Are Chelsea fans different from Rangers fans?

  Joe R 17:32 22 May 2008
Locked

Firstly I should state that I am a Celtic fan myself, but feel that the press have treated two similar instances, with completely different coverage.

For almost the full week after the UEFA cup final last week, pages and pages of news were devoted to the shame and brutality of the Rangers supporters, involved with clashes with Manchester police, during and after the game, but on lifting the newspapers today, there is a twenty five word, two inch column on the inner pages, reporting on riot police baton charging two hundred chelsea fans in fulham, after they had been pelted with bottles and glasses.

Now I in no way condone what happened in Manchester last week, but surely any instances of football violence, should be reported on in the same way, or is there a bias being brought into play here/

  Legolas 19:44 22 May 2008

It might be because it was too late to make the papers there might be more tomorrow. One side effect of some of the Rangers fans misbehaviour is that Man U have been denied a procession through the city

Joe R

I think you are right in alot of what you say but a true supporter would not act in this way (CFC fan myself)

  bluesbrother 20:06 22 May 2008

Certainly not too late for the BBC click here but I can't find any mention of it.

  Stuartli 00:50 23 May 2008

Such news will probably be more extensively reported on a local level - unlikely that Scottish papers would make too much of such an incident.

In any case, I suspect that the Manchester incidents didn't involve genuine Rangers supporters.

  Monument 06:59 23 May 2008

The Chelsea incident was widely reported but was far less serious or sustained than what occurred in Manchester.

BBC- click here

Times - click here

The Manchester story had legs because of the attack on the individual police officer captured on CCTV and the subsequent follow ups on the ex soldier who went to his aid.

To suggest that the fans who ran riot were not "genuine Rangers supporters" is to bury ones head in the sand.

  Chegs ®™ 07:01 23 May 2008

I can see your point about coverage of either incident but its less newsworthy each successive incident.My view also is that the morons that partake in these incidents are identified and prosecuted with the same kind of sentence issued as was given to prisoners rioting some years ago.Being handed lengthy sentences definitely reduced the incidents and made the prisoners realise that any problems could be resolved by talking to whichever dept knew how to help rather than wrecking the whole jail.Banning them from further matches isnt sufficient punishment(as I despise football,so banning from any matches would be more of a favour to me)

  Stuartli 09:53 23 May 2008

>>To suggest that the fans who ran riot were not "genuine Rangers supporters" is to bury ones head in the sand.>>

I don't bury my head in the sand and I stand by my comment - as a journalist of more than 40 years' experience I am probably more likely to be aware of stories that will be of particular interest in certain areas.

The point I was making, if you care to reflect on it, is that these so-called Rangers supporters probably went just for a few days on the razzle.

The Chelsea incident almost certainly included those who do/probably attend Stamford Bridge, in view of the area in which it took place; some Chelsea fans have long held a reputation for violence as most will be well aware.

  Bingalau 10:31 23 May 2008

Stuartli. Your post brings to mind the wrecking of the Wembley pitch by Scottish fans, probably a good percentage of those were genuine Rangers supporters too.

But I agree that an awful lot of the fans in Manchester that day were there just for a boozy day out. It's a shame that they have spoiled other people's chance of enjoying Manchester United's homecoming ceremony. I'm not a United fan, but as an Evertonian I remember the disappointment of being kept out of European competitions by the misbehaviour of other team's so called fans.

  Monument 12:09 23 May 2008

I am disillusioned with those who always claim that people responsible for football violence are not "true' fans. It is absolute nonsense.

I have been present on tens of occasions when serious incidents of disorder have occurred and it was always the "diehard, watch every match" type involved.

The Rangers fans went to Manchester to be "present at the final" whether they had tickets or not. Many fans do this whether they follow a team or country.

Bingalau, strange as an Evertonian you did not mention whose fans led to the banning of English teams in Europe.

  Stuartli 12:50 23 May 2008

>>Bingalau, strange as an Evertonian you did not mention whose fans led to the banning of English teams in Europe.>>

Nothing strange about it. It's very well known who the team is that is involved.

>>I am disillusioned with those who always claim that people responsible for football violence are not "true' fans. It is absolute nonsense.>>

True fans attend as many matches as possible, home or away; you should also note I used the words "I suspect that.." and did not claim anything otherwise.

I also completely fail to see how a six-figure number of so called "true" fans who descended on Manchester bears any relation to the average Ibrox gate of 47,406 (ground capacity is 50,411) for the 2007-2008 season.

As Rangers, IIRC, had far fewer cup final tickets available for fans than their average gate, I would suggest that the overwhelming number of those in the ground would be genuine supporters.

Incidentally, a few years ago I used the Glasgow underground tube system from the Govan area on a Rangers match day.

The behaviour of the hundreds of Rnngers fans was exemplary, both going to and coming back from the match.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

Galaxy Note 8 vs iPhone X

Awful clip art from 1994 is being tweeted every hour by a bot

iPhone X vs Samsung Galaxy Note 8

Les meilleurs navigateurs internet 2017