Keep up-to-date with all the latest PISA news here:

REMINDER - FSF MEETING - 4 MARCH 2010
Posted by PISA_Committee on Tuesday, March 2 2010

Dear Supporters

Just a reminder of the Football Supporters’ Federation (FSF) open invitation this Thursday 4 March 2010. It is hoped that Palace supporters with an interest in such issues, and particularly those who have recently been in contact with the FSF due to specific concerns will take the opportunity to participate in the evening. Details are below – the Vibe Bar address is highlighted for ease of reference.

Thank you

PISA

FSF OPEN INVITE
Sit Down, Shut Up: Are Football Supporters Discriminated Against?
Vibe Bar, London, Thursday March 4th, 7pm

Sit Down, Shut Up: Are Football Supporters Discriminated Against? is the FSF’s free Question Time-style debate and gives match-going fans the opportunity to tell it how they see it to an expert panel of journalists, police, prosecutors and civil-liberty solicitors (see below regarding panellist details).

• Fed up with over-zealous police?
• Tired of doormen dressed up as ‘stewards’?
• Disgusted with clubs criminalising their own supporters?
Click here to email: register@fsf.org.uk to book your free place.
Click here to visit: http://www.fsf.org.uk/ for further details and panellists.

Why are football supporters treated differently from other groups in society? Go to Wembley for a pop concert and you can stand without fear of ejection. Head to a rugby league match and you can drink in your seat. Try either of those at a football game and you could end up with a criminal record.

The Crown Prosecution Service pushes for the most severe punishment in cases involving football fans - would this be legal with any other group in society? What role can fans play in improving things for the better?

Sit Down, Shut Up: Are Football Supporters Discriminated Against? will kick-off at 7pm on Thursday, 4 March and lasts for 90 minutes, with a 15 minute half-time break for refreshments. The Vibe Bar is located at the Old Truman Brewery, 91-95 Brick Lane, London, E1 6QL.

The event is free but registration is required, email your name to register (as above) or call 0330 44 000 44. All registered fans receive a free pint (or soft drink) on arrival and non-FSF members are also welcome.

If you have already registered and received confirmation for this event please ignore this notice – although you could still send around your mates! If you no longer wish to receive emails from the FSF please reply UNSUBSCRIBE.

FA CUP 14 FEBRUARY 2010
Posted by PISA_Committee on Sunday, February 14 2010

Dear Supporters

FA Cup
Valentines Day sees the team we love, play in the 5th round of the FA Cup against Aston Villa. Congratulations to the Crystal Palace players and management for reaching this stage through difficult times. Hopefully, as many fans as possible will take up the opportunity to cheer the team on to the next round and towards Wembley Way. This is particularly so with the 20th anniversary memories of that first visit to the old Wembley for the FA Cup final and the historic semi-final against Liverpool on the way.

Tickets are still available for the match, so don’t miss out on giving your support to the team – and perhaps bring your valentine along for a Palace treat.

Congratulations to the youth side too, who beat Hull in the latest round of the FA Youth Cup. Hopefully, they too will progress to the FA Youth Cup Final. Thanks to the Crystal Palace Supporters Trust (CPST) too for the support given to the youth team and to the fans that have given the side support in their Cup matches.

Crystal Palace Supporters Trust
As well as your support in the stands, the club needs the support of the Trust.

Prior to the FA Cup match against Aston Villa, there will be flyers handed out urging fans and newcomers to join the Trust to help raise funds.

This is vital to giving support to the club and academy - and to the possible survival of Crystal Palace Football Club. So please take a leaflet, and become a member, but if you are thinking of discarding it, please think first is there anyone I know who maybe interested? - please pass it on.

Administration
As some of you may be aware representatives of the CPST met with the administrator on Friday evening, 12 February 2010, and a question and answer response from that meeting can be found on the CPST website at http://www.cpstrust.org.uk/news/article/51

Selhurst Park Ltd, the company that owns Selhurst Park, and is part of the insolvent Rock Investments Group, is now in administration itself. This should help prospective buyers consider both the club and ground. The respective administrators are due to meet on 16 February.

The Football League (FL), at a meeting also explained their approach to clubs in administration and that the 10 points deduction was a decision of the clubs which the FL administered. A suggestion that this might be challenged under force majeure was raised with the FL, but this was rejected as being inapplicable, given the financial circumstances concerned.

Football Supporters Federation

Sit Down, Shut Up
Familiar! The FSF is hosting a fans’ evening - entitled
Sit Down, Shut Up: Are Football Supporters Discriminated Against? - at the Vibe Bar, London, on Thursday March 4th 2010, 7pm.

The FSF receives constant complaints about fans being treated as criminals and being subjected to over-zealous policing and stewarding and being forced to sit down. Plus hearing questions like - why are football supporters treated differently, and why does the Crown Prosecution Service seek the most severe punishments?

The FSF’s evening is a free Question Time-style debate to cover such issues and gives match-going fans, the opportunity to tell it how they see it to an expert panel of football journalists, police, and solicitors.

These are issues that concern many fans from all clubs, and so pass on the message about this free event to others.

It takes place at Brick Lane's Vibe Bar on Thursday March 4th 2010 (7pm kick-off).

To register, email your name to newsletters@fsf.org.uk

PISA

CRYSTAL PALACE FC IN ADMINISTRATION
Posted by PISA_Committee on Friday, January 29 2010

Dear Supporters

As expected the Football League has confirmed the 10 points deduction for the club, after it was placed in administration, by the creditor Agilo, which describes itself as - a fund that invests in distressed companies and special situations.

According to the club’s official website Brendan Ambrose Guilfoyle, John Russell and Christopher Michael White have been appointed joint administrators of Crystal Palace FC (2000) Limited as from 26 January 2010.

The Crystal Palace Supporters’ Trust, was set up with the help of PISA and others to generate funds to save the club, when it was last in administration 10 years ago. It is now looking again to supporters for help and assistance in raising funds and providing support in kind to help keep the club alive. Supporters may wish to check the Trust’s website, which includes an article by Dougie Freedman and details of raising funds while shopping on-line and searching the web. For information the Trust's Website is http://www.cpstrust.co.uk/news


For the Crystal Palace match against Peterborough on Saturday 30 January 2010, some supporters have made a rallying call to make the day a Red and Blue day with balloons and flags to show support for the club and team. Hopefully, supporters will take up the call and bring their friends and relatives to swell the numbers. However, those considering bringing any large flags may wish to check whether they will be permitted in the ground, with the club’s stadium manager – the club’s telephone number is 020 8768 6000.

At this distressing time for the club and supporters, PISA looks to all Palace fans to give their support and help in whatever way they can.

Thank you.

PISA

CPFC IN ADMINISTRATION - 26 JANUARY 2010
Posted by PISA_Committee on Wednesday, January 27 2010

Dear Supporters

Many of you will know that Crystal Palace FC has been experiencing financial difficulties and will have heard the media reports announcing that Crystal Palace FC is now in administration

News reports say the administrator appointed is Brendan Guilfoyle, from the Sheffield firm P&A Partnerships, formerly responsible for managing the administration at Luton Town FC.

The administration is upsetting and concerning news for Palace staff and supporters. As well as the uncertainty about the club’s future, there will inevitably be points deducted, so rather than the club challenging for a play-off place it is likely to be struggling against relegation.

The disappointing news has come on the eve of an important match against Newcastle United for Neil Warnock and the players, but Neil has declared that he and the players will fight on.

It is hoped that all Palace supporters will match this spirit and rally to support the club and players through this difficulty time. If there is any significant news to update supporters, it will be posted on this website.

Support the Palace.

PISA

WINDING UP PETITION
Posted by PISA_Committee on Sunday, January 17 2010

Dear Supporters

Some of you may have already heard the news that Crystal Palace FC is named in a winding up petition brought by HM Revenue and Customs. The amount due is believed to be £1.2 million, but this may not be the final amount. A High Court Hearing is set for 27 January 2010. Any update on the petition situation will be posted on this website.

Below is the winding up petition details, as advertised in The London Gazette on 14 January 2010, for your information:

In the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division)
Companies Court No 21500 of 2009
In the Matter of CRYSTAL PALACE F.C (2000) LTD and in the Matter of the Insolvency Act 1986
A Petition to wind up the above-named Company of Selhurst Park Stadium, Holmesdale Road, London SE25 6PU, presented on 2 December 2009 by the Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs, of Bush House, Strand, London WC2B 4RD, claiming to be Creditors of the Company, will be heard at the Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London WC2A 2LL, on 27 January 2010, at 1030 hours (or as soon thereafter as the Petition can be heard).
Any persons intending to appear on the hearing of the Petition (whether to support or oppose it) must give notice of intention to do so to the Petitioners or to their Solicitor in accordance with Rule 4.16 by 1600 hours on 26 January 2010.
The Petitioners’ Solicitor is the Solicitor to HM Revenue and Customs, Solicitor’s Office, South West Wing, Bush House, Strand, London, WC2B 4RD, telephone 020 7438 6268. (Ref SLR 1125867/37/U.)
14 January 2010.

SEASON'S GREETINGS
Posted by PISA_Committee on Wednesday, December 23 2009

To All Palace Supporters

Very Merry Christmas & Happy New Year

PISA welcomes the calls to encourage supporters to make the Palace v Ipswich match on Boxing Day, a sell-out.

Some of you will have read that there is a winding up order against the club, which has been denied by the chairman. However, there is a winding up petition brought by HM Revenue & Customs with a court hearing due to take place on 27 January 2010.

With this uncertainty, it would be great for all Palace fans to show their support for the Palace team and their club by being at the Boxing Day match, and to bring along family and friends too.

The match on Boxing Day, 26 December 2009, kicks off at 1pm at Selhurst Park. Details of ticket prices and other information are accessible on the Palace club website. For further info Click here

Wishing all Palace supporters an enjoyable Christmas, and best wishes for a ‘successful’ New Year.

PISA

OUTCOME OF THE MEETING WITH THE POLICE AND CLUB REPRESENTATIVES
Posted by PISA_Committee on Thursday, December 17 2009

Dear Palace Supporters,

MEETING AT SELHURST PARK – MONDAY 14 DECEMBER 2009 WITH POLICE AND CLUB REPRESENTATIVES

A meeting was held in the Glaziers at Selhurst Park on Monday 14 December 2009 for supporters to have the opportunity to meet representatives from the police and the club.

The meeting was in response to supporters' concerns around stewarding and policing issues. This was following incidents, particularly, at the home game against Middlesbrough, which led to a subsequent march and presentation of a petition to the club prior to the Watford home match.

The police and the club took the concerns seriously. There were five representatives from the police, the club Vice Chairman, Dominic Jordan, and the stadium manager, Kevin Corner.

Despite supporters signing the petition and expressing their concerns on the on-line message boards, and writing to the club, the attendance at the meeting was disappointing, given the opportunity provided. However, supporters that attended included representatives from the Holmesdale Fanatics and the Arthur Waite Massive, who had particular concerns. Those present also appreciated the police and club representatives giving up their time to hold the meeting.


Points:

The meeting raised a number of points and issues, the number and manner of ejections, the behaviour of some stewards, the throwing of coins and other objects including a drumstick, use of CCTV, deployment of the police, and the sale of tickets and stewarding in Block V of the Arthur Waite.

• At the Middlesbrough match according to the club and the police there were 4 ejections from the ground, and one person was not allowed entrance.

• Intelligence received by the police and club suggested there would be trouble from Middlesbrough supporters – and so police were present.

• Supporters considered the behaviour of stewards, contributed to whipping up the atmosphere, including the excessive approach to clearing the aisles. It was felt stewards needed to be more accountable.

• Mention was made about a young supporter being ejected by 9 or 10 stewards and other incidents of physical abuse involving stewards.

Looking Forward

Crystal Palace employs and trains its own stewards, and most matches are not policed. The club were also keen to attract more supporters and there was some discussion points on improving relations.

To improve relations and the situation.

The club would:
• Arrange to improve steward training.

• Take up the suggestion to arrange for named liaison stewards that can liaise with supporters and assist in resolving difficulties and preventing unnecessary misunderstandings and incidents.

• Use CCTV to check behaviour of supporters, but also stewards and to a lesser extent the police.

• Have Kevin Corner, Stadium Manager as main contact point, but if necessary Dominic Jordan could be contacted by supporters.

• Look into specific complaints raised at the meeting and any follow-up correspondence.

• Clarify the position over Block V and whether there are any current ticketing or stewarding restrictions.

Supporters would:
• Speak to fellow supporters about improving any unacceptably behaviour.

• Arrange special activities (eg flags in the ground) in advance with the club.

• Use the book held at the Palace reception desk to record complaints, suggestions, etc – this is read by Dominic Jordan.

PISA

© All materials on this site are copyright

MEETING WITH THE POLICE AND CLUB REPRESENTATIVES
Posted by PISA_Committee on Thursday, December 10 2009

Dear Palace Supporters

MEETING WITH THE POLICE AND CLUB REPRESENTATIVES TO BE HELD IN THE GLAZIERS AT SELHURST PARK ON MONDAY,
14 DECEMBER 2009 AT 7.15PM

As some of you will know following incidents at the Palace v Middlesbrough match, a number of Palace supporters signed and delivered a petition to the club concerning the stewarding and policing at the match.

In response to supporters’ concerns the club and police have arranged a Forum meeting to discuss the stewarding and policing issues. The Forum will take place, on Monday 14 December 2009 at 7.15pm, in the Glaziers at Selhurst Park. The doors will open at 7pm.

Palace supporters are urged to take this opportunity of meeting the club and police officials to hear what they have to say and for them to answer your concerns and questions around stewarding and policing matters. This is particularly so for those who were upset and concerned with the happenings and arrangements at the Middlesbrough match.

Unfortunately, the meeting announcement has slipped down the news link on the Palace website – so this notice is to let supporters know of the meeting and as a reminder to those who were already aware.

PISA

© All materials on this site are copyright

FURTHER MESSAGE FROM MIKE DORANS, POLICE LIAISON OFFICER
Posted by PISA_Committee on Saturday, November 28 2009

I now feel it was short sighted of us to hold this meeting on the 09/12/2009, due to the Youth Cup fixture arranged for this particular evening. I feel it's in the best interest of everyone, to enable the loyal Palaca supporters who, will no doubt, want to cheer the young Eagles on to the next round, if we cancel the meeting scheduled for the 09/12/2009.

We will endeavour to arrange another meeting along with club representatives at the earliest opportunity. Sorry for any inconvenience caused

Mike DORANS

MESSAGE FROM MIKE DORANS, POLICE LIAISON OFFICER
Posted by PISA_Committee on Thursday, November 26 2009

I have arranged for the top floor of the Victory Club (British Legion) opposite South Norwood Library to be available for a meet-the-fans evening, on Wednesday 09/12/2009. The Victory opens at 1900 hours and this will give the opportunity for supporters to buy a drink. We will start the meeting at 1915 hours. It has become apparent that a number of Palace supporters have concerns about the events of Saturday, 07/11/2009.

This will give the AWM, Holmesdale Fanatics, and anyone else, the opportunity to talk to the police, who regularly work at Selhurst Park and who travel away to the Palace fixtures, about their concerns over ejections or the alleged closure of certain parts of the stadium etc etc.

Present at the meeting will be myself, The Football Intelligence Officer, the football lead for Croydon Borough (who was also match commander at the Middlesbrough game) Control Room Staff and spotters, who were on duty that day.

We have not been approached by any supporters’ group to hold any such meeting. I feel it is only fair that we come to the fans and listen again! As you are aware we held a similar meeting on Wednesday, 10/06/2009 and only a handful of supporters attended. Hopefully more supporters will be encouraged to attend this meeting where all the recent issues can be discussed in an informal yet civilised manner and not via a keyboard and screen.

We have approached the club, but due to a Youth Cup fixture being played no one can attend.

More than happy for this to be posted on the Holmesdale on Line, the BBS, the Fanatics website and any other fans' forum that you can think of.

Some idea of numbers attending would be very much appreciated, as the Victory is only licensed for 70 people in the upstairs bar.

Kind regards Mike DORANS

Palace v Middlesbrough Match
Posted by PISA_Committee on Monday, November 9 2009

Dear Palace Supporters

PISA is aware at the Palace v Middlesbrough match on Saturday, 7 November, there were several people ejected from Block B in the Holmesdale Lower tier. It is also clear from comments that the incidences and behaviour of stewards and police have caused concern to supporters.

It will be helpful if those ejected and supporters who were witness to any incidences involving stewards or the police on Saturday, can please email via the PISA website, or to palace-isa2008@googlemail.com providing details of what happened or what they saw, so the matter can be raised with Crystal Palace Football Club and the police. Supporters can also take the opportunity to raise any other stewarding or policing matters that have been a concern since the start of the season

PISA would also be interested to have comments from supporters on any other issues which should be raised with the club.

Thank you.

FAMILY FUN DAYS
Posted by PISA_Committee on Tuesday, September 22 2009

Dear Supporters

The Crystal Palace Supporters’ Trust (CPST) has been approached by Crystal Palace Football Club to assist with raising funds for the Family Fun Days.

Croydon Council, in making savings, has cut its funding for these Days.

The Trust has therefore decided the best way to help the Club is to donate monies raised from the Trust’s shopping online site.

Raising the funds depends on supporters’ help. It will not cost supporters anything except a little time to sign up, but it could make a difference to Family Days at the Palace. With the festive season coming this is a good time to sign up.

The PISA website is carrying this information to support the Trust’s initiative and encourage supporters’ participation in this fundraising.

The details on the fundraising, which are shown below for information, are on the Trust’s website – Click here: http:www.cpstrust.org.uk/shop

Shop Online and Raise Funds

“easyfundraising” is a shopping directory listing some of your favourite online stores including Amazon, Next, Debenhams, John Lewis, Toys R Us, HMV and over 400 other top name stores. Whenever you shop online with any one of them using the links provided on the easyfundraising site, CPST will receive a donation of up to 15% of the purchase price every time! It really is that simple!

It won’t cost you a penny more to shop and raise funds in this way. In fact you can even SAVE MONEY as many retailers give exclusive discounts, special offers and even 'e-vouchers' when you shop through the easyfundraising site.

All you need to do is register for free – Click here: http://www.easyfundraising.org.uk/cpst

Search the Web and Raise Funds

When you register with easyfundraising, you’ll also be able to raise funds when you search the web - with easysearch, a search engine with a difference. Powered by Yahoo! easysearch works just like any other search engine, giving you fast, accurate results time after time. But the difference is, easysearch gives something back. When you search the web with easysearch, you’ll raise about 1p for CPST with each search you make.

Search online just 15 times a day and you could generate funds of over £25.00 a year for us – just by switching to easysearch! Just like easyfundraising, it is completely free to register and use.

To check out our unique easysearch page – Click here: http://www.cpst.easysearch.org.uk then set it as your homepage so you never forget to use it each and every time you search the web.

So if you shop online or search the web anyway, why not help CPST at the same time!

CHARLTON V PALACE MATCH - OMBUDSMAN'S ADJUDICATION
Posted by PISA_Committee on Sunday, July 19 2009

Dear Supporters

CHARLTON ATHLETIC FC v CRYSTAL PALACE – 27.1.09
THE INDEPENDENT FOOTBALL OMBUDSMAN'S ADJUDICATION

The Independent Football Ombudsman (IFO) delivered his adjudication on a complaint from a Crystal Palace supporter about his treatment and ejection from Charlton Athletic FC. The full adjudication was posted on 14 July 2009 on the IFO website. Unfortunately, it is disappointing in that the IFO was unable to uphold the complaint but has recommended:

‘that the Football League instructs its member clubs to liaise with visiting clubs to warn them of the security measures that are to be in place (such as 100% rather than selective searching on entry) and that visiting clubs in turn inform their supporters of such measures (this also applies to Premier League fixtures)'

This gives weight to the need for the Football Authorities to press for communication between clubs and between clubs and their supporters.

Overall though, the adjudication is disappointing for the complainant, for Palace supporters generally, and particularly for those Palace supporters that are aggrieved at their ejection.

The adjudication appears to accept the explanations of the football and policing authorities on their approach to the evening, and to represent their adverse perceptions of football supporters. The adjudication also manages to misrepresent and reinforce the dismissal by Charlton of PISA information by suggesting PISA ‘appeared to claim all of the ejections were for trivial offences’, whereas PISA has referred to the unprecedented number of ejections and to those of particular concern.

The IFO was also compelled to remind the Football League and its clubs that good complaints resolution practice requires prompt and accurate responses to those who complain. This is commendable.

Following from this PISA has not received a full response from the Football League, but also considering the IFO received information from PISA it is notable that it did not consider it necessary to notifying PISA about the publication of the adjudication. It may therefore be politely suggested in the interests of common courtesy that the IFO consider its own procedures

PISA would like to hear comments from all supporters on the adjudication through the website email, or email palace.isa2008@googlemail.com

(Also for those with legal backgrounds your views on approaching the complex issues around - human rights, trespass to the person, contract, rights of proprietors holding public events, health and safety, security and policing – which such issues throw up would be much appreciated as these are issues facing football supporters more generally.)

The IFO’s adjudication is below in full.


IFO
THE INDEPENDENT
FOOTBALL OMBUDSMAN

IFO COMPLAINT REF: 09/02

CHARLTON ATHLETIC FC STEWARDING AND EJECTIONS AT THE CRYSTAL PALACE MATCH 27 JANUARY 2009

The Role of the Independent Football Ombudsman (IFO)
1. The office of the IFO has been established by the three English football authorities(The FootballAssociation (FA), The Premier League and The Football League) with the agreement of Government. The IFO has been designated as the final stage for the adjudication of complaints which have not been resolved within football’s complaints procedure. The IFO operates a system of non-binding arbitration. In exercising its jurisdiction, the IFO does not seek to question the merits of judgements made by properly constituted Regulatory Commissions and Appeal Boards, unless there were shortcomings in the administrative processes which led to those judgements. It is not the role of the IFO to retry cases, but it is its role to explore and review the procedures under which complaints have been decided and whether the outcomes were reasonable for all parties concerned. Under the procedure agreed by the Football Governing Bodies, the adjudication of the IFO is final and there is no right of appeal against IFO findings.

2. The IFO must make clear at the outset that he has received full cooperation from Charlton Athletic Football Club and the Football and Police Authorities. Police and club security information has been made available to the IFO, some of which for understandable reasons must remain confidential.

The complaints
3. A Crystal Palace supporter, who describes himself as a mature, middle-class professional with no record of public disorder, complained about his treatment by Charlton Athletic club stewards at the match held on 27 January 2009. Along with some 40 plus other Palace fans, the complainant was ejected from the ground, after having entered through the turnstile, but without gaining access to the designated away supporters section of the stadium. He witnessed no part of the game because of his ejection.

He contended that:

• He was ejected without good cause.

• The policy operated by the stewards was unduly rigorous and inflexible, lacking in proper customer care and common sense.

• By being handed over to police officers upon ejection, his reputation was sullied.

• Neither the Club nor the Football League had addressed his specific complaints properly.

As a result of what he alleges was unfair treatment by the Club and its stewards, the complainant demanded:

• An apology from the Club for the way he had been treated.

• The refund of his ticket price.

• Compensation for the damage to his reputation.

The facts and the events
4. Charlton Athletic’s home ground, The Valley, has been substantially remodelled in recent years. The Club admits, however, that the physical arrangements for entry by away supporters are not ideal. There are six dedicated turnstiles for away fans who gather in a restricted area bounded by steel perimeter fences. In order to prevent undue congestion adjacent to the turnstiles, the stewards, with the assistance of police officers, restrict the number of people in the entry area by holding crowds in the street and allowing limited numbers to the turnstile area at any one time. This is a sensible policy, which permits an inspection of tickets prior to entry to the turnstile area. It causes no difficulty when fans arrive steadily over a period, but it can lead to large crowds waiting in the street when significant numbers arrive together, which sometimes happens near to kick-off time. When the Club decides to search fans prior to entry, the searching takes place immediately after entry through the turnstiles and before access is granted to the away supporters seating section. There is clear evidence that the security and stewarding arrangements at Charlton are highly regarded by the Local Authority, The Football League and the Football Licensing Authority (FLA).

5. The match in question was known to be challenging from a stewarding point of view. The two clubs are local rivals and there is a history of friction between the teams’ fans, dating back to the time when the two clubs shared the Selhurst Park ground. On police advice the match was moved from a weekend afternoon to a weekday evening. The police assessment was that this was a Category C+ game, with a high risk of both planned and spontaneous disorder. The police intelligence information led them to search the ground and adjacent areas on the day of the game and to station officers during the game in the land behind the away terracing to prevent offensive weapons being lobbed over the fence. There was specific intelligence relating to the possible use of flares by some Palace fans. In the light of the police intelligence and assessment, the Safety Officer and the Operations Director decided to search all away fans and to have a visible and rigorous stewarding regime for both home and away supporters. There were 382 stewards on duty for this match and 222 police officers on duty, including 49 deployed within the stadium.

6. On the Tuesday evening in question, a normal working day in London, there were some transport problems at London Bridge, where some fans decided to have a pre-match drink. The delays from London Bridge combined with the normal difficulties of getting to an evening match on time led to a large group of Palace supporters arriving at the ground at around kick-off time. Charlton’s Control Room Log shows that at kick-off time there were around 2300 away supporters already in the ground. Since the final total admitted was 3200, it follows that some 900 away supporters were waiting outside and were admitted during the 30 minutes after kick-off. Supporters arriving at the entrances at this time were met by a large crowd segregated into sections by the police and awaiting entry to the turnstile area. Many, including the complainant, became frustrated by what they saw as the unduly slow entry process, exacerbated by the fact that their team went a goal down while they were waiting to gain entry. As a result, by the time many of these arrived at the search area just beyond the turnstiles, they were no doubt irritable at having been delayed so long. This is reflected in the fact that nearly half of all the ejections (including that of the complainant) took place at or soon after kick-off time.

7. The complainant wrote to the club on 29 January listing his complaints and, having had no reply, wrote a second time on 12 February. He received a substantive reply on 24 February from the Operations Director who claimed he had replied on 17 February. On 1 March the complainant contacted the IFO by telephone and email. He was advised that he needed to submit his complaint to the Football League before the IFO could investigate. The complainant wrote to the Customer Service Manager at the Football League on 15 March. He did not receive a substantive reply until 30 April. He responded further to the League on 11 May and formally requested the IFO to investigate and adjudicate his complaint on the same date.

The investigation
8. The IFO considered an extensive range of documentary evidence which included:

• Letters to and from the complainant, together with his three submissions to the IFO.

• Correspondence from two other ejected supporters and a comprehensive dossier prepared by PISA (Palace Independent Supporters Association).

• Club correspondence and documentation, including the Control Room Log. (The IFO had sight of the Police assessment report).

• The Minutes of the Safety Advisory Group meeting which considered the match and the complaints arising from it.

• The FA Safety Assessor’s report on the game and, for background, other reports from the FA Assessor on matches with a similar high security profile.

• Comments from the Football Licensing Authority regional inspector who covers both Charlton and Palace matches.

• Correspondence from the FA and the Football League.

Both the IFO and Deputy IFO had access to the very full video archive for the match which provided essential visual evidence of the stewarding activity and the ejections which took place. This evidence contained no audio material.

9. On receipt of the complaint, the IFO wrote to the club and requested a meeting at the ground, which took place on 21 May 2009. Present at the meeting were the IFO and Deputy, the Club’s Operations Director and Safety Officer, the Police Match Commander and Police Liaison/Events Officer. A very full and frank discussion took place and the IFO received comprehensive answers to all enquiries. It should be noted that the Club adopted a positive and open approach, as did the Police who shared their intelligence information and explained fully the thinking which underlay the stewarding and police strategy for the match. Both the Club and the Police took the view that the policies adopted had been fully justified, that the stewarding was efficient, effective and properly enforced and that the Club had nothing to apologise for. They had responded fully to all letters of complaint and had offered any complainant the opportunity to view the video evidence, which several (though not the complainant) had taken up. The Club took exception to much of the hearsay evidence contained in the PISA documents and pointed out that many of the allegations, for example about the searching of girls and disabled supporters, had not been substantiated. The meeting which lasted over two hours allowed the IFO and Deputy to spend time reviewing the security camera tapes.

10. Following this initial meeting, the IFO requested a copy of the FA Assessor’s report and the Minutes of the Safety Advisory Group. Both of these were provided and the Operations Director responded promptly to the IFO’s supplementary questions. The IFO noted that the complainant had declined to review the video evidence. Having seen this, the IFO believed it was reasonable to request that the complainant visit the club to identify his particular ejection within the taped evidence. The complainant did so, but this did not allay his conviction that he had been wrongly treated. Once the complainant’s individual ejection had been identified, the IFO returned to the Valley on 9 June. On this occasion he met with the same club officials plus the Assistant Safety Officer. In addition to reviewing both the specific and the wider video evidence, the IFO met with the actual steward who had been involved in the complainant’s search and ejection. The steward provided a written statement about his version of events on the night in question and responded personally to the IFO’s questions. Subsequently, the IFO met with the FA Safety assessor who had been present during the match and had personally observed the stewarding at the away supporters turnstiles. In his report and in his subsequent commentary he had commended the club’s “robust stewarding”, but had anticipated that some might feel aggrieved at what they saw as excessive punishment for relatively minor “offences”.

The findings
11. This complaint and the circumstances which provoked it are inextricably linked to the stewarding policy which Charlton felt obliged to implement in the light of the police intelligence and advice. Clearly, a significant number of Palace supporters were surprised at being subjected to a search and those refusing to be searched, or not cooperating with the search, were ejected, while others were ejected when they commented in strong terms about their opposition to or resentment of such searching, which they deemed inappropriate. It is not clear whether supporters were forewarned about the security measures they were likely to face on entry to the ground. Indeed, the complainant’s surprise at what he encountered is central to his reaction to the search procedures and he admitted that he entered the ground shaking his head in disgust at what he was experiencing. The Ombudsman, in his previous role as Chairman of the Independent Football Commission (IFC), had been involved in a study of the experience of fans travelling abroad to European matches. The IFC concluded that it was vital to prepare fans for what they might expect from foreign security authorities and clubs now use the scouting pre-visit to glean such information, which is then disseminated to their supporters. Such practices could beneficially be adopted in high profile, high risk domestic matches. The IFO, therefore, recommends that the Football League instructs its member clubs to liaise with visiting clubs to warn them of the security measures that are to be in place (such as 100% rather than selective searching on entry) and that visiting clubs in turn inform their supporters of such measures. This recommendation arises out of a Football League match, but equally applies to Premier League fixtures.

12. The question at issue is whether the stewarding policy was unjustifiably “robust” and excessive, such as to render the complainant unfairly treated. A number of allegations and inferences in the complaint and the other protest documentation may be discounted. The IFO has found no evidence of excessive violence in the ejections. The visual record shows those ejected being firmly but not excessively escorted to the exit gate by two or three stewards, who used the armhold technique, which the Club maintains is recommended in the officially recognised training programme. There is no visual evidence of crushing, notwithstanding the complainant’s allusion to the Hillsborough tragedy, which so upset the Club officials. Even at its height the crowd in the queue outside at kick-off time appeared orderly and there was no pushing forward, though there was much waving of arms and shouting, signs of frustration at the delay in gaining entry to the ground. In some of their material PISA appear to claim that all of the ejections were for trivial offences and thus unjustified and because of this the complainant demanded an apology to all ejected Palace supporters. However, a number of Palace fans were ejected for such matters as taking alcohol into the ground, being drunk and abusive, jumping over the turnstiles and repeatedly standing on the seats. One fan was in possession of drugs and was arrested by the police. Nor is the reference to age or self-perceived social status a reason for non compliance. Though the general perception is of football disorder as wholly associated with young men, there is plenty of evidence of mature adults behaving at football matches in ways they themselves would find unacceptable in other social activities. Both the Club and their stewards were justified in rejecting arguments along the lines of “You shouldn’t be searching me because of my age and respectability”.

13. There is more merit in the complainant’s assertion that his communications were not promptly replied to. While Charlton responded quickly to the Secretary of PISA, the complainant had to wait for about three weeks before getting a proper reply and he had to write to the Club twice. In this regard the Club did not meet its own stated aims in dealing with complaints promptly. Similarly the complainant waited some six weeks before receiving a full reply from the Football League, a delay partly explained as due to staff sickness absence. Some aspects of the League response were puzzling. For example, the initial response to the complainant some three weeks after he contacted the League stated that the League was unaware of any other correspondence. Yet the PISA material had been copied to the Football League and the PISA website was specifically referred to in the complainant’s letter. Also when he did receive a fuller reply, the complainant was told that some ejected supporters had viewed the video evidence and had since apologised for their behaviour. Charlton officials confirmed that this was not in fact the case, though there had been such an example on a previous ejection from the terraces at a different match. The IFO wishes to remind the Football League and its clubs that good complaints resolution practice requires prompt and accurate responses to those who complain.

14. The central issue to resolve is whether the complainant’s behaviour merited his ejection from the ground by the stewards. Even in the examples where Club and complainant agree on the words spoken, there can be different interpretations of their import, because of tone, demeanour and body language. In this case the facts are disputed. The complainant asserts that after a delayed entrance to the ground he consented to a search, though under protest, and then merely asked “Anything else?” The steward concerned claimed that the complainant refused to raise his arms during the search and then made an abusive statement containing an offensive remark. Since the stewards had been advised that there was to be a policy of zero tolerance (the stewards being entitled to fulfil their duties without being subject to abuse), he ejected the complainant because of what he said and his attitude. In response to questions by the IFO, the steward said that there had been several examples of supporters questioning the need for searching, couching their query in friendly colloquial terms. In such cases he had explained that he was doing his job as required and the fans had been admitted. In the complainant’s case, however, he claimed that his mood and tone were aggressive and abusive and that was the reason for ejection. The video record gives some clues. The complainant is seen entering the ground shaking his head, perhaps an indication of his mood, and he does admit that he had been severely annoyed at the long delays at the turnstiles. The visual evidence confirms that the complainant did not raise his arms during the search. It also shows that there was another steward at the shoulder of the steward conducting the search and clearly listening to what was being said. The ejection process began when the second steward moved forward suddenly, apparently in response to what he had heard and observed, and then assisted his colleague in escorting the complainant from the ground. What the complainant deemed to be an innocent enquiry was thus immediately interpreted by the searching steward and his colleague as grounds for ejection, for reasons of abusive behaviour.

15. Sadly, in contemporary society the citizen is subject to security procedures which might appear to infringe personal liberty, or to be unnecessary or unwarranted. At our airports, for example, we are subjected to strict security and searching procedures, where similarly dissenting comment, even if couched humorously, earns the wrath of the authorities. Once Charlton, after receiving police advice and risk assessment, decided to conduct a 100% search of Palace supporters, it was likely that some would find the high profile, zero tolerance security process excessive and unnecessarily intrusive. Charlton might have advised their stewards to be more tolerant and flexible in response to casual critical remarks from fans, frustrated at the delays in getting into the ground. In the light of this match, which led to twice the number of ejections compared to the previous year, the Club might wish to relax somewhat its zero tolerance policy in the future. Nevertheless, what took place on 27 January was openly filmed and was observed by police officers, local authority observers and the FA Assessor, none of whom criticised or condemned the way the security operation was conducted.

16. The complainant is adamant that he did nothing to justify his ejection. The steward is equally adamant that the complainant’s attitude and comments justified the ejection. While the visual record shows what transpired, it is not possible to hear the words spoken nor the tone of the remarks. What is clear is that Charlton adopted a policy of “robust stewarding”, which left some feeling aggrieved at what they viewed as excessive punishment for relatively minor transgressions. The complainant may well have fallen into that category, but in the face of conflicting accounts it is not possible for the IFO to determine precisely what took place.

17. In the light of inconclusive evidence, despite a thorough investigation, it follows that the IFO is unable to uphold the complaints.

Professor Derek Fraser, Ombudsman
Mr Alan Watson. Deputy Ombudsman
24 June 2009

POLICE LIAISON - MIKE DORANS
Posted by PISA_Committee on Wednesday, June 10 2009

Dear Palace Supporters

MEET MIKE DORANS – THE POLICE FOOTBALL INTELLIGENCE OFFICER FOR CRYSTAL PALACE

The Crystal Palace Supporters Trust has advised PISA that Mike Dorans, the Metropolitan Police Football Intelligence Officer for Crystal Palace, has asked to attend their meeting to provide an opportunity to speak to Palace supporters about policing related matters, both at home and away matches.

The Trust has kindly agreed to open their meeting to all Palace supporters for a forum session with Mike Dorans, which will follow their formal Annual General Meeting business, which should take around 30 minutes.

The meeting starts at 7.30 pm on Thursday 11 June 2009, so the forum with Mike Dorans will be around 8pm. This meeting will be held at the British Legion's Victory Club – 227 Selhurst Road, South Norwood, London SE25 6XY (Tel: 0217 8653 2617).

Palace supporters who have issues, concerns, and suggestions about policing matters are urged to take this opportunity to meet Mike Dorans. Any supporters unable to attend may wish to forward questions to the Trust, or alternatively email through to the PISA website.

Thank you.

CHARLTON v PALACE 27th JANUARY 2009
Posted by PISA_Committee on Friday, May 15 2009

The following communication has been received from the IFO (Ombudsman) concerning investigating the events of 27th January 2009.

“FAO: PISA

“I can confirm that a fellow complainant has formally asked the IFO to investigate his complaint, having been dissatisfied with the response of the Football League. I have agreed that the IFO will issue a formal adjudication in due course. Since there were several complaints received relating to the same incidents, I propose to take account of all the evidence submitted to me and judge the case as a collective complaint, unless you inform me that PISA is content with the FL response.

“I will now commence my investigation and I invite you to submit any further information for my consideration. There is no obligation for you to do so, if you feel that all your arguments have been put. I have received from you copies of all the correspondence which will now form part of the evidence base for my investigation.”

PROFESSOR DEREK FRASER
OMBUDSMAN

As this matter is now in the hands of the Football Ombudsman, it is vital that those supporters, who have previously not forwarded their evidence, should do so as soon as possible.

If you wish you can use the 'Contact' facility on the PISA website to do this.

Tuesday, March 2 2010
REMINDER - FSF MEETING - 4 MARCH 2010
Dear Supporters Just a reminder of the Football Supporters’ Federation (FSF) open invitation this Thursday... more

Sunday, February 14 2010
FA CUP 14 FEBRUARY 2010
Dear Supporters FA Cup Valentines Day sees the team we love, play in the 5th round of the FA Cup against... more

Friday, January 29 2010
CRYSTAL PALACE FC IN ADMINISTRATION
Dear Supporters As expected the Football League has confirmed the 10 points deduction for the club,... more

Wednesday, January 27 2010
CPFC IN ADMINISTRATION - 26 JANUARY 2010
Dear Supporters Many of you will know that Crystal Palace FC has been experiencing financial difficulties... more

Sunday, January 17 2010
WINDING UP PETITION
Dear Supporters Some of you may have already heard the news that Crystal Palace FC is named in a winding... more