Northumbria Police reject derby travel rethink as Sunderland and Newcastle United fan groups demand answers
Northumbria Police have explained why they will not seek a review of December’s derby travel restrictions after Sunderland and Newcastle United supporter groups raised concerns
Northumbria Police have told supporter representatives they see no basis to revisit December’s Tyne–Wear derby travel restrictions, despite calls for the arrangements to be paused.
In correspondence published by the Red and White Army Supporters’ Trust (RAWA), Chief Inspector Dean Hood said a forthcoming meeting would explain the decision and discuss its impact, rather than reopen it.
Police cited missiles being thrown and fireworks being discharged near horses during last season’s supporter walk to St James’ Park. RAWA, however, has challenged the lack of consultation before Sunderland fans were told they would have to use managed coach transport. The exchange, which included Newcastle United Supporters Trust in the correspondence, comes ahead of a fan engagement meeting on Tuesday, October 27.
Police explain derby safety concerns
RAWA remains opposed to December’s derby being designated a “bubble” fixture, requiring away supporters to use official transport with restrictions on their journeys and movement. Police agreed that the correspondence could be published in full.
Hood, the fixture’s police Silver Commander, said supporter travel had been discussed before last season’s derby. Police recommended official coaches, with Sunderland committing to provide as many seats as required, but he said this had limited impact on public transport use.
“The resulting supporter walk‑up presented significant public safety issues which, in our assessment, cannot reasonably be mitigated through the same arrangements,” he wrote. “These included missiles being thrown, including glass bottles and full drinks containers, as well as fireworks being discharged in close proximity to police horses operating within dense crowds.”
Join The Echo’s WhatsApp SAFC Channel for the latest news, team & injury updates direct to your phone. Simply click this link to join.
The correspondence does not identify which supporters were responsible. Hood said police concerns also reflected the wider history of the fixture. “We completely accept that the overwhelming majority of supporters are well behaved and simply want to attend and enjoy the game. The difficulty is that the identified risks also expose those well‑behaved supporters, particularly away supporters in this instance, to potential significant harm.”
No alternative identified
Hood said police had worked with public transport providers to assess alternatives to coach-only travel before making their representation to the Safety Advisory Group (SAG).
He explained that the SAG provides safety advice and recommendations, while decisions concerning the stadium’s safety certificate rest with Newcastle City Council. “Having considered the risks and potential mitigations, we were unable to identify an alternative arrangement that would sufficiently address the safety concerns identified,” he said.
Hood said supporters’ opposition was already understood and argued further consultation before the recommendation would not have changed the safety assessment or identified a viable alternative. “For the same reasons, I do not consider there to be a basis for the police to ask the Safety Advisory Group to revisit the decision.”
He added: “Our assessment of the identified public safety risks has not changed, and no alternative arrangement has been identified which, in our view, sufficiently mitigates those risks. The purpose of the forthcoming engagement is therefore not to reopen the decision, but to explain the rationale transparently and work collectively with supporters and both clubs to reduce, as far as reasonably possible, the impact and inconvenience arising from the arrangements.”
RAWA challenges consultation process
Football Supporters’ Association deputy chief executive David Rose, writing on behalf of RAWA, had called for meaningful engagement before the plans were finalised. In his October 21 email, copied to a Newcastle United Supporters Trust representative, Rose said supporters wanted an opportunity to influence the outcome.
“Supporter representatives from both clubs have already set out their concerns. We are not seeking a retrospective explanation of the decision; we are seeking genuine dialogue with all stakeholders, with a willingness to revisit the arrangements,” he wrote. “Without that, it is difficult to understand the purpose of further engagement, and trust between supporters and local organisers risks returning to square one after the positive progress made last season.”
Rose questioned how the restrictions could be reconciled with praise for supporters’ behaviour and asked what had changed to justify the approach. “Aside from the FA Cup game in 2024, which we all recognise was an anomaly, this would be the first ‘bubble’ operation in the history of the Tyne/Wear Derby. We therefore need clarity on what has changed in terms of supporter behaviour or policing capability to justify such a departure from established practice.”
RAWA acknowledged the importance of public safety and offered to help communicate with supporters of both clubs, but argued the inconvenience facing thousands of well-behaved fans required reconsideration. “What is needed now is a commitment to pause the current plans and engage properly with all stakeholders, with a genuine opportunity to influence the outcome. Next week’s meeting cannot simply be an opportunity to outline a decision that has already been finalised.”
Further meeting proposed
Police offered to approach the SAG chair about attending a further session, potentially around two weeks after Tuesday’s meeting, because they were unavailable for the initial discussion. Hood maintained that supporter engagement could still help reduce the impact of the restrictions.
“That does not mean supporter engagement is without value. We are committed to engaging constructively with supporters and both clubs around the decision, listening to concerns and, importantly, working together to reduce the impact and inconvenience caused by the arrangements,” he wrote. “I fully appreciate that those impacts can be significant, and that is where I believe constructive dialogue can make a meaningful difference.”