Cardiff - Vandalism in the away end

[Svlad Cjelli]

and rightly so their allocation should be limited. sadly it will have no effect until the likes of the F.A or the Football League decide to step in and say enough is enough, but we all know they are too busy trying to punish managers for resting players.

You seem to have missed the point of this - it's aimed at the "a tiny minority of morons" that the majority are ashamed of.

Why should the majority suffer because of the actions of a few?

How would you suggest the problem is dealt with then Svladers? And if you were RFC what restrictions would you put in place to make sure this doesn't happen again?

There's retrospective CCTV for seat damage, possibly. One steward in the toilets would do they job (oo-er, missus).

[Magnus]

Problem with CCTV is you've probably got, at best, a grainy image of a group of young 20-25 year olds decked out in Ben Sherman and baseball caps.

What are you gonna do? Stick it on crimewatch and see if anyone shops them? Even then - is it worth taking them to court over?

A steward in the toilets - fair enough this is sensible, but it's locking the stable door after the horse has bolted. How do we know what they'll vandalise next time? I feel sorry for the supporters of cardiff who aren't thugs, but unfortunately, as with so many other things in life, the minority do spoil things for the majority.

[Svlad Cjelli]

Agreed - if people want to cause problem like this there's no effective way to stop them.

The only foolproof way is self-policing, which is starting to come but it's a long, slow process - for this to happen you need the vast majority to recognise that the behaviour is unacceptable and counter-productive, and these e-mails show that this is at least starting to happen.

[STAR Liaison]

Agreed - if people want to cause problem like this there's no effective way to stop them.

The only foolproof way is self-policing, which is starting to come but it's a long, slow process - for this to happen you need the vast majority to recognise that the behaviour is unacceptable and counter-productive, and these e-mails show that this is at least starting to happen.

I agree and surely that is why Elm Park called those who witnessed it guilty as well. They are not as culpable but they surely have the incentive to try to stop their 'fellow' supporters.

As far as identifying from CCTV is concerned, having spoken to the senior stewards on this subject many times, I have naively found it surprising how many times those who do not want to be identified come to football games with several sets of clothing. Several ejections have been delayed because the 'miscreants' have changed their appearance, and who knows how many have evaded them completely. So if they came with this in mind it may have been difficult to do anything about it at the time.

[RoyalBlue]

Agreed - if people want to cause problem like this there's no effective way to stop them.

The only foolproof way is self-policing, which is starting to come but it's a long, slow process - for this to happen you need the vast majority to recognise that the behaviour is unacceptable and counter-productive, and these e-mails show that this is at least starting to happen.

I agree and surely that is why Elm Park called those who witnessed it guilty as well. They are not as culpable but they surely have the incentive to try to stop their 'fellow' supporters.

As far as identifying from CCTV is concerned, having spoken to the senior stewards on this subject many times, I have naively found it surprising how many times those who do not want to be identified come to football games with several sets of clothing. Several ejections have been delayed because the 'miscreants' have changed their appearance, and who knows how many have evaded them completely. So if they came with this in mind it may have been difficult to do anything about it at the time.

Maybe they should start to look out for people carrying in several sets of clothing! And the fact that they are concentrating on clothing rather than faces would appear to suggest that the definition of the CCTV is not that great!

Perhaps one of the answers is to reduce ticket allocations unless the visitors provide sufficient numbers of their local stewards and police to enable them to spot and point out known troublemakers.

[Elm Park]

Agreed - if people want to cause problem like this there's no effective way to stop them.

The only foolproof way is self-policing, which is starting to come but it's a long, slow process - for this to happen you need the vast majority to recognise that the behaviour is unacceptable and counter-productive, and these e-mails show that this is at least starting to happen.

I agree and surely that is why Elm Park called those who witnessed it guilty as well. They are not as culpable but they surely have the incentive to try to stop their 'fellow' supporters.

As far as identifying from CCTV is concerned, having spoken to the senior stewards on this subject many times, I have naively found it surprising how many times those who do not want to be identified come to football games with several sets of clothing. Several ejections have been delayed because the 'miscreants' have changed their appearance, and who knows how many have evaded them completely. So if they came with this in mind it may have been difficult to do anything about it at the time.

That is exactly the way I called it. It might be a minority who caused the damage but a number are also quilty of inaction. Thereby reducing the majority of inocents who suffer.

[Royal Lady]

Perhaps we should not have served alcohol to them. I'm sure I've been to an away match in the last couple of years where they did not serve alcohol - can't remember for the life of me where it was though.

[Svlad Cjelli]

Agreed - if people want to cause problem like this there's no effective way to stop them.

The only foolproof way is self-policing, which is starting to come but it's a long, slow process - for this to happen you need the vast majority to recognise that the behaviour is unacceptable and counter-productive, and these e-mails show that this is at least starting to happen.

I agree and surely that is why Elm Park called those who witnessed it guilty as well. They are not as culpable but they surely have the incentive to try to stop their 'fellow' supporters.

As far as identifying from CCTV is concerned, having spoken to the senior stewards on this subject many times, I have naively found it surprising how many times those who do not want to be identified come to football games with several sets of clothing. Several ejections have been delayed because the 'miscreants' have changed their appearance, and who knows how many have evaded them completely. So if they came with this in mind it may have been difficult to do anything about it at the time.

That is exactly the way I called it. It might be a minority who caused the damage but a number are also quilty of inaction. Thereby reducing the majority of inocents who suffer.

Yep, but realising that is not instant - there's a process of realisation of collective responsibility that any group has to go through, and Cardiff are in the middle of that right now, as shown by their communications. People have to feel that they have the support of the majority and that they won't face recriminations before they take individual action, and just as importantly the potential miscreants need to feel that what they have done will be disapproved of by the majority.

It's like the death of racism in football in the late 80s/90s - despite all the Kick It Outs and SRTRC campaigns trying to push it from outside, this only actually happened once the majority of people in crowds decided as a group that this was unacceptable behaviour. And that didn't happen overnight - it took a number of years, but it did happen (in most places, anyway!).

[Harpers So Solid Crew]

Reduce the away allocation, would we have been better off with 2k fans at average 17 , or 3k at same, so £17k to help pay for the damage, and I would assume the same damage would have happened with the lower attendance. 20 plastic seats, cant cost a fortune, and as for the toilets, they should be non vandalisable, ergo a pot to piss in.

[RG30]

Perhaps we should not have served alcohol to them. I'm sure I've been to an away match in the last couple of years where they did not serve alcohol - can't remember for the life of me where it was though.

Tottenham springs to mind

[Royal Lady]

Perhaps we should not have served alcohol to them. I'm sure I've been to an away match in the last couple of years where they did not serve alcohol - can't remember for the life of me where it was though.

Tottenham springs to mind

Ah yes could have been. Why was that then? Or do they do that for all away supporters?

I think, in future for teams such as Cardiff, Millwall, Swansea, Pompey we should not serve alcohol to them. Won't necessarily stop the mindless vandalism, but it might help.

[TFF]

One steward in the toilets would do they job (oo-er, missus).

It's a brave (or stupid) steward that would work in an isolated area out of the range of cctv.

[SHORT AND CURLY]

Perhaps we should not have served alcohol to them. I'm sure I've been to an away match in the last couple of years where they did not serve alcohol - can't remember for the life of me where it was though.

I think, in future for teams such as Cardiff, Millwall, Swansea, Pompey we should not serve alcohol to them. Won't necessarily stop the mindless vandalism, but it might help.

Can you really see our esteemed club turning away bundles of dosh from pithed up away fans when they can make a fast buck and probably charge (in this instance Cardiff) the away club for the costs of the damage.
Its all very well banning/reducing away allocations but the club will lose out on the revenue from overpriced Beer that they would normally consume.

[PEARCEY]

Welsh in braindead lunacy shocker.

Of course there are no braindead lunatics in England.............oh.

Just going back to the point I made earlier. I can't see why Cardiff can't bring some of their own stewards over. They will have far more of an idea who the perpetrators are likely to be and will bear the cost of having to steward them.

[The whole year inn]

One steward in the toilets would do they job (oo-er, missus).

It's a brave (or stupid) steward that would work in an isolated area out of the range of cctv.

Yep. Up there with the worst job in the world

Here you go mate, go and stand in the bogs on your own in a bright yellow jacket surrounded by 3000 Cardiff fans

[Harpers So Solid Crew]

Likely as not the yobs were not even drunk, and would have done it with ot without alcohol being on sale. I am not sure that Cardiff will take the hit for what their fans did, after all we took the gate money, they only get a small amount of it.

One other question, did RFC sell the seats near the front, or were they netted over?

[under the tin]

Likely as not the yobs were not even drunk, and would have done it with ot without alcohol being on sale.

I quite agree.
Too many making the same assumptive, ridiculous association between alcohol and bad behaviour that the Thatcher government made all those years ago, and saddled us with the stupid laws we have now.
Anyone who has been to a rugby international, or, more pertinently, a cricket test match will be able to attest that for many, it is a day-long pi$$ up.
It's not alcohol, it's individuals. Shutting the concourse bars is an irrelevance anyway. For any Cardiff fan wanting to get fuelled up, they could have got a lunchtime train here, and spent all afternoon in The Monks, etc.
Surely the answer to this problem is in the stewarding of the fans. Seems to me that the most logical way is to encourage the visiting clubs to bring their own stewards/police, and to base the ticket allocation on a formula. For every X fans you bring, then you must also have Y stewards.

[Rex]

They did bring in their own Police.

[PieEater]

RFC could also have more vandal proof toilets, with cisterns boxed in.

[Gordons Cumming]

Next time they visit I suggest they bring their own toilet paper.

That'll teach 'em!!