I wonder how Steve Bruce might feel if AA said 'The name Bruce is common and irrelevant. I am going to call your son Alex Bruce a new name- Yi Jung Hong- to give the team a more showbiz appeal, which I hope will broaden its appeal globally.'
Thanks. Which basically means that, when the buck stops, they're in the employ and acting under the instructions of the owner.
I don't agree with that at all. It's letting incompetence interfere with freedom of expression. The stewards are an issue that need addressing, but that's separate to the campaign. Plus, as I've said, away grounds don't tend to let the banners in.
They'll be sacked for ignoring him and letting the other banners go unhindered then. Mr Allam didn't move from his seat during that protest (he can be seen on tv) he had no real way of sending an order down. It was simply the stewards acting true to form.
We arranged for the giant flag to get it's first outing at Southampton, we spoke to Southampton and they gave us the names of the two top stewards and told us there would be no issue. When it arrived, it was turned away and the stewards whose names we had were unavailable. Maybe they changed their minds, maybe they were asked not to let it in, we'll try again at Arsenal and see what happens(though they're less likely to let it in anyway).
Of course he does. Do you believe he'd personally radio the chief steward or tell someone to do it? He'd hardly leave his seat and go running around the stadium. Or perhaps the chief steward had already been briefed, by the club beforehand, and simply radioed the stewards. The chief steward would be in radio contact with his stewards, the police control room and various club officials, it's the same at every ground.
^^^^^^^^^ this ^^^^^^^^ It's just plain common sense - sing at 19.04 and don't protest inside the ground in a way that impacts the team.
I doubt he had any contact whatsoever with stewards during the match but he will have had his feelings transmitted down through the club. The chief steward will be well aware of any standing instructions. The banner, due to it's position on the walkway, was just an easy target.
No chance of getting it in at Arsenal. They don't want flags there unless they're ersatz 'fans' flags' waved by a stooge ballboy. Chelsea another club who employ kids to simulate fans' passion. Laughable.
Wasn't it the only one being paraded up and down? That gives stewards the ideal excuse that it's restricting spectator's view.
Thanks for reminding me. Did you take part in the protests Sunderland fans organised in the ground against Steve Bruce? Did you explain on which ever Sunderland fans sites you were a member of, that it was distracting the players and affecting the teams performance? If I remember correctly you had a series of poor refereeing decisions under Bruce that season which robbed you of points. Had they gone the right way you'd have been mid-table and safe. Our banners support our team, which is called Hull City. Our protest songs support our team, which is called Hull City. We'll continue to support Hull City both home and away. We don't want people arrested or banned, but we will continue to protect our name.
I guess that depends on what you call 'protest'. The CTWD flag was part of the awareness raising, and whilst unconnected, the Hull City banner only made the same journey. It was the stewards incompetence that created the disturbance in my opinion.
Nope, and it was low enough down to restrict few if any people, plus the one in the pictures is much smaller than the official one.
Before the tug of war banner, there was a 25' x 12.5' flag that the CTWD campaign had produced for fans to sign and this was also walked down the East Stand.
They were no organised protests, as far as I recall, just people groaning at the weird tactics & substitutions, playing people out of position and the endless excuses. The support during games was very good but the general atmosphere reflected what people were seeing on the pitch. I'm not arguing against your cause, which you seem to believe, just suggesting a different way of doing it that doesn't end up with people being banned ........ something I hate to happen to anyone.
No, it obviously restricted people's view, you can see that quite clearly in the clip, and that's all the excuse the stewards need. It's playing right into their hands.
Sounds like the chief steward got a flea in his ear, in that case, informing him of his course of action if it happened again.
