Blagdon red

Used to do some work in a building across the road from Strangeways. It's a grim, red-brick, Victorian edifice. Not a nice place.

1 hour ago, RedNachos said:

Emailed the handle given above, @shahanshahan is this all you'll need to do to be invited to the meeting, or will I need to give membership details, etc.

All e-mails to info@ come to me and are automatically forwarded to @Blagdon Mike... then forwarded to relevant board members, as necessary.

We'll send the Zoom link tomorrow to all who have asked to 'attend'. Thanks for your interest - new views and opinions are always welcome.

26 minutes ago, The Wild Bunch said:

Please can you remind me of the SC&T’s remit?  I might be wrong but the relationship between the trust and club seems to have deteriorated recently. 

Since the arrival of RG, the relationship is actually a lot better than it's been for some time, as evidenced by the signing of a formal Memorandum of Understanding between the club and the SC&T: https://www.bristolcitysupporters.org/city-sign-mou-with-supporters-club-trust/

29 minutes ago, Street red said:

So they will check all 17,000 people can't see that happening it will be random so to me its all bloody pointless.

I was at a game in Germany a few weeks ago with a 17,500 crowd. Everyone's Covid status and ID carefully checked before entering. Worked fine and it took no longer to enter the ground than normal.

There have been limits in place in most German states for most of this season. And in all cases admission to stadia has been subject to showing proof of vaccination, recovery or a negative test (within the past 24 hours). Masks in all queues, on concourses etc. have also been mandatory.

Sensible precautions IMHO. And at the games I've been to the procedures have worked well and fans have adhered to the rules.

1 hour ago, Kid in the Riot said:

That's absolutely right. When they walk away from Bristol City, I am convinced the Lansdowns will do so having not made a substantial personal financial loss, and with the sporting quarter and Ashton Vale elements, may in fact walk away with a handsome profit. 

The company that submitted the sporting quarter application has three named directors, by the way:

Martin Griffiths, Gavin Marshall and Jon Lansdown.

All three stand to be enriched considerably by that project. Marshall seems a decent enough guy, but seems to have come from nowhere. I'd be interested to know how and why he has got himself into a position where he stands to make a considerable amount of money from a Bristol Sport project. 

It appears that the Lansdowns are now "looking after" a few of their closest allies, as the end of their reign nears. 

Nothing illegal or even morally wrong with it, necessarily, but something that I feel people need to be aware of. 

Griffiths, Marshall, and Steve and John, will surely walk away with millions between them from this project. 

Yet to most City fans they are viewed either as club employees or benefactors. That's certainly not the full story... 

I think you are in danger of mixing up being a director of a company and being a significant shareholder. It is quite possible that a director is not a shareholder at all. It seems to me quite normal for the FD of BS to be a director of the sporting quarter company. It does not follow, however, that he has a substantial shareholding or stands to make "millions" from that role. Overseeing the group finances is, after all, his day job.

5 hours ago, phantom said:

Installed at Cardiff now

Personally I wouldn't call that 'safe standing'. I'd call it barriers fitted over the top of tip-up plastic seats (mind your head!).

In an ideal world, safe standing areas provide a lot more space for the standing fans by reducing the depth of the tipped up seat to no more than the depth of the barrier posts, and also remove the safety hazard presented by the presence of a seat that can be stood on and potentially fallen off by locking a flat, streamlined seat upright between the barrier posts. That would be a safe standing set-up. What's shown here is a compromise with several flaws.

6 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Perhaps I'm missing something here but might conversion of the Lower part of a stand not block the view of those in the upper half who would presumably be seated?

I follow this issue occasionally and think that conversion of these areas tick a lot of boxes but wonder about the one bit above.

If you cast your mind right back, you'll recall the image below, which was produced by the architects doing the redevelopment. It envisaged what is known as a 'super riser' at the back of a lower 'paddock' at the front of the South Stand:

8 minutes ago, Scrumpy Dziek said:

Are the 2 areas originally (or once) suggested (Lower Dolman & Upper South) still likely to be the next converted?

The very original areas earmarked were, in fact, the Lower Dolman, as you say, and the Lower South. It was only in response to fan feedback and the expression of a preference for having a standing area in the South Stand at the back rather than the front that the back became the area earmarked for it.

But those were old plans for the redevelopment and a lot has changed since then. So, I think plans for any new areas now would start with a blank sheet of paper.

54 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Saw some interesting figures. Think Tottenham was mooted at 7k, would that include home and away @Blagdon red?

It's about 11% of capacity there, extrapolated to AG that's just under 3k.

Although another article said up to 10k there.

You've probably covered elsewhere tbh but what would be the % of a capacity do you think that would be applicable for it? Thanks.

Spurs, Chelsea and Man City have safe standing provision in place now for all/most of their away fans' areas.

My understanding is that while other early adopters are being allowed to do just 10% of their away areas initially, the expectation from the safety authorities is that supply should ultimately match demand and in due course reflect the number of visiting fans who prefer to stand.

It was interesting to see in this piece yesterday that Wolves initially applied to be one of the 'early adopters', but then withdrew their application due to the requirements being made in respect of safe standing for away fans.

I was there. My lasting memory is that we sung through the entire half-time interval. Mostly "And it's Bristol City, Bristol City FC, the finest football team the world's ever seen!" ... on repeat for 15 minutes!

Yes, still available. And, as you say, a great way to get youngsters involved.

The group of kids that was due to have the SC&T free tickets for the Forest game have unfortunately had to cry off, so the tickets (2 adults and 6 under 19s) are up for grabs... ideally for a group of youngsters coming to their first (or practically their first game) at the Gate.

Details here: https://www.bristolcitysupporters.org/kids-be-our-guest-take-3/

1 hour ago, Red Skin said:

What's the difference? Can you elaborate?  Does safe standing differ from rail seating in that you cannot convert to seats?  It only can allow standing?

I'd love to be standing again, but given I sit with a bunch of mates the whole relocating en mass would be a pain. 

 

Under current rules and regs, there is no difference structurally. The difference is in the legality. At present, even though standing is tolerated in the SE corner of the ground, it is still technically a breach of the ground regulations and the club's licence from the Sports Ground Safety Authority.

Clubs approved for participation in the trials from 1 January 2022 will have their licences amended, so that allowing fans to stand in the designated area, which must comply with strict criteria that will be assessed during the application process, will no longer be a breach of the club's licence. The fans too will thus no longer be in breach of the ground regulations.

If Ashton Gate gets approved, I would not expect any structural changes in the home standing area. A standing area for away fans in the Atyeo will, however, have to be added, as this is a requirement of the rules for the trials.

5 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

The away fans bit is interesting due to the fact that as a general rule, rather a lot of away fans- and not just here but in general- stand verbatim.

How do you go about enforcing all-seater in a zone of the ground where the bulk stand regardless? Yet what is our safe standing area, about 1,000? Away end would presumably need to be equal to this, but given the % of away fans that stand routinely it seems potentially tricky to me...

The new guidelines do not specify the size of the safe standing area required for away fans. If clubs just wanted to pay lip service to the requirement, they could provide a very small area.

It's hard to know how many away fans stand because they want to and how many do so because they have no choice if they want to see the game.

For us, this may actually be an opportunity to diminish the ability of away fans to get the whole Atyeo singing in unison. Perhaps there should be two or three pockets of safe standing provided for them, with sitting enforced in the areas in between. With luck that might result in a disorganised cacophony!

On 22/09/2021 at 14:35, stoke giiford red said:

Hasn't the singing section been 'safe standing' all season? What would change if we applied to be part of the trial?

If we apply to be part of the pilot scheme, the club will need to provide some safe standing for away fans too, as that is a requirement of participating in the pilot.

The safe standing areas would then also be marketed as standing areas and it must say this on the ticket. So, fans standing in those areas would no longer be in breach of ground regulations, as they are now - even though standing is currently tolerated in such areas.

New rules will also come into force to ensure that standing fans have plenty of room and don't spill out into the aisles. In grounds where the space along the rows is insufficient, standing may still be allowed, but capacity will be cut to avoid encroachment into the gangways. The guidance gives an example of "at least 5 seats" per row being taken off sale.

I imagine that in due course there will also be a general clamp down on standing in any area other than the safe standing areas, so that fans who prefer to sit aren't inconvenienced. The logic will be, I presume that clubs will by then have had the opportunity to provide standing areas and if they choose not to, then they must keep all fans sat down.

That clearly won't work, so it makes sense for all clubs to provide a mix of standing and seated accommodation to match the demand in their individual case.

13 minutes ago, Lrrr said:

I can understand for the first game why they wouldn't though, you need to leave the ballot open for at least a few days so people have a chance to enter, then sort it, send everyone emails with (presumably) their e-tickets or if you can't print then sort the physical tickets. With 9 days including a weekend I can understand why the first wouldn't be a ballot.

A number of clubs have successfully run ballots within a very tight timescale. I imagine that they put a lot of planning into it ahead of time and were ready to press 'Go' the  instant the govt gave the green light for fans to attend. Hopefully City have done the same sort of forward planning.

3 minutes ago, Lrrr said:

So what is a fair system? Already been limited so its season ticket holders how do you then make it fairer for who gets to attend?

A ballot

Some one posted a link saying that away goals don't count

JPT tweet pre-match:

JPT ?@JP_Trophy 8h8 hours ago

Ahead of the start of the area finals tonight, a reminder that there is no away goals rule in this competition >> http://po.st/JPTRules

Yes I did see that (and tried to hear despite the lack of quality PA system!) but its still not the same as seeing the team go mad when the final whistle goes...thats what I missed out on. If you read the papers and website GJ made it very clear he did not want the fans on the pitch... no one respected that.

Come off it - do you think those were really GJ's words? The club were just going through the motions so they were seen to be doing the right thing from a health and safety point of view.

If they had really not wanted fans on the pitch, would they have instructed all of stewards to open the gates to the pitch on the final whistle and stand aside to allow fans on ... as they all did?

Would they also have lined up a minibus to ferry the team from behind the Atyeo to the back of the Williams? Which they did.

The club fully expected a celebratory pitch invasion and, I dare say, were delighted to see so many happy fans on the pitch ... none of the players seemed in much of hurry to get off either!

It was a big party - one of those symbiotic moments between fans and players ... if you can't appreciate that, maybe you should be going to the theatre for your entertainment and not to football.