"The whole system, in my mind, with football in England is
wrong. They should not invite people like myself to become owners of clubs like Charlton – or any other club, by the way... the EFL should not sell football clubs to
foreign owners who do not know these kinds of things can happen. For my
life, it’s been a major mistake to do that. So it’s annoying me and it’s
not nice. I think it’s totally wrong that foreign
people get involved with English football."
This is the guy who owned Standard Liege, where, thanks to his financial stewardship of the club, the fans rioted in a major way and forced the abandonment of a game, the same game where he had been obliged to have guards in full riot armour at the VIP entrance and where he ducked out 15 minutes or so before the game was abandoned, for his own physical safety.
Clearly, the Pro League shouldn't "invite" foreigners like him to buy Belgian clubs, either.
Who from the FA invited him to buy our club? No one obviously.
His comments are clearly racist, and of the worst kind. His rant against English supporters is clearly irrational and unfounded. Many foreign owners have run clubs successfully. He should be arrested and charged.
He wanted to buy us, and one has to wonder at his motivation at the time. Certainly strange for someone not interested in football and only has 2% of his time to invest. He had no idea how to run a football club and was in a war of attrition with supporters of a Belgium club he owned. He has also gone onto buy other clubs. Why?
Simon had him on the run on such a small point. A full interview with anyone really on their game would have a field time with him. Why buy so many clubs when you know fuck all and have already proved to yourself that you are incompetent in all matters football?
Was it perchance driven by the success he had at buying his local club after being elected to his local council?. He was then so lucky to have then been given planning permission to develop that football club and build his own hotel and leisure businesses? I am sure that Rolly as an honest business man did not influence that decision. But for more suspicious people than I, they may want a credible answer backed by facts. I am sure that they are available.
I did overhear that Rolly had a plan to build a hotel/ develop the stadium: and the training site. Only a rumour, but again, more suspicious people than I may look back and wonder if that was the real reason for buying us? Could it in fact explain why someone with no interest in football would not complete a full due diligence on the club because he never intended to run it as such or just develop and sell? Especially as they could only devote 2% of their time to the project? I am sure that this was never the case; but others maybe more sceptical.
Personally I think he bought us to drive us into the Premiership and just got a bit unlucky, and is in no way just a cheap crook. Well cheap certainly.
So basically, if you don't like someone it's ok to commit criminal acts against them. Doesn't sound like a very safe world to me.
I see your point, I really do. But here is my view, which I took a long time to come about to....
First, define "criminal act?" Mostly, it is simply a... written law approved by the existing power structure. Nothing more. It is not an edict from god. And who writes that law? Usually it is not the average person. Let's be real about that. What makes one act "criminal" and another "legal" is really nothing more than a value call.
I contend that although vandalism is a criminal act, it is LESS of a criminal act than buying something that (at least substantially) belongs to a community, where the buyer does not allow for any community involvement in what was created by that community, destroys something that generations have built, siphons off assets to oneself, and leaves a shell left over once they are gone with the community left to rebuild from the ashes.
Why is there no "criminality" in that?
Answer... because the powerful write all the laws and the rest of us are indoctrinated to just believe in them without question. We focus on obeying written law and ignore the big picture. And we are trained to feel guilty if we act outside simple words on paper.
In light of the relative scale of each "criminal" act, I believe the vandalization (in this case) to be more of a form of "self defense" than "violence" in the usual sense. If the power structures (FA, FIFA, courts) are set up wholly to protect one set of people against those they hurt, what is the value of that law? And why follow it?
The truth is that most REAL change in history only happens when people begin by ignoring law, not by obeying them. Because the law is usually stacked against those who it exploits. Nothing of real value happens, even in the court of law, until a lot of people have broken the previous set of laws. History proves this more times than one can possibly count.
So basically, if you don't like someone it's ok to commit criminal acts against them. Doesn't sound like a very safe world to me.
I see your point, I really do. But here is my view, which I took a long time to come about to....
First, define "criminal act?" Mostly, it is simply a... written law approved by the existing power structure. Nothing more. It is not an edict from god. And who writes that law? Usually it is not the average person. Let's be real about that. What makes one act "criminal" and another "legal" is really nothing more than a value call.
I contend that although vandalism is a criminal act, it is LESS of a criminal act than buying something that (at least substantially) belongs to a community, where the buyer does not allow for any community involvement in what was created by that community,, destroys something that generations have built, siphons off assets to oneself, and leaves a shell left over once they are gone.
Why is there no "criminality" in that?
Answer... because the powerful write all the laws and the rest of us are indoctrinated to just believe in it without question. We focus on written law and ignore the big picture. And we are trained to feel guilty if we act outside the words on paper.
In light of the relative scale of each "criminal" act, I find the vandalization (in this case) to be more of a form of "self defense" than "violence" in the usual sense. If the power structures (FA, FIFA, courts) are set up wholly to protect one set of people against those they hurt, what is the value of that law? And why follow it?
The truth is that most REAL change in history only happens when people begin by ignoring law, not following it. Because the law is usually stacked against those who it exploits. Nothing of real value happens, even in the court of law, until a lot of people have broken the previous set of laws. History proves this more times than one can possibly count.
Thank you for putting into words the thoughts that I just could not articulate.
I am for this and want more of it. I completely understand if others feel differently and respect the other side. But I stand by my opinion and hope to see more. He is destroying something that belongs to a whole community. Law and order are useless when they are used to protect those causing community damage on a large scale. He won’t leave until he feels personally threatened. This is a good start. Yes I know this is a slippery slope and expanding such theories has a downside. Right now I just don’t care. I’ll worry about the downside of this belief system when he is gone. I am sick of feeling guilty about laws being used to only protect the powerful.
Cant agree. "Law and Order" is not useless, it is the bedrock of a civilised society. Without L and O, chaos and anarchy prevails.
I am for this and want more of it. I completely understand if others feel differently and respect the other side. But I stand by my opinion and hope to see more. He is destroying something that belongs to a whole community. Law and order are useless when they are used to protect those causing community damage on a large scale. He won’t leave until he feels personally threatened. This is a good start. Yes I know this is a slippery slope and expanding such theories has a downside. Right now I just don’t care. I’ll worry about the downside of this belief system when he is gone. I am sick of feeling guilty about laws being used to only protect the powerful.
Cant agree. "Law and Order" is not useless, it is the bedrock of a civilised society. Without L and O, chaos and anarchy prevails.
And there are times when challenging current law and order rules is a good thing.
When one one looks at all the clubs that have/our suffering from bad owners, one would surely conclude that the current ownership system is flawed. Challenging that law often brings change for the better. I am not suggesting that a few splashes of paint will do, but a debate has started. Hopefully, and probably unrealistically one would hope that rules of ownership will change along the lines of the German system.
A club is part of a community, not a business. To me it suggests that it should be impossible for anyone to buy a club outright and this is the fight that should be taken up across football.
From Manchester United, Blackpool, Maidstone, Dartford, etc etc, clubs have been abused. Maidstone was taken over, the owner sold the ground and moved to Dartford. He then bought and then sold Dartfords ground. It is a miracle that both are still up and running, but it should not be allowed to happen.
Something needs to change.
Challenging the Law is one way that raises the profile.
So basically, if you don't like someone it's ok to commit criminal acts against them. Doesn't sound like a very safe world to me.
I see your point, I really do. But here is my view, which I took a long time to come about to....
First, define "criminal act?" Mostly, it is simply a... written law approved by the existing power structure. Nothing more. It is not an edict from god. And who writes that law? Usually it is not the average person. Let's be real about that. What makes one act "criminal" and another "legal" is really nothing more than a value call.
I contend that although vandalism is a criminal act, it is LESS of a criminal act than buying something that (at least substantially) belongs to a community, where the buyer does not allow for any community involvement in what was created by that community, destroys something that generations have built, siphons off assets to oneself, and leaves a shell left over once they are gone with the community left to rebuild from the ashes.
Why is there no "criminality" in that?
Answer... because the powerful write all the laws and the rest of us are indoctrinated to just believe in them without question. We focus on obeying written law and ignore the big picture. And we are trained to feel guilty if we act outside simple words on paper.
In light of the relative scale of each "criminal" act, I believe the vandalization (in this case) to be more of a form of "self defense" than "violence" in the usual sense. If the power structures (FA, FIFA, courts) are set up wholly to protect one set of people against those they hurt, what is the value of that law? And why follow it?
The truth is that most REAL change in history only happens when people begin by ignoring law, not by obeying them. Because the law is usually stacked against those who it exploits. Nothing of real value happens, even in the court of law, until a lot of people have broken the previous set of laws. History proves this more times than one can possibly count.
When we get to buy Da Cloob for 50p and a lb of grapes at the FF on Thursday can I vote @NapaAddick for CEO....
I am for this and want more of it. I completely understand if others feel differently and respect the other side. But I stand by my opinion and hope to see more. He is destroying something that belongs to a whole community. Law and order are useless when they are used to protect those causing community damage on a large scale. He won’t leave until he feels personally threatened. This is a good start. Yes I know this is a slippery slope and expanding such theories has a downside. Right now I just don’t care. I’ll worry about the downside of this belief system when he is gone. I am sick of feeling guilty about laws being used to only protect the powerful.
Cant agree. "Law and Order" is not useless, it is the bedrock of a civilised society. Without L and O, chaos and anarchy prevails.
With the greatest respect it appears to have been more effective than dressing up as a donkey or a horse and I don't mean to be rude, just factual.
I am for this and want more of it. I completely understand if others feel differently and respect the other side. But I stand by my opinion and hope to see more. He is destroying something that belongs to a whole community. Law and order are useless when they are used to protect those causing community damage on a large scale. He won’t leave until he feels personally threatened. This is a good start. Yes I know this is a slippery slope and expanding such theories has a downside. Right now I just don’t care. I’ll worry about the downside of this belief system when he is gone. I am sick of feeling guilty about laws being used to only protect the powerful.
Cant agree. "Law and Order" is not useless, it is the bedrock of a civilised society. Without L and O, chaos and anarchy prevails.
Not necessarily true.
Pass laws in South Africa?
Anti-Jewish laws in Nazi Germany? Etc etc......
And on a much much smaller scale.
Where was “Law and Order” when the current regime paid for four contractors to assault a juvenile in front of a number of policeman who then refused to take any statements from eyewitnesses.
I am for this and want more of it. I completely understand if others feel differently and respect the other side. But I stand by my opinion and hope to see more. He is destroying something that belongs to a whole community. Law and order are useless when they are used to protect those causing community damage on a large scale. He won’t leave until he feels personally threatened. This is a good start. Yes I know this is a slippery slope and expanding such theories has a downside. Right now I just don’t care. I’ll worry about the downside of this belief system when he is gone. I am sick of feeling guilty about laws being used to only protect the powerful.
Cant agree. "Law and Order" is not useless, it is the bedrock of a civilised society. Without L and O, chaos and anarchy prevails.
I've said before, the only real way to get to Duchatelet is to mug him off and make him look bad in his home town. He thinks he's the Lord of the Manor in St Truiden even though most of the locals think he's an arse but put up with him because of the large influence he has on the local economy. I don't condone criminal damage but this episode smoked the rat out of his hole in no time. He can ignore Charlton when it's hundreds of miles away, not so much when it turns up on his doorstep. I'm surprised this sort of thing hasn't happened sooner.
I've said before, the only real way to get to Duchatelet is to mug him off and make him look bad in his home town. He thinks he's the Lord of the Manor in St Truiden even though most of the locals think he's an arse but put up with him because of the large influence he has on the local economy. I don't condone criminal damage but this episode smoked the rat out of his hole in no time. He can ignore Charlton when it's hundreds of miles away, not so much when it turns up on his doorstep. I'm surprised this sort of thing hasn't happened sooner.
I have no time for the Douchebag Shitweasel piss dribbler or grafitti vandalism.
BUT if the family of RD, suddenly stand up to him and say get rid of Cafc as this is now encroaching on our lives, then will this spray painting in his own backyard be worth the law breaking and possible negative feedback ?
To suggest that 20 million would cover the price of land and the rest can be free ( plus the monthly loss making deficit) then you would think fine, he's on his way, but why was 70 million mentioned as a gee up to potential buyers.
This is soul destroying and Simon Jordan, the one time tango man who Cafc fans wanted to slap has replaced his arch enemy Richard Murray in trying to decipher the Ramblings of a deluded failed football owner.
This is going to end in tears; tears of joy because he's gone, but also tears of frustration because we have to rebuilt from League 2 in the 20/21 season.
Portsmouth and Luton (National League ) both fought back from this lowly level.
So basically, if you don't like someone it's ok to commit criminal acts against them. Doesn't sound like a very safe world to me.
Millwall have been doing it for at least 50 years. Just saying.
That's slanderous towards the club, unless you have evidence that 'Millwall' have been committing criminal acts for at least 50 years.
I love a quiz, BBW.
1920
Ground closed two weeks after missiles thrown at Newport goalkeeper John Cooper, who jumped barrier behind goal to confront fans and was punched to the ground.
1934
Ground closed two weeks following crowd trouble.
1938
Club fined £100 for crowd trouble.
1947
Ground closed for seven days, club fined for crowd trouble.
1950
Ground closed, club fined £1,000 after referee attacked.
1967
Fined £1,000 after attack on referee Norman Burtenshaw by spectators at The Den.
1968
Birmingham goalkeeper Jim Herriott attacked.
1975
Linesman Gerald Colyer attacked after match.
1978
Fined £1,500, ground closed two weeks after crowd trouble at FA Cup sixth round tie v Ipswich. Club also barred from staging home FA Cup ties for next two seasons.
1980
Linesmen felled by piece of concrete during match v Shrewsbury.
1982
Chairman Alan Thorne threatens to close club after fan rampage in FA Cup tie at Slough.
1984
Riot in Old Kent Road after Milk Cup tie v Chelsea. Coaches carrying Bristol City supporters attacked nine miles from ground.
1985
Fined £7,500 and following season's FA Cup ties all-ticket after riot at Luton caused £70,000 damage - 31 arrested, 47 injured. Seventy-five supporters charged after offences at Southampton before Milk Cup tie. Five policemen injured, 17 supporters arrested v Leeds at The Den.
1986
Rival supporter stabbed to death at Charing Cross by Millwall followers.
1992
Ian Wright (Arsenal) struck by coin in Coca-Cola Cup tie at Highbury.
Nigel Winterburn (Arsenal) struck by coin in return Coca-Cola tie.
1993
Crowd trouble in FA Cup tie at Southend, 20 arrests.
Last game at The Den interrupted by pitch invasions.
1994
Stan Collymore (Nottm Forest) confronted by fan on New Den pitch.
FA impose suspended £100,000 fine and two-match fans shut-out after supporter attacks Derby goalkeeper Martin Taylor.
Club escapes punishment after spanner thrown near Reading goalkeeper Simon Sheppard at Elm Park.
1995
Two fans charged under Football Offences Act after incidents during Coca-Cola Cup tie against Sheffield Wednesday.
1998
Millwall escape FA punishment despite four pitch invasions at the New Den and coins hurled at Manchester City players.
In the return game at Maine Road Lions fans ripped up seats and fought rival supporters before and after the match.
1999
Millwall and Cardiff fans stage pitch battles in Cardiff city centre, injuring 14.
2002
Up to 50 police officers injured after a mob threw missiles, including bricks, paving stones, flares and fireworks at police following First Division play-off defeat by Birmingham.
So basically, if you don't like someone it's ok to commit criminal acts against them. Doesn't sound like a very safe world to me.
Millwall have been doing it for at least 50 years. Just saying.
That's slanderous towards the club, unless you have evidence that 'Millwall' have been committing criminal acts for at least 50 years.
I love a quiz, BBW.
1920
Ground closed two weeks after missiles thrown at Newport goalkeeper John Cooper, who jumped barrier behind goal to confront fans and was punched to the ground.
1934
Ground closed two weeks following crowd trouble.
1938
Club fined £100 for crowd trouble.
1947
Ground closed for seven days, club fined for crowd trouble.
1950
Ground closed, club fined £1,000 after referee attacked.
1967
Fined £1,000 after attack on referee Norman Burtenshaw by spectators at The Den.
1968
Birmingham goalkeeper Jim Herriott attacked.
1975
Linesman Gerald Colyer attacked after match.
1978
Fined £1,500, ground closed two weeks after crowd trouble at FA Cup sixth round tie v Ipswich. Club also barred from staging home FA Cup ties for next two seasons.
1980
Linesmen felled by piece of concrete during match v Shrewsbury.
1982
Chairman Alan Thorne threatens to close club after fan rampage in FA Cup tie at Slough.
1984
Riot in Old Kent Road after Milk Cup tie v Chelsea. Coaches carrying Bristol City supporters attacked nine miles from ground.
1985
Fined £7,500 and following season's FA Cup ties all-ticket after riot at Luton caused £70,000 damage - 31 arrested, 47 injured. Seventy-five supporters charged after offences at Southampton before Milk Cup tie. Five policemen injured, 17 supporters arrested v Leeds at The Den.
1986
Rival supporter stabbed to death at Charing Cross by Millwall followers.
1992
Ian Wright (Arsenal) struck by coin in Coca-Cola Cup tie at Highbury.
Nigel Winterburn (Arsenal) struck by coin in return Coca-Cola tie.
1993
Crowd trouble in FA Cup tie at Southend, 20 arrests.
Last game at The Den interrupted by pitch invasions.
1994
Stan Collymore (Nottm Forest) confronted by fan on New Den pitch.
FA impose suspended £100,000 fine and two-match fans shut-out after supporter attacks Derby goalkeeper Martin Taylor.
Club escapes punishment after spanner thrown near Reading goalkeeper Simon Sheppard at Elm Park.
1995
Two fans charged under Football Offences Act after incidents during Coca-Cola Cup tie against Sheffield Wednesday.
1998
Millwall escape FA punishment despite four pitch invasions at the New Den and coins hurled at Manchester City players.
In the return game at Maine Road Lions fans ripped up seats and fought rival supporters before and after the match.
1999
Millwall and Cardiff fans stage pitch battles in Cardiff city centre, injuring 14.
2002
Up to 50 police officers injured after a mob threw missiles, including bricks, paving stones, flares and fireworks at police following First Division play-off defeat by Birmingham.
Before the Jim White interview I was distinctly unsure that this was going to help our cause. After that interview I have to concede that it certainly did. So there are lessons there for those of us who would have probably argued against it, if we were discussing it as an option.
However (as a passive but paid up member of ROT) I've long argued that Belgium is the place where we get at him. It's all about being smart and disciplined over there. For example, what a pity that we didn't have anything a bit more creative and a bit less potentially offensive to say than "Fuck off, Roland".
And let's not have a macho pissing match about fans "prepared to get nicked" (@nth london addick). The person who submitted Meire's resignation at Companies House would face charges just as much as someone who sprays a bit of paint. I think a bit more of the former, by which I mean smart action against his business interests, will worry him more than a bit of paint. I would have thought that the shareholders of Melexis might have something to say to RD about why he harms their interests by failing to sell a football club in a timely fashion.
(But also, let's not discuss in public, what kind of action that might be)
Before the Jim White interview I was distinctly unsure that this was going to help our cause. After that interview I have to concede that it certainly did. So there are lessons there for those of us who would have probably argued against it, if we were discussing it as an option.
However (as a passive but paid up member of ROT) I've long argued that Belgium is the place where we get at him. It's all about being smart and disciplined over there. For example, what a pity that we didn't have anything a bit more creative and a bit less potentially offensive to say than "Fuck off, Roland".
And let's not have a macho pissing match about fans "prepared to get nicked" (@nth london addick). The person who submitted Meire's resignation at Companies House would face charges just as much as someone who sprays a bit of paint. I think a bit more of the former, by which I mean smart action against his business interests, will worry him more than a bit of paint. I would have thought that the shareholders of Melexis might have something to say to RD about why he harms their interests by failing to sell a football club in a timely fashion.
(But also, let's not discuss in public, what kind of action that might be)
In general terms I would agree with this 100%. However, despite much thought and extensive research by many, sadly we have been largely devoid of "smart" ideas to get at him and/or his business interests.
Comments
His comments are clearly racist, and of the worst kind. His rant against English supporters is clearly irrational and unfounded. Many foreign owners have run clubs successfully. He should be arrested and charged.
He wanted to buy us, and one has to wonder at his motivation at the time. Certainly strange for someone not interested in football and only has 2% of his time to invest. He had no idea how to run a football club and was in a war of attrition with supporters of a Belgium club he owned. He has also gone onto buy other clubs. Why?
Simon had him on the run on such a small point. A full interview with anyone really on their game would have a field time with him. Why buy so many clubs when you know fuck all and have already proved to yourself that you are incompetent in all matters football?
Was it perchance driven by the success he had at buying his local club after being elected to his local council?. He was then so lucky to have then been given planning permission to develop that football club and build his own hotel and leisure businesses? I am sure that Rolly as an honest business man did not influence that decision. But for more suspicious people than I, they may want a credible answer backed by facts. I am sure that they are available.
I did overhear that Rolly had a plan to build a hotel/ develop the stadium: and the training site. Only a rumour, but again, more suspicious people than I may look back and wonder if that was the real reason for buying us? Could it in fact explain why someone with no interest in football would not complete a full due diligence on the club because he never intended to run it as such or just develop and sell? Especially as they could only devote 2% of their time to the project? I am sure that this was never the case; but others maybe more sceptical.
Personally I think he bought us to drive us into the Premiership and just got a bit unlucky, and is in no way just a cheap crook. Well cheap certainly.
It’s someone that has brought destruction to many peoples lives.
A safe world? I think there’s a few more scary things in life than painted words on a wall!
You are just so right.
When one one looks at all the clubs that have/our suffering from bad owners, one would surely conclude that the current ownership system is flawed. Challenging that law often brings change for the better. I am not suggesting that a few splashes of paint will do, but a debate has started. Hopefully, and probably unrealistically one would hope that rules of ownership will change along the lines of the German system.
A club is part of a community, not a business. To me it suggests that it should be impossible for anyone to buy a club outright and this is the fight that should be taken up across football.
From Manchester United, Blackpool, Maidstone, Dartford, etc etc, clubs have been abused. Maidstone was taken over, the owner sold the ground and moved to Dartford. He then bought and then sold Dartfords ground. It is a miracle that both are still up and running, but it should not be allowed to happen.
Something needs to change.
Challenging the Law is one way that raises the profile.
Pass laws in South Africa?
Anti-Jewish laws in Nazi Germany? Etc etc......
And on a much much smaller scale.
Where was “Law and Order” when the current regime paid for four contractors to assault a juvenile in front of a number of policeman who then refused to take any statements from eyewitnesses.
paint is one thing go for it again imo bigger and harder
like I said weeks ago
if we have fans prepared to get nicked in order to escalate this then It’s what’s is needed
And here he is on today's news.
Last night I had a dream that Roland had sold the club (seriously) and the scenes and parties around London were incredible.
This morning I woke up with the idea of setting up a company, that specialises in painting holidays in Belgium, genius!
It's a rat but it isn't Roland.
Perhaps this is what is happening. Will Duchatelet end up like Gus Fring?
Will a plane fall out of the sky and land on Staprix?
Will Simon Jordan take some meth, buy Charlton, and it become his Car Wash?
Lately, I feel like just about anything can happen.
BUT if the family of RD, suddenly stand up to him and say get rid of Cafc as this is now encroaching on our lives, then will this spray painting in his own backyard be worth the law breaking and possible negative feedback ?
To suggest that 20 million would cover the price of land and the rest can be free ( plus the monthly loss making deficit) then you would think fine, he's on his way, but why was 70 million mentioned as a gee up to potential buyers.
This is soul destroying and Simon Jordan, the one time tango man who Cafc fans wanted to slap has replaced his arch enemy Richard Murray in trying to decipher the Ramblings of a deluded failed football owner.
This is going to end in tears;
tears of joy because he's gone,
but also tears of frustration because we have to rebuilt from League 2 in the 20/21 season.
Portsmouth and Luton (National League ) both fought back from this lowly level.
1920
Ground closed two weeks after missiles thrown at Newport goalkeeper John Cooper, who jumped barrier behind goal to confront fans and was punched to the ground.
1934
Ground closed two weeks following crowd trouble.
1938
Club fined £100 for crowd trouble.
1947
Ground closed for seven days, club fined for crowd trouble.
1950
Ground closed, club fined £1,000 after referee attacked.
1967
Fined £1,000 after attack on referee Norman Burtenshaw by spectators at The Den.
1968
Birmingham goalkeeper Jim Herriott attacked.
1975
Linesman Gerald Colyer attacked after match.
1978
Fined £1,500, ground closed two weeks after crowd trouble at FA Cup sixth round tie v Ipswich. Club also barred from staging home FA Cup ties for next two seasons.
1980
Linesmen felled by piece of concrete during match v Shrewsbury.
1982
Chairman Alan Thorne threatens to close club after fan rampage in FA Cup tie at Slough.
1984
Riot in Old Kent Road after Milk Cup tie v Chelsea. Coaches carrying Bristol City supporters attacked nine miles from ground.
1985
Fined £7,500 and following season's FA Cup ties all-ticket after riot at Luton caused £70,000 damage - 31 arrested, 47 injured. Seventy-five supporters charged after offences at Southampton before Milk Cup tie. Five policemen injured, 17 supporters arrested v Leeds at The Den.
1986
Rival supporter stabbed to death at Charing Cross by Millwall followers.
1992
Ian Wright (Arsenal) struck by coin in Coca-Cola Cup tie at Highbury.
Nigel Winterburn (Arsenal) struck by coin in return Coca-Cola tie.
1993
Crowd trouble in FA Cup tie at Southend, 20 arrests.
Last game at The Den interrupted by pitch invasions.
1994
Stan Collymore (Nottm Forest) confronted by fan on New Den pitch.
FA impose suspended £100,000 fine and two-match fans shut-out after supporter attacks Derby goalkeeper Martin Taylor.
Club escapes punishment after spanner thrown near Reading goalkeeper Simon Sheppard at Elm Park.
1995
Two fans charged under Football Offences Act after incidents during Coca-Cola Cup tie against Sheffield Wednesday.
1998
Millwall escape FA punishment despite four pitch invasions at the New Den and coins hurled at Manchester City players.
In the return game at Maine Road Lions fans ripped up seats and fought rival supporters before and after the match.
1999
Millwall and Cardiff fans stage pitch battles in Cardiff city centre, injuring 14.
2002
Up to 50 police officers injured after a mob threw missiles, including bricks, paving stones, flares and fireworks at police following First Division play-off defeat by Birmingham.
To be continued...
Mickey Purser. Yes, yes they did. Key word being 'fans', though.
It was insinuated above that it was 'Millwall', which is factually incorrect
Fake news contrived by @Henry Irving
and like Millwall would like 187 other offences to be taken into consideration.
However (as a passive but paid up member of ROT) I've long argued that Belgium is the place where we get at him. It's all about being smart and disciplined over there. For example, what a pity that we didn't have anything a bit more creative and a bit less potentially offensive to say than "Fuck off, Roland".
And let's not have a macho pissing match about fans "prepared to get nicked" (@nth london addick). The person who submitted Meire's resignation at Companies House would face charges just as much as someone who sprays a bit of paint. I think a bit more of the former, by which I mean smart action against his business interests, will worry him more than a bit of paint. I would have thought that the shareholders of Melexis might have something to say to RD about why he harms their interests by failing to sell a football club in a timely fashion.
(But also, let's not discuss in public, what kind of action that might be)