Official Squadron FSC response to the introduction of FFA active support restrictions

[Blackmac79]

Fellow Supporters,

Over the last month The Squadron Football Supporters Club (Squadron FSC) has been working hard on how we would choose to react to the restrictions imposed by Football Federation Australia on all active supporters across the A-League. The Squadron FSC has communicated with the Jets that we have significant concerns over the implementation of these restrictions and their effect on the future of active support in Newcastle. The club then kindly negotiated on our behalf new measures for active supporters which fit inside the constraints of the FFA restrictions.

However it is with regret that The Squadron FSC informs you that we can not accept the new restrictions for active support this season. This is a decision we have made after discussion with our Members. In the interests of engaging a wider cross-section of Newcastle supporters on this particular issue, we are looking for feedback from people as to whether they believe these restrictions are necessary, and whether it will impact if you choose to participate in active support in the future if these restrictions remain.

The Newcastle Jets management, The Squadron FSC, Hunter Stadium and Newcastle Police have been working tirelessly together over past seasons putting in place measures to improve and enhance the active support and to make it a more welcoming and inclusive experience at Newcastle Jets games. This included a safe and secure environment for all supporters who wanted to join the active area and this hard work resulted in zero incidents occurring within Bay60, a positive we were looking forward to increase this coming season. Let us make this clear, we had ZERO incidents in Bay60 last season. However these new restrictions will completely negate the work that has been done over many seasons and especially last season.

The Squadron Football Supporters Club wants the best for the Club, the A-League, and Football, however our biggest concern is the Fans and Supporters who we represent. In light of this The Squadron FSC will be vacating the designated active supporter bay for the 2014/15 season, or until such time as these restrictions are removed. This is not an action against the Newcastle Jets, it is however a response to the absurd and overbearing one-size-fits-all FFA restrictions. Should these restrictions be removed, we will return to our place in Bay60.

We will however continue to provide a voice for the fans, by being a link between them and the club. Further to this, we believe that between ourselves and the club we can negotiate, plan and provide an experience on game day that allows for growth of active support, and the general support in Newcastle.
We believe in a free and organic active support, one which can grow and diversify. The new FFA restrictions do not allow this to occur, neither do the Clubs negotiated measures. Through discussion with other fans within the Newcastle Jets supporter base, we have already seen that these measures will reduce and restrict our members and growth.

Our issues with the proposed changes to active support are:

1) Membership only access - The Squadron prided itself on the number of young people becoming involved in the matchday active support in the 2013/14 season. These young people ranged from early to late teens, people that the Squadron considers vital components of the future Newcastle, and more broadly A-League, support. A no-membership, no-access restriction disadvantages this key demographic of our support, now and into the future. Membership-only access also forces people to buy memberships which some younger supporters & parents are not able to afford. Yet more supporters will also be disadvantaged as not everyone able to attend every game due to family, work and local sporting commitments thus negating the benefits of purchasing a membership.

2)No Match-day Purchase of Active tickets - Through having a conversation with stakeholders of the game, i.e. supporters, we have found that the purchase of active tickets on game day was a common occurrence. Supporters being unable to purchase these "walk-up" tickets to our bay will significantly reduce the number of people able to experience our unique style of support for the first time.

3) Restricting movement into Active Support areas - We believe that support, particularly active support, ebbs and flows minute by minute, game by game, season by season. Whether our team is winning or holding onto the game as it draws to a close, putting a run of victories together, or excitement peaks for the season launch or a run to the finals series, the numbers in the active support bays would swell as people wanted to join in and put their voices behind the team. We believe that supporters should be free to do this, and that these new restrictions are placing barriers in front of people wanting to move into the active support area.

4) Price Gouging of fans - Further to restricting the purchase of active bay tickets on match day, it is forcing the pre-purchase of tickets online. The Ticketmaster/Ticketek monopoly on online sales, one company of which the Jets now use, are well known for their absurd price "add-ons". We believe that by forcing fans to buy online that this incurs extra expense for the purchaser that will further put them off buying active tickets. In the interests of transparency, the Club has proposed that active supporter members would have a "bring a friend option" which would see a $5 reduction of the face value of tickets bought through these sites for active support.

5) The collection and storage of personal information - The Squadron FSC has always maintained a strict self-policing policy. Perpetrators of anti-social behaviour in our Bay have always been easily identified and removed, or encouraged to participate in a positive way. We believe that the bulk collection of everyone in the bay's personal information is unnecessary and invades their privacy. We believe that those who commit acts of crime, or behave in an inappropriate manner should have details collected as per legal requirements. The Club says that they have "Strict privacy rules surrounding the collection of information", however it is our belief that if the club is unable to say no to the FFA on these new restrictions, they won't say no when asked to divulge personal information.

6) Supporters United Australia - We believe that in light of the League wide situation facing active supporters that it would be unfair of us to accept a deal based on the FFA restrictions. We believe that the best way for OUR game to continue to grow is to provide both active support and general support that is free from these restrictions. We also believe that the best way to achieve freedom from these FFA restrictions is to join with our fellow supporters from other clubs in protest against these measures. The overall aim & attitude of football administrators should be to remove barriers and restrictions so as to make it easier for people to migrate into the active support bays when they wish to. Active support is frequently used as a point of difference between our game and the other sporting codes in FFA advertising and public relations, yet it seems the overall attitude is to dilute, restrict and reduce this point of difference rather than work with the various groups on how to best maximise the effects and help grow the unique atmosphere generated by the supporter groups around the league.


We have a unique set of circumstances which affect us as a group, circumstances which are shared by all supporters of our club. These new FFA restrictions are a 'one-size-fits-all' solution to be applied across the league and will have a negative effect on active support, due to the individual circumstances with each stadium, supporter group and club. These measures are vehemently opposed by all other active support groups, who we are continuing to liaise with. We believe all supporter groups should be allowed to continue working with their own clubs to continue to implement measures specific to their circumstances without interference. We are willing to have discussion with OUR club to implement such measures, which should not involve FFA restrictions or input.

We appreciate the management team of the Newcastle United Jets, and look forward to working closely with them into the future.

Thank you for your continued support,

The Squadron FSC Committee

[Premy]

See you guy's on the Hill.

Totally support these actions FFA are hell bent on ruining our game from the inside out. The sooner someone at head office remembers the game is for the fans and without us it would just be 25 blokes in the middle of some field.

[hausmann]

Sounds good. Just a few comments.

1. The FFA have made public what restrictions are to be placed on active support areas. Are you able to say exactly what were the club negotiated conditions? You may have mentioned them up there but it doesn't appear to be clearly detailed what these conditions are as a package.
2. From the perspective of the FFA, they will be using the unsavoury incidents involving WSW and Mebourne Victory fans to justify their position. It's my opinion that they will not cave quickly. I think they will be prepared to go at least a year without active support, which is just crazy in the 10th year of the A-League but be prepared to be frozen out.

It's clear that for many seasons, initially due to issues with flares and then with violence between fans that they want more control over organised fan activity within stadiums. There is a risk that the protest will be described in the media and by the FFA as tacit approval of anti-social activities of these fans. I know that you have said that you have worked to make Bay60 safe. But it seems to me that you need to make it very very clear that you do not condone or support the anti-social or illegal activities of any fans of any club. You need to be clear that your solidarity with other fan organisations is only for the reasons you outline and should not be seen as condoning anti-social or illegal behaviour.
3. However, this is also an opportunity to embrace the rest of the supporter community in ways that we did in early seasons eg. giving free gold balloons to kids in the stands etc. It seems like you are already thinking down this line but you should be looking to show in many ways that this is not a negative protest but that you don't want to be locked away from other fans because we are all part of the one support of the team.
4. I should mention that you weren't in Bay 60 for the whole season, so you should make this clear because it looks like you are saying that there were no incidents last year, and there was an incident in Bay2 last season, just no Bay60. You need to make sure that people don't think you are trying to bend the truth.

All in all, that's a positive and mature statement.

[furns]

The statement was fairly lengthy as it was, we didnt feel we should make it any longer and that we could answer peoples queries and go into further detail here and on social media when its released to the wider public.

To answer a few of your points:
* The original statement we released when a new Squadron committee was elected clearly stated that we do not condone any antisocial/violent/racist/etc behaviour and would work to ensure that these actions are dealt with appropriately.
* The incident in bay 2 was dealt with by security and police, and we clearly stated that there were no incidents in bay 60 once we had moved.

The negotiated measures that the Jets were putting forward were as follows:
* Bay 60 memberships would be classed as an Active Support membership not a Community Reserved Membership
* People would be able to purchase tickets to the active area, but only online
* Bay 60 members would have the option to purchase up to 2 "bring a friend" tickets for a discount of $5 each
* Club will create a mini membership available for purchase for 3 games
* Members would still be able to "upgrade" to an active support ticket on gameday via the Membership Service Box Office

The major issues with these negotiated measures is that it still doesnt deal with the underlying objections as we outlined in the statement with these new measures:
No gameday walkup sales, all sales are online to enable detail capture
Collection of private details for every single person in bay 60
Bay 60 would basically be a tightly secured, segregated area, with no movement allowed in unless you had decided to jump through multiple FFA hoops prior to gameday if you wanted to join in, what is supposed to be lets remember this, the FUN.

[hausmann]

The statement was fairly lengthy as it was, we didnt feel we should make it any longer and that we could answer peoples queries and go into further detail here and on social media when its released to the wider public.

To answer a few of your points:
* The original statement we released when a new Squadron committee was elected clearly stated that we do not condone any antisocial/violent/racist/etc behaviour and would work to ensure that these actions are dealt with appropriately.
* The incident in bay 2 was dealt with by security and police, and we clearly stated that there were no incidents in bay 60 once we had moved.

The negotiated measures that the Jets were putting forward were as follows:
* Bay 60 memberships would be classed as an Active Support membership not a Community Reserved Membership
* People would be able to purchase tickets to the active area, but only online
* Bay 60 members would have the option to purchase up to 2 "bring a friend" tickets for a discount of $5 each
* Club will create a mini membership available for purchase for 3 games
* Members would still be able to "upgrade" to an active support ticket on gameday via the Membership Service Box Office

The major issues with these negotiated measures is that it still doesnt deal with the underlying problems with these new measures:
No gameday walkup sales, all sales are online to enable detail capture
Collection of private details for every single person in bay 60
Bay 60 would basically be a tightly secured, segregated area, with no movement allowed in unless you had decided to jump through multiple FFA hoops prior to gameday if you wanted to join in, what is supposed to be lets remember this, the FUN.

Thanks for that.

That's cool, your first two responses were to questions where I was just playing devil's advocate. I think the majority of media definitely are happy to take the "Soccer Hooligan" approach to any fan behaviour so you want to be a clear as possible so that your position is not distorted. It is easier for them to misrepresent your position if it is not clearly stated in each public statement you make. Once they report a quote from you, it's too late to try and clarify what you meant. They are under no obligation to do a follow up story to correct their original misrepresentation of your position. I can just see the football unfriendly media running with a Hooligan angle to this story, trying to claim that all the Hooligans are ganging together. Which is why I also mentioned the Bay2 v Bay60 issue, because I could see a RDillon type person mocking you in the media by pointing such a thing out.

[MFKS]

So as things stand with the new rules are you gonna sit/stand at another spot in the ground and still be active or are you just gonna be quiet and let the FFA win??

[furns]

We will still be supporting the team as active as we can be without being in bay60.
We will be on the Southern Hill.

[furns]

Thanks for that.

That's cool, your first two responses were to questions where I was just playing devil's advocate. I think the majority of media definitely are happy to take the "Soccer Hooligan" approach to any fan behaviour so you want to be a clear as possible so that your position is not distorted. It is easier for them to misrepresent your position if it is not clearly stated in each public statement you make. Once they report a quote from you, it's too late to try and clarify what you meant. They are under no obligation to do a follow up story to correct their original misrepresentation of your position. I can just see the football unfriendly media running with a Hooligan angle to this story, trying to claim that all the Hooligans are ganging together. Which is why I also mentioned the Bay2 v Bay60 issue, because I could see a RDillon type person mocking you in the media by pointing such a thing out.

No worries
Also, that position is made clear in point 5 - where we state that we self-police and we identify perpetrators for removal or encouraged to participate in a positive way.

[furns]

Reason this has been posted here is to gather more feedback from general foz and non-actives before a wider release in a few days.
Whether your response is Agree/Disagree/Dont Care, we would ask as many people as possible to post up their thoughts please.

[borat]

Wasn't membership only introduced for the former Marinators years back which is what directly led to them killing them off........that and supporting a sh*t team of course.

[MFKS]

We will still be supporting the team as active as we can be without being in bay60.
We will be on the Southern Hill.

Well done.

Any reason to get there will do

[hawk]

as I mentioned before the FFa couldnt care less about active support. They used it to get their product off the ground and into main stream, job basically done. An idiot would realise the FFA should have stopped the minor trouble occuring at individual clubs by using the supposed santions on an individual club basis but they chose the lazy way out.

I wonder if they are spending junior rego fees more wisely other than blowing it on world cup bribes?

[Couscous]

What is the statement's purpose? If it is to be read, you have failed. FFS, edit it down.

[furns]

The statements purpose is to provide people with the relevant reasoning behind why we are taking a course of action.
We would rather it be a little long and provide the info required to explain our position rather than a two sentence statement giving no reasons at all.

[hausmann]

The statements purpose is to provide people with the relevant reasoning behind why we are taking a course of action.
We would rather it be a little long and provide the info required to explain our position rather than a two sentence statement giving no reasons at all.

With regards to specific feedback you requested on how the regulations will affect me:

I do want to occasionally participate in Active Support in Bay 60. I'm a member in Bay55.
Under the club negotiated concessions, I would be able to change my ticket on gameday, so there is no issue there. I'm happy to do this on the occasions that I want to participate.
The concern is whether or not I would be able to, say, walk across and have a chat at half-time. If movement within and without active support is restricted so that we have to exit the Bays to talk to people then it seems a bit draconian. However, I'm not sure the security staff will have the resources to restrict this kind of movement. And this kind of begs the question: If the new regulations are implemented and someone wants to sneak in and cause trouble, don't the regulations give the media ammunition to say that the troublemaker must have been a Squadron member?

[Jeterpool]

Gents, I have had a read and it explains why you have taken the decision.

My question would be, how do you want this to be received? There is a lot of anger behind the letter and this may be to your detriment when people are reading it. There are very emotive words used.

My advice, review it and take some of that emotion out. This will result in a more professional, considered and measured response. You can still get your point across without having to use words like "absurd", "over-bearing" which are based on opinion, not a fact. Also consider the tense you are using throughout the letter.

I work on "taking the emotion out" regularly and can provide an edit of my suggestions if you wish.

[pv4]

Now that active support is "dead" will Ray Baartz be leading his three chants to the entire stadium?

[furns]

With regards to specific feedback you requested on how the regulations will affect me:

I do want to occasionally participate in Active Support in Bay 60. I'm a member in Bay55.
Under the club negotiated concessions, I would be able to change my ticket on gameday, so there is no issue there. I'm happy to do this on the occasions that I want to participate.
The concern is whether or not I would be able to, say, walk across and have a chat at half-time. If movement within and without active support is restricted so that we have to exit the Bays to talk to people then it seems a bit draconian. However, I'm not sure the security staff will have the resources to restrict this kind of movement. And this kind of begs the question: If the new regulations are implemented and someone wants to sneak in and cause trouble, don't the regulations give the media ammunition to say that the troublemaker must have been a Squadron member?

This is the intent behind these measures. No-one, including home supporters, will be allowed into bay 60 without a valid ticket/membership.
This was to take the excuse away from the RBB and NTC that all their consistent problems are caused by blow-ins who they have no control over. As far as I am lead to believe clubs, security and police are also against these measures. It puts the onus on them that if people get in, they catch the blame.
None of these parties are in favour of these measures league wide - it was only MV and WSW that pushed for these restrictions to be for everyone.

[q-money]

Now that active support is "dead" will Ray Baartz be leading his three chants to the entire stadium?

[Mark325]

Should we still buy passes for bay 60 or for the southern hill?