Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Matchday policing issues thread (Millwall 2025 onwards)
Comments
-
As I said I don’t like it but there is a logic to it.JohnnyH2 said:
And everything you have posted was said after the game in 2013 when pretty much the same arrangements were used.valleynick66 said:I think with hindsight and having the opportunity to reflect, the decision by the police to not hold back Millwall could still be argued by the police to be reasonable.There is some logic in trying to remove 3k quickly given the perceived risk of adverse reaction by them if kept waiting.I’m assuming in the absence of any reports to the contrary there were no noteworthy skirmishes between the 2 sets of fans excepting the Sam Bartram gate incursion. On that basis I’d guess the police can claim it was the right call.We don’t like it and consider it unfair but it’s not without any safety merit.
What can’t be defended however is the associated club comms, marshalling/announcements post game and not limiting vehicle access in Charlton Lane ie the implementation of it.The Sam Bartram gate / steps fighting I think is likely to be a ‘hands up we got that wrong’ issue as never really seen before to my knowledge.I’d expect (sadly) a similar arrangement next time with a commitment to handle it better.
And as shown by Saturday and the lack of comms before during and after from our club, nothing has changed in how our own supporters were treated at our groundThe corporate knowledge by police and club is lost over the passage of time.But of course not by fans who have no input it seems despite the club statements to the contrary on ‘engagement’ and other such guff!4 -
The club had a responsibility (not choice) to communicate the diversion to the fanbase. For whatever reason, they neglected to do this in an effective manner and as a result the management team have lost a lot of goodwill and confidence from fans in their decision making.19
-
A well respected former staff member recently wrote to Gavin Carter with a goodwill message and a friendly offer to discuss something to help the club on the basis of their many years of experience. They didn’t want anything in return.valleynick66 said:
As I said I don’t like it but there is a logic to it.JohnnyH2 said:
And everything you have posted was said after the game in 2013 when pretty much the same arrangements were used.valleynick66 said:I think with hindsight and having the opportunity to reflect, the decision by the police to not hold back Millwall could still be argued by the police to be reasonable.There is some logic in trying to remove 3k quickly given the perceived risk of adverse reaction by them if kept waiting.I’m assuming in the absence of any reports to the contrary there were no noteworthy skirmishes between the 2 sets of fans excepting the Sam Bartram gate incursion. On that basis I’d guess the police can claim it was the right call.We don’t like it and consider it unfair but it’s not without any safety merit.
What can’t be defended however is the associated club comms, marshalling/announcements post game and not limiting vehicle access in Charlton Lane ie the implementation of it.The Sam Bartram gate / steps fighting I think is likely to be a ‘hands up we got that wrong’ issue as never really seen before to my knowledge.I’d expect (sadly) a similar arrangement next time with a commitment to handle it better.
And as shown by Saturday and the lack of comms before during and after from our club, nothing has changed in how our own supporters were treated at our groundThe corporate knowledge by police and club is lost over the passage of time.But of course not by fans who have no input it seems despite the club statements to the contrary on ‘engagement’ and other such guff!Fair enough if the club isn’t interested in their view, but they didn’t even get the courtesy of an acknowledgement to say thanks but no thanks.
And no, it wasn’t me.21 -
Curbs 16/1Airman Brown said:
A well respected former staff member recently wrote to Gavin Carter with a goodwill message and a friendly offer to discuss something to help the club on the basis of their many years of experience. They didn’t want anything in return.valleynick66 said:
As I said I don’t like it but there is a logic to it.JohnnyH2 said:
And everything you have posted was said after the game in 2013 when pretty much the same arrangements were used.valleynick66 said:I think with hindsight and having the opportunity to reflect, the decision by the police to not hold back Millwall could still be argued by the police to be reasonable.There is some logic in trying to remove 3k quickly given the perceived risk of adverse reaction by them if kept waiting.I’m assuming in the absence of any reports to the contrary there were no noteworthy skirmishes between the 2 sets of fans excepting the Sam Bartram gate incursion. On that basis I’d guess the police can claim it was the right call.We don’t like it and consider it unfair but it’s not without any safety merit.
What can’t be defended however is the associated club comms, marshalling/announcements post game and not limiting vehicle access in Charlton Lane ie the implementation of it.The Sam Bartram gate / steps fighting I think is likely to be a ‘hands up we got that wrong’ issue as never really seen before to my knowledge.I’d expect (sadly) a similar arrangement next time with a commitment to handle it better.
And as shown by Saturday and the lack of comms before during and after from our club, nothing has changed in how our own supporters were treated at our groundThe corporate knowledge by police and club is lost over the passage of time.But of course not by fans who have no input it seems despite the club statements to the contrary on ‘engagement’ and other such guff!Fair enough if the club isn’t interested in their view, but they didn’t even get the courtesy of an acknowledgement to say thanks but no thanks.
And no, it wasn’t me.16 -
So on that logic when we go to The Den later on this season our fans can expect the same logic to be applied and let out onto the trains first while Millwall fans are diverted around the streets until our fans have all left?valleynick66 said:
As I said I don’t like it but there is a logic to it.JohnnyH2 said:
And everything you have posted was said after the game in 2013 when pretty much the same arrangements were used.valleynick66 said:I think with hindsight and having the opportunity to reflect, the decision by the police to not hold back Millwall could still be argued by the police to be reasonable.There is some logic in trying to remove 3k quickly given the perceived risk of adverse reaction by them if kept waiting.I’m assuming in the absence of any reports to the contrary there were no noteworthy skirmishes between the 2 sets of fans excepting the Sam Bartram gate incursion. On that basis I’d guess the police can claim it was the right call.We don’t like it and consider it unfair but it’s not without any safety merit.
What can’t be defended however is the associated club comms, marshalling/announcements post game and not limiting vehicle access in Charlton Lane ie the implementation of it.The Sam Bartram gate / steps fighting I think is likely to be a ‘hands up we got that wrong’ issue as never really seen before to my knowledge.I’d expect (sadly) a similar arrangement next time with a commitment to handle it better.
And as shown by Saturday and the lack of comms before during and after from our club, nothing has changed in how our own supporters were treated at our groundThe corporate knowledge by police and club is lost over the passage of time.But of course not by fans who have no input it seems despite the club statements to the contrary on ‘engagement’ and other such guff!
4 -
No.MartinCAFC said:
So on that logic when we go to The Den later on this season our fans can expect the same logic to be applied and let out onto the trains first while Millwall fans are diverted around the streets until our fans have all left?valleynick66 said:
As I said I don’t like it but there is a logic to it.JohnnyH2 said:
And everything you have posted was said after the game in 2013 when pretty much the same arrangements were used.valleynick66 said:I think with hindsight and having the opportunity to reflect, the decision by the police to not hold back Millwall could still be argued by the police to be reasonable.There is some logic in trying to remove 3k quickly given the perceived risk of adverse reaction by them if kept waiting.I’m assuming in the absence of any reports to the contrary there were no noteworthy skirmishes between the 2 sets of fans excepting the Sam Bartram gate incursion. On that basis I’d guess the police can claim it was the right call.We don’t like it and consider it unfair but it’s not without any safety merit.
What can’t be defended however is the associated club comms, marshalling/announcements post game and not limiting vehicle access in Charlton Lane ie the implementation of it.The Sam Bartram gate / steps fighting I think is likely to be a ‘hands up we got that wrong’ issue as never really seen before to my knowledge.I’d expect (sadly) a similar arrangement next time with a commitment to handle it better.
And as shown by Saturday and the lack of comms before during and after from our club, nothing has changed in how our own supporters were treated at our groundThe corporate knowledge by police and club is lost over the passage of time.But of course not by fans who have no input it seems despite the club statements to the contrary on ‘engagement’ and other such guff!It’s not fair / right but can be argued as the right call even so. More so because it has some precedence.I don’t think there is any agenda / great conspiracy theory at play here just a judgement call that is questionable but defendable. Our relatively well behaved supporter reputation maybe counts against us perversely ? 🤷🤷4 -
Guess we'll see what happens tomorrow night in the cup game when they're held back afterwards at Palace.valleynick66 said:
No.MartinCAFC said:
So on that logic when we go to The Den later on this season our fans can expect the same logic to be applied and let out onto the trains first while Millwall fans are diverted around the streets until our fans have all left?valleynick66 said:
As I said I don’t like it but there is a logic to it.JohnnyH2 said:
And everything you have posted was said after the game in 2013 when pretty much the same arrangements were used.valleynick66 said:I think with hindsight and having the opportunity to reflect, the decision by the police to not hold back Millwall could still be argued by the police to be reasonable.There is some logic in trying to remove 3k quickly given the perceived risk of adverse reaction by them if kept waiting.I’m assuming in the absence of any reports to the contrary there were no noteworthy skirmishes between the 2 sets of fans excepting the Sam Bartram gate incursion. On that basis I’d guess the police can claim it was the right call.We don’t like it and consider it unfair but it’s not without any safety merit.
What can’t be defended however is the associated club comms, marshalling/announcements post game and not limiting vehicle access in Charlton Lane ie the implementation of it.The Sam Bartram gate / steps fighting I think is likely to be a ‘hands up we got that wrong’ issue as never really seen before to my knowledge.I’d expect (sadly) a similar arrangement next time with a commitment to handle it better.
And as shown by Saturday and the lack of comms before during and after from our club, nothing has changed in how our own supporters were treated at our groundThe corporate knowledge by police and club is lost over the passage of time.But of course not by fans who have no input it seems despite the club statements to the contrary on ‘engagement’ and other such guff!It’s not fair / right but can be argued as the right call even so. More so because it has some precedence.I don’t think there is any agenda / great conspiracy theory at play here just a judgement call that is questionable but defendable. Our relatively well behaved supporter reputation maybe counts against us perversely ? 🤷🤷0 -
You said "trying to remove 3k quickly". From my seat there was no attempt whatsoever, by police or club, to quickly remove Millwall supporters from the ground so your 'arguement' falls at the first hurdle I'm afraid. Also, the precedence would be to keep the away supporters in the ground for 30/45 minutes as practiced elsewhere.valleynick66 said:
No.MartinCAFC said:
So on that logic when we go to The Den later on this season our fans can expect the same logic to be applied and let out onto the trains first while Millwall fans are diverted around the streets until our fans have all left?valleynick66 said:
As I said I don’t like it but there is a logic to it.JohnnyH2 said:
And everything you have posted was said after the game in 2013 when pretty much the same arrangements were used.valleynick66 said:I think with hindsight and having the opportunity to reflect, the decision by the police to not hold back Millwall could still be argued by the police to be reasonable.There is some logic in trying to remove 3k quickly given the perceived risk of adverse reaction by them if kept waiting.I’m assuming in the absence of any reports to the contrary there were no noteworthy skirmishes between the 2 sets of fans excepting the Sam Bartram gate incursion. On that basis I’d guess the police can claim it was the right call.We don’t like it and consider it unfair but it’s not without any safety merit.
What can’t be defended however is the associated club comms, marshalling/announcements post game and not limiting vehicle access in Charlton Lane ie the implementation of it.The Sam Bartram gate / steps fighting I think is likely to be a ‘hands up we got that wrong’ issue as never really seen before to my knowledge.I’d expect (sadly) a similar arrangement next time with a commitment to handle it better.
And as shown by Saturday and the lack of comms before during and after from our club, nothing has changed in how our own supporters were treated at our groundThe corporate knowledge by police and club is lost over the passage of time.But of course not by fans who have no input it seems despite the club statements to the contrary on ‘engagement’ and other such guff!It’s not fair / right but can be argued as the right call even so. More so because it has some precedence.I don’t think there is any agenda / great conspiracy theory at play here just a judgement call that is questionable but defendable. Our relatively well behaved supporter reputation maybe counts against us perversely ? 🤷🤷10 -
They’ve being ‘held’ in the street outside, exactly as has been the case with us at Selhurst in the past.MartinCAFC said:
Guess we'll see what happens tomorrow night in the cup game when they're held back afterwards at Palace.valleynick66 said:
No.MartinCAFC said:
So on that logic when we go to The Den later on this season our fans can expect the same logic to be applied and let out onto the trains first while Millwall fans are diverted around the streets until our fans have all left?valleynick66 said:
As I said I don’t like it but there is a logic to it.JohnnyH2 said:
And everything you have posted was said after the game in 2013 when pretty much the same arrangements were used.valleynick66 said:I think with hindsight and having the opportunity to reflect, the decision by the police to not hold back Millwall could still be argued by the police to be reasonable.There is some logic in trying to remove 3k quickly given the perceived risk of adverse reaction by them if kept waiting.I’m assuming in the absence of any reports to the contrary there were no noteworthy skirmishes between the 2 sets of fans excepting the Sam Bartram gate incursion. On that basis I’d guess the police can claim it was the right call.We don’t like it and consider it unfair but it’s not without any safety merit.
What can’t be defended however is the associated club comms, marshalling/announcements post game and not limiting vehicle access in Charlton Lane ie the implementation of it.The Sam Bartram gate / steps fighting I think is likely to be a ‘hands up we got that wrong’ issue as never really seen before to my knowledge.I’d expect (sadly) a similar arrangement next time with a commitment to handle it better.
And as shown by Saturday and the lack of comms before during and after from our club, nothing has changed in how our own supporters were treated at our groundThe corporate knowledge by police and club is lost over the passage of time.But of course not by fans who have no input it seems despite the club statements to the contrary on ‘engagement’ and other such guff!It’s not fair / right but can be argued as the right call even so. More so because it has some precedence.I don’t think there is any agenda / great conspiracy theory at play here just a judgement call that is questionable but defendable. Our relatively well behaved supporter reputation maybe counts against us perversely ? 🤷🤷1 - Sponsored links:
-
Again not my argument personally. I don’t agree it’s the right solution.Hex said:
You said "trying to remove 3k quickly". From my seat there was no attempt whatsoever, by police or club, to quickly remove Millwall supporters from the ground so your 'arguement' falls at the first hurdle I'm afraid. Also, the precedence would be to keep the away supporters in the ground for 30/45 minutes as practiced elsewhere.valleynick66 said:
No.MartinCAFC said:
So on that logic when we go to The Den later on this season our fans can expect the same logic to be applied and let out onto the trains first while Millwall fans are diverted around the streets until our fans have all left?valleynick66 said:
As I said I don’t like it but there is a logic to it.JohnnyH2 said:
And everything you have posted was said after the game in 2013 when pretty much the same arrangements were used.valleynick66 said:I think with hindsight and having the opportunity to reflect, the decision by the police to not hold back Millwall could still be argued by the police to be reasonable.There is some logic in trying to remove 3k quickly given the perceived risk of adverse reaction by them if kept waiting.I’m assuming in the absence of any reports to the contrary there were no noteworthy skirmishes between the 2 sets of fans excepting the Sam Bartram gate incursion. On that basis I’d guess the police can claim it was the right call.We don’t like it and consider it unfair but it’s not without any safety merit.
What can’t be defended however is the associated club comms, marshalling/announcements post game and not limiting vehicle access in Charlton Lane ie the implementation of it.The Sam Bartram gate / steps fighting I think is likely to be a ‘hands up we got that wrong’ issue as never really seen before to my knowledge.I’d expect (sadly) a similar arrangement next time with a commitment to handle it better.
And as shown by Saturday and the lack of comms before during and after from our club, nothing has changed in how our own supporters were treated at our groundThe corporate knowledge by police and club is lost over the passage of time.But of course not by fans who have no input it seems despite the club statements to the contrary on ‘engagement’ and other such guff!It’s not fair / right but can be argued as the right call even so. More so because it has some precedence.I don’t think there is any agenda / great conspiracy theory at play here just a judgement call that is questionable but defendable. Our relatively well behaved supporter reputation maybe counts against us perversely ? 🤷🤷I’m suggesting how/why the police could defend it as the least likeky to have problems.Quickly in this context is just that 3k can move quicker toward the station than the larger numbers from 3 sides of the ground.The result / match dynamics always influence how quick the majority of fans leave and can’t be assured beforehand - well I say that - us not winning is highly predictable I suppose 😉😆0 -
Surprisingly the ground clears quite quickly whatever the result, play-off semi-finals excepted. As evidence I spent many years parked behind the west stand waiting to be allowed out onto Harvey Gardens.valleynick66 said:
Again not my argument personally. I don’t agree it’s the right solution.Hex said:
You said "trying to remove 3k quickly". From my seat there was no attempt whatsoever, by police or club, to quickly remove Millwall supporters from the ground so your 'arguement' falls at the first hurdle I'm afraid. Also, the precedence would be to keep the away supporters in the ground for 30/45 minutes as practiced elsewhere.valleynick66 said:
No.MartinCAFC said:
So on that logic when we go to The Den later on this season our fans can expect the same logic to be applied and let out onto the trains first while Millwall fans are diverted around the streets until our fans have all left?valleynick66 said:
As I said I don’t like it but there is a logic to it.JohnnyH2 said:
And everything you have posted was said after the game in 2013 when pretty much the same arrangements were used.valleynick66 said:I think with hindsight and having the opportunity to reflect, the decision by the police to not hold back Millwall could still be argued by the police to be reasonable.There is some logic in trying to remove 3k quickly given the perceived risk of adverse reaction by them if kept waiting.I’m assuming in the absence of any reports to the contrary there were no noteworthy skirmishes between the 2 sets of fans excepting the Sam Bartram gate incursion. On that basis I’d guess the police can claim it was the right call.We don’t like it and consider it unfair but it’s not without any safety merit.
What can’t be defended however is the associated club comms, marshalling/announcements post game and not limiting vehicle access in Charlton Lane ie the implementation of it.The Sam Bartram gate / steps fighting I think is likely to be a ‘hands up we got that wrong’ issue as never really seen before to my knowledge.I’d expect (sadly) a similar arrangement next time with a commitment to handle it better.
And as shown by Saturday and the lack of comms before during and after from our club, nothing has changed in how our own supporters were treated at our groundThe corporate knowledge by police and club is lost over the passage of time.But of course not by fans who have no input it seems despite the club statements to the contrary on ‘engagement’ and other such guff!It’s not fair / right but can be argued as the right call even so. More so because it has some precedence.I don’t think there is any agenda / great conspiracy theory at play here just a judgement call that is questionable but defendable. Our relatively well behaved supporter reputation maybe counts against us perversely ? 🤷🤷I’m suggesting how/why the police could defend it as the least likeky to have problems.Quickly in this context is just that 3k can move quicker toward the station than the larger numbers from 3 sides of the ground.
The result / match dynamics always influence how quick the majority of fans leave and can’t be assured beforehand - well I say that - us not winning is highly predictable I suppose 😉😆0 -
Wow
wtf was the stewards thinking not locking the gate and why wasnt it manned by more aswell as police🤦🏻♂️1 -
You havent read the thread have you @CharltontillidieCOYR7
-
Looking to the reciprocal arrangement when we visit them in January. Would be lovely to get away first & not have to wait for 30 mins in the rain.valleynick66 said:
As I said I don’t like it but there is a logic to it.JohnnyH2 said:
And everything you have posted was said after the game in 2013 when pretty much the same arrangements were used.valleynick66 said:I think with hindsight and having the opportunity to reflect, the decision by the police to not hold back Millwall could still be argued by the police to be reasonable.There is some logic in trying to remove 3k quickly given the perceived risk of adverse reaction by them if kept waiting.I’m assuming in the absence of any reports to the contrary there were no noteworthy skirmishes between the 2 sets of fans excepting the Sam Bartram gate incursion. On that basis I’d guess the police can claim it was the right call.We don’t like it and consider it unfair but it’s not without any safety merit.
What can’t be defended however is the associated club comms, marshalling/announcements post game and not limiting vehicle access in Charlton Lane ie the implementation of it.The Sam Bartram gate / steps fighting I think is likely to be a ‘hands up we got that wrong’ issue as never really seen before to my knowledge.I’d expect (sadly) a similar arrangement next time with a commitment to handle it better.
And as shown by Saturday and the lack of comms before during and after from our club, nothing has changed in how our own supporters were treated at our groundThe corporate knowledge by police and club is lost over the passage of time.But of course not by fans who have no input it seems despite the club statements to the contrary on ‘engagement’ and other such guff!
Yeah right. I'll get a tattoo saying "I'm Golfie" on me bonce if that happens.4 -
No statement from the club regarding the utter shambles after the game is indeed annoying.
Personally I'd also like a statement from the police saying that they made mistakes and in future it will be Millwall fan's held behind while the Charlton fans leave after the game just like every other home team does all over the country.
I won't hold my breath though.23 -
Watching that for the first time I would say the 3 or 4 idiots from our end caused that. End of. There were hardly any of their twats at the gate but our twats rattling the fence and having a pop drew interest from them and their crowd grew and grew whereas our crowd couldn’t as it’s the bloody East Stand so the obvious happened.CharltontillidieCOYR said:9 -
Do we know if one of “our end” wasn’t the boy with the Spurs tattoo who was showing the away end it from the East?2
-
CAST has written to the club and will be writing to the police today. Thanks to all who shared information with us directly plus on here.
https://www.castrust.org/2025/09/management-of-last-saturdays-match/22 - Sponsored links:
-
I said on the other thread I was wrong for believing in and trying to argue for what the authorities thought best.From the police’s point of view, I very much doubt there is anything to follow up on, much less change next year. They will see Saturday as a non event, despite the footage and incidents. I would imagine it’s acceptable collateral damage (I’m not downplaying what happened to those that got caught up in it, it must’ve been horrible), more highlighting that they’ll be done with it.
It would be great if we had someone within the operations side of the club to step up on our behalf, but I feel that despite the investment shown by the owners on the playing side of the pitch, this highlights that the backend is still very much being held together with the minimum investment and resource.4 -
Many thanks to the Trust, much appreciatedcastrust said:CAST has written to the club and will be writing to the police today. Thanks to all who shared information with us directly plus on here.
https://www.castrust.org/2025/09/management-of-last-saturdays-match/4 -
Weren't we corralled in the street after a Palace game a few years ago! Bit of a disaster for local residents who had fans jumping on their car roofs and bonnets?MartinCAFC said:
Guess we'll see what happens tomorrow night in the cup game when they're held back afterwards at Palace.valleynick66 said:
No.MartinCAFC said:
So on that logic when we go to The Den later on this season our fans can expect the same logic to be applied and let out onto the trains first while Millwall fans are diverted around the streets until our fans have all left?valleynick66 said:
As I said I don’t like it but there is a logic to it.JohnnyH2 said:
And everything you have posted was said after the game in 2013 when pretty much the same arrangements were used.valleynick66 said:I think with hindsight and having the opportunity to reflect, the decision by the police to not hold back Millwall could still be argued by the police to be reasonable.There is some logic in trying to remove 3k quickly given the perceived risk of adverse reaction by them if kept waiting.I’m assuming in the absence of any reports to the contrary there were no noteworthy skirmishes between the 2 sets of fans excepting the Sam Bartram gate incursion. On that basis I’d guess the police can claim it was the right call.We don’t like it and consider it unfair but it’s not without any safety merit.
What can’t be defended however is the associated club comms, marshalling/announcements post game and not limiting vehicle access in Charlton Lane ie the implementation of it.The Sam Bartram gate / steps fighting I think is likely to be a ‘hands up we got that wrong’ issue as never really seen before to my knowledge.I’d expect (sadly) a similar arrangement next time with a commitment to handle it better.
And as shown by Saturday and the lack of comms before during and after from our club, nothing has changed in how our own supporters were treated at our groundThe corporate knowledge by police and club is lost over the passage of time.But of course not by fans who have no input it seems despite the club statements to the contrary on ‘engagement’ and other such guff!It’s not fair / right but can be argued as the right call even so. More so because it has some precedence.I don’t think there is any agenda / great conspiracy theory at play here just a judgement call that is questionable but defendable. Our relatively well behaved supporter reputation maybe counts against us perversely ? 🤷🤷4 -
Sounds like an episode of The Walking DeadGreenhithe said:
Watching that for the first time I would say the 3 or 4 idiots from our end caused that. End of. There were hardly any of their twats at the gate but our twats rattling the fence and having a pop drew interest from them and their crowd grew and grew whereas our crowd couldn’t as it’s the bloody East Stand so the obvious happened.CharltontillidieCOYR said:0 -
-
We’re seeing a snapshot of time there though, not what happened prior, and there is also the rather significant point that our fans are there because they have to walk past there to leave the stadium - the army of Millwall fans can only be there realistically to goad our fans (noting AFKA’s comments in particular about the normal Presence of away fans in that corner, being basically zero). The scum fans were certainly looking for it, may have already thrown stuff etc, and I had a mate who was sat down that end of the East Stand on Sat and he said he couldn’t enjoy the game because of all the Millwall shit going on all match, and that various other punches were thrown further along the East Stand concourse.Greenhithe said:
Watching that for the first time I would say the 3 or 4 idiots from our end caused that. End of. There were hardly any of their twats at the gate but our twats rattling the fence and having a pop drew interest from them and their crowd grew and grew whereas our crowd couldn’t as it’s the bloody East Stand so the obvious happened.CharltontillidieCOYR said:Obviously the blokes in our end should just walk off or whatever and look like numpties reacting like that, but equally I have spent many games now being goaded all match by scum fans at theirs (and also more recently last season when stood by the stewards / home fans at the boundary of our end at Reading last season) and as somebody on the whole calm minded, rational and with absolutely no interest whatsoever in that stuff, in the heat of the moment it is difficult for even very rational adults to keep your cool when subject to some of their rank abuse.1 -
As per previous comments, a lot of the gates around the Valley cant be fully locked due to safety/evacuation concerns.CharltontillidieCOYR said:Wow
wtf was the stewards thinking not locking the gate and why wasnt it manned by more aswell as police🤦🏻♂️0 -
Is this just health and safety gone mad?CAFCTrev said:
As per previous comments, a lot of the gates around the Valley cant be fully locked due to safety/evacuation concerns.CharltontillidieCOYR said:Wow
wtf was the stewards thinking not locking the gate and why wasnt it manned by more aswell as police🤦🏻♂️
Surely the biggest risk to health and safety is a potentially dangerous and supposedly segregated football crowd not actually being segregated?0 -
Or being trapped in a burning stand because the gate can't be open and there's only one exit on the other side. The segregation issue is easy, you don't need to lock the gate you just need to actually segregatesuperclive98 said:
Is this just health and safety gone mad?CAFCTrev said:
As per previous comments, a lot of the gates around the Valley cant be fully locked due to safety/evacuation concerns.CharltontillidieCOYR said:Wow
wtf was the stewards thinking not locking the gate and why wasnt it manned by more aswell as police🤦🏻♂️
Surely the biggest risk to health and safety is a potentially dangerous and supposedly segregated football crowd not actually being segregated?9
MrOneLung
