FA reveal reasons for £45,000 Plymouth Argyle pitch invasion fine

An independent Regulatory Commission ruled that the seriousness of Plymouth Argyle's breach of Football Association rules as a result of a mass pitch invasion at Home Park after the final game of last season was 'significant'.

That led to Argyle being fined £45,000 - reduced from being of at least £50,000 based on mitigation - and warned as to its future conduct. The Regulatory Commission also stated they considered there to have been 'poor execution of the pre-match plan' to deal with an incursion.

The Written Reasons of the Regulatory Commission, which sat on October 30, have now been released in a 27-page report (Click HERE to read it in full). They considered all the events around the pitch invasion following Argyle's 1-0 win against Hull City on May 4, which ensured the Pilgrims avoided relegation from the Championship.

READ MORE: Wayne Rooney wants Plymouth Argyle reaction after Norwich City debacle

READ MORE: Wayne Rooney gives Plymouth Argyle injury update ahead of Bristol City trip

The club were subsequently charged by the FA as follows: "It is alleged that Plymouth Argyle FC failed to ensure that spectators and/or its supporters (and anyone purporting to be its supporters or followers) conduct themselves in an orderly fashion whilst attending the match and do not behave in a way which is improper, threatening or provocative; and/or not encroach on to the pitch or commit any form of pitch incursion, contrary to FA Rules E21.1 and E21.3."

A two minute and 47 second video clip of the incident as fans poured onto the pitch from all parts of the stadium was provided by Argyle for the Regulatory Commission.

Argyle admitted the charge but stated in an accompanying letter: "The club fully acknowledges that the incident should never have occurred, however, it is important to point out that it was celebratory in nature and not in any way hostile, offensive, violent, threatening, indecent, insulting or provocative in nature and the club requests the Regulatory Commission to take this into account when considering this case and the most appropriate sanction to impose."

The club also put forward what the Written Reasons report referred to as 'lengthy submissions on mitigation', which included details on policing and stewarding arrangements, as well as match specific preparations and documentation.

Under a section titled 'Seriousness of the breach', the Regulatory Commission looked at matters where they felt Argyle fell short. For example, they thought there were 'insufficient' stewards for the match.

They said: "Broadly speaking the Commission is of the view that the execution of the planning was poor, although the Commission also considers that aspects of the planning could have been better.

"The first point is one which is evidenced in the execution of the plan and relates to the number of stewards on duty. On the photos of the pitch incursion training undertaken by Mr (Ian) Dryland (Argyle's ground safety officer), the number of stewards is such that they would appear to be able to link hands to form a barrier or, even if that were not possible, there were sufficient stewards to form a real deterrent.

"In stark contrast at the match the video/CCTV we have seen, and we reiterate we can only judge what we have seen, illustrates quite evidently that the number of stewards in front of the stand opposite the camera falls well short of the number envisaged in the pitch incursion training.

"Indeed, the number of stewards (even combined with the police officers on duty) offered no deterrent to supporters running onto the pitch once the final whistle was blown. The only area we have seen on the video/CCTV supplied with an effective deterrent was in front of the away end, where stewards stand with linked hands.

"We understand from the documents that 186 stewards were engaged and 181 were actually on duty during the match. In Plymouth’s letter dated 10 September the club ‘defends its approach to stewarding arrangements for the match'.

"This was in the face of Mr White, a Safety and Security Advisor for The FA, in a report to The FA, making criticisms, including stating “… it is clear from the footage that their [stewards] number was not enough to deal with an incident of this nature. A much more substantial increase should have been considered and discussed with senior management and partner agencies. This would have enabled a stronger pitch protection around the whole perimeter, towards the end of the match and acted as a visual deterrent.”

"The Commission agrees with these criticisms. Plymouth states that it had 181 stewards in place for the match, including 93 SIA qualified staff. This, it states, is significantly more than the 151 stewards it would normally have for a ‘medium risk’ fixture.

"The Commission does not agree that 30 more stewards is a 'significant' number, especially given what had been predicted as outlined in Plymouth’s letter dated 7 May 2024 as recited at paragraph 44 above and the other planning ahead of the match, given its significance to the club.

"Furthermore, once account is made of the ‘fixed’ stewarding positions, the number of mobile stewards was, in the Commission’s view, not adequate. Indeed, we do not think that the number of mobile stewards would comply with the ‘high-risk’ ratio in the Green Guide, which Plymouth suggest in the letter dated 10 September 2024 was exceeded.

"In the Commission’s view a more visible and robust line of stewards would have acted as a deterrent. Whether or not it would have prevented the pitch incursion is speculative, but it would have been more reflective of comprehensive planning. The Commission is drawn to the conclusion there were insufficient stewards retained for the match."

"Allied to the inadequately resourced stewarding line, the pitch Incursion Policy clearly states: 'Public address system announcements. There will be pre-match, half time and end of match announcements reminding supporters it is a criminal offence to go onto the pitch. There will be no end of match music whilst there are any supporters on the pitch. Should there be a pitch incursion a pre-recorded message will request supporters leave the pitch.'

"However, once again emphasising that we can only judge on the evidence presented to us, we have no evidence that any messages were played over the public address, especially at that time just before the game ended, once it was plain that supporters were amassing with the intent of going onto the pitch.

"Further, we note that in Plymouth’s detailed response letter dated 7 July 2024, it is not suggested that any announcements were deployed asking supporters not to enter the pitch area. Rather, the reference to the public address is confined to its use in encouraging supporters to return to their seats, which we construe as meaning from the pitch once an incursion has already occurred.

"Further, in the letter accompanying the reply form, Plymouth state: 'The pre-planned post-match music was cut short and announcements were made over the PA system via the control room in an attempt to dissuade supporters from encroaching onto the pitch and in order to clear the pitch as quickly as possible once supporters had entered the pitch.'

"In itself this is an interesting observation, given the pre-match incursion plan, clearly provides that no music would be played whilst supporters are on the pitch. Once again emphasising we can only judge what we have been provided, it is clear to the Commission from the CCTV/Video clip: (a) That no public address announcements can be heard during that clip; and (b) With spectators on that pitch, flatly contrary to the pre-match incursion plan, celebratory music was started 1 minute and 33 seconds into the video.

"The Commission notes that it is said that a message was displayed on the big screen, albeit according to Plymouth’s letter dated 10 September 2024 only after the incident had occurred, although the video/CCTV evidence we have does not show the big screen. The Commission questions the effectiveness of a message on the large screen after a mass incursion has taken place, especially in the absence of prior, repeated warnings over the public address system."

The Regulatory Commission acknowledged that Argyle had reminded supporters before the day of the game of the need to remain off the pitch at all times, both directly to season ticket holders but also through social media as well as the local media.

However, they stated: "That this message was direct messaged to all those attending is commendable. However, the Commission notes there is no evidence that this or a similar message was repeated on the day of the match at the stadium, whether that be in any digital or hard-copy programme, over the public address before the game started, at half time or during the match (as well as at the end of the match as we have described) or through any signage."

The Commission then added: "A significant further aspect of the failure in executing the pitch incursion plan relates to the Hull players. It is wholly unacceptable to the Commission that any player was pushed, irrespective of how that happened. Furthermore, as we have detailed when considering the disputed element of the charge, it is plain from the limited CCTV/Video we have seen that all the Hull players simply were not provided with an escort from the pitch.

"Most notably, starting at 1 minute and 45 seconds in the video clip a Hull player can be seeing walking through the spectators wholly unescorted, in stark contrast to the two Plymouth players ahead of him.

"In this regard, Plymouth have prayed in aid and we have praised the fact that Hull’s head coach and staff were written to with advice as to what their players should do in the event of a mass incursion, before stating 'Pitch security will be deployed for the Hull City players, and they will be escorted by security in person.' The Pitch Incursion policy also states: 'In the event of a mass incursion, their focus will be the safety of the matchday officials and players.'

"Unfortunately, however good the planning may be, its worth is significantly reduced or destroyed by poor execution of the plan. Furthermore, once again based on the evidence we have seen in the CCTV/Video, in the Commission’s view the stewards located near the tunnel failed to form a secure cordon. Instead, there is a rather randomly positioned collection of personnel in the area. In all the circumstances we consider the seriousness of Plymouth’s breach of FA Rules 21.1 and 21.3 to be significant."

At the end of the Written Reasons report, under a section titled 'Sanction', the Regulatory Commission state: "In all the circumstances we impose a sanction we consider reflects the seriousness of the pitch incursion at the match, having regard to Plymouth's status as a Championship club and having regard to the all the circumstances of the matter, including the planning that took place, that which did not take place, and what we consider to have been the poor execution of the pre-match plan.

"We also have regard to the mitigation we have accepted which, for the reasons stated above, the Commission considered was ultimately somewhat limited.

"Accordingly, having adopted a starting point that a financial sanction was the appropriate sanction, and that the fine should be of at least £50,000, having regard to mitigation the fine we impose is one of £45,000. We also warn Plymouth as to its future conduct and determine that Plymouth must pay the Commission’s costs."

You can read more of our Argyle stories from Plymouth Live by clicking HERE