the colour of your skin?

I know clubs like to enforce segregation but if a well behaved fan was chucked out due to their 'belief' I think the clubs could be on a very sticky wicket

What a lot of codswallop. When you buy a ticket, you tick a box saying you agree to the terms and conditions.

 

[essbee]

I would take exception to an opposing fan in the Albion end.

All this pigs*it about - "so what if they didn't cause any trouble then what's the harm blah, blah, blah.

Well - I wouldn't cause any harm if I was allowed to take beer to my seat, but I'm not allowed to - and
so - why was that sh*t law brought in? Have the do gooders ever given that any thought?

 

[kingcole]

What a lot of codswallop. When you buy a ticket, you tick a box saying you agree to the terms and conditions.

It's definition. How do you describe supporter?

And what if you changed your mind who you supported?

This is not what I would do but I just think that is a well behaved person who chose to sit in a different area of the ground was evicted and he behaved well and if that person had some spare time or money it could cause embarrament for a football club in the courts.

Terms and conditions do t trump the law of the land.

If a bad football club said no gay men are allowed in their terms, do you really think said gay man would have no legal recourse ?

That's an extreme example. But what about this?

Does it say home fans only? Or no away fans ?

Define each?

 

[Thunder Bolt]

It's definition. How do you describe supporter?

And what if you changed your mind who you supported?

This is not what I would do but I just think that is a well behaved person who chose to sit in a different area of the ground was evicted and he behaved well and if that person had some spare time or money it could cause embarrament for a football club in the courts.

Terms and conditions do t trump the law of the land.

If a bad football club said no gay men are allowed in their terms, do you really think said gay man would have no legal recourse ?

That's an extreme example. But what about this?

Does it say home fans only? Or no away fans ?

Define each?

Check it out for yourself.

https://www.seagullstickets.com/screenloader.aspx?page=documents/html/tandc.html

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

It's definition. How do you describe supporter?

And what if you changed your mind who you supported?

This is not what I would do but I just think that is a well behaved person who chose to sit in a different area of the ground was evicted and he behaved well and if that person had some spare time or money it could cause embarrament for a football club in the courts.

Terms and conditions do t trump the law of the land.

If a bad football club said no gay men are allowed in their terms, do you really think said gay man would have no legal recourse ?

That's an extreme example. But what about this?

Does it say home fans only? Or no away fans ?

Define each?

Very good point. These terms and conditions seem to preclude me from changing my team at half time. I reserve the right to switch allegiances to the opposition if we are 3-0 down and there is no free tea.

 

[essbee]

It's definition. How do you describe supporter?

And what if you changed your mind who you supported?

This is not what I would do but I just think that is a well behaved person who chose to sit in a different area of the ground was evicted and he behaved well and if that person had some spare time or money it could cause embarrament for a football club in the courts.

Terms and conditions do t trump the law of the land.

If a bad football club said no gay men are allowed in their terms, do you really think said gay man would have no legal recourse ?

That's an extreme example. But what about this?

Does it say home fans only? Or no away fans ?

Define each?

It's not rocket science kingcole.

 

[Icy Gull]

I really hope he joined in with the applause for the away attendance when it was announced.

 

[Easy 10]

Absolutely no harm in it whatsoever, as long as he wasn't behaving like a div.

They don't have segregation in American ballparks. I sat amongst the NY Mets fans in my Twins shirt, and I didn't even get shot at once. No wonder we're not even allowed BEER in our seats when some fans over here get all UPPITY just because a supporter of the opposition is (shock-horror) sitting amongst us. Whats the problem ? Isn't it simply a case of behaving like an ADULT ?

Its actually a good opportunity to have a chat with an opposition fan to learn a bit about his team and some of his players.

 

[essbee]

Absolutely no harm in it whatsoever, as long as he wasn't behaving like a div.

They don't have segregation in American ballparks. I sat amongst the NY Mets fans in my Twins shirt, and I didn't even get shot at once. No wonder we're not even allowed BEER in our seats when some fans over here get all UPPITY just because a supporter of the opposition is (shock-horror) sitting amongst us. Whats the problem ? Isn't it simply a case of behaving like an ADULT ?

Its actually a good opportunity to have a chat with an opposition fan to learn a bit about his team and some of his players.

But Easy - it's not like we advertise the fact that away supporters can freely join us in the stands is it?
How many times have our supporters tried to get "home" tickets in over-subscribed away matches and been told
to eff off by the club concerned once they twig. You can't have it both ways.

 

[bhanutz]

Absolutely no harm in it whatsoever, as long as he wasn't behaving like a div.

They don't have segregation in American ballparks. I sat amongst the NY Mets fans in my Twins shirt, and I didn't even get shot at once. No wonder we're not even allowed BEER in our seats when some fans over here get all UPPITY just because a supporter of the opposition is (shock-horror) sitting amongst us. Whats the problem ? Isn't it simply a case of behaving like an ADULT ?

Its actually a good opportunity to have a chat with an opposition fan to learn a bit about his team and some of his players.

My word...How the game has changed....What do Americans know anyway?

 

[Sheebo]

And... If wearing a scarf was not bad enough ..... He had the audacity of taking some photographs... What ever next

http://www.molineuxmix.co.uk/index.php?threads/vs-brighton-a-teams-comms.190792/

incl post 4,24,34

An interesting quote from that forum:

'Brighton are no great side either. Couldn't beat PNE at the weekend and lost to Brentford.'

Yes I'll judge a team on 2 poor results I've picked on from 13 games

 

[Easy 10]

But Easy - it's not like we advertise the fact that away supporters can freely join us in the stands is it?
How many times have our supporters tried to get "home" tickets in over-subscribed away matches and been told
to eff off by the club concerned once they twig. You can't have it both ways.

I'm not saying there should be a complete policy change to allow hoards of away fans in the home end (having an away end is a massive factor in having an atmosphere, I'd never want that to change. But when you see the odd opposition fan here or there in the home end, I don't think its a big deal. He might've not worn colours and just looked like a neutral, nobody would've been any the wiser unless he reacted to something on the pitch.

 

[Guinness Boy]

WSL or WSU?

I saw a very similar man in a very similar scarf in the West Upper by pie and pint. And those photos seem to be from in or near the press area / 1901? Maybe someone who had access all areas rights? An old player of theirs or something? Or maybe there's THREE of them and they're CLONES


Or there was a typo in the thread title. Anyway, I just about managed not to give him a good besmirching.

 

[Megazone]

WSL or WSU?

I saw a very similar man in a very similar scarf in the West Upper by pie and pint. And those photos seem to be from in or near the press area / 1901? Maybe someone who had access all areas rights? An old player of theirs or something? Or maybe there's THREE of them and they're CLONES


Anyway, I just about managed not to give him a good besmirching.

I had a dream....

 

[carlzeiss]

Well, that was pretty average.

The game started out with Batth miscontrolling the pass back to him from kick off, being closed down and him cannoning the ball off Baldock for a goal kick. After that, it was pretty tentative for the first 10 minutes or so. Both teams held on to possession for long periods without threatening to get into dangerous positions. Brighton had the only chance of that period with one of their players getting between the centre halves and then heading over unchallenged.

Brighton took the lead from a cross from their left hand side. Their winger (Skalak) and full back (Bong) had the ball out wide but were well covered by both Costa and Iorfa. Bong (covered by Iorfa) was in a more advanced position and laid the ball back to Skalak (covered by Costa). For some inexplicable reason, Iorfa followed the ball and tried to close down Skalak even though he was well covered, leaving Bong wide open for the return pass and with all the time in the world to put a cross in. Baldock got his head to the ball (I'm not sure who he got in front of) and we were one nil down.

Hause got outmuscled early on by Murray a few times, but settled down into the game as the half went on and nullified that threat. Iorfa got caught out of position a few times during the first half but fortunately it didn't lead to anything. Other than a good Costa effort from range which tested the keeper, the first half petered out with Brighton looking like the only team likely to score. The referee did have an absolutely shocking 5 minutes where he gave about 4 or 5 poor decisions all in favour of the opposition. Due to the referees short stature, there were several references to hobbits and the seven dwarves from the crowd.

I missed the first few minutes of the second half due to enjoying a beer and not realising the teams were back out. When I arrived at my seat in the 48th minute, I wasn't surprised to see that Prince (who have been pretty anonymous on the left all first half) had been replaced by Bod. I was surprised to see Coady had been brought off, particularly as he had been one of our more prominent players in the first half. Cavaleiro had replaced him and gave a performance which made me question how he was ever worth £7.5 million, he didn't really do anything and lost possession most of the time he had the ball. Bodvarsson had an initial impact, winning a few free kicks, but struggled to get into the game with our poor build up play.

For the first 40 minutes of the second half, we were as bad, if not worse than the first half. We never really threatened and our play seemed to follow the same pattern every attack. The defenders would lay the ball into Saiss (who was always available and I thought was really impressive when we had the ball), he would either lay the ball into a striker who would be outnumbered or into one of the wingers who would either lose the ball or fail to beat the first man with a cross. I actually felt sorry for Edwards in that second half, who would make some intelligent runs to join the attack when Saiss played the ball into space behind the full back or into one of our attackers, only to find himself running back to his own goal almost immediately. He became ineffective second half, but I struggle to blame him for that tonight.

Dicko (who seemed a bit rusty, but did win a few headers and attempt to run the channels) was replaced by Teixeria, but that changed little in open play. Knockeart put a few of our players on their backsides in the second half at several intervals. Only one team really looked like scoring and that was Brighton.

That was until about the 87th minute when we suddenly came alive. We won a couple of free kicks in the opposition half and whereas the rest of the game, we had been taking it short and ending up with the ball with our centre halves, Teixiera actually put a few crosses in. We actually looked threatening for the first time in the match and Brighton looked nervous. It lead to us winning a series of corners, Batth having a volley saved from 18 yards at one of them. Ikeme came up for a corner right at the death, which was headed just wide before the referee blew the final whistle.

It was an incredibly frustrating evening where we looked pretty toothless. On reflection, I can't really say we deserved anything out of the game as we never really threatened.

I think the difference came with the wingers and fullbacks tonight. Their wingers caused problems for our fullbacks all night, with Iorfa being caught out a few times. Their full backs seemed to have the measure of our wide players and when we did get into a position to cross, it rarely beat the first man.

 

[LamieRobertson]

not at £ 2.00 a cup

£2!!!! ..and a cup!!!!!! ESU slumming it £2.20 and some plastic thing ...sigh