SC&T Board Members Blagdon red Posted October 29, 2014 SC&T Board Members Report Share Posted October 29, 2014 When is a seat not a seat? It seems a daft question. How can any form of seat not be a seat? Yet, it appears that in the eyes of the authorities some seats aren't and this was the stumbling block that the Ashton Gate redevelopment came up against and the reason why rail seats, unfortunately, won't be installed from day one in the new South Stand or remodelled Dolman. To get an idea of the red tape involved, this document that I prepared on Bristol Sport's behalf for the April meeting of Ashton Gate's 'Safety Advisory Group' sets out in detail why I believe that rail seats are indeed "seated accommodation". Sadly, the authorities have to date declined to make a definitive ruling one way or other. For now, rail seats, it seems, are not seats. You may find that puzzling. PS: A brief Supporters Club & Trust comment on the rail seat / safe standing issue can be read here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid in the Riot Posted October 29, 2014 Report Share Posted October 29, 2014 "The law" ultimately boils down to common sense and how a "reasonable person" would interpret a situation. To my mind the safe standing while fixed down for seating is quite blatantly a seat. If you took a young child to view the safe standing that was in block A of the Atyeo, again whilst fixed down, and asked them what it was I am confident they'd say "seats". I'd be amazed at a legal judgement that said they weren't seats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterStyvarsRightFoot Posted October 29, 2014 Report Share Posted October 29, 2014 When is a seat not a seat??? On the railway??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1960maaan Posted October 29, 2014 Report Share Posted October 29, 2014 I wondered the same thing from day one. I can not , for the life of me, understand why the rail seats could not be installed and 'locked' down. The seat would be the same as standard seats , but would save retro fitting rail seats when everyone comes to their senses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Isewater Posted October 29, 2014 Report Share Posted October 29, 2014 When it's a Volkswagen . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SC&T Board Members Blagdon red Posted October 29, 2014 Author SC&T Board Members Report Share Posted October 29, 2014 "The law" ultimately boils down to common sense and how a "reasonable person" would interpret a situation. To my mind the safe standing while fixed down for seating is quite blatantly a seat. If you took a young child to view the safe standing that was in block A of the Atyeo, again whilst fixed down, and asked them what it was I am confident they'd say "seats". I'd be amazed at a legal judgement that said they weren't seats. They don't even need to be fixed down (and that, in fact, wouldn't be desirable, as it creates an obstacle to access and egress). As long as the seat can be lowered and raised, like EVERY other seat in the stadium, by the fan themselves (i.e. not locked out of use), then I'm sure that young child would come to the same conclusion. Sadly civil servants do not see the world as clearly as small children. I agree about the law. If called upon to do so, I'm sure that any lawyer would rule that they are seats, as a law lecturer at UWE observes in this recent article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickJ Posted October 29, 2014 Report Share Posted October 29, 2014 Sadly, the authorities have to date declined to make a definitive ruling one way or other. For now, rail seats, it seems, are not seats. You may find that puzzling. Puzzling yes but when it comes to H&S and similar, nothing surprises me. The same logic of this "decision" would conclude that a child's car seat is not a "seat". Idiots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid in the Riot Posted October 29, 2014 Report Share Posted October 29, 2014 They don't even need to be fixed down (and that, in fact, wouldn't be desirable, as it creates an obstacle to access and egress). As long as the seat can be lowered and raised, like EVERY other seat in the stadium, by the fan themselves (i.e. not locked out of use), then I'm sure that young child would come to the same conclusion. Sadly civil servants do not see the world as clearly as small children. I agree about the law. If called upon to do so, I'm sure that any lawyer would rule that they are seats, as a law lecturer at UWE observes in this recent article. I'm sure you've answered it before Blagdon but begs the question why don't we (or another club) install the "safe standing" and let the authorities take up the legal challenge of proving that they're not seats in court? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrs Court Red Posted October 29, 2014 Report Share Posted October 29, 2014 I'm sure you've answered it before Blagdon but begs the question why don't we (or another club) install the "safe standing" and let the authorities take up the legal challenge of proving that they're not seats in court? Because in the interim some hoofwanking bungle**** will have an "accident" and take the club to court, claiming the seating is not licenced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tall King Blox Posted October 29, 2014 Report Share Posted October 29, 2014 hoofwanking bungle**** ..................we have a winner for "phrase of the day" well done sir Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeh Posted October 29, 2014 Report Share Posted October 29, 2014 I'm sure you've answered it before Blagdon but begs the question why don't we (or another club) install the "safe standing" and let the authorities take up the legal challenge of proving that they're not seats in court? because the stand wouldn't be granted a safety cert and would be closed which means no one can sit there, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SC&T Board Members Blagdon red Posted October 29, 2014 Author SC&T Board Members Report Share Posted October 29, 2014 I'm sure you've answered it before Blagdon but begs the question why don't we (or another club) install the "safe standing" and let the authorities take up the legal challenge of proving that they're not seats in court? As Monkeh says, in that event there is a potential risk that restrictions might be placed on the ground's licence from the Sports Ground Safety Authority, which might include requiring any part of a ground fitted with rail seats to be closed for football matches. It would therefore take a very brave ground operator to go ahead and install rail seats without first having obtained clearance that such a restriction would not be imposed. However, I do agree with you that if an operator was indeed that bold, such a restriction was imposed and the operator then challenged that in the courts, the chance of success would be high. Maybe some club should do it with just a small section of rail seating simply to test the law and be prepared in the meantime to have that area closed. That, though, would require the necessary commitment to rail seating / safe standing and deep enough pockets to fight any ensuing legal battle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tall King Blox Posted October 29, 2014 Report Share Posted October 29, 2014 As Monkeh says, in that event there is a potential risk that restrictions might be placed on the ground's licence from the Sports Ground Safety Authority, which might include requiring any part of the a ground fitted with rail seats to be closed for football matches. It would therefore take a very brave ground operator to go ahead and install rail seats without first having obtained clearance that such a restriction would not be imposed. However, I do agree with you that if an operator was indeed that bold, such a restriction was imposed and the operator then challenged that in the courts, the chance of success would be high. Maybe some club should do it with just a small section of rail seating simply to test the law and be prepared in the meantime to have that area closed. That, though, would require the necessary commitment to rail seating / safe standing and deep enough pockets to fight any ensuing legal battle. I think we all know of such a club, in your valued opinion do you think SL and the board have this on their minds,( i know maybe to answer this at the mo might not be appropriate, ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SC&T Board Members Blagdon red Posted October 29, 2014 Author SC&T Board Members Report Share Posted October 29, 2014 I think we all know of such a club, in your valued opinion do you think SL and the board have this on their minds,( i know maybe to answer this at the mo might not be appropriate, ) I don't think they do, though I could, of course, be wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WolfOfWestStreet Posted October 29, 2014 Report Share Posted October 29, 2014 A rail seat is not suitable for stadiums but a shit piece of MDF bolted to a frame in the Williams is perfectly fine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Isewater Posted October 29, 2014 Report Share Posted October 29, 2014 A chair is still a chair ,even though there's no one sitting there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richwwtk Posted October 29, 2014 Report Share Posted October 29, 2014 So what is the difference between Rail seating sand normal stadium seats that makes one a seat and the other one not? It's just a different design of seat, that's all. Does every seat in a stadium have to fit an exact design criteria? If so then I'd imagine that large parts of Ashton Gate would fail. I can see there might be an issue if the club installed them and gave everybody carte blanche to stand up, but so long as they are used as seats for football then I don't see how anybody could possibly suggest they aren't seats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid in the Riot Posted October 29, 2014 Report Share Posted October 29, 2014 Maybe some club should do it with just a small section of rail seating simply to test the law and be prepared in the meantime to have that area closed. That, though, would require the necessary commitment to rail seating / safe standing and deep enough pockets to fight any ensuing legal battle. Didn't we technically have the rail seats installed at AG? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SC&T Board Members Blagdon red Posted October 29, 2014 Author SC&T Board Members Report Share Posted October 29, 2014 Didn't we technically have the rail seats installed at AG? Only in an area of the ground that is out of use. Bringing that area into use would trigger the potential challenges outlined above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tall King Blox Posted October 29, 2014 Report Share Posted October 29, 2014 So as i see it, : we have at the moment part of the ground that is not used because of the safe seating thats already installed...... if we use these seats ( obviously informing the relevent bodies prior ) for a game, and then are forced to shut that section (which is not used anyway ) untill legal challenges are met, dealt with or whatever, it could in theory move the process along a little quicker..........apart from the fanancial implications of fighting such a challenge i for one think it's a no brainer.. can i have one for the oldham game ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BS4 on Tour... Posted October 29, 2014 Report Share Posted October 29, 2014 When it's a car?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SC&T Board Members Blagdon red Posted October 29, 2014 Author SC&T Board Members Report Share Posted October 29, 2014 So as i see it, : we have at the moment part of the ground that is not used because of the safe seating thats already installed...... if we use these seats ( obviously informing the relevent bodies prior ) for a game, and then are forced to shut that section (which is not used anyway ) untill legal challenges are met, dealt with or whatever, it could in theory move the process along a little quicker..........apart from the fanancial implications of fighting such a challenge i for one think it's a no brainer.. can i have one for the oldham game ? The bold bit is the flaw in your cunning plan! At that point the relevant bodies would consider whether to allow it. That would not be quick. Even if they were minded to allow it, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport would then get involved and consider whether rail seating serves the intended purpose of the Football Spectators Act. Why there is the need for this to be done for rail seats when it is not for any other design of seat, you may well wonder. But that, unfortunately, is the procedure. So, I'm afraid the rail seats will be out of bounds for the Oldham game! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin phantom Posted October 29, 2014 Admin Report Share Posted October 29, 2014 Hi Blagdon Rec Something very off topic, but reading this got me thinking. What was the indication of interest from City fans in using the standing area? Am sure you can post a link to this, but didn't know where to start?? Just curious if an area was put in, has there been indication that people would use it? Thinking more along the lines of all the effort that has gone in to date, with very little visible result (at present), just wondered whether the ultimate goal was worth all the time and effort you are all putting in? On a personal note, I can never get my head around why the area of the ground used can't be bolted for standing for rugby matches and bolted for seats for football matches - until law etc was changed so that it could be used for both ? Thanks in advance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTFiGO!?! Posted October 29, 2014 Report Share Posted October 29, 2014 When is a seat not a seat? When there's (oxy)morons involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kermit the Frog Posted October 29, 2014 Report Share Posted October 29, 2014 This makes me angry. All the hard work has been done proving that safe standing is a brilliant alternative to current seating yet STILL it is not legal to use. Out of interest, if we were to install and use rail seating as originally planned, what would the maximum capacity be of AG? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sixtyseconds Posted October 29, 2014 Report Share Posted October 29, 2014 Hi Blagdon Rec Something very off topic, but reading this got me thinking. What was the indication of interest from City fans in using the standing area? Stick rail seats in the Atyeo and scores of nubile pole dancers sliding on the rails still wouldn't get the right XI in. Location, location, location .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeh Posted October 29, 2014 Report Share Posted October 29, 2014 This makes me angry. All the hard work has been done proving that safe standing is a brilliant alternative to current seating yet STILL it is not legal to use. Out of interest, if we were to install and use rail seating as originally planned, what would the maximum capacity be of AG? the same as it would be if we didn't install them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SC&T Board Members Blagdon red Posted October 29, 2014 Author SC&T Board Members Report Share Posted October 29, 2014 Hi Blagdon Rec Something very off topic, but reading this got me thinking. What was the indication of interest from City fans in using the standing area? Am sure you can post a link to this, but didn't know where to start?? Just curious if an area was put in, has there been indication that people would use it? Thinking more along the lines of all the effort that has gone in to date, with very little visible result (at present), just wondered whether the ultimate goal was worth all the time and effort you are all putting in? On a personal note, I can never get my head around why the area of the ground used can't be bolted for standing for rugby matches and bolted for seats for football matches - until law etc was changed so that it could be used for both ? Thanks in advance In the new stadium survey that the Trust did in 2008, a majority of City fans and 81% of East End regulars called for the inclusion of safe standing (see Q12 here). I think from the popularity of the East End over recent years and the packed rear corner of the Williams this season, it is clear that a percentage of City fans like to stand - even when technically it is not allowed. The survey done back in 2008 and all other surveys done around the country at other clubs and on a national scale give every reason to believe that the appetite for standing would be even greater if fans knew that they would not be breaking any rules, would not therefore get any grief from stewards and would instead be valued and appreciated by their club for the contribution that they make to the stadium atmosphere. So, yes, I think the interest is there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kermit the Frog Posted October 29, 2014 Report Share Posted October 29, 2014 the same as it would be if we didn't install them Ah I thought that it would allow more spectators in as it would be safe to stand and stop there being surges :/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sixtyseconds Posted October 29, 2014 Report Share Posted October 29, 2014 In the new stadium survey that the Trust did in 2008, a majority of City fans and 81% of East End regulars called for the inclusion of safe standing (see Q12 here). I think from the popularity of the East End over recent years and the packed rear corner of the Williams this season, it is clear that a percentage of City fans like to stand - even when technically it is not allowed. The survey done back in 2008 and all other surveys done around the country at other clubs and on a national scale give every reason to believe that the appetite for standing would be even greater if fans knew that they would not be breaking any rules, would not therefore get any grief from stewards and would instead be valued and appreciated by their club for the contribution that they make to the stadium atmosphere. So, yes, I think the interest is there. That link seems to imply that loudmouth and co in the Eastend thought that numero uno on the list was great acoustics. The South Stand was always going to be a totally different beastie. I'm in the Willie stand ... Its awful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.