Ratwhite Posted November 22, 2010 Posted November 22, 2010 Does anyone know why they only had bottom tier??
anewman Posted November 22, 2010 Posted November 22, 2010 maybe to keep the noise level and atmosphere down?? saying that why have we given blackpool 5k?
Traf Posted November 22, 2010 Posted November 22, 2010 Does anyone know why they only had bottom tier?? Something to do with persistent standing at away games.
Ratwhite Posted November 22, 2010 Author Posted November 22, 2010 Something to do with persistent standing at away games. a la manure
bwfc2003 Posted November 22, 2010 Posted November 22, 2010 Something to do with persistent standing at away games. Seems a bit daft to me - are we in debt or not?? Another 3000 tickets at ?30 a go??? And its not as is the ones at the reebok sat down now is it?
Traf Posted November 22, 2010 Posted November 22, 2010 The added revenue from another 3,000 Geordies has to be counterbalanced by the potential withdrawal of the Reebok's safety certificate.
Ani Posted November 22, 2010 Posted November 22, 2010 Seems a bit daft to me - are we in debt or not?? Another 3000 tickets at ?30 a go??? And its not as is the ones at the reebok sat down now is it? if the council revoke our safety certificate then we would have more issues.
bwfc2003 Posted November 22, 2010 Posted November 22, 2010 The added revenue from another 3,000 Geordies has to be counterbalanced by the potential withdrawal of the Reebok's safety certificate. Who decides to limit their tickets though - I m sure that every club who come to the reebok with a large following persistently stand
superjohnmcginlay Posted November 22, 2010 Posted November 22, 2010 Fuckin health and safety gone mad Not really if something goes wrong.
athywhite1958 Posted November 22, 2010 Posted November 22, 2010 But there are 5000 seats to be sold, if people persistently stand they should be ejected, surely that is what the stewards are for, the stadium was built with the capacity that was safe when full, all it needs is people to do their jobs correctly, BWFC cannot afford to lose money.
Zico Posted November 22, 2010 Posted November 22, 2010 Who decides to limit their tickets though - I m sure that every club who come to the reebok with a large following persistently stand not in the upper tiers though, that's the point, it's steeper and therefore more "dangerous" - that'll be the reason everyone stands in the lower tiers - esl scoreboard corner and away end, and back of NSL too parently wolves restricted their numbers too, but that doesn't make as much sense as the away ends there are one tier
Horwich Posted November 22, 2010 Posted November 22, 2010 Which club last had their ground closed due to standing?
athywhite1958 Posted November 22, 2010 Posted November 22, 2010 not in the upper tiers though, that's the point, it's steeper and therefore more "dangerous" - that'll be the reason everyone stands in the lower tiers - esl scoreboard corner and away end, and back of NSL too parently wolves restricted their numbers too, but that doesn't make as much sense as the away ends there are one tier I appreciate what folk are saying, but, if the upper tier is steeper and more dangerous, how did we get a safety certificate in the first place? It was built for football supporters who everyone knows stand up at matches.
superjohnmcginlay Posted November 22, 2010 Posted November 22, 2010 Bwfc could afford to lose the money of not allocating tickets in the upper tier bwfc couldnt afford allocating tickets in the top tier and the potential as dramtaic as it sounds death of a fan, yes its safe but for seating only, as to employing stewards who do their job reet, we probably do but every fooker hates them
bigbenbwfc Posted November 22, 2010 Posted November 22, 2010 Which club last had their ground closed due to standing? WAS IT FULLHAM,I REMEMBER 1 PREM CLUB PLAYING AT QPR I THINK IT WAS,
SatanGreavsie Posted November 22, 2010 Posted November 22, 2010 I appreciate what folk are saying, but, if the upper tier is steeper and more dangerous, how did we get a safety certificate in the first place? It was built for football supporters who everyone knows stand up at matches. Plus if there's a fire, or if (when) some fucker bombs a ground on live tv, then people are going to have to stand to get out sharpish. Impression I had was that this is imposed from on football high, and so we had no choice but to do it with certain teams. If that's true (and it may be bollocks I accept) do we get compo??
athywhite1958 Posted November 22, 2010 Posted November 22, 2010 Bwfc could afford to lose the money of not allocating tickets in the upper tier bwfc couldnt afford allocating tickets in the top tier and the potential as dramtaic as it sounds death of a fan, yes its safe but for seating only, as to employing stewards who do their job reet, we probably do but every fooker hates them But the potential for the death of a fan i.e. falling from the upper tier must be in the thoughts of every stadium manager in the world, if they are that bad then ALL upper tiers should be closed to the public.
jazza Posted November 22, 2010 Posted November 22, 2010 WAS IT FULLHAM,I REMEMBER 1 PREM CLUB PLAYING AT QPR I THINK IT WAS, deciphering what you said wasn't easy but Fulham didn't have a safety certificate for Craven Cottage at all.... nothing to do with fans standing
SatanGreavsie Posted November 22, 2010 Posted November 22, 2010 Which club last had their ground closed due to standing? I had a feeling Mansfield got grief from their council, but a quick look at wiki suggests it wasn't simply for standing: "North Stand - This is where the away fans are seated. The North Stand holds 1,910. The reduction in the capacity of the North Stand was actually a punishment issued by the local council after MTFC had supplied Chesterfield F.C with 400 tickets more than the capacity of that stand in error.This meant 400 visiting fans illegally being housed in the condemned East Stand terracing."
bigbenbwfc Posted November 22, 2010 Posted November 22, 2010 But the potential for the death of a fan i.e. falling from the upper tier must be in the thoughts of every stadium manager in the world, if they are that bad then ALL upper tiers should be closed to the public. 1 SOLLUTION IS TO LEGALISE STANDING IN THE LOWER TIERS OF GROUNDS BUT INSIST THAT YOU HAVE TO SIT IN THE UPPERS THAT WAY FANS HAVE A CHOICE SOME LIKE TO STAND SOME LIKE TO SIT
bigbenbwfc Posted November 22, 2010 Posted November 22, 2010 deciphering what you said wasn't easy but Fulham didn't have a safety certificate for Craven Cottage at all.... nothing to do with fans standing NOT SURE LIKE I SAY JUST REMEMBER EM PLAYIN AT QPR...WHO WAS IT THEN?
SatanGreavsie Posted November 22, 2010 Posted November 22, 2010 But the potential for the death of a fan i.e. falling from the upper tier must be in the thoughts of every stadium manager in the world, if they are that bad then ALL upper tiers should be closed to the public. Plus I believe the law allows brief standing at key moments e.g. goal celebrations, and surely that when you'd be most likely to lose control and tumble anyhow. I just don't see it a H&S issue; yes, I can accept that there should be seated parts of the ground for people who for age, infirmity, having young kids with them etc have the right to an unrestricted seated view. BUT it shouldn't be dressed up as a H&S issue.
superjohnmcginlay Posted November 22, 2010 Posted November 22, 2010 But the potential for the death of a fan i.e. falling from the upper tier must be in the thoughts of every stadium manager in the world, if they are that bad then ALL upper tiers should be closed to the public. It isnt that bad if you sit,that why it is purpose built to accomodate seated fans. Every stadium is different perhaps the new stadium with upper ties accomodate for the standing of fans but at our ground its probably deemed as unsafe therefore cannot risk the potential fatality due to being stood the team score and a potential surge knocking some fooker at the front over the balcony. Unlikley event in the extreme but possible.
athywhite1958 Posted November 22, 2010 Posted November 22, 2010 Plus I believe the law allows brief standing at key moments e.g. goal celebrations, and surely that when you'd be most likely to lose control and tumble anyhow. I just don't see it a H&S issue; yes, I can accept that there should be seated parts of the ground for people who for age, infirmity, having young kids with them etc have the right to an unrestricted seated view. BUT it shouldn't be dressed up as a H&S issue. I don't see it as a H & S issue, I see it as Bolton have paid for a stadium that will safely seat 28,500 fans at a match, regardless of who we play, someone is telling Bolton they cannot sell all of the tickets because something might happen, so Bolton lose out, as you said before Satan does the club get any compo for restriction of business?
Recommended Posts