|
In order to address some of the inaccuracies and misconceptions related to the current situation between Fire fans (as represented by the Section 8 Chicago ISA) and the Chicago Fire Soccer Club (as well as their contracted representatives, Toyota Park and Monterrey Security), we have prepared this FAQ -- a set of the most frequent questions recieved and their answers. The ISA wishes to remain as transparent and clear in their representation as possible, in order to foster its maximum effectiveness in reaching a satisfactory conclusion. *** PLEASE CHECK BACK REGULARLY AS QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS WILL BE UPDATED *** What exactly happened to Sector Latino on August 2nd against Chivas?
Why do you want Monterrey Security removed from Toyota Park?
- We should be clear that there was never a demand for Monterrey to be removed from Toyota Park. Our request was for a new security plan for the supporters' area that does not involve any interaction with Monterrey personnel, to maximise the safety of all fans.
- Over the years, there has been numerous reports of inappropriate and abusive behaviour towards fans by Monterrey Security across the stadium. Many meetings with Monterrey and promises of change have led to nothing but regression in their behavior.
Did you ask the Fire to publicly acknowledge they are racist?
- No. On Monday, we asked that for our meeting on Wednesday, the Fire acknowledge the inappropriate incidents that had been directed towards Sector Latino, so that we could agree on the basis of the problem and work towards a mutually agreeable solution. At no time did the ISA request the Fire call a press conference or issue a press release admitting to racism.
- Ultimately it is the Fire ownership's responsibility to ensure that all representatives of the club, including security personnel, are there to protect all patrons from abuse whether physical or verbal.
When were the Chicago Fire front office first informed of the complaints of racial abuse?
- Members of Section 8 contacted representatives within 48 hours of the Chivas game on Saturday, August 2. Section 8 Chicago then held a public meeting to discuss the incidents on Wednesday, August 6.
What was the Chicago Fire's response once they had heard the details in the Monday, August 11 meeting?
- The Fire promised to return on Wednesday with a response. Their response to Section 8's written concerns did not address the complaints of racial abuse, but instead focused on ticketing issues and to state unequivocally that Monterrey will remain.
- The Fire also issued a list of new rules, both stadiumwide and for Section 8, restricting musical instruments, banner size, banning flagpoles, and reneging on the preseason agreement that section 117 would be a General Admission/Standing Room supporters' area. As these issues were not raised prior to Wednesday's meeting, it appears to be a punitive measure in response to our concerns, effectively diminishing the section's ability to continue its traditional celebration.
- When pressed, the Fire again refused to acknowledge any inappropriate activity took place on Aug. 2nd, making further discussion at that time fruitless.
Why did you refuse to meet with Monterrey head Juan Gaytan on Wednesday?
- We have not stated that we would never meet with Monterrey Security. As the issues we wished to discuss were with the Chicago Fire on an organizational level, we dealt directly with them in initial meetings. We objected to meeting with Juan Gaytan when he showed up unannounced at Toyota Park for a meeting we had scheduled with the Chicago Fire on Wednesday, Aug. 13th. There remains a possibility of a meeting with Monterrey at some point in the future under pre-arranged circumstances with an agenda for discussion. We do not wish to be hijacked into a meeting with Gaytan on zero notice, and this does not affect our requests to have them removed from direct oversight in the supporters area of the stadium.
Isn't it unreasonable to ask the Fire to have Monterrey removed from the stadium?
- Andell Holdings manages Toyota Park and is the owner of the Chicago Fire, the biggest and most important tenant of the stadium. As such we are approaching Andell Holdings with a solution to the problems. Both D.C. United and the New York Red Bulls have implemented similar alternative security plans and we believe it is a reasonable and appropriate request.
- It should be clear there was never a demand for Monterrey to be removed outright. Our request was a new security plan for the supporters' area that limits any interaction with Monterrey personnel to maximise the safety of all fans.
Why don't you consider a compromise, such as an alternate security arrangement for Section 8?
- We have offered several. In the Monday meeting we suggested two comparable arrangements, already used in MLS, where supporters' groups have had issues with abusive security and have had it resolved by security being moved away from their sections, but still remaining in the stadium at large.
Were Sector Latino drunk like Blanco claimed?
- It is our understanding that Blanco was not in the stadium for the game on August 2. Prior to that game, Blanco had never interacted with any members of Sector Latino before or after a game. He could not have known whether or not SL were drunk.
- The claim is completely unfounded as noted in the Tribune article. To the contrary, other supporters in the section can confirm that SL were not drunk.
- Although it's not true, the claim is irrelevant as drunkenness would not be an excuse for racial abuse of patrons at Toyota Park under any circumstances.
- It is worth noting that Blanco's translator and personal bodyguard is Juan Gaytan - President and Owner of Monterrey Security.
Why did you contact the media?
- We did not contact the media ourselves. We were contacted by the Tribune regarding an article they were already writing. In the interests of accurately representing our position in the matter, we felt it necessary to respond to their inquests.
What is your initial protest going to be?
- We plan to stay silent and seated through the first half. This was an extremely difficult decision, as we are obviously always the most vocally supportive area of the stadium and the match is such an important one -- but we felt this would draw attention to the situation. There will also be a banner used addressing the situation.
What if nothing changes?
- We will allow the club time to react and open dialogue after Saturday, Aug. 16th. If no movement occurs before the next home match, we will continue with an escalating series of protest actions.
Trackback(0)
|