Town Banning Orders

Latest figures summarised in BBC News (Internet) today.  They report the totals as 2016-17, but the season has not finished of course. Looks like new banning orders.  

Grimsby are the only team in Div 1 and Div 2 featured.  And all for the wrong reasons.  "Grimsby have more than a quarter of all the Division 2 banning order total".   Looks like about 50 out of 190.  No details supplied.

I would like to know where our figures come from? These are very high.  Assuming that the totals are true, this will not do our reputation any good with other clubs and police forces.    

Have we got a few that's got a life time ban ?

20 new ones as I read it.

I do not believe any of these are for brassiere-related violence.

For once being top of our division isn't something to be proud about.  

Accrington and Cheltenham have no arrests,

BUT

A certain Cheltenham player would have been arrested if he was not on the pitch when he trod on Macca.

3 year ban on Mr Wright sounds about right  

Could be that some of our fans resorted to a bit of bad behaviour, hence the banning order, hence a decent excuse not to go and whatch, obviously after Tuesday they now regret their behaviour.

It appears to be the same old, same old with us unfortunately. Whilst we do have some of the best fans around - certainly in turning out in numbers for away games - we do have the ability to attract others for all the wrong reasons, usually for the bigger games against northern teams. Do sewing bees attract trouble like this?

250 banning orders 32 of which are Towns. My maths maybe dodgy, but i don't think 32 is a quarter of 250

Accringtn Stanley 0 Barnet 2
Blackpool 14
Cambridge United 12
Carlisle United 18
Cheltenham Town 0
Colchester United 6
Crawley Town 2
Crewe Alexandra 11
Doncaster Rovers 11
Exeter City 10
Grimsby Town 32
Hartlepool United 13
Leyton Orient 5
Luton Town 22
Mansfield Town 17
Morecambe 2
Newport County 11
Notts County 4
Plymouth Argyle 37
Portsmouth 17
Stevenage 3
Wycombe Wanderers 1

I wonder if a lot of these stem from the trouble following the July 2016 pre season "Friendly" against Sheffield United?  

We do seem to have a disproportionate amount....purely down to our major high risk element i ask myself or perhaps to over zealous policing and constant filming of the crowds that seem to go hand in hand with a Town away day nowadays.

Being of a slightly different generation i rarely see anything that i would call major trouble or serious disorder nowadays....Mid 80's - early 90's in particular there were more active larger groups having greater freedom and open confrontations...on the pitches and inside stadiums...CCTV was being used by police...Seymour with his shoulder mounted camera for those that remember him... and the first camera vans but banning orders didnt really exist.

If you got "nicked" back then it was generally a case of losing your liberty for the rest of the day and released without charge after 6pm.

Not condoning the behaviour but police can be pretty antagonising at times which younger lads seem to react to and then after filming them gobbing off for a while or over the course of a few weeks /months they nick them and then produce a showreel of "evidence of threatening behaviour" and apply for a ban.  

Its like printing money for the police and guarantees them all a bit of easy overtime on a Saturday.

Quoted from moosey_club

We do seem to have a disproportionate amount....purely down to our major high risk element i ask myself or perhaps to over zealous policing and constant filming of the crowds that seem to go hand in hand with a Town away day nowadays.

Being of a slightly different generation i rarely see anything that i would call major trouble or serious disorder nowadays....Mid 80's - early 90's in particular there were more active larger groups having greater freedom and open confrontations...on the pitches and inside stadiums...CCTV was being used by police...Seymour with his shoulder mounted camera for those that remember him... and the first camera vans but banning orders didnt really exist.

If you got "nicked" back then it was generally a case of losing your liberty for the rest of the day and released without charge after 6pm.

Not condoning the behaviour but police can be pretty antagonising at times which younger lads seem to react to and then after filming them gobbing off for a while or over the course of a few weeks /months they nick them and then produce a showreel of "evidence of threatening behaviour" and apply for a ban.  

Its like printing money for the police and guarantees them all a bit of easy overtime on a Saturday.

Tend to agree with this.
Even including the pre-season shenanigans with The blunts. How many people have actually seen proper punches thrown by ours or any other fans in the past ten years.
I’ll guarantee you the amount of banning orders due to the Sheff U game are massively disproportionate to the amount of aggressors from both sides. We’ll get hammered as per.
I’ve seen several arrests due to ‘lads’ gobbing off again and again despite the presence of the police. Sheer stupidity.

Come on town , Plymouth are Top 😬

i suspect many of our banning orders are as a result of the dreadful bullying of thousands of ordinary fans, who were intimidated into not attending Checkatrade Trophy games

Quoted from scrumble

250 banning orders 32 of which are Towns. My maths maybe dodgy, but i don't think 32 is a quarter of 250

Accringtn Stanley 0 Barnet 2
Blackpool 14
Cambridge United 12
Carlisle United 18
Cheltenham Town 0
Colchester United 6
Crawley Town 2
Crewe Alexandra 11
Doncaster Rovers 11
Exeter City 10
Grimsby Town 32
Hartlepool United 13
Leyton Orient 5
Luton Town 22
Mansfield Town 17
Morecambe 2
Newport County 11
Notts County 4
Plymouth Argyle 37
Portsmouth 17
Stevenage 3
Wycombe Wanderers 1

If that list is correct then Plymouth have more banning orders than us!

BBC Headline summary:

"Grimsby fans made up more than a quarter of all new banning orders issued across the 24 League Two teams".

Based on Scrumble's individual BO totals, 32 for Town out of 250 is only 12.8%.  Not more than 25% as the BBC report.  As Les also says above, Plymouth have more BOs than us with 37.  

The details are likely to be more accurate than initial summary reports. Begs the question though why the BBC report inacccurately reported our stats to be worse than they actually are!

The Club should be challenging this BBC reporting. We have enough crowd safety issues to deal with already.

Quoted from TownSNAFU5

BBC Headline summary:

"Grimsby fans made up more than a quarter of all new banning orders issued across the 24 League Two teams".

Based on Scrumble's individual BO totals, 32 for Town out of 250 is only 12.8%.  Not more than 25% as the BBC report.  As Les also says above, Plymouth have more BOs than us with 37.  

The details are likely to be more accurate than initial summary reports. Begs the question though why the BBC report inacccurately reported our stats to be worse than they actually are!

The Club should be challenging this BBC reporting. We have enough crowd safety issues to deal with already.

The BBC are becoming more like ITV everyday. You used to be able to listen to the BBC news and know you were being told as close to the truth as you were allowed to get. Nowadays you are getting an over dramatic headline, with and over excited reporter more interested in making sure their face is on the tv getting as much dramatic air time as possible to push their career, and the truth is lost somewhere in either the background, the 'small print' or just ignored completely.

A sad situation which unfortunately reflects our society in this day and age. Good news and the truth doesn't get viewing figures up and doesn't sell papers.

I've just depressed myself. Thank goodness I am going to my first game of the season tomorrow to see the mighty mariners produce a festival of football.

Oh....... 😉

UTFM

Do you get a banning order if your say 4 miles away from the ground having a quite pint, next thing a group of opposition fans come in the pub all army like, one pushes your 14 year old son so in defence you clock him one, ( the other fan, not your son) the police arrive and your arrested, so is this a banning order? I would assume the majority of our were from the Sheffield U game, the majority of town fans were probably not going to the game anyway.

Quoted from Posh Harry

The BBC are becoming more like ITV everyday. You used to be able to listen to the BBC news and know you were being told as close to the truth as you were allowed to get. Nowadays you are getting an over dramatic headline, with and over excited reporter more interested in making sure their face is on the tv getting as much dramatic air time as possible to push their career, and the truth is lost somewhere in either the background, the 'small print' or just ignored completely.

A sad situation which unfortunately reflects our society in this day and age. Good news and the truth doesn't get viewing figures up and doesn't sell papers.

I've just depressed myself. Thank goodness I am going to my first game of the season tomorrow to see the mighty mariners produce a festival of football.

Oh....... 😉

UTFM

Been known as the bullshit broadcasting channel for a long time now.

Quoted from TownSNAFU5

BBC Headline summary:

"Grimsby fans made up more than a quarter of all new banning orders issued across the 24 League Two teams".

Based on Scrumble's individual BO totals, 32 for Town out of 250 is only 12.8%.  Not more than 25% as the BBC report.  As Les also says above, Plymouth have more BOs than us with 37.  

The details are likely to be more accurate than initial summary reports. Begs the question though why the BBC report inacccurately reported our stats to be worse than they actually are!

The Club should be challenging this BBC reporting. We have enough crowd safety issues to deal with already.

The club has got form for not challenging anything  

Quoted from TownSNAFU5

BBC Headline summary:

"Grimsby fans made up more than a quarter of all new banning orders issued across the 24 League Two teams".

Based on Scrumble's individual BO totals, 32 for Town out of 250 is only 12.8%.  Not more than 25% as the BBC report.  As Les also says above, Plymouth have more BOs than us with 37.  

The details are likely to be more accurate than initial summary reports. Begs the question though why the BBC report inacccurately reported our stats to be worse than they actually are!

The Club should be challenging this BBC reporting. We have enough crowd safety issues to deal with already.

‘BBC reporting accuracy’ sounds familiar you can see it every day with their pro EU biased.

BBC is fake news anyway

It says a quarter of new banning orders not a
Quarter of total banning orders.

Bet there aren't many clubs that get a banning order against their name for a fan hitting a steward with an inflatable shark!

On the other side of the coin, FGR stewards can grapple a Town fan by his neck with no action taken against them. And then there's Stevenage...

We do seem to get the rough end of it at certain small clubs that can't handle a proper away following.

Quoted from mimma

Bet there aren't many clubs that get a banning order against their name for a fan hitting a steward with an inflatable shark!

On the other side of the coin, FGR stewards can grapple a Town fan by his neck with no action taken against them. And then there's Stevenage...

We do seem to get the rough end of it at certain small clubs that can't handle a proper away following.

Seen all  three of those and the post sums it up really.
A lot of other club's supporters might have had those stewards hurt.
Our lot are quite restrained in my opinion.

Quoted from Marinerz93

The club has got form for not challenging anything  

The club did challenge a  BBC reporter for inaccurate reporting only a week ago and we all know how the fans reacted to that

I have no idea how to do a link but our veggie friends are in trouble for their treatment of Crewe fans last week. FGR have moved the aeay fans out of that covered end and into the open bit. It was peeeing down and some Crewe fans "invaded" the seated bit to get out of the rain. They were met with the full force of the powers that be down there and Crewe were distinctly unamused. Hateful club. It is apparently now virtually impossible to as an away fan buy a seating ticket and that includes disabled fans.

Here you go:

http://forum.fgrfc.net/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=88832

Seems like Crewe fans were put in the open side stand in the pouring rain. They tried to find shelter and run on the pitch to find it. They were then confronted by FGRs finest and threatened with arrest for encroachment.

FGR apologised to THEIR OWN fans for having to sit with the Crewe contingent that made it to the shelter.

You couldn't make it up!

Tin pot club should never be in the Football League - pub team at best

Quoted from barralad

I have no idea how to do a link but our veggie friends are in trouble for their treatment of Crewe fans last week. FGR have moved the aeay fans out of that covered end and into the open bit. It was peeeing down and some Crewe fans "invaded" the seated bit to get out of the rain. They were met with the full force of the powers that be down there and Crewe were distinctly unamused. Hateful club. It is apparently now virtually impossible to as an away fan buy a seating ticket and that includes disabled fans.

A club standing up for its fans? Surely not.