Racism in football Thread.

[elan]

n the context of a lawsuit, the deep pocket is often the target defendant, even when the true (moral) culpability is with another party because the deep pocket has money to pay a verdict. For example, a lawyer may comment that he or she sued the manufacturer of a product rather than the seller because it is the deep pocket, meaning it has more money than the seller with which to compensate the victim.

The money should start being paid to the player/s who were the target of racist abuse.

[Bakes]

Your argument is confused. My initial point was that the European ban helped solve the Hooliganism problem in England, along with the new policing tactics. Your response was that the existence of hooliganism in Italy and Russia's deference to English police tactics somehow disproved that - which was a strawman of my argument at best and utterly unrelated at worst (you did one or both of; extrapolated my argument to apply to Europe and/or asserted that since it didn't wipe out hooliganism totally that it was a failure).

Your initial comment lacked any of mention of policing efforts, concentrating focus on the ban itselt.  Other than pointing that out, I am no longer going to waste any time engaging you in your sophism and lack of candor..

Compared to the disgracefully lenient precedents set by FIFA and the Spanish FA, I agree. When trying to set a new precedent that actually deters racism? Easy to argue that - Banning English teams from participating in Europe was an appropriate response to the thuggery of football hooliganism - why isn't racism deemed anywhere near as unacceptable?

[Football supporter]

FS?

I was a regular attendee at matches during this period, either at Anfield, Highbury  or Priestfield (Gillingham) as well as virtually every England match at Wembley.

Heysel and Hillsborough had a double whammy effect on most supporters, and the Government stepped up to seriously address hooliganism and crowd safety at sporting events. The concept of caging fans was obviously flawed as the cages were a danger in themselves. Those were the days of mounted policemen whacking anybody in sight with riot batons (I nearly copped a cracked skull at Villa Park after Man U fans rushed Arsenal supporters after an F.A. Cup semi final)
There is no real way of calculating the effect of the ban on hooliganism in a tangible manner, but there certainly was a sea change over those 4 or 5 years. The cages came down, seating was installed, clubs were required to employ ample well trained stewards. Fans saw their status changed from supporter to customer. Suddenly, you could wear your teams jersey to matches without fear of a beating.
It seemed that overnight, hooliganism reduced radically (although it was probably more like a season or two). It really was that quick.

Being a Liverpool supporter, those days after Heysel were very sobering. You also must remember that two weeks before Heysel was the Bradford City fire. At both Heysel and Bradford you saw the best and worst of football supporters. While some bravely risked their lives to save others, many more exhibited the mindless tribal outrage which is football hooliganism. (Which also occurred at Hillsborough)

Unless you have actually been in a situation with 10's of thousands of fans, it would seem hard to understand how decent supporters can react in that manner. I seem to recall Juventus fans throwing flares into the Liverpool fans. No doubt, before that, there was plenty of verbal abuse from both sides and possibly, pelting of bottles etc. I'm not blaming Juventus fans for the tragedy, but there is usually a spark that ignites an explosion. When it "kicks off" panic sets in, which often leads to pushing and fear of being crushed.

The implementation of proper segregation, organised policing and provision of emergency procedures all helped to reduce hooliganism as well as the restriction of alcohol sales and, of course, removal of standing on terraces.

Personally, I think the European ban didn't influence the hooligans, but it made the clubs, police and government address the issue as a matter of national importance, so in that way, the ban brought about change, but the changes didn't really gain pace until after Hillsborough, which really should have been avoided. Perhaps it took the death of British fans as opposed to Italians, for the authorities to really get serious?

[Bakes]

Being a Liverpool supporter, those days after Heysel were very sobering. You also must remember that two weeks before Heysel was the Bradford City fire. At both Heysel and Bradford you saw the best and worst of football supporters. While some bravely risked their lives to save others, many more exhibited the mindless tribal outrage which is football hooliganism. (Which also occurred at Hillsborough)

Wait... what hooliganism took place at Hillsborough?


Also a month before Heysel, Liverpool fans were attacked and beaten by Fiorentina fans in Rome.  This in turn set the stage for Heysel when Liverpool fans were determined that "the Italians were not going to do that to us again".

[Football supporter]

Also, in every club that I have worked with, coaching staff (including youth coaches) are expected to attend 1st team home games unless of course they are actually coaching elsewhere. Even in the Pro League this is usual.
Therefore, this guy would probably have been officially at the game and may well have had various duties such as dealing with mascots, ball boys etc or even looking after youth team players at the game.

However, that doesn't mean, in my opinion, that the club is culpable. Yes, they should fire him for bringing the club into disrepute, but, as Bakes pointed out, you can't expect the club to forsee such an event (unless, of course, the guy had exhibited a racist tendency beforehand.)

[Bakes]

Also, in every club that I have worked with, coaching staff (including youth coaches) are expected to attend 1st team home games unless of course they are actually coaching elsewhere. Even in the Pro League this is usual.
Therefore, this guy would probably have been officially at the game and may well have had various duties such as dealing with mascots, ball boys etc or even looking after youth team players at the game.

However, that doesn't mean, in my opinion, that the club is culpable. Yes, they should fire him for bringing the club into disrepute, but, as Bakes pointed out, you can't expect the club to forsee such an event (unless, of course, the guy had exhibited a racist tendency beforehand.)

Even if he was there at the behest of the club, throwing bananas is not part of his duties... he was therefore acting beyond the scope of his employ and thus his employer cannot be held vicariously liable for his actions.  See the postal worker example above.

[Football supporter]

Being a Liverpool supporter, those days after Heysel were very sobering. You also must remember that two weeks before Heysel was the Bradford City fire. At both Heysel and Bradford you saw the best and worst of football supporters. While some bravely risked their lives to save others, many more exhibited the mindless tribal outrage which is football hooliganism. (Which also occurred at Hillsborough)

Wait... what hooliganism took place at Hillsborough?


Also a month before Heysel, Liverpool fans were attacked and beaten by Fiorentina fans in Rome.  This in turn set the stage for Heysel when Liverpool fans were determined that "the Italians were not going to do that to us again".

Well, I guess that depends on how you define hooliganism. Maybe a better description is "herd mentality". As I mentioned, when in the kind of crush that was experienced outside before the game, people push and shove out of impatience or panic. People get vexed. It may not have been hooliganism per se, but some fans were vexed with the police and there were things thrown. I included Hillsborough merely to highlight the effect of mass hysteria on usually well behaved supporters.

[Football supporter]

Also, in every club that I have worked with, coaching staff (including youth coaches) are expected to attend 1st team home games unless of course they are actually coaching elsewhere. Even in the Pro League this is usual.
Therefore, this guy would probably have been officially at the game and may well have had various duties such as dealing with mascots, ball boys etc or even looking after youth team players at the game.

However, that doesn't mean, in my opinion, that the club is culpable. Yes, they should fire him for bringing the club into disrepute, but, as Bakes pointed out, you can't expect the club to forsee such an event (unless, of course, the guy had exhibited a racist tendency beforehand.)

Even if he was there at the behest of the club, throwing bananas is not part of his duties... he was therefore acting beyond the scope of his employ and thus his employer cannot be held vicariously liable for his actions.  See the postal worker example above.

Erm, isn't that the point I just made?

[Bakes]

Well, I guess that depends on how you define hooliganism. Maybe a better description is "herd mentality". As I mentioned, when in the kind of crush that was experienced outside before the game, people push and shove out of impatience or panic. People get vexed. It may not have been hooliganism per se, but some fans were vexed with the police and there were things thrown. I included Hillsborough merely to highlight the effect of mass hysteria on usually well behaved supporters.

Apologies in advance for the book... but I think you need to check your facts.  Hillsborough had nothing to do with hooliganism, there is only one definition of hooliganism and it certainly does not apply to the Hillsborough disaster.  Hillsborough happened as the result of extremely poor planning by local police, poor planning by the stadium management, and an extremely poor response by Police Superintendent David Duckenfield.  The regular police Supt. was tranferred from Sheffield and in his place was sent Duckenfield, who knew little about football (at the press conf. he referred to Nottingham Forest as "Nottinghamshire"), let alone football crowd management.

Local police were in over their heads with crowd control at the gates, in large part because stadium management didn't have enough turnstiles open to avoid the bottlenecking at the turnstiles.  Even so, once thru the turnstiles, fans were funnelled into the pens thru a narrow tunnel... with no opportunity to go anywhere but into the Leppings end.  This wasn't some one-off accident, the same thing happened in 1981 during the FA Cup Semi-Final between Tottenham and Wolverhampton Wolves... and again in 1987 and 1988.  Authorities were on notice as to the danger but failed to do anything to prevent it:

These deficiencies were well known and further overcrowding problems at the turnstiles in 1987 and on the terrace in 1988 were additional indications of the inherent dangers to crowd safety. The risks were known and the crush in 1989 was foreseeable.
http://hillsborough.independent.gov.uk/report/Section-1/summary/page-3/

Duckenfield saw that the crowd was getting larger outside the gates as kick-off neared.  He SAW that the pens were overcrowded, but more concerned that fans outside would get unruly, he ordered that the exit gates be opened to let them in, ticket or no ticket.  Fans walked in, nobody ran, nobody pushed... all of this is captured on film.  People were orderly.  The problem is that they couldn't go anywhere else but thru the tunnels... and into the pens.  The fans coming in had no idea what was happening inside the pens, let alone in the front of the pens.  Duckenfield did however, because he was up in the Police Control Box watching it unfold before his eyes. He panicked, froze, abdicated his duty and 96 people died as a result. 

To compound matters, he lied in the aftermath and claimed that fans were drunk, rowdy and out of control.  The coroner was in cahoots with the police and took checked the blood alcohol levels of every one of the victims.  None had any significant level of alcohol in their system, nor did survivors taken to hospital, nor from the footage do you see any of the fans looking obviously intoxicated.  I'm sure many were drinking, but "hooliganism" or tribalism (they were all Liverpool fans... what tribalism?) had nothing to do with it. 

The idea that alcohol contributed to the disaster was raised at an early stage, and has proved remarkably durable despite being dismissed by the Taylor Report. The disclosed documents confirm the repeated attempts that were made to find supporting evidence for this.

---

The weight placed on alcohol in the face of objective evidence of a pattern of consumption modest for a leisure event was inappropriate. It has since fuelled persistent and unsustainable assertions about drunken fan behaviour.

--------

There was no evidence to support the proposition that alcohol played any part in the genesis of the disaster and it is regrettable that those in positions of responsibility created and promoted a portrayal of drunkenness as contributing to the occurrence of the disaster and the ensuing loss of life without substantiating evidence.
http://hillsborough.independent.gov.uk/report/Section-1/summary/page-7/

The report makes clear that fan behavior played no part in the tragedy:

Yet, from the mass of documents, television and CCTV coverage disclosed to the Panel there is no evidence to support these allegations [of fan misconduct] other than a few isolated examples of aggressive or verbally abusive behaviour clearly reflecting frustration and desperation.

--------

As the severity of the disaster was becoming apparent, SYP Match Commander, Chief Superintendent David Duckenfield, told a falsehood to senior officials that Liverpool fans had broken into the stadium and caused an inrush into the central pens thus causing the fatal crush. While later discredited, this unfounded allegation was broadcast internationally and was the first explanation of the cause of the disaster to enter the public domain.

http://hillsborough.independent.gov.uk/report/Section-1/summary/page-14/

Police even lied and said that cops were being pissed on and attacked by fans. This was undermined by honest cops who reported otherwise... the reports were changed ("sanitized") by local police higher ups.

Consistent with Lord Justice Taylor's findings, the Panel found no evidence among the vast number of disclosed documents and many hours of video material to verify the serious allegations of exceptional levels of drunkenness, ticketlessness or violence among Liverpool fans. There was no evidence that fans had conspired to arrive late at the stadium and force entry and no evidence that they stole from the dead and dying. Documents show that fans became frustrated by the  inadequate response to the unfolding tragedy. The vast majority of fans on the pitch assisted in rescuing and evacuating the injured and the dead.

http://hillsborough.independent.gov.uk/report/Section-1/summary/page-14/

So pervasive were the lies and cover up smearing the victims that here you are and Englishman, one who calls himself a Liverpool supporter at the time no less, and they have you and so many others in England still blaming the victims.

[asylumseeker]

Are bananas sold within the stadium?

[Bakes]

Erm, isn't that the point I just made?

No.

You addressed whether Campayo Lleo's actions were foreseeable to Villareal... in other words whether they knew or should have known that he was going to throw the banana.  You suggest that that lack of foreseeability is grounds for the club not to be held responsible.  Without turning this into some kinda law class... what I stated is separate from the foreseeability factor, I addressed vicarious liabilty by the club (what in legalese is known as respondeat superior). 

Liability by the employer hinges on whether the employee was acting within the normal scope of his employ.  If he was acting within that scope, and someone gets hurt then his employer is responsible.  Ex. a UPS driver getting into an accident with the company truck while out on delivery.  UPS is vicariously liable.  A UPS driver who says "f**k this job," takes a truck without permission and then decides to go joyriding, and who then gets into an accident, would be responsible for his own actions, the company would not.  What Campayo Lleo did in throwing the banana, what the disgruntled postal worker does in shooting up the place, those don't fall under the employer's responsibility.

[asylumseeker]

Bakes, did the ban help or not? What value did the ban provide?

I can't quantify the value of the ban... in fact I doubt anyone can.  Without a doubt the ban in concert with restrictions on the sale of alcohol and the admittance of fans under the influence, along with better, more proactive police measures played a part in curbing fan behavior.  But any real benefit would have been derived, I think, by fans themselves being punished by not being allowed to see their teams play. This is why I suggested that perhaps forcing the teams to play behind close doors might be the only real deterrent.

In the context of the times, the ban was a necessary intervention. Necessary, albeit not necessarily sufficient. At the time, it was evident to policymakers that other policy measures had to accompany it. Supporters and clubs were linked in a way that demanded a cultural shift. Closed door participation (or the selective exclusion of some fans) at that time would not have facilitated the progress that has been made in taking collective ownership of the game. It's important to acknowledge the context of the times and the years of accumulated conduct that coalesced in that decision. To a justiable degree, perception influenced the decision to ban ... and such perception properly pre-dated Heysel.

[Football supporter]

Bakes, as usual your expertise on absolutely every single topic that has ever been written, and your ability to take one word from several paragraphs and ignore the entire context, defeats me. Which is ok, because I'm not in any contest that has to be won at all costs.

I gave very personal opinion on certain situations because I was invited into the conversation. I steered very clear of your statements because I cannot be arsed any more to deal with you. You make this site tedious with your arguments. This is not a law court and most people don't give a shit if a poster makes a mistake regarding nuances or minor points of law. It has been educational in parts when you have enlightened people through your expertise, but you go into overkill which just bores people.

Sadly, for me, hooliganism was something I grew up with and the phrase was used as an all encompassing byword for crowd behavior. I have never sided with the authorities concerning Hillsborough, but I do have an understanding of how these events happened, having lived through similar situations that could have been even worse.

Call it what you want, but the herd mentality that took over that day, though poorly managed, was the fault of the Liverpool fans. You really believe that those thousands couldn't line up in an orderly manner? You think they couldn't listen to the mounted police who were trying to push them back? Every single one of those fans was moving relentlessly forward even though even outside, people were starting to get crushed.

If I had been there, I would have done the same. Nobody wanted to miss the game, the police were the enemy and people would be angry at them and still push forward. Nobody thinks about whats happening to people up ahead. Just like at Heysel, I'm certain that none of those Liverpool "hooligans" realised that people were being crushed due to their actions.

It may not have been hooliganism, but it doesn't happen anymore. People do line up to enter football stadiums. There is far less shoving and impatience. Much of this is due to the superb organisation by the authorities, but also, fans have learned lessons from that sad day.   

[Tiresais]

Your argument is confused. My initial point was that the European ban helped solve the Hooliganism problem in England, along with the new policing tactics. Your response was that the existence of hooliganism in Italy and Russia's deference to English police tactics somehow disproved that - which was a strawman of my argument at best and utterly unrelated at worst (you did one or both of; extrapolated my argument to apply to Europe and/or asserted that since it didn't wipe out hooliganism totally that it was a failure).

Your initial comment lacked any of mention of policing efforts, concentrating focus on the ban itselt.  Other than pointing that out, I am no longer going to waste any time engaging you in your sophism and lack of candor..

Compared to the disgracefully lenient precedents set by FIFA and the Spanish FA, I agree. When trying to set a new precedent that actually deters racism? Easy to argue that - Banning English teams from participating in Europe was an appropriate response to the thuggery of football hooliganism - why isn't racism deemed anywhere near as unacceptable?

You point out your own lack of reding comprehension - my initial point clearly stipulates it was an appropriate response, rather than a solution. You frequently engage in these debates with intellectual dishonesty, then scurry away when proven wrong.

[elan]

 How then can a club be responsible for the actions of the customers (fans).

[asylumseeker]

How then can a club be responsible for the actions of the customers (fans).

Wha yuh mean?

[Tiresais]

How then can a club be responsible for the actions of the customers (fans).

Nearly all top leagues in the world hold clubs responsible for the behaviour of their fans.. Had they not been so quick to identify the fan the fine would have been worse.

[elan]

How then can a club be responsible for the actions of the customers (fans).

Wha yuh mean?

According to Bakes, you cannot expect UEFA/La Liga to be any more severe in the mere pittance they handed down. If you cannot control your direct employees, then how can it be expected to control the masses in the stands?

Inter

CSKA


Germany

[Bakes]

You point out your own lack of reding comprehension - my initial point clearly stipulates it was an appropriate response, rather than a solution. You frequently engage in these debates with intellectual dishonesty, then scurry away when proven wrong.

Therefore your "initial point" mentioned nothing about policing tactics, and focused entirely on the ban itself.  Thanks.

Now...

[Bakes]

Bakes, as usual your expertise on absolutely every single topic that has ever been written, and your ability to take one word from several paragraphs and ignore the entire context, defeats me. Which is ok, because I'm not in any contest that has to be won at all costs.

I gave very personal opinion on certain situations because I was invited into the conversation. I steered very clear of your statements because I cannot be arsed any more to deal with you. You make this site tedious with your arguments. This is not a law court and most people don't give a shit if a poster makes a mistake regarding nuances or minor points of law. It has been educational in parts when you have enlightened people through your expertise, but you go into overkill which just bores people.

Sadly, for me, hooliganism was something I grew up with and the phrase was used as an all encompassing byword for crowd behavior. I have never sided with the authorities concerning Hillsborough, but I do have an understanding of how these events happened, having lived through similar situations that could have been even worse.

Call it what you want, but the herd mentality that took over that day, though poorly managed, was the fault of the Liverpool fans. You really believe that those thousands couldn't line up in an orderly manner? You think they couldn't listen to the mounted police who were trying to push them back? Every single one of those fans was moving relentlessly forward even though even outside, people were starting to get crushed.

If I had been there, I would have done the same. Nobody wanted to miss the game, the police were the enemy and people would be angry at them and still push forward. Nobody thinks about whats happening to people up ahead. Just like at Heysel, I'm certain that none of those Liverpool "hooligans" realised that people were being crushed due to their actions.

It may not have been hooliganism, but it doesn't happen anymore. People do line up to enter football stadiums. There is far less shoving and impatience. Much of this is due to the superb organisation by the authorities, but also, fans have learned lessons from that sad day.   

I honestly couldn't give a shit what you think about my posts, arguments, expertise... you "cannot be arsed anymore" to deal with me but yet you write this long, whining ("whinging", if it makes you feel any better) jeremiad focusing on me, rather than acknowledging the inaccuracies of your statements.  This isn't a court of law, but where there is an opportunity to correct an obviously inaccurate statement about something which I care about, then I will do so, whether you like it or not.  I provided quotes, bolded relevant parts, and supplied links for your benefit, you don't have to take my word for anything.  If you still then insist on wallowing in your own ignorance and blaming the Liverpool fans for sharing in the blame for the deaths or for poor "crowd behavior" then continue in your ignorance.  It is bliss, as they say, after all.

[Bakes]

According to Bakes, you cannot expect UEFA/La Liga to be any more severe in the mere pittance they handed down. If you cannot control your direct employees, then how can it be expected to control the masses in the stands?

Inter

CSKA


Germany

Since you disagree with my statements... you tell us then.  How could Villareal have controlled its employee in this instance?  How could they have prevented this?

[Zeppo]

From today:

AC Milan: Bananas thrown at players by Atalanta fans

[Tiresais]

You point out your own lack of reding comprehension - my initial point clearly stipulates it was an appropriate response, rather than a solution. You frequently engage in these debates with intellectual dishonesty, then scurry away when proven wrong.

Therefore your "initial point" mentioned nothing about policing tactics, and focused entirely on the ban itself.  Thanks.

Now...

Bakes you're just flat-out trolling now - grow up

[Bakes]

Bakes you're just flat-out trolling now - grow up

You accused me of lacking reading comprehension when I point out to you that you never spoke about effective policing to address hooliganism.  I point out to you that all you focused on was the ban itself.  Rather than admit when you're wrong, you engage in further ad hominems and sophism about me trolling.  I think Toppa and Asylumseeker have you rightly pegged as the idiot you are.  Moving on.

[Football supporter]

Bakes, as usual your expertise on absolutely every single topic that has ever been written, and your ability to take one word from several paragraphs and ignore the entire context, defeats me. Which is ok, because I'm not in any contest that has to be won at all costs.

I gave very personal opinion on certain situations because I was invited into the conversation. I steered very clear of your statements because I cannot be arsed any more to deal with you. You make this site tedious with your arguments. This is not a law court and most people don't give a shit if a poster makes a mistake regarding nuances or minor points of law. It has been educational in parts when you have enlightened people through your expertise, but you go into overkill which just bores people.

Sadly, for me, hooliganism was something I grew up with and the phrase was used as an all encompassing byword for crowd behavior. I have never sided with the authorities concerning Hillsborough, but I do have an understanding of how these events happened, having lived through similar situations that could have been even worse.

Call it what you want, but the herd mentality that took over that day, though poorly managed, was the fault of the Liverpool fans. You really believe that those thousands couldn't line up in an orderly manner? You think they couldn't listen to the mounted police who were trying to push them back? Every single one of those fans was moving relentlessly forward even though even outside, people were starting to get crushed.

If I had been there, I would have done the same. Nobody wanted to miss the game, the police were the enemy and people would be angry at them and still push forward. Nobody thinks about whats happening to people up ahead. Just like at Heysel, I'm certain that none of those Liverpool "hooligans" realised that people were being crushed due to their actions.

It may not have been hooliganism, but it doesn't happen anymore. People do line up to enter football stadiums. There is far less shoving and impatience. Much of this is due to the superb organisation by the authorities, but also, fans have learned lessons from that sad day.   

I honestly couldn't give a shit what you think about my posts, arguments, expertise... you "cannot be arsed anymore" to deal with me but yet you write this long, whining ("whinging", if it makes you feel any better) jeremiad focusing on me, rather than acknowledging the inaccuracies of your statements.  This isn't a court of law, but where there is an opportunity to correct an obviously inaccurate statement about something which I care about, then I will do so, whether you like it or not.  I provided quotes, bolded relevant parts, and supplied links for your benefit, you don't have to take my word for anything.  If you still then insist on wallowing in your own ignorance and blaming the Liverpool fans for sharing in the blame for the deaths or for poor "crowd behavior" then continue in your ignorance.  It is bliss, as they say, after all.

You care? Really? You really believe that every Liverpool fan that day was the perfect football supporter? None of the hundreds of trouble makers (I dare not use the word hooligan) who attend every Liverpool game (just like those "fans" who attend every clubs games) didn't go to Hillsborough? I know it's cool and trendy to totally blame the authorities (who were hugely, if not criminally negligent) but don't preach this hogwash that every single Liverpool fan that day did nothing wrong. I am not saying that Liverpool fans in some way helped cause this tragedy, and there is ample independent eye witness evidence that confirms that this disaster was not caused by crowd violence. However, the tension caused by the pushing, and the shouting would have had an effect on the police who dealt with similar situations every week which did end in violence.

That is my opinion. One that comes from being with these very people, in that timeframe, in very similar circumstances. If you really are interested in how this disaster came about, why not ask about it rather than automatically assuming that you know best? Unless you've had darts thrown at you by Man U fans or metal Kung Fu stars by Wolves fans, watched as thousands of Arsenal or Chelsea fans rush towards you with knives and bottles, how can you understand the panic, anger and tribalism that erupts? No matter how well people describe these events, unless you are there or been in such similar situations, you really can't imagine what it's like.

Meanwhile, you say you couldn't give a shit what I think yet you write this whining ("whinging", if it makes you feel any better) jeremiad focusing on me, rather than taking note of the content.

[elan]

According to Bakes, you cannot expect UEFA/La Liga to be any more severe in the mere pittance they handed down. If you cannot control your direct employees, then how can it be expected to control the masses in the stands?

Inter

CSKA


Germany

Since you disagree with my statements... you tell us then.  How could Villareal have controlled its employee in this instance?  How could they have prevented this?

You should be the one telling us. I asked a question. That lil hook thing on the end means the words before is a question. Again, you said the club cannot control the employees, understood. My question is, then how does UEFA/LA Liga then expect the Club to control someone ho they sell a ticket to. Thus, if [a] fan/s commit acts of racism then the punishment should be dismissal and being banned from the stands. Just as the coach getting fired and the pittance charged is enough.

How does this works? Maybe I am missing something? On one hand you responsible but on the other not really?

[Bakes]

You care? Really? You really believe that every Liverpool fan that day was the perfect football supporter? None of the hundreds of trouble makers (I dare not use the word hooligan) who attend every Liverpool game (just like those "fans" who attend every clubs games) didn't go to Hillsborough? I know it's cool and trendy to totally blame the authorities (who were hugely, if not criminally negligent) but don't preach this hogwash that every single Liverpool fan that day did nothing wrong. I am not saying that Liverpool fans in some way helped cause this tragedy, and there is ample independent eye witness evidence that confirms that this disaster was not caused by crowd violence. However, the tension caused by the pushing, and the shouting would have had an effect on the police who dealt with similar situations every week which did end in violence.

That is my opinion. One that comes from being with these very people, in that timeframe, in very similar circumstances. If you really are interested in how this disaster came about, why not ask about it rather than automatically assuming that you know best? Unless you've had darts thrown at you by Man U fans or metal Kung Fu stars by Wolves fans, watched as thousands of Arsenal or Chelsea fans rush towards you with knives and bottles, how can you understand the panic, anger and tribalism that erupts? No matter how well people describe these events, unless you are there or been in such similar situations, you really can't imagine what it's like.

Meanwhile, you say you couldn't give a shit what I think yet you write this whining ("whinging", if it makes you feel any better) jeremiad focusing on me, rather than taking note of the content.

You obviously don't know what a jeremiad is... and you obviously can't tell an ad hominem post from one that addresses the substance of the post.  I bet you think that post was about you.. to paraphrase Carly Simon.  Second, I don't have to ask you how Hillsborough came about... your input is welcomed, but don't feel that I have to take it as dispositive, not when there have been three inquiries getting to the heart of the tragedy.  I don't know best, but I trust that the independent panel does know best, and a great deal more than you.

You should be the one telling us. I asked a question. That lil hook thing on the end means the words before is a question. Again, you said the club cannot control the employees, understood. My question is, then how does UEFA/LA Liga then expect the Club to control someone ho they sell a ticket to. Thus, if [a] fan/s commit acts of racism then the punishment should be dismissal and being banned from the stands. Just as the coach getting fired and the pittance charged is enough.

How does this works? Maybe I am missing something? On one hand you responsible but on the other not really?

My guess is that UEFA can only be fair in circumstances where there is repeated issues with fans, without the club adequately addressing it.  UEFA should give the club an opportunity to address the situation.

[Football supporter]

You obviously don't know what a jeremiad is.

Obviously, neither do you! I saw no prophesies of doom or the breakdown of society in any of my posts. Actually, the opposite. Those years between 85 - 90 were a catalyst for positive (and much needed) change.

As for ad hominems, you originally addressed that at Tiresais, so I ignored it. However, it's interesting to note that my two lines concerning you were answered with three times as many lines about me. More a case of ad nauseam than ad hominems!

As for Toppa and Asylumseeker pegging me as an idiot, well that's their prerogative. I'm sure that they're not the only ones! Just wondering why you needed to share that information and what was the purpose of enlightening me? 

[asylumseeker]

Bakes you're just flat-out trolling now - grow up

You accused me of lacking reading comprehension when I point out to you that you never spoke about effective policing to address hooliganism.  I point out to you that all you focused on was the ban itself.  Rather than admit when you're wrong, you engage in further ad hominems and sophism about me trolling.  I think Toppa and Asylumseeker have you rightly pegged as the idiot you are.  Moving on.

...
As for Toppa and Asylumseeker pegging me as an idiot, well that's their prerogative. I'm sure that they're not the only ones! Just wondering why you needed to share that information and what was the purpose of enlightening me? 

Nah, nah, nah, FS ... that's a reference to a different exchange. Case of mistaken identity.

...

That is my opinion. One that comes from being with these very people, in that timeframe, in very similar circumstances. If you really are interested in how this disaster came about, why not ask about it rather than automatically assuming that you know best? Unless you've had darts thrown at you by Man U fans or metal Kung Fu stars by Wolves fans, watched as thousands of Arsenal or Chelsea fans rush towards you with knives and bottles, how can you understand the panic, anger and tribalism that erupts? No matter how well people describe these events, unless you are there or been in such similar situations, you really can't imagine what it's like.

...

In part I asked you to chime in precisely because of the above ... and, I'm glad you did. 

[Tiresais]

Bakes you're just flat-out trolling now - grow up

You accused me of lacking reading comprehension when I point out to you that you never spoke about effective policing to address hooliganism.  I point out to you that all you focused on was the ban itself.  Rather than admit when you're wrong, you engage in further ad hominems and sophism about me trolling.  I think Toppa and Asylumseeker have you rightly pegged as the idiot you are.  Moving on.

You're so self-absorbed you can't read your own damn posts now - your strawman was to take my point, applying to England specifically, and try to attack it as if I was talking about the whole of Europe, which it was not. Again you're dishonestly pulling my post out of context - that post wasn't about effective policing about hooliganism, it was about appropriate punishment for hooliganism.

Your dishonesty is embarrassing and plain for all to see.