Create a New Forum Admin Login Member Login Contribute to Voyager Search VoyForums Help Desk VoyForums Exchange VoyForums Directory/Categories VoyForums Homepage VoyForums News FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Sunday, November 24, 12:08:53am

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4 ]

• Not sure, i've read plenty on reddit thats conjecture - and this seems to be quoting an offences act which was made in 1991 - i'm certain people have recieved far less than 5 year bans since then? All i know is the individual has had his hearing with the club, 5 year ban from the cottage, with a court appearance next month to determine the next steps. If its all mandatory, then obviously clubs hands are tied, but i haven't seen any confirmation of that. (NT) -- Same Old Story, Thursday, November 21, 10:13:06am (webdefence-pool-02.cluster-a.forcepoint.net/85.115.52.202)
  • Like you I have not seen anything where 5 years is mandatory. But this from Kevin Miles, chief executive of the Football Supporters Association: "Whether they had positive intentions or not is irrelevant in the eyes of the law - pyro and pitch incursions are illegal, you will be prosecuted and you will be banned by your club." seems to suggest FFC have little choice about a ban. (NT) -- Seems very harsh., Thursday, November 21, 10:43:31am (unn-154-47-19-152.datapacket.com/154.47.19.152)
    • Indeed - and I think the individual expected one, its the length of it that seems shocking and out of kilter. I do wonder if the 'live on TV' thing is being treated as an aggravating factor (NT) -- Same Old Story, Thursday, November 21, 11:10:49am (webdefence-pool-02.cluster-a.forcepoint.net/85.115.52.202)
      • If as a statement from the premier league indicates the minimum ban is one year, then 5 for an individual fan coming onto to the pitch with no ill-intent to celebrate a match winning goal right at the death seems wholly disproportionate to me - and I am a hard liner on poor behaviour generally. Sounds to me like the club are trying to make an example of this fan rather than impose a fair punishment. (NT) -- Bexhill Beast, Thursday, November 21, 11:51:25am (host109-152-14-155.range109-152.btcentralplus.com/109.152.14.155)
        • Care to share where you have seen that statment from the PL? (NT) -- Would help to clarify things a lot!, Thursday, November 21, 12:53:57pm (unn-89-187-168-88.cdn77.com/89.187.168.88)
          • I’ll try to do a link, but it was a direct quote from the ESPN site - no name attributed but a spokesperson. (NT) -- Bexhill Beast, Friday, November 22, 09:22:15am (host86-179-176-247.range86-179.btcentralplus.com/86.179.176.247)