I think PS is right to make a stand on this. Of course the game needs policing but isn't that why we pay an extortionate amout of Council Tax. If the council is taking responsibility then surely they should make the calculation that they have a football league team in their constituancy and pay for it!!
The police will back down I think, if it's played behind closed doors they will get the blame, not the club.
I cannot believe we are having to have this discussion again...well actually yes I can, I was only thinking a few days ago after a Swindon fan asked on here about the away stand (BMS) and it got me thinking about numbers. I pretty much guessed we would have a Stoke scenario and as not to disappoint here we are again.
I fail to see how this is the council's fault, if the police has got intelligence on potential disruption then it should be adequately policed, we don't want a repeat of the shameful display after the Fulham game in '97 or was it '98? Of course the irony is that the majority of the fans at the game will be well behaved but stopped from attending but the dickhead fans on both sides who want a fight will still probably turn up for a fight anyway...
It makes me mad that if you have an organised demonstration/riot the police turn up for free. Have a football match in a reasonably controlled enviroment and you have to pay. Just another tax imo
I see your point BAG but a football match is a commercial venture, the club will be making money out of the game, unlike the demonstration example you give
people The dispute involves the policing inside the ground not outside - because anything outside the ground is a general public order issue, and any policing cost is not directly attributable to Gillingham FC. However inside the stadium a safety certificate can only be given for the game by the local authority after certain levels of policing have been set - based on a raft of details and 'intelligence' surrounding the fixture. The cost of this level of policing is the responsibility of the Club and is not negotiable. Unfortunately there is 'history' between the opposing set of supporters - and it doesn't take an idiot to see the stance of the police & local authority. Also unfortunately this same dispute occurred before the Stoke FA Cup game - which nearly took place behind closed doors - before Mr.Scally saw sense. I feel that Mr. Scally has little alternative but to pay up - can you imagine the loss of revenue if no supporters were able to attend - and the fallout when fans decide that this might be the final straw as far as their future committment was concerned. Look at the bigger picture Mr. Scally - do not cut off your nose to spite your face. Can I also add that I am a little fed up of our club being made a laughing stock once over such an issue - let alone twice within a few weeks.
Mmm suppose your right as always. Does this mean if we were ever to play in the Premiership ( You can stop laughing now) Our games would be behind closed doors. Phaps it just gives PS more ammunition to form the MK Gills as Medway council are again proving hard to work with. I can also see your point about making the fans fed up again. To those living at the top of Medway that shiney new ground at the bottom of Blue Bell hill may be starting to look attractive.
Born Again Gill Mr.Scally knows he hasn't got any choice. Policing for each game is assessed on an individual basis. Mr.Scally can 'try' to 'negotiate' the level inside the ground - and probably does so - to reduce the direct costs - but - with the level of history and interest, especially from Swindon, he hasn't got a chance to persuade the police or local authority. It wasn't too much of a problem in our Championship years - the revenue from attendances covered the policing costs - and that surely must be the case for this game. It might have helped if the stewards in the Town end hadn't overreacted when the Swindon fans were being idiots amongst themselves - thus inciting a brawl - which wont have been forgotten by the police. pay up Mr. Scally - you'll recover the costs from the revenue from the attendance ( I'm convinced that there were 1701 empty seats (apparently) for the Stoke game ( sell out, wasn't it ? )
alwaysright is rightasalways. The problem is always going to be defined in terms of the Premiership where commercial considerations reflect buckets of cash and no moral argument that anyone other than the club pays for inside ground costs. If the Premiership clubs have to pay then so will league 2. Pay up Gills, this is actually in supporters interests.
That is not strictly true, the club is responsible for policing in the ground and the are immediately outside of the stadium, hence when the police intelligence on potential crowd trouble is extremely important in this case.
I was shocked when I heard this in the morning, but saying that it is only the second time this season a team wants to bring a massive amount of fans and also that they are rather leery, but Gillingham pays a high amount of council tax so this is totally wrong, I agree with one of the posts above, Scally is totally correct to make a stand against the police, why should he have to pay more out.
Thankyou BSG - you are slightly more correct than I am - but The responsibility of the Club for paying for police outside the ground is for a limited area ( which surely must be set in stone ! - and for a limited period of time before and after the game. - again, surely there are established guidelines ( so, why the dispute .) Beyond these parameters the Club is not directly liable for the costs.
Always yes I am sure the area and timeframe for activity outside the ground is established but what they exactly are I am not sure. As for the dispute I am just guessing but my educated guess is the category rating of the game has been increased. I assume, but could be wrong, that the category rating for the matches are probably established at the beginning of the season (to allow the clubs to budget for policing etc) but in this case the police have had intelligence to suggest that the category rating for the game needs to be increased. This is the only reason why I can think that all the press releases refer to the intelligence matter and if the categories for games are only chosen a few weeks prior to matches I expect that this fiasco would be more common
Just a hypothetical question - Is the club allowed not to sell tickets to away supporters? Maybe the saving on the policing will outweigh the Swindon ticket revenue.
I wonder how much they are asking Scally for as he will want us to be there otherwise he has to refund, so I would have thought it would be more of a loss to play behind close doors than pay the police, however this is out of order, Swindon are the ones causing the problem so they should have to pay.
Most problems I have ever witnessed have occurred outside football grounds in the town, pub, train station, rarely is there serious problems inside the ground. The police have come up with a figure of how many officers they want inside and directly outside the ground and what this will cost the club, whether that figure is ridiculously OTT is something we don't know. If I was the chief constable of kent and facing cut backs I could be tempted to increase the policing needs in the ground knowing the same officers could be used outside the ground. I have no proof of course but it's another theory.
