Mr.Banks
Well-Known Member
I'm on it!!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
City & Zagreb Charged
- Thread starter cyberblue
- Start date
trevorriley
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 18 Jan 2012
- Messages
- 3,124
I'm on it!!
shit don't burn
Having the conservative conference happening at the same time didn’t help in manpower availability.Oh dear...
I read on here somewhere that there were not enough police on duty and that the security staff were youngsters more used to patrolling music festivals.
Surely security and safety is down to the home club to arrange?
It seema obvious to me that we (City) definitely have to take at least part of the blame for the trouble in the ground.
JJ
Daughter went (spectator) and was security checked 5 separate times on the way in.
So , security inside/outside venue/streets and hotels would have been kept high, during evening/night as well
wagonman
Well-Known Member
Having the conservative conference happening at the same time didn’t help in manpower availability.
Daughter went (spectator) and was security checked 5 separate times on the way in.
So , security inside/outside venue/streets and hotels would have been kept high, during evening/night as well
You are in no doubt right but it doesn't change anything I posted.
City must bear a large part of the responsibility for the safety of the fans in the Stadium...
JJ
WesthoughtonJohn
Well-Known Member
Like it or not City fans threw the seats back.easy enough for the club to have a press conference from the stands and show where the seats were taken from
My personal take was our fans clearly felt Zagreb had paid for seats and should have them back to sit on.
Really? yes, of course i know that, and it was wrong to throw them back,Like it or not City fans threw the seats back.
My personal take was our fans clearly felt Zagreb had paid for seats and should have them back to sit on.
but in the light of the slighted headlines and a possible need for an appeal it would be easy to prove who started it, a fact i would think should carry some weight,
and that should have been officially stated for damage control.
WesthoughtonJohn
Well-Known Member
Really? yes, of course i know that, and it was wrong to throw them back,
but in the light of the slighted headlines and a possible need for an appeal it would be easy to prove who started it, a fact i would think should carry some weight,
and that should have been officially stated for damage control.
I think you missed the point of the second paragraph :) - we have nothing to answer for
no, it's just not funny the second time either.I think you missed the point of the second paragraph :) - we have nothing to answer for
WesthoughtonJohn
Well-Known Member
Fair enough, each to their own.no, it's just not funny the second time either.
I'll look out for posts of yours which aren't amusing to me - oh then again maybe not.