So why not restrict the 'banner/flag' protests to away games where there won't be the problem of the Hull stewards? Any poor stewarding at home games can't be blamed on supporters/protesters and Bruce can't use it as an excuse.
As I explained earlier, that has been tried and despite getting the proper permissions, the banners are still often refused. It also wouldn't stop it happening at home games for the reasons already mentioned
There was a City Till I Die flag passed along the East stand that didn't cause a fuss. That was CTWD flag. Another supporter bought a "We Are Hull City" flag with his own money and walked the length of the stand with it. When they turned around they were confronted by 20 or more stewards trying to get the flag out of their hands. Other supporters can to their rescue and eventually the flag made its way back to where it came from. Without the stewards reaction it wouldn't have been much of a protest. If you hadn't spent so much time on this board following our debate and saw a "We Are Hull City" banner being carried in the front of the stand would you have thought, oh my god, what are they protesting about?
The proof of that is that the official CTWD banner has had relatively little coverage despite it making the very same journey, but without the incompetent stewards.
There shouldn't, it's ludicrous. However, it's obvious that AA has instructed the stewards to clamp down on that kind of thing and, in any situation like this, he'll win. If there's another confrontation the police may well become involved. If that happens, who do you think will be arrested, stewards or supporters? You know as well as I do that it'll be the supporters who'll be ejected/banned from the ground, possibly forever, is that acceptable? So, isn't it more pragmatic to restrict protests to chanting and singing at home games and use other means at away grounds with stewards who won't particularly care?
In my experience stewards, who are paid tuppence an hour, don't act on their limited 'initiative'. I've been involved in pre-match steward meetings where this kind of thing is discussed. Besides, even if what you believe is true then the owner is giving permission by allowing the stewards to continue is his employment. Which makes me ask the question, are they employed by the club, therefore AA, or by the stadium owners, therefore the council?
I agree with this. Steve Bruce has had to say something, but he's tried and tried to keep out of it as far as I can tell. I doubt he really believes an incident that lasted a few minutes is the reason we lost.
It's an ongoing problem. Various things have been tried in order to resolve it under various chairmen. It's not really a protest related issue, other than it resulted in publicity on Saturday.
Precisely, it was ridiculous. The rest of your contribution I have a lot of sympathy with. On Saturday somebody decided on their own, or with a couple of mates, to buy a banner and walk along the stand with it. That's all they did until 20 plus stewards descended on them. The fall out wasn't caused by the campaign, or the three people with the banner, but by the reaction of the stewards. At home games we have 20,000 supporters the campaign can't be responsible for all of them. We can't be responsible for all the chants. Emotions are running high. We are trying to keep the protest positive towards the team and the club. Which isn't always easy when the owners says here's your money, if you don't like it you can stop supporting my company. Whilst we may not have organised the banner or the walk we should defend them from the actions of the stewards. It would be helpful if supporters are planning independent actions to get in touch with us first and see if it cuts across what we plan to do.
But it's not certain to is it? It's not even certain that the few minutes of tussle on Saturday had an impact on the players to any real degree that would have influenced the game, and ultimately, the resolution to that is easy. Start a dialogue with the fans. Have the referendum that's liable to be needed anyway.
CTWD is against protests inside the ground, other than the standing and singing of City Till I Die at 19.04, we tried during this past week to dissuade others from staying on the concourse until 19.04, or from walking out at 19.04, as we feel both of these could have an impact on the support of the team, which is obviously not what we want. CTWD will continue to only arrange protests that do not impact on the team and we urge others to do the same.
Technically, they are employed by the Stadium Management Company, rather than the club, but both the SMC and the club are owned by Assem Allam.
Do you agree that banners etc are best displayed outside the ground or at away games? Then there's little chance of protesters being ejected and Bruce can't use it as an excuse. I doubt even he would claim that chanting 'City' could distract the players.
