|
|
Post by The Angry Agenda on Jan 11, 2024 17:37:08 GMT
To shut the stadium to supporters for two successive home matches after all the Club has been through is ridiculously excessive when the offence has been caused by two spectators who have been banned from the ground
Pathetic!! I hope they win their appeal
CLUB STATEMENT
Bury Football Club has been informed by Manchester FA that an independent committee has decided that due to the offensive comments made by two supporters during our game against West Didsbury and Chorlton in September we should be forced to play two home games behind closed doors.
We reported the incidents at the time, and provided video and other evidence to the police to assist their enquiries at some considerable cost to the club. We have not disputed the claims made. The individuals have not yet had their case heard by the law enforcement authorities and have been prevented from entering the stadium indefinitely whilst we await the outcome.
Our grounds for appeal are limited. We have accepted the facts of the incident, and do not believe that we acted in a way which was anything other than responsible and measured. We accept that the two individuals involved could have been removed from the stadium immediately but the stewards took a view at the time to stop any further problems and review the situation afterwards. We paid additional money to a CCTV specialist to review footage and provided this to the police. Our stewarding costs are £3000-4000 per game, it is not something we take lightly.
The basis of our appeal is that the punishment is excessive. We have seen multiple incidents over recent years of groups of supporters collectively issuing racist, misogynistic and homophobic abuse, as well as tragedy chanting. These have gone unpunished or have been dealt with by fines. We are unable to control the words of two people from a crowd of 3838 on that particular day, which is a typical Saturday afternoon crowd.
We accept there should be a punishment, but excluding every well behaved football supporter from a stadium which has already excluded those who perpetrated the offences in the first place does nothing to promote inclusion.
The loss of revenue is extremely damaging and our belief is that it would be far better to use that revenue to fund a campaign intended to positively promote diversity and inclusion. Football needs to change, this would help make that change.
A stadium closure throws this opportunity away and is likely to ignite a more divisive and polarised debate on these important issues.
We have taken huge strides to promote diversity and inclusion since forming the club and have raised money and awareness throughout the borough through the hard work of our volunteers, many of whom will be deeply dismayed by this judgement as it punishes them despite their efforts.
For this reason we intend to appeal. It is not because we are in any way dismissive of the issues involved. The appeal process will take a number of weeks and we will continue to play in front of supporters during this period, incuding Wythenshawe on Tuesday night.
We are also concerned that this specific judgment has been published publicly whilst matters are still being considered by the relevant law enforcement authorities.
|
|
|
|
Post by bing on Jan 11, 2024 17:56:18 GMT
This is ridiculous! I know elderly people whose only social interactions are based around going to the football. Why deprive good people the right to enjoy themselves when the two perpetrators are already banned?
|
|
|
|
Post by Frank Owen’s Paintbrush on Jan 11, 2024 17:57:43 GMT
Sort of puts our situation into perspective eh?
|
|
|
|
Post by avfo on Jan 11, 2024 17:57:45 GMT
Disciplinary Commission (“The Commission”)
On behalf of Manchester Football Association
In the matter of Bury FC (Case ID: 11476351M)
Decisions and Written Reasons
The Commission
1. These are the written reasons for the decisions of the Disciplinary Commission Chair who considered the above matter.
2. Nick Leale (Chair) deliberated on this case alone as Disciplinary Commission Chair, considering the case based on the papers provided.
The charges
3. Bury FC was charged by Manchester FA in respect of the following matters:
Charge 1: FA Rule 21.1 – failure to ensure spectators and/or supporters conducted themselves in an orderly fashion and did not use improper, offensive, violent, threatening, abusive, indecent, insulting, or provocative words and/or behaviour.
It was further alleged that the words and/or behaviour referred to race, disability and sexual orientation contrary to Rule 21.4.
This referred to the comments “paki”, “faggot”, “retard”, “spastic”, and ‘limp wrist gestures’ or similar.
4. The charges followed the alleged misconduct of Bury FC supporters at a match between Bury FC and West Didsbury & Chorlton FC in the North West Counties Football League Premier Division on 2nd September 2023.
Key background facts and evidence
5. The following is a summary of the key submissions provided to the Commission Chair. It does not contain reference to all the points orsubmissions made and the absence of any point does not mean that it has not been considered.
6. For the avoidance of doubt, the Commission Chair carefully considered all the evidence and materials in respect of this case.
7. Manchester FA received a report about events at the above match from ‘Kick It Out’ on 6th September 2023. In an e-mail received on that day from a Kick It Out Reporting Officer the evidence of two complaining individuals (who were present at the match) was presented in which there was reference to:
I. a Bury FC supporter repeatedly shouting “faggot” at an away supporter wearing a ‘rainbow’ shirt and also using the word “paki” towards another person in the stand.
II. Bury FC supporters making homophobic ‘waving’ (it is assumed ‘limp wrist’) gestures at away supporters.
8. Further evidence was received by West Didsbury & Chorlton FC representatives from a supporter of West Didsbury & Chorlton FC on 10th September 2023 stating that she had heard Bury FC supporters use the words “spastic” and “retard” towards supporters using the disabled facilities at the ground.
9. A summary of the other key evidence in the case appears below.
10.On 30th November 2023, Manchester FA notified Bury FC of the misconduct charge being brought against the club, as outlined above. On the same day, Bury FC pleaded guilty to the charges and asked for case to be considered on the papers.
Summary of further relevant evidence
11.The Commission Chair was also able to consider Bury FC’s written submissions, which in summary stated that the club had imposed ‘soft’ segregation at the fixture and that stewards were positioned where the two sets of supporters may be close to each other. The Club accepted the charge and was disappointed by the behaviour of the supporters involved, who had been suspended from attending matches at Bury FC while the police investigation continued. The Club employs a security firm to provide matchday stewarding and match day planning always takes place in advance.
12.The Club has a CCTV system in operation at matches to assist with the identity of individuals involved in any misconduct and continues to issue posts on social media to reinforce the Club’s commitment to inclusivity and diversity. There is now a flag to promote inclusivity and diversity on display at the stadium. There is now a new more effective segregation system in place when large number sof away supporters are expected at the stadium. There have been no similar issues at the stadium since the events of 2nd September.
Decisions and reasons
13.The Commission Chair carefully considered all the written and oral evidence provided. The burden of proof rests with the County FA.
14. The standard of proof is the civil standard, the balance of probability. In simple terms, the Commission Chair must be satisfied, on the evidence, that it was more likely than not that an event had occurred.
15. The Commission Chair concluded that the Rule E21 charge and aggravated Rule E21.4 charge against Bury FC was proved. The club admitted the charge and the evidence of the words and gestures used by the Club’s supporters was clear and undisputed. The evidence was clear that Bury FC supporters had repeatedly directed abusive and discriminatory comments at visiting supporters/others present at the match – as described above. The words and actions used were repeatedly abusive, indecent and discriminatory by their reference to race, disability and sexual orientation. A small number of supporters were involved but the behaviour was repeated numerous times during the course of the relevant match. The words were used in an aggressive way and coupled with intimidating, threatening and aggressive actions, including repeated offers to fight with visiting supporters. No proper action was taken to stop the behaviour or remove the relevant individuals from the stadium.
16. The Commission Chair was informed of Bury FC's offence history going back to the start of the 2018/19 season. There had been several relevant previous misconduct findings against that club in that period relating to spectator behaviour.
Most significantly:
I. Following events on 9th November 2021 the Club were fined £75 following a breach of FA Rule E20. Supporters had spat at the visiting goalkeeper and thrown beer on the pitch. This was recorded as the third incident of the season involving misconduct by Bury FC supporters.
II. Following events on 27th March 2022 the Club were fined £65 following a breach of FA Rule E20. Supporters had repeatedly set off smoke flares.
III. Following events on 2nd April 2022 the Club were fined £80 following a breach of FA Rule E20. Supporters had set smoke flares, thrown items onto the pitch and taken part in crowd disturbances.
IV. Following events on 15th November 2022 the Club were fined £140 following an aggravated breach (ie involving discriminatory behaviour) of FA Rule E21. A spectator had described the assistant referee as a “gayboy” and “faggot”.
V. Following events on 26th November 2022 the Club were find £190 following a breach of FA Rule E21. A supporter had used violent conduct towards opposition spectators.
VI. Following events on 11th March 2023 the Club were fined £215 following a breach of FA Rule E21. Supporters threw a flare onto the pitch and invaded the field of play.
VII. Following events on 28th March 2023 the Club were fined £165 following a breach of FA Rule E21. Supporters had attempted to strike the referee at the end of the match.
17. The Commission Chair concluded that the events of 2nd September 2023 at Bury FC were of the utmost seriousness, given the repeated poor behaviour of their supporters and the heavily discriminatory actions of their supporters at the match in question. The conduct of their supporters was made significantly more serious by the numerous previous E20/E21 misconduct findings against the Club as detailed above in the period from November 2021.
18. Seven serious misconduct findings involving supporters in such a short space of time (prior to the subsequent events of 2nd September 2023) is truly exceptional. Sadly, for Bury FC, the poor behaviour has now escalated into a further finding of abusive behaviour that included discriminatory references. The Commission Chair was left with no choice but to substantially increase the seriousness of the sanction passed against the Club.
19. The Commission Chair decided to impose the following sanctions on Bury FC:
I. A fine of £350 (reduced from the maximum due to the club's guilty plea).
II. A two-match full stadium closure. This means that for two home matches, no spectators can be present at Bury FC's stadium. The stadium closures must occur on the date of the first two North West Counties League Premier Division matches to take place at the stadium after the receipt of the notification of this decision by Bury FC.
20. This decision is subject to the right of appeal under the relevant FA Rules and Regulations.
Nick Leale (Chairman)
8th January 2024
|
|
|
|
Post by Curva Nord on Jan 11, 2024 18:19:38 GMT
Word of warning to us that is
|
|
daz
Junior Member
Posts: 84 
|
Post by daz on Jan 11, 2024 18:25:15 GMT
Any club deserves punishment for fan disorder etc.. but The authorities don't want any fan owned football clubs doing well as it would threaten the status quo. so given any chance to put their boot in and they'll go for the jugular
|
|
|
|
Post by bluejay on Jan 11, 2024 18:55:34 GMT
Word of warning to us that is How do you stop idiots shouting something stupid? Look at the problems we have behind the dugout. What is to stop rival fans getting other clubs into trouble? The intention seems to be to punish all fans to increase peer pressure but by the time some dick has said something homophobic it's too late. Hate these sorts of comments at games but don't think the punishment matches the offence. |
|
|
|
Post by Curva Nord on Jan 11, 2024 19:05:26 GMT
Well that is it, you make every person entering the ground buy a ticket, they then sit in that seat and if something is shouted you can then pin point an area where it's come from. Only place you can't do that is the North Stand.
Why people wind Cal up during the game I don't know. Does he goto their place of work and shout abuse at them?
|
|
|
|
Post by avfo on Jan 11, 2024 19:10:21 GMT
Excerpts from an earlier findings of the FA v Bury AFC
14th August 2023 -
In summary, by a Misconduct Charge Notification dated 26 May 2023 (the “Charge Notification”) issued by MFA against the Club, the Club was charged with failing to ensure that spectators and/or its supporters (and anyone purporting to be its supporters or followers) conducted themselves in an orderly fashion and refrained from improper, offensive, violent, threatening, abusive, indecent, insulting or provocative words and/or behaviour contrary to FA Rule E21.1 in a match against Vauxhall Motors FC on 4 April 2023 (the “Charge 1”) and that such failure was aggravated because it made reference to a person Ethnic Origin, Colour, Race, Nationality, Faith, Gender, Gender Reassignment, Sexual Orientation or Disability, therefore breaching FA Rule E3.2 (“the“Charge 2”)
The Charge Notification referred to the allegation that «an incident where it is alleged spectators associated with Bury AFC, made comments towards the assistant referee such as but not limited to, 'get back into the kitchen,' 'you are a useless fucking slag,' ' You have got no place in our game,' & 'it was offside you stupid bitch'” (the “Alleged Comments”).
The Club was required to submit a response by 9 June 2023. On 9 June 2023, the Club responded via the FA administrative system, the Whole Game system, with a guilty plea accepting the charges and requested a Non-Personal Hearing.
With respect to aggravating factors, the Commission considered the Club’s extremely poor disciplinary record. The Commission considered that the Club has a problem regarding their spectator’s behaviour, which was accepted by the Club itself. The Club is a repeated offender having continuously failing to ensure its spectators and/or supporters conduct themselves in an orderly fashion. Despite this, the Club did not demonstrate how they tried to tackle or will tackle the behaviour of its spectators and/or supporters. Against this background, the Commission considered that it was appropriate to sanction the Club with the playing of one match without spectators to be suspended in its execution for the period and under the conditions set out below. Furthermore, the Commission also considered that the offence target the Assistant Referee and the repetitive use of discriminatory comments as aggravating elements.
34. In relation to mitigating factors, the Commission considered the Club’s admission of guilt and the fact they were apologetic towards the Assistant Referee.
35. Having considered all the circumstances in the case, the sanction guidelines and the aggravating and mitigating factors present, the Commission considered that this case fell within the High Category and imposed the following sanction:
a) £280.00 fine; and
b) the playing of one match without spectators being present at the Club’s home venue. The present sanction is to be suspended for a period of twelve months commencing from the date of notification of these Written Reasons and ending on the same day of the following year. In the event the Club commits another breach of FA Rule E21.4 during the foregoing period, it should serve the present sanction in addition to any other sanction that can arise in relation to the later aggravated offence.
IX. RIGHT TO APPEAL
36. This decision is subject to the right of appeal under the relevant FA rules and
Regulations.
André Duarte Costa
Alex Chakmakjian
Loraine Ladlow
14 August 2024
|
|
|
|
Post by oldsealandroadender on Jan 11, 2024 20:53:40 GMT
The Commission deliberating this case is one man Nick Leale the Chair. How can one man have the authority to make decisions like this?
Somehow it seems if you you don't like one man's opinion then tough. That is not logical or fair.
|
|
|
|
Post by hblock on Jan 11, 2024 20:59:01 GMT
It's probably what Frank and a few other do gooders want to happen to us
|
|
|
|
Post by Frank Owen’s Paintbrush on Jan 11, 2024 21:43:31 GMT
Imagine being criticised for… “doing good”.
|
|
|
|
Post by Neil Hunt Nonsense Potter on Jan 12, 2024 11:03:52 GMT
The Commission deliberating this case is one man Nick Leale the Chair. How can one man have the authority to make decisions like this? Somehow it seems if you you don't like one man's opinion then tough. That is not logical or fair. Surely he would only chair the committee? Couldn't be just one person? Key to me in that above is that they didn't ask for an in person hearing. They could have plead their case and outlined how they would prevent this moving forwards. This may have helped them get a lesser punishment. The fact that they had a 1 game suspended sentence already does help understand the 2 game ban, but it still seems to be cracking a walnut with a sledgehammer. |
|
|
|
Post by Harry Lime on Jan 12, 2024 12:33:26 GMT
If an individual shouted racist and/or homophobic abuse at any event except football, would the authorities close those venues? Doubt it very much.
Imagine closing a concert venue, night club, cinema or coffee shop because a customer did this. Especially when the venue had actually identified and banned the offender.
|
|
|
|
Post by Si on Jan 12, 2024 12:37:21 GMT
If an individual shouted racist and/or homophobic abuse at any event except football, would the authorities close those venues? Doubt it very much. Imagine closing a concert venue, night club, cinema or coffee shop because a customer did this. Especially when the venue had actually identified and banned the offender. Completely agree. Football gets the brunt of it all the time. I can understand severe measures if the situation had been mishandled, but if they've been identified and banned then I'm not sure what the need is to take such a drastic measure (admittedly, I couldn't be arsed reading the whole article!). |
|
|
|
Post by iandychesterfc on Jan 12, 2024 13:21:33 GMT
Wasnt there an incident of racism at Chelsea? Was it Wednesday fans who mocked Bradley Lowery - dont recall the clubs gaving to play behind closed doors
That punishment is usually reserved for when whole crowds are involved in inappropriate chanting such as in Poland or Italy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lobster on Jan 13, 2024 21:04:15 GMT
Saw Bury away at AFC Liverpool just after Christmas. They do have one or two gobby little pricks following them. It is only a small number but it stands out at that level.
There's something about Bury I've never liked very much. They always had a bit of a whingy fanbase I think. I'd say they should be taking more than 449 to games like Litherland Remyca as well.
West Didsbury & Charlton, the other club involved in this incident, have become something of a "cult" club at that level and nearly 800 watch them today.
|
|
|
|
Post by Frank Owen’s Paintbrush on Jan 13, 2024 21:08:40 GMT
Saw Bury away at AFC Liverpool just after Christmas. They do have one or two gobby little pricks following them. It is only a small number but it stands out at that level. There's something about Bury I've never liked very much. They always had a bit of a whingy fanbase I think. I'd say they should be taking more than 449 to games like Litherland Remyca as well. West Didsbury & Charlton, the other club involved in this incident, have become something of a "cult" club at that level and nearly 800 watch them today. Know what you mean. Remember the racist commentator they had over Abdou El Kholti? |
|
|
|
Post by Lobster on Jan 13, 2024 21:14:09 GMT
Saw Bury away at AFC Liverpool just after Christmas. They do have one or two gobby little pricks following them. It is only a small number but it stands out at that level. There's something about Bury I've never liked very much. They always had a bit of a whingy fanbase I think. I'd say they should be taking more than 449 to games like Litherland Remyca as well. West Didsbury & Charlton, the other club involved in this incident, have become something of a "cult" club at that level and nearly 800 watch them today. Know what you mean. Remember the racist commentator they had over Abdou El Kholti? Yeah, couldn't be bothered pronouncing his name and just called him the "bloke from Arabia" or something. |
|
|
|
Post by Frank Owen’s Paintbrush on Jan 13, 2024 21:26:22 GMT
Then there was the whole FA Cup ineligible player scenario. IIRC we had a decent record around that time against Bury and there always seemed to be a weird element of no love lost in games against them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lobster on Jan 13, 2024 21:37:05 GMT
Yeah, off the top of my head I don't recall ever seeing us lose to Bury, other than that one FA Cup game that we eventually "won" as it turned out. They did spend a few years of the '90s in what would now be the Championship though.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Angry Agenda on Jan 29, 2024 13:09:29 GMT
More trouble at the weekend, only a small incident involving a few, but not helping their cause at all.
Bury Statement:
There was a short delay in the game restarting towards the end of the 90 minutes on Saturday due to
three people attempting to enter the playing area. They were stopped from getting onto the pitch by
stewards. Two of them did not co-operate and took some time to be restrained and removed.
We have a number of eye witness statements, as well as video evidence, and are conducting our own
investigation. We will act to protect the club and everyone working at the club from this behaviour.
Where there are possible criminal offences, we will hand over evidence to the police to review.
We have also made a number of policy decisions to further protect the club. These include:
We will suspend the sale of alcohol in the stands during the game as a minimum and consider
an outright ban. Starkies Bar will remain open before and after games, and the 1885 Suite will
operate as usual for those ticket holders. We will release more information on this once a
decision has been made.
We will enforce stricter stewarding to prevent any potential encroachment of the pitch,
including stopping anyone standing near the pitch during the game.
We will ask players to be mindful where they celebrate goals and avoid areas where people
are congregating.
We know people have historically congregated in the corner of the South and West (Manchester Road End)
Stands at the end of games for decades, as they have looked for a quick exit from the ground. Nowadays
matches last for an additional five or ten minutes and it’s hard to know when the final whistle will be.
Please stay in your seats until the final whistle where you can use any of three exits to leave the South
Stand. These are behind the the Manchester Road End, in front of the Manchester Road End or through the
Cemetery End. There is no need for anyone to stand before the final whistle other than to leave the
stadium or go to the lavatory.
We all recognise that an incredibly small percentage of Bury supporters are responsible for the problems
we’ve faced in recent weeks, and it is bitterly disappointing that two or three people in a crowd of well
over 3,000 can ruin the enjoyment of football for us all. However, we have to act now in the belief that
we can then return to a more relaxed atmosphere in the future. We are concerned that the consumption of
excessive alcohol is an enabler to anti-social behaviour.
Today we should be talking about football, not crowd behaviour, but we will continue to punish and prevent
anti-social behaviour where we find it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lobster on Jan 29, 2024 13:36:31 GMT
Bury Statement: There was a short delay in the game restarting towards the end of the 90 minutes on Saturday due to three people attempting to enter the playing area. They were stopped from getting onto the pitch by stewards. Two of them did not co-operate and took some time to be restrained and removed. Sounds like they got a last minute winner and a few fans got overexcited. Oh...they won 10-1! |
|
