Football Federation of Victoria Disciplinary Tribunal Decision Fixture: Melbourne Victory FC v South Melbourne FC Competition: FFV NPL

Transcription

1 Football Federation of Victoria Disciplinary Tribunal Decision Fixture: Melbourne Victory FC v South Melbourne FC Competition: FFV NPL Date of Fixture: 24 April 2016 Date of Hearing: 8 June 2016 Introduction On 24 April 2016, there was a National Premier League fixture between South Melbourne FC and Melbourne Victory FC. At approximately the 50 th minute mark, a violent incident occurred where approximately 32 supporters from Melbourne Victory entered the field and ran around the athletics track to engage in a violent incident with supporters of South Melbourne. Items were thrown into the South Melbourne crowd, South Melbourne supporters were spat upon, punches were thrown and a container containing fluid, possibly chlorine, was thrown into the South Melbourne crowd. The incident was captured on video. We were provided with relevant parts of the video recordings. On 23 May 2016, we heard and determined 17 charges brought against individual supporters of Melbourne Victory. The supporters have been banned from being able to attend an FFV fixture for up to five years and the bans also prevent participation in the sport generally. A further charge has now been brought against Melbourne Victory (MP10 within the meaning of the Football Federation Victoria Grievance Disciplinary and Tribunal By Law (GDT)) as a result of its club associates engaging in conduct that has brought or might be likely to bring the club, FFV or the game of football into disrepute or otherwise adversely affecting the image or reputation of the club, FFV or the game of football and for participating in a violent melee. To be abundantly clear, Melbourne Victory is charged with this offence because pursuant to the GDT, it is responsible for the conduct of its Associates. After an initial discussion with the panel Melbourne Victory pleaded guilty to the charge. South Melbourne FC appeared and assisted at both hearings. The relevant rules and legal principles The purposes of the GDT include encouraging participation in the game, which includes the ability of spectators to enjoy the game in a safe and harmonious environment 1. The GDT provides that a Club is responsible for its Associates and furthermore this liability is strict liability. 1 See rule 1.2(c) of the GDT

2 The GDT provides that a Club Associate means (e) supporters of a Club including spectators at a Match. Clause 3.2 of the GDT provides that: (a) (b) subject to clause 3.2(b) all clubs are responsible and liable for the conduct of Club Associate(s) at, or in the vicinity of, any match regardless of the responsibilities attached to any other person where FFV promulgates such standards or protocols, and where a club meets and complies with those standards and/or protocols to FFV s satisfaction, FFV may, in its sole discretion, elect to proceed against a Club Associate but not against a Club. Clause 7.8 of the GDT provides that: (c) where a Club is found guilty of any charge which arises either wholly or partly out of the conduct of a Club Associate(s), the Tribunal must, when considering the question of penalty, take into account any steps taken by the Club to: (i) (ii) identify such Club Associate(s); and/or minimise the risk of a repetition of such behaviour by the Club Associate(s). (d) the Tribunal may consider: (iv) the extent to which the party has made efforts to prevent the conduct from occurring The GDT needs to be interpreted having regard to the mischief that the GDT is aimed at removing 2. In this case, the mischief is violent behaviour by supporter groups of football teams which violence can by its very nature cause serious and permanent injuries to other spectators of the game who are behaving in a peaceful and lawful manner. This is to say nothing of the damage such behaviour does to the reputation of the sport. The relevant facts before, during, and after the game Prior to the game, on 18 April 2016, there was a meeting between representatives of the FFV, representatives of South Melbourne, representatives of Melbourne Victory, Victoria Police and the security service at the Lakeside Stadium. The meeting occurred because it was likely that at 2 See EPA v N (1992) 26 NSWLR 352; Hawthorne v Morcam Pty Ltd (1992) 29 NSWLR 120

3 the game, there could be increased fan activity and the possibility of poor spectator behaviour. The number of security personnel was increased above the standard required in the NPL competition rules, from four externally contracted security personnel to 16 contracted security personnel. In addition, instead of the standard six club marshals, there would be 13 club marshals. Mr John McLeod, the Melbourne Victory Safety Manager was to attend the fixture and in fact did so. He also gave evidence before us. At the fixture on the day, a number of banned spectators gained entry to the ground and sat with the Melbourne Victory active supporters group. The supporters were successfully precluded from bringing a drum into the ground. Although the fact that they failed to get the drum into the ground was seen by them as being inflammatory because South Melbourne was using a trumpet on the other side of the ground. Shortly after half time, some Melbourne Victory active supporters infiltrated the South Melbourne side of the game and attempted to steal the banner from South Melbourne. They were unsuccessful because the banner was locked to the fence. But that then caused 32 spectators from the Melbourne Victory active supporters group to run to support those that had been caught trying to steal the South Melbourne banner. An extensive violent exchange then occurred between Melbourne Victory and South Melbourne. The instigators were Melbourne Victory and the aggressors were Melbourne Victory. Fortunately, there was a barricade between the Melbourne Victory supporters and the South Melbourne supporters. The video evidence shows a number of hard physical blows being delivered by Melbourne Victory supporters to the face and body of South Melbourne supporters. This was all done in the presence of children and a special needs spectator. It was an unsightly and anti-social display. It was also extremely dangerous in that one or a number of South Melbourne supporters could have been badly injured. The behaviour of the Melbourne Victory supporters was that of a group of young men obtaining enjoyment from the physical conflict and the adrenalin rush that it caused. They supported each other and encouraged each other in their unruly, anti-social and dangerous behaviour. Fortunately, much if not most of the behaviour was caught on video. Some of the spectators must have known that the South Melbourne banner was to be stolen (as this was approximately 150 metres across the pitch from where they were sitting) and that their support could be required. Many of them had clothing and sunglasses to cover their faces. The game was played in warm conditions and at night. There was no need for sunglasses or clothing to cover faces. This meant that the process of identifying the wrongdoers has been made all the more difficult. After the fixture, Melbourne Victory set about identifying the wrongdoers and bring them to justice both from the point of view of the FFV and Victoria Police. They spent a considerable period of time reviewing the video footage and then cooperating with Victoria Police at subsequent games in order to identify eight of the wrongdoers. Those wrongdoers were some of the 17 that were the subject of charges that we heard on 23 May 2016.

4 Melbourne Victory has indicated that they will continue to carry out investigations to identify further members of the 32 supporters who ran around the field and attacked South Melbourne on the day of the fixture. At the hearing, Mr McLeod gave evidence about his role with the supporters group and the interaction between him on behalf of Melbourne Victory and other clubs. He is the first to hold such a position with a premier league club. Mr Robson, the club Chief Executive gave evidence about the attitude of the club to the behaviour. He was a credible and respected Chief Executive of a sporting club that is in an unfortunate and difficult position. He said that the violence that occurred was abhorrent to Melbourne Victory. It was and is a successful football club with many more supporters than those who misbehaved. It has a turnover of in the vicinity of $19 million and spends a significant six figure sum on security at its games. Analysis and decision The objectives in the GDT are to encourage participation in football, to improve and advance football as a spectator sport and to provide a safe and secure playing and spectator environment. These objectives were not achieved on the day of the fixture. Our role is to effect appropriate deterrence of any further similar behaviour. On the one hand, we recognise that: 1. Melbourne Victory is a leader in the provision of security at football games. 2. There was extensive consultation in respect of security for this game involving both clubs, the FFV and Victoria Police. 3. Save for the fact that banned spectators did actually gain entry the increased security standards were to the standards agreed. 4. Melbourne Victory has provided considerable support and assistance to FFV and this has led to charges against 17 of the 32 wrongdoers. 5. Melbourne Victory has agreed that it will continue working to identify more of the 32 wrongdoers with a view to bringing them to justice so far as the FFV and Victoria Police are concerned. But on the other hand, we recognise that: 1. We are obliged to enforce the GDT having regard to the objectives set out in the GDT. In particular, to ensure that the game is safe and secure for spectators. 2. Not penalising Melbourne Victory might be seen as encouragement of further wrongdoing. The fact is the spectators go to support a team. If the team is penalised, then the supporters will see that their behaviour has a negative impact on the team that they support. 3. The supporters charged refused to assist in identifying the other people involved when asked to do so by Mr McLeod and this Tribunal.

5 4. Notwithstanding the agreed increased standards of security, the banned spectators gained entry and other spectators were not safe. 5. Violence at football is now a threat to the game itself. Like the FFV, Mr Robson said that he wants to encourage families to attend the game. But they will not attend the game if this situation is allowed to occur. The documents we were provided with show that on 28 March 2015, in an away game against the Ballarat Red Devils, Melbourne Victory supporters were involved in flare activity. The club was fined $1,000. Furthermore, at the hearing we were told that the week after this game, even with hindsight of this fixture, the game at Epping was not without incident. No charges were laid against any person however anti-social activity occurred in connection with the match albeit outside the stadium. Both Mr McLeod and Mr Robson were believable and credible witnesses who were plainly committed to the game of football and the advancement of it as a spectator sport in Victoria. Both Mr McLeod and Mr Robson were adamant that fines imposed upon Melbourne Victory would have no impact on the behaviour of the Club Associates. They did not pay the fines and the fine would not therefore have any impact upon their behaviour. Mr Robson was concerned about the impact of the behaviour upon families that he wanted to attract to the game and other stakeholders who contributed to the revenue base necessary to run the club. Mr McLeod was adamant that what was required was more surveillance and the banning of misbehaving spectators. We have elected not to fine Melbourne Victory for what occurred for four reasons. First we accept the credible evidence of Mr McLeod and Mr Robson that fines will have no detrimental effect. Second, Melbourne Victory took all reasonable steps to prevent that which ultimately occurred. Third, it is their staff members who are responsible for gathering the evidence that has led to 17 spectators being banned from the game. Fourth, after an initial discussion with the panel Melbourne Victory pleaded guilty to the charge. As a matter of deterrence, and to support the objectives of the GDT, if supporters of clubs see that clubs will be penalised for violent supporter behaviour then supporters will exert social pressure on each other not to misbehave and particularly not to be violent. If their fellow spectators know who they are, they will hopefully identify them for the benefit of the FFV and the Victoria Police. To do otherwise might penalise the team that they support. Presently, it is only due to the hard work of the Club that 17 wrongdoers have been identified. If the supporters knew that the conduct of the unruly supporters might affect the team that they all support, then they might assist the FFV and Victoria Police in stamping out this behaviour. If the supporters were aware that their behaviour might cause the team to suffer a penalty then they might calm each other down rather than winding each other up and inflaming the situation, which is what occurred. Having regard to the above, we have resolved to deduct 6 championship points from the Melbourne Victory team and furthermore, suspend the deduction of a further 6 points for a period

6 of 12 months from the date of this decision. This means that if Melbourne Victory supporters commit the same offence within 12 months from the date of this decision, then a further 6 points will be deducted from the team. The FFV will have a discretion to charge Melbourne Victory during the period of suspension and this discretion should be exercised having regard to the matters referred to in this decision. It is our experience from sitting on this Tribunal that Mr McLeod s evidence that surveillance is a key deterrent of this behaviour is correct. The FFV Match Day Risk and Security Policy which was only released in April 2016 provides that for high risk games there is to be a minimum of two cameras to be located at different points around the ground. Having regard to what has occurred and particularly the difficulty in identifying the wrong doers, if this behaviour were to occur again and Melbourne Victory did not have two videos in prominent positions directed at its active supporter group then it might be said to have not taken steps to prevent the risk of this behaviour occurring again. A superficial reading of this decision might lead to a conclusion that we are critical of Melbourne Victory. We are not. This decision has not been taken lightly. Melbourne Victory did everything that was asked of it and considered reasonable and necessary at the time. But the violence still took place. This decision has been made because the culture of violence at football games must be brought to an end. All spectators at the game deserve to be safe. It will be clear from these reasons that there is an expectation that clubs will work hard to stamp this type of behaviour out. Clubs who do not do so can expect severe penalties. Clubs, spectators, and players are all beneficiaries of the league. The league must be protected from this behaviour if it is to survive and prosper. Mr Robson in his evidence was justifiably concerned about the effect on the club of the events that took place and the penalty that might be imposed upon it. The purpose of the penalty is for this Tribunal to exercise its powers to change the behaviour of supporters. Our wish is that there will be flow on effects to other clubs when their supporters realise that violence on their part can cause harm to the team that they support. The purpose of this decision is to protect the game of football and the spectators. All other teams and in particular their Associates ought to be aware that violence will not be tolerated, particularly in this case where many of the perpetrators have not even been identified, much less been brought to justice. Penalties imposed We impose the following penalties upon Melbourne Victory: 1. Melbourne Victory take all reasonable steps to identify all of the wrongdoers at the fixture and bring them to justice both before the Grievance and Disciplinary Tribunal and also Victoria Police.

7 2. That 6 championship points be deducted from the Melbourne Victory team and furthermore, there be a further 6 points deducted, such deduction to be suspended for 12 months from the date of this decision. The 6 penalty points the subject of suspension shall become actual points deducted from Melbourne Victory should it commit the same offence. Dated: 23 June 2016 Andrew Stops Sam Norton Elizabeth Seddon