Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
After the Millwall game - club reply to CAST p34, further CAST response p45
Comments
-
I wasn't there either, but I have read what others have said about how the arrangements were communicated, and it was so poor and last minute that many, many people were clearly not aware that it was going to happen. In addition, for many others it would have been their first experience of a Charlton v Millwall game, so they would not even think to look to see if an almost unique situation in football policing was about to unfold. Why would they?DubaiCAFC said:
I get that.. but it's not as if people wasn't aware it was going to happen! They have found a successful way of getting the Millwall fans away, with little trouble. They will see that as a win. They are not going to be overly worried about a few 100 Charlton fans complaining on forums and social media are they?DOUCHER said:
Wasn’t that bad but I don’t see why we should be inconvenienced at the expense of Millwall - that is all I care about - it happened once before and it’s happened again and if we don’t take appropriate measures then it’s gonna happen again - put up or shut up - if we don’t do something about it then we will just have to shut up and take itDubaiCAFC said:Honestly, was it that bad? I get it, people was put out of there normal match day routine? It wasn't as if there was a huge riot, fans fighting all over the stadium.. There was a few scuffles, that you would expect in a local derby..
Really question sometimes, do people have nothing better to do, that moan and complain?
Here comes the backlash for this comment.
They have bigger fish to fry..
Various people who have professional experience of health and safety have commented that the situation had real potential to become dangerous - indeed it appears it became very close to it on Charlton Lane near and on the level crossing, by the sound of things.
Millwall fans are being given special treatment because their fans are more likely to break the law. It is worrying that anybody would consider that acceptable no matter how many people complain about it, or where they do the complaining.
250 odd police had one job to do on the day, fish or no fish, that was their sole (geddit) task in hand. They should have gone about it in the same way it is done thousands of times every year all over the UK.4 -
I’m puzzled why some are downplaying legitimate fan concerns. This thread continues because of the club’s poor response. Fan safety must always come first: keep Millwall fans locked in, use the large police and steward presence to ensure a safe stadium and exit, and clearly communicate plans both beforehand and on the day.
14 -
Three further points that I forgot to add to my previous post were these:-
The crowd moving along Harvey Gardens when I saw it was shoulder to shoulder and moving very slowly in a relatively confined space. Not good.
Once someone committed themselves to going in that direction there was zero chance of reversing the situation. Not good.
There were a lot of kids being taken in that direction who were small and vulnerable (I’m not criticising parents/guardians here as they were following police guidelines and may not have been aware of the risk). Not good.
10 -
thank you @HenskeHenske said:I don’t post on here very often at all and I haven’t read all the other comments on this subject coming into the thread with Dubai’s post. I did attend the Millwall game and sat in the Upper West. Early in my career I served as a fire fighter in Liverpool and saw a few games at the Old Kop and experienced the crowds after those matches. My observation after the Millwall game was as follows:- knowing the decision was to close Floyd Rd to Charlton fans after the match I came out fully expecting to turn right along Harvey Gardens and then head back up to Charlton Park Rd. As I’m 6ft 4 I could see pretty much the situation down Harvey Gardens. My decision? Not a chance was I walking down there. No way. It hadn’t developed into a crush situation and maybe never would have but all it needed was a fight, a heart attack or a fall. Any and more situations like that and there could have been a serious incident, maybe a fatality. So I turned left walked up to the police barrier, sat on a wall chatted to a police officer and one of the other fans until the barrier was lifted after about 20 minutes. Then walked home. My first match at the Valley was between 1964/5. Serious crowds then, but no issues that I can remember because all the exits were open. My belief is that the Millwall fans should have been kept back. I don’t like seeing a situation develop where the outcome relies on luck when people’s lives are at stake.
I suspect we got lucky and it should never be left to luck. That's why we need assurances that there are processes in place for crowd safety, not just from a policing perspective, but emergency response more widely.8 -
alright, i tell u what, i'll just ignore it and moan when it happens again next time shall i? - i've put a police complaint in and we'll see how we goDubaiCAFC said:
I get that.. but it's not as if people wasn't aware it was going to happen! They have found a successful way of getting the Millwall fans away, with little trouble. They will see that as a win. They are not going to be overly worried about a few 100 Charlton fans complaining on forums and social media are they?DOUCHER said:
Wasn’t that bad but I don’t see why we should be inconvenienced at the expense of Millwall - that is all I care about - it happened once before and it’s happened again and if we don’t take appropriate measures then it’s gonna happen again - put up or shut up - if we don’t do something about it then we will just have to shut up and take itDubaiCAFC said:Honestly, was it that bad? I get it, people was put out of there normal match day routine? It wasn't as if there was a huge riot, fans fighting all over the stadium.. There was a few scuffles, that you would expect in a local derby..
Really question sometimes, do people have nothing better to do, that moan and complain?
Here comes the backlash for this comment.
They have bigger fish to fry..1 -
And the truth is that other than the odd skirmish, there hasn't been any major bother since the 70's in this fixture so 250 police should easily be able to handle breaking up the odd fight and just letting us out at the same time. Failing that, hold them back, not us !!!0
-
The police sent us round the houses because they didn't want to deal with 3000+ irate Millwall fans if they were held back. End of story.
Charlton without a shadow of doubt did not sufficiently communicate the situation either deliberately or due to incompetence.
The clear evidence is the thousands of people heading towards the station with no one directing them correctly.
The best solution next season is to limit Millwall fans to the minimum that we are allowed to and keep them in with enough stewards and police to deal with them properly.
The additional costs of this should be covered by the sale of home tickets that will presumably be lost next season, with a much lower home fan attendance, due to home fans not putting up with the dangerous inconvenience.
20,000 home fans V Millwall was the highest for 50 odd years and will not be repeated for a long time unless Charlton fans are given assurances that Millwall fans will be held back.
The policing and stewarding should obviously cover the Jimmy Seed gate at the Curbs Stand/Bartram Gate/Lansdowne Lane exit.20 -
This post sums up brilliantly someone who went to the game and posted on this thread and some of those who have posted who did not goCovered End said:The police sent us round the houses because they didn't want to deal with 3000+ irate Millwall fans if they were held back. End of story.
Charlton without a shadow of doubt did not sufficiently communicate the situation either deliberately or due to incompetence.
The clear evidence is the thousands of people heading towards the station with no one directing them correctly.
The best solution next season is to limit Millwall fans to the minimum that we are allowed to and keep them in with enough stewards and police to deal with them properly.
The additional costs of this should be covered by the sale of home tickets that will presumably be lost next season, with a much lower home fan attendance, due to home fans not putting up with the dangerous inconvenience.
20,000 home fans V Millwall was the highest for 50 odd years and will not be repeated for a long time unless Charlton fans are given assurances that Millwall fans will be held back.
The policing and stewarding should obviously cover the Jimmy Seed gate at the Curbs Stand/Bartram Gate/Lansdowne Lane exit.5 -
My take for what it is worth. I was in Upper West. I got out fairly quickly and as I have some mobility issues and have had a heart issue, I made my way to Ransom Walk and a line of Police were preventing some, including me from getting there, so I joined the walk, wasn't that arduous - for me - but was inconvenient.SoundAsa£ said:
Agree……though the club should be worried.DubaiCAFC said:
I get that.. but it's not as if people wasn't aware it was going to happen! They have found a successful way of getting the Millwall fans away, with little trouble. They will see that as a win. They are not going to be overly worried about a few 100 Charlton fans complaining on forums and social media are they?DOUCHER said:
Wasn’t that bad but I don’t see why we should be inconvenienced at the expense of Millwall - that is all I care about - it happened once before and it’s happened again and if we don’t take appropriate measures then it’s gonna happen again - put up or shut up - if we don’t do something about it then we will just have to shut up and take itDubaiCAFC said:Honestly, was it that bad? I get it, people was put out of there normal match day routine? It wasn't as if there was a huge riot, fans fighting all over the stadium.. There was a few scuffles, that you would expect in a local derby..
Really question sometimes, do people have nothing better to do, that moan and complain?
Here comes the backlash for this comment.
They have bigger fish to fry..
A large part of the blame on the day must lie with the police. They made the "access" decision very late and given that they had made the same decision 5 years earlier, they must have known they were going to make it. Then their sub standard implementation - Ransom Walk, Traffic Control, the invisible 250 plus police.
Where do the Club come into it? I honestly believe that the owners of club does have the best interests of the fans and are not, geared solely by filthy lucre, as some would have us believe.
Mistakes have been made and one of the biggest errors has been communication. If pre and post communication had been clearer and more accepting then there would not be 1.3k posts on this thread.
- Prior to the match - details of the re routing, giving multiple levels of exposure - the big(ish) Screen, social media, website, tannoy and the club should be cognisant with the fact that the sound system appears to be as out dated as the floodlights
- During the match flashing up on the screen -yes it would have been annoying, but the message would have got through.
- Post match is again communications. Once it had all gone "tits up" the club should have anticipated the outrage and issued a statement, prempting CAST. They may not have been in a position to give a full evaluation of the situation but they could have said they were investigating and give a time line, whilst addressing issues that they could address. Specifically they could have said that:-
- The process was set by the Met and if they had input into this.
- Acknowledge the break through of Millwall fans and a commitment to have this gate effectively manned for future games. They should also praise the two stewards, for whom holding back "the hordes" was beyond their pay grades. I do not understand why at the very least a potential flash point such as this not at least have the guys that wear (I think) wear the blue vests and are more of an aggressive force able to deal with trouble.
-The future
The Club cannot ignore the police so, if Millwall are not relegated and we are not promoted, then at the very least arrangements should be clearly communicated. But the club must make a clear commitment to engage with the Met to restore the stadium vacation process adopted for all other games.
Finally, people have asked why the club have not learnt from 2019. Well we have had multiple owners, staff turnaround, people with experience have left or are working part time and I doubt anyone developing operating procedures.
Hopefully a more stable club, with owners that I believe do care, lessons will be learnt and implemented and pressure will be put on the Met and I suspect Greenwich Council to implement a more reasonable process to manage fans, but don't count on it.
6 -
You are right, I stand corrected - although my quick AI question only produced the 1981 incident which was indeed very dangerous - and in the Inquiry questions were asked as to why the lessons were not learnt.SporadicAddick said:
There were many “serious incidents” in the Leppings Lane end before 1989, notably at semi finals in 1981, 1987 and 1988.PragueAddick said:
There were no "serious incidents" at the Leppings Lane end at Hillsborough .Until there was. Due mainly to complacency and arrogance on the part of the police. The best practice approach is to anticipate potential danger points, with the help of experienced professionals who have worked at the location for many years. Overruling their concerns and imposing an already tried (and failed) process on a venue at the last moment is the very antithesis of best practice.valleynick66 said:
I’m sure we tick all the necessary boxes as a club that are required.swords_alive said:
Not much to uncover you think @valleynick66?valleynick66 said:
Yes that’s true.shirty5 said:
You learn a lot from people’s body language. Normally a good barvalleynick66 said:
Agreed - that would be more entertaining!shirty5 said:
If it was an open Q and A down the club then maybe that would be differentvalleynick66 said:The reality of the Millwall game is known if we are honest.The police made the call and the club have to comply.The club royally mucked up in how they chose to advertise it and steward it post match vis a vis announcements.The police will have had a rationale for their decision to not keep Millwall back. We don’t like it because it’s unusual / exceptional and feels unjust but is just that a judgement call we don’t appreciate.Any promise to learn and/or not repeat can’t be taken as a guarantee as circumstances and personnel can change.There might be some squirming from the club at the fans forum but I doubt we will learn anything new.They’d squirm more but you’d still not learn much.I just don’t think there is much to uncover.A poor decision / strategy that was poorly executed by both parties.The club were all /only about maximising ticket sales.Shame really they didn’t persuade Jones to take cup fixtures more seriously and generate some income that way 😉😆
How about these questions about how stewarding works for a start?- Do we have a senior executive with overall responsibility for safety
- Do we have a safety officer to plan and oversee the event day operation
- Do we have supervisory stewards to form a link in the chain of command between the safety officer and all other stewards
- Do we have stewards performing locational or functional roles
- Do we have a named individual with a responsibility for security?
Does seem some people on here (various, not just yourself, are willing away the possibility of serious answers to serious safety related issues.The wrong call was made in most (if not all) people’s opinions and I assume in the clubs too.Normally games pass without great issue.A different approach was used for this game which none of us liked and was very badly implemented.I don’t imagine there is much beyond that in the cold light of day -is my point
Do we need a club scapegoat when as far as I am aware I haven’t seen any reports of violence or serious incidents (Sam Bartram exit aside and separate to the decision to not hold Millwall back) ?
If on the other hand you are seeking answers to the Sam Bartram gate specifically then I speculate this is simply error as ordinarily that exit is not an issue.That is a genuine lesson learned for the club and police.
Do you disagree with the rest of my comment, which is the part that I'd hope is the important bit?0 - Sponsored links:
-
In the main a very good responseWeegie Addick said:2 -
So the trust are telling the club that it's okay to treat us this way as long as they communicate the inconvenience better.
How about telling the club that it should strongly resist any future police attempts to implement these sort of measures and why they should do so.2 -
That is not what the article sayssuperclive98 said:So the trust are telling the club that it's okay to treat us this way as long as they communicate the inconvenience better.
How about telling the club that it should strongly resist any future police attempts to implement these sort of measures and why they should do so.4 -
I received a generic response from the club advising me to raise a complaint with the police. Said they are looking at improving the PA system but no timescale for it. No other admissions just that 'the safety team have learned from the scenes within the stadium'
Seem to be missing the point about communication0 -
Does the club know the sound system is barely audible in Covered Notth ?3
-
Of course they do and been the case for year due to underfunding on the stadium 2010-2024. They just choose to do nothing about it yet (and it would be costly).Valleysarr said:Does the club know the sound system is barely audible in Covered Notth ?0 -
Indeed. I think it's an excellent response from CAST, and I note that it is not letting the police fob it off with any old tosh. Nor should any of us be fobbed off. Let's see what the police's clarified response to CAST is and then be prepared to push back further on the police if it seems necessary to do so.Weegie Addick said:
That is not what the article sayssuperclive98 said:So the trust are telling the club that it's okay to treat us this way as long as they communicate the inconvenience better.
How about telling the club that it should strongly resist any future police attempts to implement these sort of measures and why they should do so.
The goal is to end the nonsense of the majority being put in danger and suffering inconvenience while an unruly minority are allowed preferential exit.8 -
Weegie Addick said:
The one thing I would say is wrong with that - and much is right and obvious, which begs the underlying question of why the club and police failed on September 13th - is: "While CAST and fans can and will challenge the police and the club on the major decisions, ultimately they are theirs to make given their responsibilities for public safety within the stadium (club) and outside (police)."
The ultimately responsible body for public safety is the council as the licensing authority. It is their job to hold the club and the police to account on our behalf. The council should review whether the arrangements at this event were safe and if it isn't doing that then it has questions of its own to answer.
Over and above that, the questions about the internal culture of the club remain. It shouldn't need to be told to amplify safety messages.13 -
As I said way back on September 18, and Airman says above, if the club doesn't provide satisfactory answers , a formal complaint to the licensing authority, Greenwich council, should be made.Fortune 82nd Minute said:Is that it?
What a pathetic response, full of platitudes that insult the intelligence. In fact, when i was a civil servant very similar to drafts I would provide for Ministers to send back to MPs who had written to them - officially called PSOs but widely known as Please Sod Off.
For what its worth, I believe the Trust should go back and say that is not a satisfactory response.
They should then ask specific questions about the things that appear to have gone wrong, specifically on the stewarding/security front, not just make general observations.
If the Club refuse to answer, then the Trust should make a formal complaint to the licensing authority, Greenwich Council.
I can understand the Trust would rather resolve this matter in a friendly way with the club through a meeting - because they will have to work again with them in future and will want to retain a good working relationship - but I'm not sure how much really constructive is going to come out of this meeting.5 - Sponsored links:
-
Firstly, well done to the Trust for persevering. Yes, it's their "job" to represent the supporters and therefore they would be derelicting their duty/role if they did nothing, but credit where it's due all the same.Weegie Addick said:
And it's important to remember that the Trust aren't the bad guys in all of this. They didn't make any of the decisions.
But, ..... I dunno, I must admit that I find some of these statements from them all a bit too "nice", a bit too safe, polite and deferential. Which can all come across as a bit weak. The original response to the announcement "Let's hope we're all happy to stay behind because we've won" (or words to that effect) is a prime example and I hope the Trust learns from that.
I'm sure they're all quite nice and polite people in person and I appreciate they need to represent the whole of the fan base, so this is just my view. And I'm not for one minute suggesting that they start effing and jeffing all over the show, but in my view the language needs to be beefed up a bit, where appropriate. So calling the original announcement "disappointing" when, I understand, the Trust had previously been assured that this wouldn't be happening again is just too tame. The language in this latest release is also a bit too "safe", as if desperately trying not to upset anyone.
Hopefully this is taken in the spirit it's meant - constructive criticism rather than just having a pop.
Anyway, the real villains here are the Old Bill - but good luck trying to get anything meaningful from them - and the Club, who's silence and lack of communication on this, both at the time and since, is just pitiful. This isn't just a few old codgers moaning that they had to walk an extra 100 yards, there are some very real and worrying safety issues that they haven't even acknowledged, publicly at least. And even if it wasn't ultimately their decision, they could still apologise to supporters - their loyal paying customers - for any problems that arose.12 -
Common sense seems to suggest to me that it’s much easier to police/control however many Millwall fans were at the game
(and joking apart most of them were not die hard football hooligans) than to police/control 20,000 home supporters safely.
Next time keep the away fans in the stadium while the majority of home fans head home safely.1 -
Talking about Millwall ‘hooligans’ just a brief anecdote. When I was growing up in Greenwich my next door neighbour and friend, the same age as me 12-13, was a Millwall supporter and I obviously a Charlton fan. During one summer holidays we were both bored and started cussing each other’s teams. This developed into a play fight which quickly deteriorated. My mate decided I was winning so he bit me on the chest. (It was hot so no T-shirts). Luckily, I managed to get a got hammer fist down on his nose. Blood stopped play. We carried on being buddies a week or so later and never mentioned our little tussle or dissed each other's teams again.3
-
Surely the Millwall game would have been discussed during any Safety Advisory Group meeting, if there was one that is.
1 -
I understand CAST, as the official supporters’ group, need to tread carefully with the club, but their statement was far too mild and doesn’t reflect the stronger opinions here on Charlton Life. Saying the day “passed without significant incident” ignores the fact that it’s unacceptable not to hold Millwall fans back or properly police the Away End, what did 297 police do? CAST should have called this out, pressing for solutions like cutting Millwall's away allocation, charging the maximum Away ticket price under EFL rules, and making clear that anti-social behaviour brings consequences. If Millwall fans cause trouble, the club and police have CCTV and resources to arrest offenders, impose life bans, and even bar Millwall fans from The Valley for a set period and any damage to The Valley send the bill to Millwall.
The October fan forum appears to be a closed shop so those attending need to challenge the club and safety rep's etc. I'm confused who exactly is going on behalf of CAST and fans advisers? Why are club not holding an open meeting, where fans can constructively voice concerns and have an input?0 -
The structure is designed to be a buffer.TootingRedArmy said:I understand CAST, as the official supporters’ group, need to tread carefully with the club, but their statement was far too mild and doesn’t reflect the stronger opinions here on Charlton Life. Saying the day “passed without significant incident” ignores the fact that it’s unacceptable not to hold Millwall fans back or properly police the Away End, what did 297 police do? CAST should have called this out, pressing for solutions like cutting Millwall's away allocation, charging the maximum Away ticket price under EFL rules, and making clear that anti-social behaviour brings consequences. If Millwall fans cause trouble, the club and police have CCTV and resources to arrest offenders, impose life bans, and even bar Millwall fans from The Valley for a set period and any damage to The Valley send the bill to Millwall.
The October fan forum appears to be a closed shop so those attending need to challenge the club and safety rep's etc. I'm confused who exactly is going on behalf of CAST and fans advisers? Why are club not holding an open meeting, where fans can constructively voice concerns and have an input?3 -
Those words are from the Club and Police. Not CAST. CAST has a different viewpoint which it sets out next , and reflects (in measured language) the strong differing opinion shared by most on here:TootingRedArmy said:I understand CAST, as the official supporters’ group, need to tread carefully with the club, but their statement was far too mild and doesn’t reflect the stronger opinions here on Charlton Life. Saying the day “passed without significant incident” ignores the fact that it’s unacceptable not to hold Millwall fans back or properly police the Away End, what did 297 police do? CAST should have called this out, pressing for solutions like cutting Millwall's away allocation, charging the maximum Away ticket price under EFL rules, and making clear that anti-social behaviour brings consequences. If Millwall fans cause trouble, the club and police have CCTV and resources to arrest offenders, impose life bans, and even bar Millwall fans from The Valley for a set period and any damage to The Valley send the bill to Millwall.
The October fan forum appears to be a closed shop so those attending need to challenge the club and safety rep's etc. I'm confused who exactly is going on behalf of CAST and fans advisers? Why are club not holding an open meeting, where fans can constructively voice concerns and have an input?
"Fans who witnessed the confrontation by gate 21 will have a different view and we have put this to both the club and the police. CAST have also shared concerns that things could easily have gone badly wrong at a number of bottlenecks caused by poor communications and poor implementation of the re-routing - and that it was only good fortune that prevented this."
2 -
Did you miss out an "l" in that final word, @Airman Brown?Airman Brown said:
The structure is designed to be a buffer.TootingRedArmy said:I understand CAST, as the official supporters’ group, need to tread carefully with the club, but their statement was far too mild and doesn’t reflect the stronger opinions here on Charlton Life. Saying the day “passed without significant incident” ignores the fact that it’s unacceptable not to hold Millwall fans back or properly police the Away End, what did 297 police do? CAST should have called this out, pressing for solutions like cutting Millwall's away allocation, charging the maximum Away ticket price under EFL rules, and making clear that anti-social behaviour brings consequences. If Millwall fans cause trouble, the club and police have CCTV and resources to arrest offenders, impose life bans, and even bar Millwall fans from The Valley for a set period and any damage to The Valley send the bill to Millwall.
The October fan forum appears to be a closed shop so those attending need to challenge the club and safety rep's etc. I'm confused who exactly is going on behalf of CAST and fans advisers? Why are club not holding an open meeting, where fans can constructively voice concerns and have an input?0 -
There 100% should have been a meeting and as such 100% would have been discussed.cafc999 said:Surely the Millwall game would have been discussed during any Safety Advisory Group meeting, if there was one that is.
The Trust should definitely find out who from Greenwich council was there and write to them about the concerns.
As others have rightly said, the safety certificate can be withheld if the council aren’t happy.
Did anyone have any joy getting in touch with the local MP?2 -
Yes, I know that came from club & police, but CAST didn't voice that its not OK to let Millwall fans out and affecting 20K home fans or question 297 police? Sharing concerns is not same as a strong statement saying Charlton fans object and think police got it wrong and suggesting solutions like lowering Millwalls allocation and simply policing and using stewards to hold back Millwall like what happens at most Away fixtures for that club........Its not to underplay CAST's role but CAST's statement felt a little too polite!PragueAddick said:
Those words are from the Club and Police. Not CAST. CAST has a different viewpoint which it sets out next , and reflects (in measured language) the strong differing opinion shared by most on here:TootingRedArmy said:I understand CAST, as the official supporters’ group, need to tread carefully with the club, but their statement was far too mild and doesn’t reflect the stronger opinions here on Charlton Life. Saying the day “passed without significant incident” ignores the fact that it’s unacceptable not to hold Millwall fans back or properly police the Away End, what did 297 police do? CAST should have called this out, pressing for solutions like cutting Millwall's away allocation, charging the maximum Away ticket price under EFL rules, and making clear that anti-social behaviour brings consequences. If Millwall fans cause trouble, the club and police have CCTV and resources to arrest offenders, impose life bans, and even bar Millwall fans from The Valley for a set period and any damage to The Valley send the bill to Millwall.
The October fan forum appears to be a closed shop so those attending need to challenge the club and safety rep's etc. I'm confused who exactly is going on behalf of CAST and fans advisers? Why are club not holding an open meeting, where fans can constructively voice concerns and have an input?
"Fans who witnessed the confrontation by gate 21 will have a different view and we have put this to both the club and the police. CAST have also shared concerns that things could easily have gone badly wrong at a number of bottlenecks caused by poor communications and poor implementation of the re-routing - and that it was only good fortune that prevented this."0
