Fan threatened with eviction from MCG for barracking too loud

Freshwater

Premiership Player
Oct 30, 2014
4,123
8,070
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
The public has it in for everything about anything. It's the culture now. And it's ****. He could be completely on your side and you'd find another view to hold against him. Or anything for that matter. We have a culture of disagreeing with everything, especially authoritative, regardless of our actual view. We change our opinions to create an argument about everything. Whether someone does something good or bad, there's always someone complaining with a whole flock behind them. There is absolutely nothing Gil could have said to make you or anyone else happy. Even if he did make you happy, someone else won't be. So he can't win.
Not true, I don’t know who this ‘we’ is. But just let people barrack as passionately as they like. If they break the law, kick ‘em out, if not get out of their face. I will always be on the side of the common man , who always, collectively executes common sense. Democracy is still alive... for now.
 

Ron The Bear

Up yer arse, AFL
30k Posts 10k Posts
Jul 4, 2006
35,845
36,723
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Because It's disappointing that the general public passionately and distastefully headhunt people over minor issues based on opinion. It happens with everything not just sport or the AFL. And often they're cemented in their opinion regardless of what anyone says. There's no making them happy. It's sad that people get a kick out of beating someone even though the issue itself has no effect on the way they live their lives what so ever.

Look at the state of bloke over what should be a non issue. Lack of sympathy and logic from people.

The AFL is a law unto itself and the public has absolutely NO recourse to make its feelings felt, other than social media. This security thing is the last straw for some.

The AFL created this issue out of thin air. They deserve whatever they cop.
 

zyzzbruh

Premiership Player
Mar 27, 2017
3,815
6,067
Mnt Olympus
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Manchester United
Not true, I don’t know who this ‘we’ is. But just let people barrack as passionately as they like. If they break the law, kick ‘em out, if not get out of their face. I will always be on the side of the common man , who always, collectively executes common sense. Democracy is still alive... for now.
No one's telling you not to barrack passionately ya donut. Thats the point here.. that's there isn't one. Doesn't matter what someone gets kicked out for, even if you agree, there will be masses disagreeing even if it was completely justified.
 

Turnover

Cancelled
May 30, 2015
3,650
4,658
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Liverpool
The public has it in for everything about anything. It's the culture now. And it's ****. He could be completely on your side and you'd find another view to hold against him. Or anything for that matter. We have a culture of disagreeing with everything, especially authoritative, regardless of our actual view. We change our opinions to create an argument about everything. Whether someone does something good or bad, there's always someone complaining with a whole flock behind them. There is absolutely nothing Gil could have said to make you or anyone else happy. Even if he did make you happy, someone else won't be. So he can't win.
Agree with everything you said. The last sentence “So he can’t win” sums up our current society and culture.
 

The Gong

Norm Smith Medallist
Oct 24, 2012
6,774
14,382
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Northern Districts Tigers
The AFL is a law unto itself and the public has absolutely NO recourse to make its feelings felt, other than social media. This security thing is the last straw for some.

The AFL created this issue out of thin air. They deserve whatever they cop.
And it sounds like the AFL is responding to the fan backlash but there's still no evidence that it was based on an AFL directive or some grand conspiracy to enact social Marxism which has been suggested in this thread. I think it's generally agreed that a "No dickheads" policy is a good thing but that managing the crowd behaviour went too far over the mark. I'm yet to see anything that proves it was part of some bigger crackdown by the AFL.
 

zyzzbruh

Premiership Player
Mar 27, 2017
3,815
6,067
Mnt Olympus
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Manchester United
Agree with everything you said. The last sentence “So he can’t win” sums up our current society and culture.
I'd literally bet my bank account that the new AFL boss after Gil will be forced out the exact same way regardless of how good a job he actually does.
 

Freshwater

Premiership Player
Oct 30, 2014
4,123
8,070
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
No one's telling you not to barrack passionately ya donut. Thats the point here.. that's there isn't one. Doesn't matter what someone gets kicked out for, even if you agree, there will be masses disagreeing even if it was completely justified.
That’s what you’re not getting, many have been told, including the old Hawthorn cheer squad member, have been told to stop barracking and sit down!
 
It's a fair question that should be directed at the venues. That would be the rational decision here rather than absolutely battering who someone who is stating that it has nothing to do with him or the AFL. Yet another example of the masses jumping on a bandwagon if an issue that doesn't actually exist.

Let's say the conspiracy theory that Gil behind it is actually not true and that he's actually telling the truth. And because of it all he gets sacked. Are you all content of stripping someone from their job and publicly humiliating them of something that is not true? it's actually sad that public opinion has gotten to the point that things have become personal. Then they wonder why people are actually stamping their foot down on abuse and blatant bullying.

Well this is where I think the argument doesn’t hold water. Gil says he had no idea there was going to be a security crack down. But doesn’t that just mean something as significant as this should have come across his desk? Was there seriously a lack of consultation between venue management and the AFL that this was coming? Or if not Gil, who in the AFL hierarchy is responsible for such measures being reviewed and approved?

Either the AFL was actively consulted and approved the crack down or they weren’t. If it’s the latter that’s a massive issue in its own right that venues would do this without the AFL’s approval.
 

Turnover

Cancelled
May 30, 2015
3,650
4,658
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Liverpool
The AFL is a law unto itself and the public has absolutely NO recourse to make its feelings felt, other than social media. This security thing is the last straw for some.

The AFL created this issue out of thin air. They deserve whatever they cop.
Forget AFL then mate. Go support your local footy team, get your fix that way. It will save you from your AFLstress.
 

Ron The Bear

Up yer arse, AFL
30k Posts 10k Posts
Jul 4, 2006
35,845
36,723
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
And it sounds like the AFL is responding to the fan backlash but there's still no evidence that it was based on an AFL directive or some grand conspiracy to enact social Marxism which has been suggested in this thread. I think it's generally agreed that a "No dickheads" policy is a good thing but that managing the crowd behaviour went too far over the mark. I'm yet to see anything that proves it was part of some bigger crackdown by the AFL.

The AFL never admits mistakes. It just doesn't.
Forget AFL then mate. Go support your local footy team, get your fix that way. It will save you from your AFLstress.

I'll throw as many stones from the sidelines as I want. If only the AFL was such that I ran out of stones!
 
Mar 1, 2010
23,158
16,560
AFL Club
Richmond
Crowd behaviour wasn't the topic here. We were talking about breaking up an on field fight. And I can tell you it is definitely not part of the job description for guards to know how the game is played.


Crows behaviour is the topic.

Thats the role, crowd control and if you did security in a legit regulatory set-up you would be fully aware that would be your primary function if not a designatory category/sublicense in a such a specific environment.

The fact this amateur service provider has continued with this service defies belief.

One of the ways to mitigate such risks is to deploy resources that are responsible, knowledgeable and intelligent. When you go to a pub you have you gorilla guards and then the intelligent ones are they are placed strategically for maximum effect seamlessly. If you been in the game long enough the most effective methods are known from experience even if they are learnt the hard way by the biggest knuckleheads.

What is clearly apparent here is the obvious failure of a low level operative that clearly is facing obsolescence through adaptive incapability with new age technological advances!!
 

zyzzbruh

Premiership Player
Mar 27, 2017
3,815
6,067
Mnt Olympus
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Manchester United
And it sounds like the AFL is responding to the fan backlash but there's still no evidence that it was based on an AFL directive or some grand conspiracy to enact social Marxism which has been suggested in this thread. I think it's generally agreed that a "No dickheads" policy is a good thing but that managing the crowd behaviour went too far over the mark. I'm yet to see anything that proves it was part of some bigger crackdown by the AFL.
And you won't see anything because it doesn't exist. However the tirade based on non factual opinion will continue to rule. There's no reasoning in our new culture unfortunately. This will be the fate of every authoritative body in any buisness for the rest of time.
 

zyzzbruh

Premiership Player
Mar 27, 2017
3,815
6,067
Mnt Olympus
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Manchester United
Well this is where I think the argument doesn’t hold water. Gil says he had no idea there was going to be a security crack down. But doesn’t that just mean something as significant as this should have come across his desk? Was there seriously a lack of consultation between venue management and the AFL that this was coming? Or if not Gil, who in the AFL hierarchy is responsible for such measures being reviewed and approved?

Either the AFL was actively consulted and approved the crack down or they weren’t. If it’s the latter that’s a massive issue in its own right that venues would do this without the AFL’s approval.
Then you need to assume that the venues would have cautioned every single body it associates with. They do more than just the footy. They hold countless events booked well in advance aswell.
 

The Gong

Norm Smith Medallist
Oct 24, 2012
6,774
14,382
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Northern Districts Tigers
Funny how people are hating on this new world feels thing, but then totally uptaking it to base the logic of their opinions on lol.
I think I can point to the beginning of the end of our civilisation when legit news groups started to quote random Twitter feeds to support arbitrary arguments. Who needs to hunt down informed opinions from qualified experts when you can quote some nobody.

Now my feelings are more important than your facts.
 

Balls In

Brownlow Medallist
May 25, 2018
12,439
23,447
AFL Club
West Coast
What if it really is nothing but the venue deciding it? For arguments sake.
Would you feel bad for getting him sacked as a result?

I wouldn't because I hate the direction he is leading football.

However this issue has been bubbling along FOR WEEKS at multiple grounds including Marvel which I understand is owned by the AFL. The CEO of the AFL has had plenty of time and opportunity to intervene. Personally I reckon he is behind the whole debacle its right up Gils alley.
 
Then you need to assume that the venues would have cautioned every single body it associates with. They do more than just the footy. They hold countless events booked well in advance aswell.

Why wouldn’t they consult their largest customer on security changes? Or in Marvel’s case, their owner?
 

zyzzbruh

Premiership Player
Mar 27, 2017
3,815
6,067
Mnt Olympus
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Manchester United
Why wouldn’t they consult their largest customer on security changes? Or in Marvel’s case, their owner?
Maybe they beleived it to be an ethical directive taken upon themselves that doesn't need consultation. Which could be the right or wrong thing depending on your view of it all. It's something that Gil or anyone for that matter could have easily missed as causing a future issue even of they were consulted. This is due to ethical reasoning using logic as its basis. Whether security polices it correctly is a different matter, as is people's opinions on what is acceptable behaviour. There's too much grey area and theres no chance that Gil or anyone else was going to win this one. Just need to cut him slack. Those against him need to realise he wouldn't have won even if his decisions suited them.
 

These 4 Walls

Senior List
Jul 17, 2017
203
318
AFL Club
Richmond
Gil should have already stood down because of the abomination he brought us in AFLX.

Can't wait until this bloke ****s off.
You think that someone should lose their job because they are overseeing an organisation which has tried to create a version of the game that would allow it to prosper in other parts of the world and hopefully allow a greater range of international athletes to take part in Aussie Rules?
 
Maybe they beleived it to be an ethical directive taken upon themselves that doesn't need consultation. Which could be the right or wrong thing depending on your view of it all. It's something that Gil or anyone for that matter could have easily missed as causing a future issue even of they were consulted. This is due to ethical reasoning using logic as its basis. Whether security polices it correctly is a different matter, as is people's opinions on what is acceptable behaviour.

Travis Auld should have been up there with Gil and he should have been asked if he or anyone in his team approved the security changes.

Gil has said he personally didn’t approve or issue an “edict” on the crack down. Well he should get across the measures quick smart. And I hope he’s not trying to weasel out of this by referring to him personally, rather than the AFL in terms of who knew what and when.

AFL should come out now and advise what the security measures are, including surveillance and undercover operations. Gil said he talks to many people about football and safety (apparently not venue management though). Let’s see what happens now he knows.
 
Back