White Supremacists In Supporter Section
- Thread starter NYCFC_Dan
- Start date
Oh wow, I thought this was some kind of joke I wasn’t getting. He literally liked the post.
You can read our statement on our social media platforms.
The "Not our job" says it all....
That's funny, people in other groups I'm in are talking about how similar they are to each other.
How?
TR states their beliefs and code of conduct do not align with that of the perpetrators and they condemn it. Giving the perception that people with those beliefs are not allowed in.
While SC says much of the same they also go on to side with Garber and NYCFC in that it’s not their job to police it. Along the lines of what some here have been saying, if you behave in the stadium your outside beliefs aren’t important.
I’m glad they released a statement. A lot of people, myself included, gave them shit for it.
I’ll acknowledge that much. I don’t agree with it nor what Garber/NYCFC said. It’s a cop out of a difficult situation. It’s your brand, your venue and your paying audience. It’s your job.
I’ll acknowledge that much. I don’t agree with it nor what Garber/NYCFC said. It’s a cop out of a difficult situation. It’s your brand, your venue and your paying audience. It’s your job.
I'm not saying that I think they are the same, I'm just commenting that other people felt they were similar. Since they're public statements, I think the ways in which they are interpreted is interesting.
Then they aren’t reading every line of the statements and/or are shitty at reading comprehension. Something as small as a comma can change the meaning of words, and the SC statement has a very pointed sentence that is 180deg opposite of the TR statement.
lmao just noticed it. I mean he is a tampa boy and played with the rowdies.... if you want to stretch it to those lengths with his like
I don't think that what Garber said / what others are parroting is empathetic to people's concerns, including my own. I understand why people wish that these beliefs and people with these beliefs simply didn't exist, or at least didn't exist anywhere near us or our club.
But I also understand, and in this thread we have talked about, the difficulty of drawing a consistent and enforceable line that is less permissive than "we can only act based on behavior which occurs at MLS events or stadiums". I won't rehash all of that conversation.
That doesn't mean that SC / TR / the club / MLS couldn't have responded much more effectively and empathically when the concerns were brought up. But just because people present some info about people attending the games, doesn't mean leadership can just snap their fingers and make these people go away. And because it's not that easy, I don't blanket-condemn these people for not having the ideal response.
It doesn't come off very empathetic, but I do think there is something to the response that goes along the lines of "well why don't you do something about it?". Not because I think it's easy for people who are concerned to do something about it, but because the people who are concerned and complaining don't necessarily understand that it's not that much easier for anybody else to do something about it either.
Truth, but in a world awash with content, people don't necessarily read things that carefully. Which may be intentional in this case (i.e. let's make this statement seem very strong but slip in the caveat about its enforceability such that it's there to cover our asses but doesn't tarnish the perception of the statement overall).
I think Garber's response made a ton of sense and I thought it was well done. The league and the club should not step in too much to police thoughts that occur outside of the stadium. To the degree in which other issues come up inside Yankee Stadium (I'll even extend this to outside the stadium on gamedays), as well as on away days, then actions should be taken. I won't say for certain, because I cannot tell for sure, but it appears to me that the club has been at least a little slow in taking further action on these activities.
However, I don't think NYCSC's approach of just clinging to what Garber said is nearly enough. They are the ones for which have been specifically called out through these various and well-documented articles. As I have been in the Supporter's Section since Day 1, I don't think this particular issue is quite as serious as it leads some to think it is. I've never once thought there was any kind of dangerous atmosphere in the SS except for one instance, and it was really a drunken-idiot kinda thing, and as sad as it is to say, that happens at sporting events sometimes. However, it is quite clear to me through how well-documented this all is, that NYCSC has had an issue with some of their members. And it doesn't appear as though they've been willing to even consider it for one bit, especially going back to the "laughing it off" tweets from the past.
While I do appreciate that supporters groups cannot "screen" individuals for membership or anything like that (and I'm not asking for them to do so), when information becomes available about certain members that lead's to serious safety and overall atmosphere well-being concerns, then they need to be taken seriously. Additionally, when there is photographic evidence of particular members, or sub-groups within the Supporters Group committing violence, stealing banners/scarves, etc., then some kind of action should be taken.
I'm not saying that the solution is an easy one, but being a bit more mature and taking more responsibility for it is Step 1. And I still haven't seen that from NYCSC.
Great job, Soccer Don. Your toothless bullshit response has now given cover for all these groups to deny any responsibility. Well done, Garbs!
Similar threads
