TRA deemed as 'high-risk fans' and are now being punished after organising a peaceful sit-in protest.

[Tyrion]

Because the club have shown themselves to be such a trustworthy bunch so their version simply must be the “truth”?

No-one should trust anything they say at this point. They've been shown to be untrustworthy with the super league, those PL "reforms", Greenwood and a hundred other things.

Any public statement by them means nothing. I take it as seriously as I would any random tweet.

 

[Big Ben Foster]

Anyone know what the 1958 are planning to announce tomorrow? They’ve been counting down all week.

Second annual Richard Arnold beer summit

 

[#88]

Interesting to read the Clubs response. What looked like a statement that would curtail TRA narrative,
has fallen on deaf ears of many Internet Reds, that keep recycling comments TRA are banned from having their section/allocation.
When in fact, it was TRA who told the Club they were not taking up the allocation.

The Club is winning on this one.

 

[#88]

Expected to be honest. I'd have to say that this is the club's doing. The 1958 must have hit a nerve.

They have hit the washing lines and the bed sheets, taking advantage of the warm days and in-expectant homemakers.

As yet, they haven't done anything that the LUHG movements of a decade past didn't try.

Interesting to see what today's news is.

 

[RedDevilQuebecois]

Second annual Richard Arnold beer summit

feck him and feck his fascist bosses.

There is no room to talk anymore as soon as cops with riot helmets as part of their gear got inside Old Trafford during the sit-in. Now what kind of message was that to have the coppers in during a peaceful protest?

 

[Rood]

Interesting to read the Clubs response. What looked like a statement that would curtail TRA narrative,
has fallen on deaf ears of many Internet Reds, that keep recycling comments TRA are banned from having their section/allocation.
When in fact, it was TRA who told the Club they were not taking up the allocation.

The Club is winning on this one.

TRA need to clarify - as far as I can see they haven't actually said anything about this on their own social channels, it just came from an unconnected account

 

[#88]

feck him and feck his fascist bosses.

There is no room to talk anymore as soon as cops with riot helmets as part of their gear got inside Old Trafford during the sit-in. Now what kind of message was that to have the coppers in during a peaceful protest?

Without wanting to discredit the Groups TRA and 1958 in their entirety (they do contribute positively), there is an element of that are in the toilets before games getting their kicks and more that are on the beer. Its been widely published that the sit-in was going to take place, and no doubt risk assessed.
If it did all kick off, and the Club and GMP didn't have a proportionate response to a fall-out, from what was widely known was to take place, heads would roll.

 

[#88]

TRA need to clarify - as far as I can see they haven't actually said anything about this on their own social channels, it just came from an unconnected account

It has been clarified by TRA. They refused to take the section in SERS,
They were due to have A Stand for Palace and 1st Home CL Game but the Club wouldn't facilitate.

 

[Rood]

It has been clarified by TRA. They refused to take the section in SERS,
They were due to have A Stand for Palace and 1st Home CL Game but the Club wouldn't facilitate.

where did they clarify ? I havent seen any statement from the TRA

and why would they want to move from SERS anyway when they just had safe standing installed?

 

[#88]

where did they clarify ? I havent seen any statement from the TRA

and why would they want to move from SERS anyway when they just had safe standing installed?

Via their member channels.

The don't want away from SERS, they want a second part of the stadium closer to the Away Fans. They had this on Trial last Season if you remember.
But the carpet has been pulled from under them more use of A-Stand. This is because, the Police classed them as a 'Risk Group' if they were to be put closer to Away Fans (I can only presume, but its common sense. i.e Vocal United Fans next to Away Fans = a Risk)

 

[Rood]

Via their member channels.

The don't want away from SERS, they want a second part of the stadium closer to the Away Fans. They had this on Trial last Season if you remember.
But the carpet has been pulled from under them more use of A-Stand. This is because, the Police classed them as a 'Risk Group' if they were to be put closer to Away Fans (I can only presume, but its common sense. i.e Vocal United Fans next to Away Fans = a Risk)

They should put out a public statement - would end all this nonsense quite quickly.

Unsurprising that the police wouldn't want them close to the Away fans and then it's GMP not the club who classed them as a 'Risk Group'.

In my opinion makes more sense for them to grow around SERS rather than get a whole different section.

 

[JB7]

Interesting to read the Clubs response. What looked like a statement that would curtail TRA narrative,
has fallen on deaf ears of many Internet Reds, that keep recycling comments TRA are banned from having their section/allocation.
When in fact, it was TRA who told the Club they were not taking up the allocation.

The Club is winning on this one.

I'm not really sure how you have come to this conclusion to be honest. TRA have never said that they have been banned from running the section and the club statement didn't say they had either. If that is what anyone has chosen to believe then that is on them. They have taken the decision to not run the section for the Crystal Palace and Galatasaray games initially and likely any further cup matches until this is sorted out (the only reason the section will still run for league games is because the seat moves have already been processed for all games up to the Aston Villa game on Boxing Day) to protect its members. I say protect because any members of any group being deemed as ‘risk’ at football are more likely to be subject to prejudicial treatment should they come to the attention of authorities at or around football.

For those unaware, this largely centres around the use of A-Stand, a small block of around 500 seats at the top of the South Stand next to the away supporters (for league games it is actually usually a part of the away supporters section unless they don't take their full allocation, so this was only looked at for cup matches - for clarity while it is part of the usual "away end" it is in a different stand and on a different level to the rest of the "away end" so it's not as though there would only be meshing across seats separating supporters) which TRA was given last season for a few cup games, including Nottingham Forest in the Carabao semi final and Barcelona in the Europa League. TRA has always had the aim of delivering atmosphere around the ground rather segregating it to one section so having a vocal presence next to the away fans, which most clubs do by the way - this is not an ask that is unusual or uncommon around Premier League football, is an important step towards the back and forth usually heard between supporters at matches which is rarely possible at Old Trafford due to the acoustics of the stadium stopping the away fans from hearing the Stretford End and the Stretford End hearing the away fans. After the Barcelona match, as per the clubs statement, TRA was informed they were deemed a risk group and were told they could not run in A-Stand.

United's statement that they told TRA in May that they were not considered a risk group appears to be correct, however they have neglected to mention that they also told TRA that as they were no longer considered a risk, that they would be able to continue use of A-Stand for the 23/24 season - this appears consistent as TRA communicated with its members back in late May or early June that they had been given assurances around A-Stand IIRC. United's statement also didn't mention that they cut the seating allocation for TRA in the Stretford End by 600 seats for the 23/24 season.

The section of TRA's statement, which United quoted in their email/statement, said "approximately 2 weeks ago we were given information that led us to believe TRA has been classified as a ‘risk group’." United's statement quotes it, but does not actually respond to it. The two week timeframe referred to is consistent with United refusing the use of A-Stand for the first two cup matches of the 23/24 season, Crystal Palace and Galatasaray. However United's statement refers back to conversations in March-May, not two weeks ago. They don't give any comment or reason why they reneged on their agreement to give A-Stand to TRA for this season's cup games, which I imagine is a large part of the reason why TRA believe they are still considered a risk group and as such are not willing to put their members at risk.

You would hope that the club and TRA are in contact with a view to rectifying this issue in time for the section to run against Copenhagen.

TRA need to clarify - as far as I can see they haven't actually said anything about this on their own social channels, it just came from an unconnected account

No, they don't need to do anything further. TRA need to communicate with the football club and it's members, which is exactly what they have done. United last night emailed all STH/CSTH/members who are part of TRA, that would have been sufficient - they then chose to inexplicably publish the same statement for the world to see. United have chosen to blow the matter wide open, not TRA.

 

[#88]

They should put out a public statement - would end all this nonsense quite quickly.

Unsurprising that the police wouldn't want them close to the Away fans and then it's GMP not the club who classed them as a 'Risk Group'.

In my opinion makes more sense for them to grow around SERS rather than get a whole different section.

I don't think they will put out a statement saying 'we refused to take up our allocation for the League Cup and CL Game', when the narrative has been TRA have been refused their section / banned and are a risk. Big Bad United/Glazers.

The latter narrative for TRA and 1958 suits much better. And it would have worked if United did not issue that statement.

The SERS is good to have. But you cant hear them from the half way line down to East Stand for the majority of the time, due to the acoustics.
Wolves and Forest games, they were particularity flat.

 

[Rood]

@JB7 sure TRA don't need to do it and It looks like it's United People's TV who are to blame here for posting misinformation (I don't know if it started with them or they just regurgitating as these kind of accounts do)

But as soon as that kind of thing starts appearing on places like here and going viral (I saw the same story in other groups I'm a member of) then surely it makes sense for the TRA to clarify

 

[#88]

I'm not really sure how you have come to this conclusion to be honest. TRA have never said that they have been banned from running the section and the club statement didn't say they had either. If that is what anyone has chosen to believe then that is on them. They have taken the decision to not run the section for the Crystal Palace and Galatasaray games initially and likely any further cup matches until this is sorted out (the only reason the section will still run for league games is because the seat moves have already been processed for all games up to the Aston Villa game on Boxing Day) to protect its members. I say protect because any members of any group being deemed as ‘risk’ at football are more likely to be subject to prejudicial treatment should they come to the attention of authorities at or around football.

For those unaware, this largely centres around the use of A-Stand, a small block of around 500 seats at the top of the South Stand next to the away supporters (for league games it is actually usually a part of the away supporters section unless they don't take their full allocation, so this was only looked at for cup matches - for clarity while it is part of the usual "away end" it is in a different stand and on a different level to the rest of the "away end" so it's not as though there would only be meshing across seats separating supporters) which TRA was given last season for a few cup games, including Nottingham Forest in the Carabao semi final and Barcelona in the Europa League. TRA has always had the aim of delivering atmosphere around the ground rather segregating it to one section so having a vocal presence next to the away fans, which most clubs do by the way - this is not an ask that is unusual or uncommon around Premier League football, is an important step towards the back and forth usually heard between supporters at matches which is rarely possible at Old Trafford due to the acoustics of the stadium stopping the away fans from hearing the Stretford End and the Stretford End hearing the away fans. After the Barcelona match, as per the clubs statement, TRA was informed they were deemed a risk group and were told they could not run in A-Stand.

United's statement that they told TRA in May that they were not considered a risk group appears to be correct, however they have neglected to mention that they also told TRA that as they were no longer considered a risk, that they would be able to continue use of A-Stand for the 23/24 season - this appears consistent as TRA communicated with its members back in late May or early June that they had been given assurances around A-Stand IIRC. United's statement also didn't mention that they cut the seating allocation for TRA in the Stretford End by 600 seats for the 23/24 season.

The section of TRA's statement, which United quoted in their email/statement, said "approximately 2 weeks ago we were given information that led us to believe TRA has been classified as a ‘risk group’." United's statement quotes it, but does not actually respond to it. The two week timeframe referred to is consistent with United refusing the use of A-Stand for the first two cup matches of the 23/24 season, Crystal Palace and Galatasaray. However United's statement refers back to conversations in March-May, not two weeks ago. They don't give any comment or reason why they reneged on their agreement to give A-Stand to TRA for this season's cup games, which I imagine is a large part of the reason why TRA believe they are still considered a risk group and as such are not willing to put their members at risk.

You would hope that the club and TRA are in contact with a view to rectifying this issue in time for the section to run against Copenhagen.


No, they don't need to do anything further. TRA need to communicate with the football club and it's members, which is exactly what they have done. United last night emailed all STH/CSTH/members who are part of TRA, that would have been sufficient - they then chose to inexplicably publish the same statement for the world to see. United have chosen to blow the matter wide open, not TRA.

TRA Statement Headline, which was widely shared 'TRA classed as 'risk group' not running for Palace or Galatasaray' was put out for a self serving purpose. It misrepresents the situation. So much so, that Manchester United needed to make another statement this week, contextualizing the situation.

 

[#88]

@JB7 sure TRA don't need to do it and It looks like it's United People's TV who are to blame here for posting misinformation (I don't know if it started with them or they just regurgitating as these kind of accounts do)

But as soon as that kind of thing starts appearing on places like here and going viral (I saw the same story in other groups I'm a member of) then surely it makes sense for the TRA to clarify

You could bet your bottom dollar that they would have refuted any mass social media claims if they were negative.

What happened was: Ambiguous statement, grew legs as anticipated. Club interjected.

 

[JB7]

TRA Statement Headline, which was widely shared 'TRA classed as 'risk group' not running for Palace or Galatasaray' was put out for a self serving purpose. It misrepresents the situation. So much so, that Manchester United needed to make another statement this week, contextualizing the situation.

It doesn't misrepresent anything. It isn't running for Palace or Galatasaray and they do believe they are categorised as a risk group. The same banner you have quoted, and conveniently ignored, also says "click for more details" which takes you to their full statement. Which is where they say exactly what your previous post said they wouldn't, that it was their decision, following a vote, not to run for those games.

The "United Peoples TV" twitter page (whatever the feck that is supposed to be) has posted a screenshot of the banner from TRA's app, as they were logged into the app, they could have posted a screenshot of TRA's statement as well if they had wanted to but seemingly they chose not to do so. So if you want to blame anyone for a supposed "self-serving purpose" blame "United Peoples TV", not TRA as TRA haven't put anything into the public domain at all, only "United People's TV" and the club itself have.

 

[#88]

It doesn't misrepresent anything. It isn't running for Palace or Galatasaray and they do believe they are categorised as a risk group. The same banner you have quoted, and conveniently ignored, also says "click for more details" which takes you to their full statement. Which is where they say exactly what your previous post said they wouldn't, that it was their decision, following a vote, not to run for those games.

The "United Peoples TV" twitter page (whatever the feck that is supposed to be) has posted a screenshot of the banner from TRA's app, as they were logged into the app, they could have posted a screenshot of TRA's statement as well if they had wanted to but seemingly they chose not to do so. So if you want to blame anyone for a supposed "self-serving purpose" blame "United Peoples TV", not TRA as TRA haven't put anything into the public domain at all, only "United People's TV" and the club itself have.

Who am I to blame anyone? And why would anyone care what I think. The Headline was put out for attention, it went viral on the Red Channels with the Club getting involved and releasing a statement. Do you accept that the Club had to outline their position as they too thought there was misinformation / misrepresentation (by fan channels or whomever). For the week they had with statements, I am sure they could have done without it.

But as @Rood mentioned, TRA were not very forthcoming on dispelling the misinformation that Fan Channel had stoked. I believe this is because it served their and the 1958 purpose.

TRA has since clarified what their statement meant (to their members). This too leads to a good possibility that there own members were led to believe that TRA was refused SERS and not the other way round. (or they wouldn't have had to reiterate / explain over the past 24hrs)

 

[JB7]

Who am I to blame anyone? And why would anyone care what I think. The Headline was put out for attention, it went viral on the Red Channels with the Club getting involved and releasing a statement. Do you accept that the Club had to outline their position as they too thought there was misinformation / misrepresentation (by fan channels or whomever). For the week they had with statements, I am sure they could have done without it.

But as @Rood mentioned, TRA were not very forthcoming on dispelling the misinformation that Fan Channel had stoked. I believe this is because it served their and the 1958 purpose.

TRA has since clarified what their statement meant (to their members). This too leads to a good possibility that there own members were led to believe that TRA was refused SERS and not the other way round. (or they wouldn't have had to reiterate / explain over the past 24hrs)

Because the point you continue to miss is that the headline wasn't "put out" anywhere other than TRA's own app, which is the exact same place as the full statement was "put out".

TRA's statement to it's members came first - as such no TRA members were led to believe that the club had blocked TRA from running for those games. The only people that have ever believed that are people who follow the United pages that have screenshotted one thing and created a narrative, which is exactly what "United Peoples TV" have done with the comments alongside the headline screenshot, the headline that was literally a link to the statement by the way. They could have screenshotted the statement where TRA explained to it's members that they had taken the decision not to run the section for those two games, but they did not do so.

I'm not sure where you've got this "reiterate / explain" nonsense from either. The timeline was quite literally as follows: around 2pm TRA statement; around 7pm, United email to affected supporters and public statement. That's it.

 

[#88]

Because the point you continue to miss is that the headline wasn't "put out" anywhere other than TRA's own app, which is the exact same place as the full statement was "put out".

TRA's statement to it's members came first - as such no TRA members were led to believe that the club had blocked TRA from running for those games. The only people that have ever believed that are people who follow the United pages that have screenshotted one thing and created a narrative, which is exactly what "United Peoples TV" have done with the comments alongside the headline screenshot, the headline that was literally a link to the statement by the way. They could have screenshotted the statement where TRA explained to it's members that they had taken the decision not to run the section for those two games, but they did not do so.

I'm not sure where you've got this "reiterate / explain" nonsense from either. The timeline was quite literally as follows: around 2pm TRA statement; around 7pm, United email to affected supporters and public statement. That's it.

I know what you are eluding to. TRA had a click bait headline, that some dope read as gospel, while not clicking to get the full SP.
This manifested into something bigger, that suited the agenda of TRA and their 1958 counterparts. Neither clarified that situation and let it roll.
United came and clarified for those who saw the attention seeking headline, but didn't click the story, to put on record that it was the TRA who advised they would not be taking the SERS allocation for the next two cup games.

However. I know for a fact that there were some (many) TRA members who thought TRA had been blocked by the Club.
Check out the forum with them asking for clarification and TRA providing the clarification.

It was these guys that picked up the baton on the proviso that TRA were blacklisted, many being the biggest mouths online.

Another thing that is comical, is the latest notion that TRA expected to be treated like any other of the fan base as they don't pose a higher risk than anyone else in the ground (specifically speaking to A Stand), and that is why they should be allowed a section there.
If they cannot see why 500 TRA members are more of a Risk next to Galatasaray fans than the usual Main Stand dwellers, then they are lost.

 

[JB7]

I know what you are eluding to. TRA had a click bait headline, that some dope read as gospel, while not clicking to get the full SP.
This manifested into something bigger, that suited the agenda of TRA and their 1958 counterparts. Neither clarified that situation and let it roll.
United came and clarified for those who saw the attention seeking headline, but didn't click the story, to put on record that it was the TRA who advised they would not be taking the SERS allocation for the next two cup games.

However. I know for a fact that there were some (many) TRA members who thought TRA had been blocked by the Club.
Check out the forum with them asking for clarification and TRA providing the clarification.

It was these guys that picked up the baton on the proviso that TRA were blacklisted, many being the biggest mouths online.

Another thing that is comical, is the latest notion that TRA expected to be treated like any other of the fan base as they don't pose a higher risk than anyone else in the ground (specifically speaking to A Stand), and that is why they should be allowed a section there.
If they cannot see why 500 TRA members are more of a Risk next to Galatasaray fans than the usual Main Stand dwellers, then they are lost.

That is on those members though. TRA could not have been more clear over the past several years that they publish all information for members on their app and forum. If certain members are stupid enough to not click a link that literally says "click for more details" and would rather get their information from fancam type social media pages that do have access to the full story but only publish half of it to control a narrative then they probably shouldn't have access to the internet in the first place. I haven't seen any posts on TRA's forum where members think that the club have blocked TRA running for the cup games, there have been questions about other matters but no posts where people think that the club have blocked TRA from running which is what appears to be the crux of the matter.

In fairness TRA very rarely clarify matters to those outside of TRA; rightly or wrongly most proper communications are done in house to their members (which has been the case for years). Also, just to be clear, TRA and 1958 aren't linked - so I'm not really sure why you are continually linking them in your posts.

As for the Galatasaray thing, I take the point and don't even necessarily disagree. And had that been explained to TRA by the club as the reason then we may not be in this position, but it clearly wasn't as it wasn't just that game was blocked. Both cup games being blocked shows that it's nothing to do with who the opponent is. It's also worth noting that the only major issues with away supporters last year was Barcelona fans throwing things at the disabled section in front of them (which would have been avoided by the club putting up netting around the away section like pretty much every other club during European games) but funnily enough not at TRA in the section next to them in A-Stand given those were supposedly the "risk" supporters - and with Betis fans during a game that TRA didn't have A-Stand (which also would have been avoided with netting).

Your posts come across that you are essentially holding TRA responsible for "United Peoples TV" screenshotting something off TRA's app that literally tells people to click it for details, but not screenshotting the details. That is simply not on TRA. United did not have to put their statement into the public domain, which has blown the matter up exponentially, and as I said earlier, doesn't even answer the section they have quoted from the earlier TRA statement.

 

[#88]

That is on those members though. TRA could not have been more clear over the past several years that they publish all information for members on their app and forum. If certain members are stupid enough to not click a link that literally says "click for more details" and would rather get their information from fancam type social media pages that do have access to the full story but only publish half of it to control a narrative then they probably shouldn't have access to the internet in the first place. I haven't seen any posts on TRA's forum where members think that the club have blocked TRA running for the cup games, there have been questions about other matters but no posts where people think that the club have blocked TRA from running which is what appears to be the crux of the matter.

In fairness TRA very rarely clarify matters to those outside of TRA; rightly or wrongly most proper communications are done in house to their members (which has been the case for years). Also, just to be clear, TRA and 1958 aren't linked - so I'm not really sure why you are continually linking them in your posts.

As for the Galatasaray thing, I take the point and don't even necessarily disagree. And had that been explained to TRA by the club as the reason then we may not be in this position, but it clearly wasn't as it wasn't just that game was blocked. Both cup games being blocked shows that it's nothing to do with who the opponent is. It's also worth noting that the only major issues with away supporters last year was Barcelona fans throwing things at the disabled section in front of them (which would have been avoided by the club putting up netting around the away section like pretty much every other club during European games) but funnily enough not at TRA in the section next to them in A-Stand given those were supposedly the "risk" supporters - and with Betis fans during a game that TRA didn't have A-Stand (which also would have been avoided with netting).

Your posts come across that you are essentially holding TRA responsible for "United Peoples TV" screenshotting something off TRA's app that literally tells people to click it for details, but not screenshotting the details. That is simply not on TRA. United did not have to put their statement into the public domain, which has blown the matter up exponentially, and as I said earlier, doesn't even answer the section they have quoted from the earlier TRA statement.

TRA were quick to expand on and explain the situation when they inadvertently led some of the elder United fans to the conclusion that they wanted older fans to be moved on, and replaced by younger ones. That blew up online and lead to quick and succinct messages of clarification from TRA.
-
It would seem certain members are 'stupid enough' not to read the full story in this case. What more is there to say.
-
TRA and 1958 are intertwined operationally and commercially. With the former holding the key to both doors of success for the 58.
Just in the past 10 minutes there were some clowns on twitter spaces discussing getting OT emptied - i wont go into detail but lets just say i would be surprised if they don't get a knock. This is what i find with both of the groupings... made up of a lot of knuckleheads that like to stand on tables, shout and be the center of attention.

 

[JB7]

TRA were quick to expand on and explain the situation when they inadvertently led some of the elder United fans to the conclusion that they wanted older fans to be moved on, and replaced by younger ones. That blew up online and lead to quick and succinct messages of clarification from TRA.
-
It would seem certain members are 'stupid enough' not to read the full story in this case. What more is there to say.
-
TRA and 1958 are intertwined operationally and commercially. With the former holding the key to both doors of success for the 58.
Just in the past 10 minutes there were some clowns on twitter spaces discussing getting OT emptied - i wont go into detail but lets just say i would be surprised if they don't get a knock. This is what i find with both of the groupings... made up of a lot of knuckleheads that like to stand on tables, shout and be the center of attention.

The critical difference there though was that came from something they had posted on Twitter about the average age of fans in the Stretford End, so they explained it where it had been posted as it was their own tweet that blew up.

1958 needing TRA to survive (which they do) doesn't really link them in my book, maybe if it was a two way relationship I'd agree but given it's very much a one way thing I'd just suggest that one needs the other, whereas the other exists on it's own two feet, did before the other was created and will long after the others sole objective has been achieved.

 

[#88]

The critical difference there though was that came from something they had posted on Twitter about the average age of fans in the Stretford End, so they explained it where it had been posted as it was their own tweet that blew up.

1958 needing TRA to survive (which they do) doesn't really link them in my book, maybe if it was a two way relationship I'd agree but given it's very much a one way thing I'd just suggest that one needs the other, whereas the other exists on it's own two feet, did before the other was created and will long after the others sole objective has been achieved.

Yes, but they used Twitter as the vehicle to quell the notion with regards to the age tweet. It worked to some extent.
And with the 'Classed as Risk Group / Not Running for Palace or Gala' - this could have been nipped in the bud through he same Twitter(x) vehicle, to their 18k followers (and lurkers). My point is, that it suited TRA for others to believe that they had been banned.
The situation was borne out of posts on Twitter(x).

I know the statement was released via their own site, to their own members.

Re: the links. If you know you know. If you don't I am not going to try and persuade you.

 

[ColvaleGoa]

 

[stw2022]

They seem like people who take themselves very seriously indeed.