Jump to content
IGNORED

Stadium Lighting (Merged)


PFree

Recommended Posts

We had a long thread about this the other day. I went to Watford and when they turned the lights off 5 mins into the match I truly had forgotten how fantastic it was to watch a match with just the lighting needed on the pitch. Much, much better experience than what we have had at Ashton Gate for a long time.

I really can't understand why anyone is less likely to fall and sue Watford than at Ashton Gate, different councils I guess. Sadly it looks like we are stuck with blinding lights which is ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I watched a recent Man Utd game and it was noticeable how low they had set the animated advertising boards. Almost Matt in their brightness. It still worked and got the advert across...but without blinding anyone.

TBH...If I had paid to have my advert showing, I'd be demanding to have the brightness turned down, as studies have shown that if irritated by an advert, you are less likely to buy that product.

Worth thinking about City.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, spudski said:

I watched a recent Man Utd game and it was noticeable how low they had set the animated advertising boards. Almost Matt in their brightness. It still worked and got the advert across...but without blinding anyone.

TBH...If I had paid to have my advert showing, I'd be demanding to have the brightness turned down, as studies have shown that if irritated by an advert, you are less likely to buy that product.

Worth thinking about City.

Didn't seem to do that 'Go Compare' clown any harm though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, spudski said:

I watched a recent Man Utd game and it was noticeable how low they had set the animated advertising boards. Almost Matt in their brightness. It still worked and got the advert across...but without blinding anyone.

TBH...If I had paid to have my advert showing, I'd be demanding to have the brightness turned down, as studies have shown that if irritated by an advert, you are less likely to buy that product.

Worth thinking about City.

Go Compare seem to be doing ok, so I don't buy the results of those studies..!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Bar BS3 said:

Go Compare seem to be doing ok, so I don't buy the results of those studies..!!

In June 2009 the company launched an advertising campaign featuring a fictional Italian tenor called Gio Compario (pronounced: Jeo Campario) played by Wynne Evans.[10] The advertisements feature 'Gio' singing the 'Go Compare' tune (inspired by Over There) in different places such as a coffee shop and was voted as the most irritating advertisement of both 2009 and 2010.[11][12]

In direct response to this reaction, Go Compare deliberately subverted the campaign in July 2012 by running a series of adverts where celebrity guests such as Sue Barker, Jimmy Carr, Stuart Pearce, Ray Mears, Louie Spence and Stephen Hawking lined up to "silence" the character of Gio Compario. Marketing officer Kevin Hughes said "It was risky, but a brand has to listen to its customers."[13]

The character returned in July 2015 after an 18-month break, singing as part of what Evans called a "much calmer performance".[

 

 

The much calmer performance....would be like dimming the lights if you get my drift.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Mkelly this really is an issue that affects a wide range of people. It's obviously very much a first world problem but it really does have a negative effect on the evening. 

I know I've harped on already about this elsewhere in other threads - as have many others -  but it would be great if a conscious effort could be made this evening to get this right and it would be really appreciated by me and many others it seems. Here's hoping! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, lenred said:

@Mkelly this really is an issue that affects a wide range of people. It's obviously very much a first world problem but it really does have a negative effect on the evening. 

I know I've harped on already about this elsewhere in other threads - as have many others -  but it would be great if a conscious effort could be made this evening to get this right and it would be really appreciated by me and many others it seems. Here's hoping! 

 

10 minutes ago, BCFC J said:

@AdamB @Mkelly could this please be sorted? Agree with all of the above.

Sadly I think there's very little the club can do about it. 

From what I understand, and I may be totally wrong here, Mark Kelly is personally liable if any accidents happen in the stadium given his role.

To cover the club's back in the event of an accident, we have to implement the misguided and bureaucratic 'advice' of groups such as the mysterious SAG.

Essentially it's health and safety nonsense where the only impact is a negative one on everyone's experience. 

I'm sure if able - Mark would implement the lighting adjustments.. but his hands are tied.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Phileas Fogg said:

 

Sadly I think there's very little the club can do about it. 

From what I understand, and I may be totally wrong here, Mark Kelly is personally liable if any accidents happen in the stadium given his role.

To cover the club's back in the event of an accident, we have to implement the misguided and bureaucratic 'advice' of groups such as the mysterious SAG.

Essentially it's health and safety nonsense where the only impact is a negative one on everyone's experience. 

I'm sure if able - Mark would implement the lighting adjustments.. but his hands are tied.

Tied hands  ? That's got to be dangerous . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Phileas Fogg said:

 

Sadly I think there's very little the club can do about it. 

From what I understand, and I may be totally wrong here, Mark Kelly is personally liable if any accidents happen in the stadium given his role.

To cover the club's back in the event of an accident, we have to implement the misguided and bureaucratic 'advice' of groups such as the mysterious SAG.

Essentially it's health and safety nonsense where the only impact is a negative one on everyone's experience. 

I'm sure if able - Mark would implement the lighting adjustments.. but his hands are tied.

It'll be interesting to see if the SAG has entered a new era of more openness with this Freedom of Information request: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ashton_gate_safety_advisory_grou_2#incoming-1040671

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Phileas Fogg said:

 

Sadly I think there's very little the club can do about it. 

From what I understand, and I may be totally wrong here, Mark Kelly is personally liable if any accidents happen in the stadium given his role.

To cover the club's back in the event of an accident, we have to implement the misguided and bureaucratic 'advice' of groups such as the mysterious SAG.

Essentially it's health and safety nonsense where the only impact is a negative one on everyone's experience. 

I'm sure if able - Mark would implement the lighting adjustments.. but his hands are tied.

Not sure this has actually ever been stated PF, but you may be right. 

But if there is such a potential problem with accidents and liability at football grounds why do other Championship clubs continue to dim their lights during play?

It may be that acting on this 'advice', if given, simply hasn't been thought through, or challenged sufficiently, and it obviously should be.

Why do the rules for lighting in the new AG seem to be different to the old stadium?

Are City erring wildly on the side of caution when there's actually no official necessity to do so?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Nogbad the Bad said:

Night games should be similar to the cinema, the crowd in near darkness while the match is on, and what they've all come to see bathed in light.

It used to be just like that at Ashton Gate, and it was a fantastic atmosphere to watch football.

Now there's far too much lighting and it's crap, I'm afraid. :(

 

This moan has been rumbling on for some months now; I assume or rather hope plenty of fans have written to the club and maybe some have even tried to do a petition but really? The H&S board excuse is a complete red herring because we all know plenty of other clubs shut those horrible lights down once the game gets underway. 

Why are the club NOT LISTENING ? Why are the club not using common sense like other clubs?

 

And Foggers.. have rules changed since the new AG came along? Does not look like it does it because other clubs do the sensible thing and turn the lights off by employing a dose of common sense.

Bit like that announcer.. drives me mad and I am only listening and watching from afar... I compare him to the dulcet tones of the Anfield announcer. When two team names are read out I don't know about you lot but i want him or her to say the two teams at the same volume, same speed and same intonation. It frankly treats the audience like little kids the way he talks. Same with goals. Just keep your hair on man and simply announce 'the goal has been scored by Bobby Reid' . We don't need a voice to assist us in jumping out of our seats; we are not plebs. I wish he would pack his bags and go home, for good. He is useless. Rant over. off for some Burton.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Nogbad the Bad said:

Not sure this has actually ever been stated PF, but you may be right. 

I'm pretty sure he implied it a couple of weeks ago when discussed - tried to dig it up earlier but couldn't find. Might be wrong on that. 

32 minutes ago, Nogbad the Bad said:

But if there is such a potential problem with accidents and liability at football grounds why do other Championship clubs continue to dim their lights during play?

It may be that acting on this 'advice', if given, simply hasn't been thought through, or challenged sufficiently, and it obviously should be.

Agree

32 minutes ago, Nogbad the Bad said:

Why do the rules for lighting in the new AG seem to be different to the old stadium?

Are City erring wildly on the side of caution when there's actually no official necessity to do so?

Not sure really - that's why I find it all so frustrating. All it does it make night games a worse spectacle for the fans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Phileas Fogg said:

 

Sadly I think there's very little the club can do about it. 

From what I understand, and I may be totally wrong here, Mark Kelly is personally liable if any accidents happen in the stadium given his role.

To cover the club's back in the event of an accident, we have to implement the misguided and bureaucratic 'advice' of groups such as the mysterious SAG.

Essentially it's health and safety nonsense where the only impact is a negative one on everyone's experience. 

I'm sure if able - Mark would implement the lighting adjustments.. but his hands are tied.

Is this the potential danger, rather than dimmed lighting?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ashtonwurzel said:

Just to re-state for the powers to be, I am not going to the game tonight specifically because of the "retina burning" advertising hoardings. 

Mark has already confirmed the advertising hoardings will be at 25% tonight.

Regards,
Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My own theory on it is regarding the lighting being kept on in the stands, is not so much for H&S...but for CCTV, and making filming and viewing the fans easier.

I'd be interested to know whether any fans has stopped attending night games in the past, because they felt it was too dark.

If it were an actual H&S issue, I'd be listening to the fans who are complaining about the brightness.

Someone actually moved last home night game, who suffered from epilepsy as they thought the lighting might bring on a fit.

Hopefully the reduction down to 25% will make it better.

As for Mr Kelly being personally liable....he did confirm this in a previous thread. Which imo...is a ridiculous situation for any one man to be in. Of course he's going to side on the err of caution, regardless of what the majority of fans want....it's his job at stake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Frenchay Red said:

Xenons? :cool2:

May as well be! Although at least with Xenons they are usually on cars and they affect you for a few seconds. At AG it's 90 mins plus! 

 I think being a glasses wearer doesn't help my cause as the glare is ridiculous. I'm also high up in the stand where it may possibly be worse as well. First world problems I know but just wish there was a strict and uniform reasoning for it and that the club wouldn't hide behind health and safety when far more high profile stadiums with the bigger attendances don't do it. 

Maybe I'll follow your emoji and wear my sunglasses this evening - substance over style!  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...