On the official Brighton & Hove Albion website... In the event of playing Crystal Palace in the semi-finals, the following conditions of sale have been agreed by the two clubs, the Metropolitan Police and Sussex Police: 1. You must be a season ticket holder to purchase a ticket and only one ticket will be available per season ticket holder. 2. Your details and seat number will be made available to Crystal Palace FC, the Metropolitan Police and Sussex Police. 3. The ticket may only be used by the purchaser. 4. All away fans must carry a separate document which confirms their identity. 5. You agree to hand over your ticket and identity document for examination by a police officer or steward at the stadium or en route to or from the stadium. 6. Failure to produce the ticket and an identity document for examination will result in refusal of entry to the match and any future matches this season. 7. There will be a one year exclusion for anyone who is found to have handed over or sold a ticket to any other person. 8. There will be a one year exclusion for anyone who is found in possession of a ticket issued to another person. Prices Prices will be confirmed on Saturday evening, soon after the Wolves game. Read more at http://www.seagulls.co.uk/news/article/play-off-semi-final-away-leg-801736.aspx#YZaO6LD71ZWtC8sB.99 Since when have we been a police state?
Police State or not, lets not forget that given the chance I am sure that many Brighton and Palace fans would like to kick tens shades of **** out of each other, so I feel that in this case that such terms are reasonable. However I would not like to see this commonplace
BSG - maybe that might be the case, however, there are many major events in this country whether that be political demonstrations or otherwise, where unrest is a likely outcome, so do we suggest in these such events that those people also carry secondary id. Not suggesting you are but the principle is the same. Football supporters are being used as an element of device in this country. Whether that be by the media, police or government. People can remain blinkered (not suggesting you are) and as you rightly say you would not like to see this commonplace, however, every tolerated whip of that stick, leads to further implementations in the long term future. Every rule, leads to a new rule, until such time you are governed beyond the realms of so called freedom. This country does not require us to carry id cards and regardless of any possible situation nor should this event be an exception to the rule.
brb, I understand why you feel aggrieved by this but it's freedom of choice, if you don't agree with the restrictions don't buy a ticket. I would be upset if these conditions where in place every time I left home but this is a one off event, to go or not to go is your choice. If I want to open a bank account I need 2 forms of identification, if I want to go abroad I need a passport, if I want to go to America I have to get a visa and have my finger prints taken, you might see it as an imposition but good or bad it's the world we live in.
Disagree grumpy, we have just become accustomed to various restrictions that now govern our lives, it does not mean that it is correct or right to do so. Hence why I said one rule leads to another. It is not freedom of choice. If this was a Gills game, I would attend, so therefore my freedom would be eroded in that I either attended within their rules or not attended in protest. That is not freedom. I have experienced the same restraints as you when travelling abroad on more than one occasion and openly voiced my protests, eventually having to suppress my freedom of view to avoid being arrested, again that is not freedom. Hopefully I will not live long enough to see the first micro chipped law abiding human in this country. Extreme maybe but no more extreme than football's modern era policing policies. ps. forgot to mention in response to a one off situation, so what about bubble matches?
Example that these are not one off scenarios and what I mean by bubble matches for those that have not heard the term used... http://www.fsf.org.uk/latest-news/view/Bubble-trouble-at-South-Coast-derby.php
Ok there are two separate issues here... The first issue is the BHA tickets. The tickets will be in high demand and the ticket are season ticket holders only. The question is how do you ensure that the person turning up at the ground is the ST holder if there is no ID in the tickets? I feel this is much an anti-touting measure as keeping trouble makers out. The second is the concept of freedom. Does true freedom exist? The simple answer is no, that would be anarchy. We live together in a society where we expect a certain amount of freedom to do as we please, but the price of this freedom is certain restriction i.e. the law. brb's issue is the apparently changes in law slowly reducing our allowable "freedom", this is probably too big an issue to discuss on this board, but to keep it simple I don't feel that a small number cases is enough to force a paradigm shift in the football community
Unfortunately the only people inconvenienced by existing or new rules will be the 99% of law abiding citizens. ( as always .) I can understand the control of the sale of tickets - so that home & away tickets are differentiated (whomsoever is the user !) Although this would not guarantee that tickets fall into the 'wrong' hands, I believe that, these days this eventuality is extremely rare. I also believe that trouble between opposing fans inside stadiums is just as rare. It is outside grounds where there will be problems. Any restriction in the sale of tickets will not have any affect on individuals who choose to travel to opposition grounds with the sole intention of causing trouble. How will the classification of 'bubble' matches prevent anyone travelling to the proximity of the venue ? It won't. Unfortunately society will always struggle to cope with the mindless morons who probably make up less than 1% of the population. The remaining innocent 99% will be stigmatised because of the mindless acts committed by that tiny proportion in the name of football.
Thank You alwaysright and by that measure I declare the enforced measures are both discriminate and criminalise 99% of genuine football supporters. BSG quotes a few number of cases. This is a far bigger issue than a few number of cases, mainly brought about by the wicked witch of the west and has followed that same erosion of freedom over several decades or more. It is very unlikely any football supporter born since the mid to late eighties will fully understand that erosion. However, every single little case sets its own precedence. People in the UK failing to recognise or voice concerns regarding these changes have become accustom to control. This is not about anarchy as is mentioned. As alwaysright says measures do not affect yobs they affect us. I know I am very outspoken on this view but hey that's what I believe.
brb, I did start by saying I understood your grievance but as someone who was born and going to football in the dark ages, I now feel a lot safer than those days when idiots ruled. Whilst the vast majority of fans are decent law abiding citizens there will always be those who spoil it for everyone else, how you deal with idiots whilst not punishing the innocent has long been the problem.
How many games did BHA play this year, around 40 lets say (including cup matches (and to make the mahs simplier)) and how many time has this occurred, once that we know of, that is only 2.5% of the matches, which is not a significant amount. The bubble game article mention four occassions that I could count and it does not appear that police has asked for these restrictions that often. Yes they are a pain and I have sympathy with the "one time is too many" agrument but statistically speaking these are rare occurances. brb's point of this being a slippery slope, whilst being a valid concern can't be proved at this time and we run risk of trying to interpolate furture events from a small sample of happening. To quote Disco Stu (from the Simpsons): "the sales of disco records went up 74% from the years of '64 to '65... if this rate of increase continues..." I think you see the pit falls. As for Alwaysright's claims that this restriction don't target the yobs, that is a fair point, but what can we do? Ignore the situation, certainly no, lest we descend into the dark days of the '80s once again. The issue here is the loss of personal liberties against socialitial liberties. As I mentioned before we live in a society with certain freedoms; but we can't go around killing people and as a consequence we don't expect to get killed whislt going about our daily business. These thing are control by certain "infringements" on personal liberties, in this country you aren't "free" to carry weapons around but as a whole this loss of personal liberties is deemed better for society aka the "greater good". Now of course there ae still murders and murderers about, but these are smaller than would happen if everybody was "packing heat". This is an extreme case of course but it helps highlight my case. If having to carry a second ID, which I do anyway seeing as I carry my driving licence in my wallet, to a single match once a season to show at the turnstile or to the police on the off chance I am asked in order to increase my chances of not being assaulted then so be it. It is a price I am willing to pay. (assuming that it doesn't become the norm)
grumpy - you probably have a better understanding or certainly as good as me, in that there is no doubt. I can only best respond by repeating something her indoors said to me, now before I commence myself and my partner are of completely different political minds, so I was a bit surprised she came out with it. 'It is different today in that you have widespread CCTV, it is pretty much guaranteed those that caused trouble at all recent events will be caught'. Although I very much hasten to add that I have my arguments with these cameras but it helped make my point, so what is the police argument for secondary now - how do the police control more political high risk events in comparison to a football supporter.
On a side note but to make a related point, I am sure everyone has seen how much highlight has been given by the media this season to the two separate occasions totalling three individuals in regards to pitch invasions and their subsequent bans. I heard at Burton our outstanding behaviour and vocal applause for the home side at the end of the game was astounding and had never been witnessed at the Pirelli before. How many full page headlines did the impeccable behaviour of 1,800 supporters make in comparison?
BSG had a DUPLICATE post I assume through the site systems error, hence it was removed. I'm sure BSG would state if otherwise.
it's probably worth mentioning that at the last palace brighton game in december it did kick off inside the stadium, as a load of brighton fans broke down the segregation in the concourse of the arthur wait stand, and started trying to storm the home end. As much as season tickets only/id holders restricts freedom (for 1 game of the season), surely theres an equal freedom to be free from opposition fans throwing punches everywhere when you go for your half time drink. Personally, i might be going to that game (in the home end), and as someone who'se too young to have been caught up in any violence at a football match, any measure that prevents that is ok with me. Also - if it does kick off (with or without these measures), i cant stand the moral righteousness of the Daily Mail etc. that'll inevitably come with it, and could pressurise more use of such restrictions On a seperate note - could this become more frequent as a result of the leeds ruling that clubs only have to pay police costs inside the ground. Apparently when it kicked off last time at palace it took ages for the police to break it up, so potentially they were saving on police bills.
Generally said degree of violence is only in the mind of a Daily Malice writer for its next story. I have been going to football matches since 1973/74 and during that time, I have experienced the pitch invasions of Wall in the 70's, come close to personal handbags at the Swine in the 80's before the situation got jumped all over by coppers (late as usual), but never did any of those early dark days justify the means of control today. Whether dark days or modern era, it is the human nature as experienced throughout the entire planet of young men jostling for position. In the same way as experienced on every high street every Friday/Saturday night in modern day. So basically 40 years on and despite all the controls on football supporters, the social issues remain evident. Is that the fault of football, No, should football be penalised for it, No.
brb, just to add a little personal slant to the argument, my wife used to be a season ticket holder for many years, after being missed by a bottle by inches, pushed and jostled by Swindon yobs who were brave enough to attack people leaving the family enclosure, I wish the police on that day had used previous history to be more pro-active. My wife has never been to a football game since.
The latest statement from FSF a site I follow...http://fsf.org.uk/latest-news/view/...trictions-for-crystal-palace-v-brighton-match
