FSA AGM - reportedly a fans' motion supportive of APT rules proposed

[Mad Eyed Screamer]

The PDF on the FSA site (pp37) also shows who supported this, no surprises really

MOTION TWO Proposed by: Spirit of Shankly
Seconded by: Hammers United
Supported by: Arsenal Supporters’ Trust, Manchester United Supporters’ Trust (MUST), Wolves 1877 Trust
Motion: Continued action to address the increasing risk of challenges to the sporting integrity and competitive balance of our game


It seems to be a clear and organised example of tyranny of the majority.

The PDF lists apologies and says there was a quorum of members and members of the Board of the Football Supporters’ Association but doesn't say exactly who was there. I wonder if there are any City, Newcastle or Villa representatives.

The OSC was represented at every FSF / FSA conference I ever went too (usually Alan Galley, but I haven't attended one in 13 years!)
Maybe @Tim of the Oak could find out if the OSC was represented?

Absolutely laughing at the statement, presumably written by the Spirit of Shankly, bemoaning that the spending gap between the top and the bottom has increased and could increase further.
Did the SOS think this was an issue when Liverpool were buying all the top players and winning 3 titles on the bounce throughout their dominant period of the 70's / 80's? Did MUST have an issue when Wooney, Wio and Veron were being bought, smashing British transfer records along the way and the rags were winning 3 titles (twice) on the bounce during their period of dominance in the 90's / 00's?

Of course, both sets of groups will bring up the tired nonsense about ''spending was done with clean / earnt / organic money'' rather than outwardly invested money (or the usual dirty oil money) without understanding their gerrymandering of both the Premier League and the Champions League meant that without outside investment, no club could ever break into the cartel.

What amazes me is groups like the West Ham and Wolves supporter's clubs going along and backing this motion, whilst failing to understand how the rags and Liverpool (and Arsenal too) were feasting at the top table to the detriment of their own clubs, who were happy to be thrown scraps every now and then and were grateful for what they received.

 

[chaddblue]

It matters not one fuck whether or not they are supportive of it if we are successful in proving its illegal

 

[cheekybids]

It matters not one fuck whether or not they are supportive of it if we are successful in proving its illegal

It’s there for the negative sound bites when our case is won. “Ordinary supporters blame City for ticket increases at the Emirates & Anfield.”

 

[Shirley]

I recall City fans protesting about the first £60 tickets at…..arsenal.

 

[dadnlad]

So a bunch of spoiled brats stamping their feet because not winning anymore

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Was there also a motion about teams not having terrorist-financing money launderers as sponsors?

 

[richards30]

it`s funny how rival fans still cant grasp the concept that the law might actually be illegal the one that City are challenging? Plain and simple, you cant make a rule just because you want to if its actually not lawful?

 

[feedmpenzaandhewillscore]

So a bunch of spoiled brats stamping their feet because not winning anymore

That’s basically it in a nut shell, they decided to support a team no where near where they live and because they were successful so they could bask in their reflective glory. City have come along and given them over a decade of misery, the realisation that their teams can’t beat City on the football pitch has resulted in rival supporters wanting us wiped off the board be it from 115 charges or the Premier League introducing illegal rules to stop City.

 

[M18CTID]

I recall City fans protesting about the first £60 tickets at…..arsenal.

Which was supported by the FSA funnily enough and eventually led to the £30 cap on away tickets

 

[M18CTID]

1894 are affiliated with the FSA but I'm not sure if we had anyone there at the weekend. It was at Wembley and I couldn't get down myself due to having other stuff on. I think the OSC are affiliated with them too as they've had people turn up at the annual FSA conference before.

In any case, 1894 have been pre-occupied with the ticket price campaign and have been one of the groups at the forefront of that, as people can see from the notes posted on here from the FSA conference.

I've nothing against maintaining the competitive balance of the league but that motion reads like an attack on City more than anything else, despite it acknowledging that we're challenging the legality of the APT rules. To that end, if I was voting myself I would've either voted against or abstained. As others said, it's no surprise that it was proposed by Spirit Of Shankly but SOS are a huge group with different factions to it. The guys we talk to there are sound enough and deal with stuff like ticket prices, a topic that we've campaigned together on loads of times without the need to take pot shots at each other's clubs. My guess is that it's nothing to do with the people we deal with at SOS and everything to do with Ian Byrne who, as a sitting MP and a member of Spirit Of Shankly, made some utterly disgraceful and ill-informed comments about City in the wake of the news about our action against the PL being made public. What the stupid **** fails to understand is that City are actually on his side regarding an Independent Regulator, whereas his beloved Liverpool FC aren't!