Barrs Court Red Posted October 23, 2014 Report Share Posted October 23, 2014 For me, it was the only appeal of staying put. I really hope this door opens again very soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shedman Posted October 23, 2014 Report Share Posted October 23, 2014 More safeish standing than safe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beaverface Posted October 23, 2014 Report Share Posted October 23, 2014 I must be totally naive here, but if you look at the rail seating that was put into A block of the Atyeo,.............then it's pretty much seating!!! It has a flappy metal plate that swivels up and down to plonk your backside on in exacty the same way as every other seat within the Ateyo stand. The only real difference I can see here is that there is a waist high barrier behind the rail seat and the rail seat is made of metal rather than plastic. So in my simplistic World, we're being told we can't have this style of rail seating because it's different from the existing seating, and yet the only real difference being is a safety barrier???? What would the authorities say if safety barriers we're welded behind every single existing plastic seat, would they then become rail seating by default and therefore not allowed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ciderbeans Posted October 23, 2014 Report Share Posted October 23, 2014 Think they realise we could well go up and as it isn't allowed in the championship, it is unnecessary cost initially. When the laws change, then they will implement it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cambridge Batch Red Posted October 23, 2014 Report Share Posted October 23, 2014 This is horseshit. Just out them in. What is the worst that is going to happen? I think we need some brinksmanship and balls here. Not obsequience and subservience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedYoshi Posted October 23, 2014 Report Share Posted October 23, 2014 It does seem as though the "just put them in" approach could have some merit. Obviously, if there is a genuine threat of being completely screwed over by the authorities for doing so (be it fines, restrictions on fans, or suddenly not being allowed to use the stadium at all - which would clearly not be acceptable) then it's not at all worth it. But if it were possible to at least install them, using them precisely in the same way as every other seat in the stadium will be used - i.e. one ticket per seat, allocated seating, without them being locked up - then surely the stadium would still fall under the 'all-seater' criteria with just a small section carrying a slight variation in design. They only become an area for standing when they are locked up, and double the amount of tickets are allocated specifically for standing. Otherwise they're just a different design of seat. Obviously, I've not been involved in any conversations about the actual ins and outs of this scenario, and am fully aware that there's probably an understandable reason that this can't happen. However, whoever made up that understandable reason is a total *****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhistleHappy Posted October 23, 2014 Report Share Posted October 23, 2014 Typical of this country's national & local authority's 'no can do' attitude .... Its pervaded through most ruling bodies, organisations and larger institutions from bloody Europe, Westminster, Counties, Town Halls, Parish councils and into every aspect of our once proud nation of innovation. Another example of how PC correctness, Health & Safety (good idea that's ran rampantly out of control) Red F 'king tape (& red trousers ) everywhere that's combined to stiffl paralyse and suffocate everything from the Houses of Parliament to the flooded houses of the Somerset levels and every f'ing thing in between. God save the NHS (somehow) ..... The no can do efforts of professional 'no men' in this country is a bloody disgrace, a few 'Im alright Jack' people at the top with hardly an ounce of common sense or compassion among them... The idiots wouldn't recognise a good idea ( in this case safe f'ing standing) if they crashed into one in their stupid 20 is Plenty MPH zones - (in wide well lit main roads - crazy!) .....of course corner cutting pavement mounting bendy-buses are welcomed. The country is fu ** ed when those at the top view the prolification of food banks throughout the land as acceptable without a hint of shame or empathy. We just love red tape, rules and regs, and anything designed to scupper or put barriers in the way of just about any f'ing thing - look no further than the Village Green situation at Ashton Vale - stadium idea had everything going for it including the benefit of Bristol and the West as a whole, but of course as always someone somewhere contrives to screw that up non sensical impenetrable no can do rulings. Safe-Standing - great idea, wonderful, why not ? - because No Can Do'ers win yet another round of their favourite destructive game of NO CAN ******* DO!!! (thanks for your effort Blagdon Red - who knows, maybe just maybe someone somewhere will break the NoCanDo game rules and seek to see if its a better strategy for everyone if he dares to try a Yes Why Not roll of the dice.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 23, 2014 Report Share Posted October 23, 2014 It does seem as though the "just put them in" approach could have some merit. Obviously, if there is a genuine threat of being completely screwed over by the authorities for doing so (be it fines, restrictions on fans, or suddenly not being allowed to use the stadium at all - which would clearly not be acceptable) then it's not at all worth it. But if it were possible to at least install them, using them precisely in the same way as every other seat in the stadium will be used - i.e. one ticket per seat, allocated seating, without them being locked up - then surely the stadium would still fall under the 'all-seater' criteria with just a small section carrying a slight variation in design. They only become an area for standing when they are locked up, and double the amount of tickets are allocated specifically for standing. Otherwise they're just a different design of seat. Obviously, I've not been involved in any conversations about the actual ins and outs of this scenario, and am fully aware that there's probably an understandable reason that this can't happen. However, whoever made up that understandable reason is a total prick. What you have described is the manner the club wished to initially use them but it seems the FL haven't even the balls to allow that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beaverface Posted October 23, 2014 Report Share Posted October 23, 2014 What you have described is the manner the club wished to initially use them but it seems the FL haven't even the balls to allow that ...but here lies the question: When's a railseat not a railseat and whens a seat a railseat? Theres no bloody difference!!! So frustrating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Welcome To The Jungle Posted October 23, 2014 Report Share Posted October 23, 2014 Any scaffolders on here who would erect rails in from of the normal seats. Of course the club would be 100% against this but wouldn't take it down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin phantom Posted October 23, 2014 Admin Report Share Posted October 23, 2014 I'm not overly surprised by this though, was always convinced they would be put in. Used as standing for rugby and seats for football. The question is, why at least are we not building it for this outcome? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedYoshi Posted October 23, 2014 Report Share Posted October 23, 2014 What you have described is the manner the club wished to initially use them but it seems the FL haven't even the balls to allow that Yeah, I thought that was the original plan, this latest announcement just confused me a bit. I guess the issue is why can't this still be the plan? If they can justifiably be deemed a seat, to be used in the same way as every other seat, why does it need to be allowed or otherwise by the FL? It's all just nonsensical semantics, really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SC&T Board Members Blagdon red Posted October 23, 2014 SC&T Board Members Report Share Posted October 23, 2014 The stumbling block is more the government than the Football League. If the government (DCMS) would rule that rail seating is indeed "seated accommodation", then we could go ahead with Plan A (i.e. using them as seats for football and standing for rugby). However, because, despite our best efforts over the last year, they have still to rule on that, so Plan A is not yet achievable (though still may be further down the line). Plan B would be operating a safe standing trial, with the rail seats used as standing accommodation for football as well. However, because the Football League have not been able to gain clearance yet for such a trial (and now appear bizarrely to be looking only at the 21 grounds that still have terracing), we can't proceed on that basis either. It's daft. But logic always prevails in the end and will prevail in this case also ... eventually! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cambridge Batch Red Posted October 23, 2014 Report Share Posted October 23, 2014 We need to be more Putin and less Mr Bean on this issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SC&T Board Members Blagdon red Posted October 23, 2014 SC&T Board Members Report Share Posted October 23, 2014 We need to be more Putin and less Mr Bean on this issue. Sadly that would lead to the rail seating sections of the stadium being closed for football games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
screech Posted October 23, 2014 Report Share Posted October 23, 2014 So if we were building a rugby stadium and decided to put rail seating in, and a football club moved in to play their home games, are you saying the football club would not be able to use the seats but the rugby club would be able to use them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SC&T Board Members Blagdon red Posted October 23, 2014 SC&T Board Members Report Share Posted October 23, 2014 So if we were building a rugby stadium and decided to put rail seating in, and a football club moved in to play their home games, are you saying the football club would not be able to use the seats but the rugby club would be able to use them? If the football club had played at tier 2 level for 3 years (not necessarily consecutively) since 1990, then yes that is correct. If it was Rovers, Yeovil or Cheltenham, for instance, then no problem. The rail seats could then be used either as seats or standing accommodation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhistleHappy Posted October 23, 2014 Report Share Posted October 23, 2014 If the football club had played at tier 2 level for 3 years (not necessarily consecutively) since 1990, then yes that is correct. If it was Rovers, Yeovil or Cheltenham, for instance, then no problem. The rail seats could then be used either as seats or standing accommodation. Thought so ...... It was Lee Johnson's fault then! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cambridge Batch Red Posted October 24, 2014 Report Share Posted October 24, 2014 Sadly that would lead to the rail seating sections of the stadium being closed for football games. Any attempt to close seats should be taken to a judicial review. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTFiGO!?! Posted October 24, 2014 Report Share Posted October 24, 2014 Sounds like yet more frustrating political faffing. Wake me up when common sense finally prevails and thank you to those fighting the good fight, your work will not be in vain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrs Court Red Posted October 24, 2014 Report Share Posted October 24, 2014 I thought the government promised a common sense approach. I'm going to write to my MP. I suggest anyone else blessed enough to be in a Tory constituency does the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin1988 Posted October 24, 2014 Report Share Posted October 24, 2014 Any attempt to close seats should be taken to a judicial review. And blow a load of money up the wall? The regulations can't be beaten that way. The only way to get through them is change them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wayne allisons tongues Posted October 24, 2014 Report Share Posted October 24, 2014 I agree with Tom, it's all to do with hillsborough. Whenever rail seating/safe standing is mentioned you always get a person connected to hillsborough involved in the conversation. When asked why they are safe in Germany, always get the but you weren't at hillsborough card. I know it's a bit harsh but it's 25 years now and people have moved on except the people who are determined to make everyone else stay in the past. Things get improved for a reason but the government etc. are running scared of the hillsborough inquest and have no bottle to disagree with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.