Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Pitch Invader
Comments
-
I think the club might consider hiring what at the Oval they call the green team, Used during testmatches to bring down streakers and pitch invaders, they our good at the ruby tackle.2
-
3 -5 yr ban, really for most probably a drunken bet prank laugh?
yeah ban him for remainder or season but 3-5yrs ?Come on4 -
Is that some Indian restaurant's special made out of pig genitals?msomerton said:I think the club might consider hiring what at the Oval they call the green team, Used during testmatches to bring down streakers and pitch invaders, they our good at the ruby tackle.7 -
Personally, I thought the response by the stewards, excluding the one that chased the lad, was pretty average. The lack of a more proactive response might have encouraged others.1
-
I think the fact you might get banned for 3 to 5 years from attending Charlton games might encourage others.Isawsummersplay said:Personally, I thought the response by the stewards, excluding the one that chased the lad, was pretty average. The lack of a more proactive response might have encouraged others.31 -
How can we say anybody is talking bollocks over this when the bloke kept his trousers on?2
-
Club ban and football banning orders two different things.Ilovelondontown said:3 -5 yr ban, really for most probably a drunken bet prank laugh?
yeah ban him for remainder or season but 3-5yrs ?Come on
Club ban at discretion of club and so flexible. Might just be to end of season if felt appropriate.
Football banning orders issued by courts at request of police,
Might be a laugh or a drunken prank to him and his mates but as Mick points out it's not for the club.
It will be in the refs report, the club (Mick) has to write a report and pay the fine. And may have to spend more on stewards, fences etc. All so matey can have a laugh.
My guess is Mick made the public comments out of frustration and as a warning to any idiot thinking "I'll do that next week for a laugh".
PS it's got sod all to do with fill the Valley or football for a fiver. We've had dozens of special offer games this season and down the years without this. Put the agenda down.21 -
I’ve read some shit takes on this site this season, but blaming it on Football for a Fiver, is pretty special15
- Sponsored links:
-
Not correct we had a freebie idiots running on the pitch after the Ipswich game, hence we now have a row of stewards in front of the AC stand towards the end of every game since. Were they arrested?Henry Irving said:
Club ban and football banning orders two different things.Ilovelondontown said:3 -5 yr ban, really for most probably a drunken bet prank laugh?
yeah ban him for remainder or season but 3-5yrs ?Come on
Club ban at discretion of club and so flexible. Might just be to end of season if felt appropriate.
Football banning orders issued by courts at request of police,
Might be a laugh or a drunken prank to him and his mates but as Mick points out it's not for the club.
It will be in the refs report, the club (Mick) has to write a report and pay the fine. And may have to spend more on stewards, fences etc. All so matey can have a laugh.
My guess is Mick made the public comments out of frustration and as a warning to any idiot thinking "I'll do that next week for a laugh".
PS it's got sod all to do with fill the Valley or football for a fiver. We've had dozens of special offer games this season and down the years without this. Put the agenda down.6 -
Many years ago I had just that job at Lord's.msomerton said:I think the club might consider hiring what at the Oval they call the green team, Used during testmatches to bring down streakers and pitch invaders, they our good at the ruby tackle.
I was seated pitchside with the job of keeping people from getting on to the hallowed turf.
Most matches there was very little incident and I was basically getting paid to watch the cricket.
On day however some bloke dressed as Superman leapt out in front of me and proceeded to run on the pitch.
A copper sitting near me said ain't you going after him.
Superman was now giving several stewards the run around and this was live on TV.
I told the copper now way was I going to chase Superman around Lords in front of a live TV audience.
He just laughed and said I don't blame you.9 -
After the game not the same as during the game which goes in the refs report.
Still wrong but they were children not an "adult". So, probably the club had some discretion then. They wouldn't have that with someone interrupting the game as they will be asked by the EFL for a report.
There's been stewards in front of the East stand for a long while. Might be more now, I don't know, but it's not new.
It might be a reaction to other incidents here or elsewhere (Forest in the cup for example) but the guy is still an idiot.
Meanwhile, we have had football for fiver games for 10 or 15 years IIRC correctly.0 -
People will do anything so they don’t have to come and watch us for the rest of the season!!5
-
Yes but you haven’t factored in the increased sales from catering , club shop sales , official programmes ect ect from the increased foot fall and also the long term of of for example even a small amount of those £5 tickets were first timers or youngsters who on the back of today might consider buying a season ticket for next yearAirman Brown said:
Less the full price ticket match income from people who would have bought a match ticket at standard price.Dave Rudd said:Airman Brown said:
What extra income?Dave Rudd said:Cheap tickets?
Increase in pond life?
Has anyone done the Maths? Can someone ask Mick Everett if the Club fine outweighs the extra income?
Why, tickets for a fiver @Airman Brown
x tickets at £5 per tickets = £5x ... or have I missed something?
So, best guess the club would have sold at most 3,500 tickets at £4.17 each net of VAT. That’s £14,583.
If we assume for argument’s sake the average net yield from a paid ticket normally is £15 that means the club got the same as if 1,000 people had bought match tickets at normal prices. No extra.
Or you can say the club lost £10,830 from those 1,000 people and gained a similar amount back from the other 2,500 who came and paid.
I’m assuming that the home crowd was 6,000 season ticket holders, 1,500 comps and 3,500 payers. There may have been more STs and comps and fewer payers.It’s anyone’s guess how many would have paid at full price - I doubt if it would have been quite as low as 1,000 for a Saturday game. But given we had 8,000 home fans on Tuesday and won it’s reasonable to assume we would have had 9,000 plus today, which makes the FFAF effect very small. In 2010/11 we would have sold a five figure number of £5 tickets, from recollection.1 -
The pitch invader was a knobhead! as for football for a £5, had a family in front of me yesterday with a little tot, 2-3 yrs old first game, great to see.7
-
He’ll be gutted if it’s a five year ban, he’ll miss the first season of European football!Mendonca In Asdas said:People will do anything so they don’t have to come and watch us for the rest of the season!!
40 -
How do we know that the invader purchased the ticket from the football for a fiver promotion?1
-
How long before the club realise he was not a pitch invader but our new midfield playmaker?
The clubs a bloody shambles!2 -
I must admit , he did get around the pitch quite quickly, some would say faster than Ben Watson, could this be one of our new signings for the summer?3
- Sponsored links:
-
Is it just me that it didn’t bother that much?, ok you have the jobs worths hypothetical reason he could have had a knife etc. but if that was the case he shouldn’t have even got into the ground. A pissed up bloke being a bit of a twat wasn’t hurting anyone. A short ban and a sensible fine to teach him a lesson should be enough, much more terrible crimes being committed at the moment. I’m sure the club will afford there fine. They should probably be giving refunds on the bases of the shite we’ve been served up in return for our loyal support and well earned being put into the club.7
-
I assume none of those taking the moral high ground were on The Valley pitch after Burnley or Doncaster? The Valley would be empty if we'd all been banned for 5yrs! It's was a bit stupid and probably a pissed up dare, but he didn't hit anyone, just made a bit of a tit of himself. A ban to the end of the season should be enough.
8 -
He'd be gutted if it's only the end of the season...YTS1978 said:I assume none of those taking the moral high ground were on The Valley pitch after Burnley or Doncaster? The Valley would be empty if we'd all been banned for 5yrs! It's was a bit stupid and probably a pissed up dare, but he didn't hit anyone, just made a bit of a tit of himself. A ban to the end of the season should be enough.4 -
We don't want to go back to the bad old days, when fan behaviour was so bad that fences had to be erected around the pitch. That all stopped after the dreadful Hillsborough disaster and fans didn't run onto the pitch any more. It does need strong action to be taken against bad behaviour and to show that it won't be tolerated.0
-
Was he wearing a mask?3
-
Those were after the game had finished though?YTS1978 said:I assume none of those taking the moral high ground were on The Valley pitch after Burnley or Doncaster? The Valley would be empty if we'd all been banned for 5yrs! It's was a bit stupid and probably a pissed up dare, but he didn't hit anyone, just made a bit of a tit of himself. A ban to the end of the season should be enough.4 -
I agree that a ban until the end of the season would be appropriate but that's not the club's decision to make.
The police make the arrests and courts issue the banning orders along with a fine and a criminal record, not the club.
3 -
Well said. I can’t understand why anybody would be calling him out when he has more insight into the workings of the club that probably anyone on here. The club should really take more advantage of his knowledge.Cardinal Sin said:
Poor old Rick. The man knows his onions and cares passionately about the club and it's success or otherwise. We all know that he was primarily responsible (along with a small committee) for having built our attendances and developed the initiatives to do so. He might sound obsessed but that's what it needs to implement and a growth strategy and succeed. He might not be everyone's cup of tea but he undoubtedly loves the club as much as anyone else and knows more about how it runs than anyone involved in it today. Cut him a bit of slack.Solidgone said:
All hypothetical nonsense to prove your point?Airman Brown said:
Less the full price ticket match income from people who would have bought a match ticket at standard price.Dave Rudd said:Airman Brown said:
What extra income?Dave Rudd said:Cheap tickets?
Increase in pond life?
Has anyone done the Maths? Can someone ask Mick Everett if the Club fine outweighs the extra income?
Why, tickets for a fiver @Airman Brown
x tickets at £5 per tickets = £5x ... or have I missed something?
So, best guess the club would have sold at most 3,500 tickets at £4.17 each net of VAT. That’s £14,583.
If we assume for argument’s sake the average net yield from a paid ticket normally is £15 that means the club got the same as if 1,000 people had bought match tickets at normal prices. No extra.
Or you can say the club lost £10,830 from those 1,000 people and gained a similar amount back from the other 2,500 who came and paid.
I’m assuming that the home crowd was 6,000 season ticket holders, 1,500 comps and 3,500 payers. There may have been more STs and comps and fewer payers.It’s anyone’s guess how many would have paid at full price - I doubt if it would have been quite as low as 1,000 for a Saturday game. But given we had 8,000 home fans on Tuesday and won it’s reasonable to assume we would have had 9,000 plus today, which makes the FFAF effect very small. In 2010/11 we would have sold a five figure number of £5 tickets, from recollection.4 -
Repeat business is why I advocated it in the first place but obviously the fewer attend for £5 the less it is likely to have that effect and a high proportion will be existing fans on those numbers. The profit on the ancillary spend is insignificant. Might be worth £1-£2 to the club on average, so 2,500 x £2 if you’re very lucky. The club gets a tiny share of the catering income.CH4RLTON said:
Yes but you haven’t factored in the increased sales from catering , club shop sales , official programmes ect ect from the increased foot fall and also the long term of of for example even a small amount of those £5 tickets were first timers or youngsters who on the back of today might consider buying a season ticket for next yearAirman Brown said:
Less the full price ticket match income from people who would have bought a match ticket at standard price.Dave Rudd said:Airman Brown said:
What extra income?Dave Rudd said:Cheap tickets?
Increase in pond life?
Has anyone done the Maths? Can someone ask Mick Everett if the Club fine outweighs the extra income?
Why, tickets for a fiver @Airman Brown
x tickets at £5 per tickets = £5x ... or have I missed something?
So, best guess the club would have sold at most 3,500 tickets at £4.17 each net of VAT. That’s £14,583.
If we assume for argument’s sake the average net yield from a paid ticket normally is £15 that means the club got the same as if 1,000 people had bought match tickets at normal prices. No extra.
Or you can say the club lost £10,830 from those 1,000 people and gained a similar amount back from the other 2,500 who came and paid.
I’m assuming that the home crowd was 6,000 season ticket holders, 1,500 comps and 3,500 payers. There may have been more STs and comps and fewer payers.It’s anyone’s guess how many would have paid at full price - I doubt if it would have been quite as low as 1,000 for a Saturday game. But given we had 8,000 home fans on Tuesday and won it’s reasonable to assume we would have had 9,000 plus today, which makes the FFAF effect very small. In 2010/11 we would have sold a five figure number of £5 tickets, from recollection.
0 -
If this type of thing was happening multiple times with bad consequences then act accordingly, but let’s not turn it into anything like the fan behaviour of the 80’s. The game and fans have evolved in the most part and when things need to be acted upon for example the acceptance of racism, they generally are. The guy was obviously having fun after a few sherberts and mad a wrong choice, no need to make more of it.ME14addick said:We don't want to go back to the bad old days, when fan behaviour was so bad that fences had to be erected around the pitch. That all stopped after the dreadful Hillsborough disaster and fans didn't run onto the pitch any more. It does need strong action to be taken against bad behaviour and to show that it won't be tolerated.2
