For the security director of SC Bastia, “the club is not a victim of the disciplinary committee”

Having received a fine of 3,000 euros this week for throwing objects and firecrackers, SC Bastia is still affected by the partial closed session of its Armand-Cesari stadium. Sanctions which could have been heavier if the club had not taken measures against some of its supporters. Director of safety and security at SCB for three seasons, Jean-Louis Constant takes stock of the management of these incidents by Sporting.

Complete closed session for one match, partial closure of the South stand for five matches, fines for throwing objects and firecrackers.

Since the start of the season, Sporting Club de Bastia has been sanctioned several times by the disciplinary committee of the Professional Football League (LFP).

For its part, the club identified the troublemakers and issued stadium commercial bans (ICS) against them. A policy which contrasts with that of previous managements and which has apparently made it possible to attenuate certain sanctions with the authorities.

Director of security and safety of SCB for three seasons, Jean-Louis Constant explains the club’s position regarding the management of these incidents, while the Armand-Cesari stadium, where the return match of the derby is being played this Friday evening facing the ACA, is still affected by a partial closed session.

France 3 Corsica : SC Bastia has just received a fine of 3 000 euros for “use of pyrotechnic devices and throwing objects” following the meeting at Furiani against Guingamp. Did you expect a sanction of this order, knowing that the club is already hit by a partial closed session of the South stand ?

Jean-Louis Constant : I didn’t expect a higher sanction. There was identification work done on the object throws. We are therefore more sanctioned on the pyrotechnics part, namely agricultural bombs and firecrackers which were noted during this match.

I would like to point out that these facts can also sometimes occur when traveling on the continent. During the match at Red Star, we also had agricultural bombs and firecrackers. Despite all our good will, there was no identification but the file was closed. We therefore see that the disciplinary committee listens to us when we explain ourselves. Sometimes, by developing and arguing, we manage to classify files and, above all, move forward on subjects. For us, the club is not a victim of the disciplinary committee.

Following other incidents which took place on November 23 during the reception of Lorient, the stadium was hit with a match behind closed doors, then with a partial closed session of the South stand for five matches. Certain supporters at the origin of the excesses have been identified by the club which also filed a complaint. Do you confirm this information?

Yes. There were no complaints by name but complaints against X were filed by the club. There were serious incidents with an official (assistant referee, editor’s note) who was affected. And that is unacceptable. At Furiani, this must no longer happen and the limits must not be exceeded. If we let this happen, it will lead to other excesses. And that is precisely what we do not want.

What about commercial stadium bans (ICS)? Does this mean that a subscriber’s card is deactivated by the club?

If it’s a subscriber, yes, we do it this way. If the identified person is not a subscriber, however, we make sure to notify them that they will no longer be able, for a certain period of time, to use the Sporting Club de Bastia ticket office for all competitions.

How do you identify a troublemaker who is not a subscriber? With video surveillance?

It’s more difficult than for a subscriber. On our computer server, we cannot identify a anyone who is not a subscriber, you can’t look any further. So there is the video surveillance service then the security PC. At each match, the police are present because, above all, these are acts of delinquency. We, at club security, are not the stands police. As security director, I am there above all to ensure the smooth running of the meeting organization. We take care of security, which includes all searches and pat-downs. We also manage the medical side. In the event of a health concern for a spectator, we must immediately facilitate access to emergency services.

The security director in Bastia is neither a gendarme nor a grandstand policeman.

When a season ticket holder is commercially banned from attending a stadium, are they reimbursed for future matches they will no longer be able to attend? What are the clauses at this level?

The subscriber is not reimbursed under any circumstances because he is sanctioned by the club. It’s something that hangs in the face of every spectator in a stadium. This is valid in all professional football clubs: a subscriber can be banned from the stadium commercially if he has been identified as a troublemaker.

To date, regarding the SCB, how many people are banned commercially from the stadium?

Since the start of the season, we have had around ten people, both at home and away. We must indeed remember that we are responsible for our supporters at Furiani but also in the other stadiums where Sporting travels to play.

In previous years, what were the figures for commercial stadium bans? ?

There are more than last year at the same period. Afterwards, what must be understood is that the director of security in Bastia is neither a gendarme nor a police officer from the stands. Above all, he is a lover of the club, a “Blue”. The commercial stadium ban is the step before the legal stage. We talk with the supporters, we invite them to come and meet us at the club and we explain the situation. It is also educational work. We are not into repression. The club does not do the repression. That’s when it goes higher…

Your role is therefore also to avoid leading to criminal repression ?

Our goal is not to achieve repression. Unfortunately, we were entitled to this on certain files last year. Procedures have been put in place for certain supporters. Then I repeat it : at the SCB security directorate, we are neither police officers nor gendarmes. We really have other issues to manage, particularly on the new stadium, concerning accessibility. We would like to be more focused on these subjects than on those linked to discipline and repression.

In terms of audience management, there seems to be a difference in operation compared to previous managements of the club. Does this mean that today, we need to work more with the authorities in order to avoid excessively heavy sanctions? ?

During the last seminar with the security directors of the other clubs, we had the opportunity to speak with the president of the disciplinary committee. It appears that the sentences have been reduced. It is necessary to both provide explanations and have a results objective. If you victimize yourself, you have lost. And victimizing yourself when you’re wrong is a double whammy. Today, if one of our supporters throws a cup at someone on the pitch, it is the club’s responsibility. Afterwards, we must remain respectful, and not go into certain excesses that we can see at other stadiums.

We don’t give names but we work on pedagogy.

If we compare certain sanctions imposed on Sporting with those of other clubs for similar facts, is there, in your opinion, a difference in treatment on the part of the disciplinary committee? ?

We don’t feel like we’re being judged differently from others. The problem is that the sanctions are announced without being detailed or explained. Very often, we do not know why a particular club received this sanction. There are stadiums where there were fights, intrusions and where the club was sanctioned with a closed stand. Sometimes we had stronger sanctions from the League. However, it must be said that in certain stadiums, the general public does not know that there were twenty people arrested by the police. The file can then be classified or the sentence reduced by the commission because, precisely, the troublemakers were intercepted by the police, then banned from the stadium by the authorities, or even imprisoned.

This feeling of “double standards” would therefore be linked to the communication made by the authorities ?

Today, general communication about events of this type means that the general public does not have access to all the information. There are therefore no double standards; it is above all the fact that the substance of the cases is not explained as it should be. Not everyone can know the files. Consequently, this gives rise to discussions and afterwards some think that at Sporting we do not look into the subject. We don’t give names but we work on pedagogy. And we make sure that we are not penalized even more.

Do you think this work pays off?

We can be satisfied with what we have done over the past three years. Three years ago, there were more than 250 000 euros fine. Last year, we were at €110,000. As we speak, we are at €7,500, with several matches behind closed doors (total and partial, editor’s note). This nevertheless constitutes a financial shortfall.

This Friday evening, the return match of the derby against AC Ajaccio will be played at Furiani, with the South Stand still in partial closed session. Like the Bastiais on the first leg – where the meeting was interrupted following incidents in the stands – Ajaccian supporters are prohibited from traveling to Armand-Cesari. A situation that has been repeated for several seasons. Concerning organization and security, don’t these prohibitions emanating from state services complicate your task? ?

During the first leg, I told the prefecture services that it was more complicated when there are travel bans. I am speaking here only with regard to our supporters. As we have good relations with them, we made proposals for organized travel, as sometimes happens to us on the continent for different meetings: we arrange to meet at a place where stadium tickets are handed over. Then we accompany them to the stadium. When the match is over, we take them back to the meeting point and everyone goes home. I know that with our supporters, we are able to do it. Concerning the other clubs, I cannot comment.

You would therefore prefer that the movement of supporters be authorized ?

Personally, I would prefer there to be opposing supporters. This would avoid a lot of things in terms of security : there, the searches are more thorough with the opening of the bags, the opening of the jackets because any person who takes care of being a supporter would automatically be put aside in order to avoid any altercation in the stands.