When Is A Seat Not A Seat?

[beaverface]

I reckon the club should install rail seating and if we can't get a safety certificate somebody should take an angle-grinder to the rails and turn the rail seats into ordinary seats, after all, that's the only difference !!

[Blagdon red]

A few responses:

@Sixtyseconds: I don't believe there will be any corporate facilities immediately adjacent to the South Stand. From what I have gathered by attending open, public meetings, the corner between South Stand and New Williams will be dominated by the large sports bar and the area where you perhaps think there will boxes will, in fact, be a 'terrace' leading out from the bar.

As for the suitability of the ground's most passionate, colourful, noisy fans being alongside a family section: what better way to get those kids enthralled by the buzz of being a City fan. Unless, of course, you think those fans would sing about nothing but 1970s aggro, using a vocabulary of filth and bile. However, I'm sure you don't encourage that, so having the kids close to the noise and passion can only be good.

@screech: the legal cost would come from the challenge that would ensue as a result of them being in place for football. Daft, I know. But that's the country we live in.

@WTMS: Yes, we will ask.

@Ohbasso: Unfortunately that is precisely what they would do. For even a schoolboy game of football or a charity game between fans the only form of spectator accommodation that can currently be used at Ashton Gate for football is "seated accommodation", and until the government rule that rail seating is seated accommodation it therefore can't be used if the ball is round. Again, daft. But sometimes the law simply is an ass.

@beaverface: Indeed it is the only difference. Funny that the authorities can't see that!
 

[JackiesPolishAftershave]

The correct answer is When it's a VW

[Cambridge Batch Red]

Which uk legal authority has ruled on this issue so far?

[Cambridge Batch Red]

And how do we lobby them to re-look at this?

[Blagdon red]

It is in effect a three-level thing: the local Safety Advisory Group (includes council, police, etc.), the Sports Ground Safety Authority (formerly called the Football Licensing Authority and created by the Football Spectators' Act 1989 with a primary task of aministering the ID card scheme, but after that was killed off by Taylor left with no raison d'etre other than imposing and overseeing the all-seater regulation) and the Department of Culture, Media and Sport. Within that department it is ultimately the Secretary of State who has the power under the Act to require the SGSA to include in the licences that it issues to grounds certain restrictions vis a vis seating It is therefore he who can say "Yep, a rail seat is clearly seated accommodation, so there's no need for me to get involved here" or "No, in my view a rail seat is not seated accommodation and therefore can't be used as spectator accommodation for football in an all-seater ground" or "Well, it kind of is and it isn't seated accommodation, so dear SGSA you can allow rail seats to be used, but you've got to add restrictions X, Y and Z to the ground's licence".

 

The SAG, SGSA and DCMS have been the bodies that have to date declined to rule / not yet got to a stage where they feel able to rule that rail seats are seated accommodation. Ultimately, however, they will all defer to the Secretary of State. That's Bristol-educated Sajid Javid. According to Wikipedia (it might not be right, of course) he went to Downend School from 81-86 and then Filton Technical College from 86-88. The best way to 'lobby' him might therefore be via a good friend from those days. Just need to find one!

[Sixtyseconds]

@Sixtyseconds: I don't believe there will be any corporate facilities immediately adjacent to the South Stand. From what I have gathered by attending open, public meetings, the corner between South Stand and New Williams will be dominated by the large sports bar and the area where you perhaps think there will boxes will, in fact, be a 'terrace' leading out from the bar.

As for the suitability of the ground's most passionate, colourful, noisy fans being alongside a family section: what better way to get those kids enthralled by the buzz of being a City fan. Unless, of course, you think those fans would sing about nothing but 1970s aggro, using a vocabulary of filth and bile. However, I'm sure you don't encourage that, so having the kids close to the noise and passion can only be good.

Without being rude ... Really fella the ST should not be making suggestions on behalf of fans who are not allowed to see what you have. Fans have not got special eyes to see this stuff.

[Blagdon red]

Without being rude ... Really fella the ST should not be making suggestions on behalf of fans who are not allowed to see what you have. Fans have not got special eyes to see this stuff.

As I said, my observations here are based on what I saw and was told at a public meeting.

[phantom]

Am I still missing something here.

 

Why can't these seats be installed now, and;

 

Be bolted up for the rugby?

Be bolted down as a seat for football?

 

What am I missing here?

[Monkeh]

Am I still missing something here.

 

Why can't these seats be installed now, and;

 

Be bolted up for the rugby?

Be bolted down as a seat for football?

 

What am I missing here?

because they haven't been approved by those in power, while it will cause no problem for the egg chasers it would mean the football wouldn't get a safety cert and those parts of the ground with these seats installed would be closed for match days until those in power get off the fence

[PHILINFRANCE]

Am I still missing something here.

 

Why can't these seats be installed now, and;

 

Be bolted up for the rugby?

Be bolted down as a seat for football?

 

What am I missing here?

 

I am aware that Monkeh has responded to your post, but I am confused too.

 

What is wrong, and I am sure that Blagdon Red can advise, with simply installing the 'seats' as 'seats' in the new stand and just leaving them bolted down pending enquiries with the relevant authorities - surely they would not be classed as being different to existing seats in other parts of the ground.

 

If the club are later given permission to use the 'seats' as 'safe-seating' then all well and good, but if not then they can simply be classed as 'seats'. 

 

The rugby fans can be given the choice of 'sitting' in our new 'seats' or sitting/standing elsewhere.

 

An extremely simplistic solution, and no doubt this is a major reason it would not be acceptable, but I should be interested to learn why this would not be feasible.

[Blagdon red]

I am aware that Monkeh has responded to your post, but I am confused too.

 

What is wrong, and I am sure that Blagdon Red can advise, with simply installing the 'seats' as 'seats' in the new stand and just leaving them bolted down pending enquiries with the relevant authorities - surely they would not be classed as being different to existing seats in other parts of the ground.

 

If the club are later given permission to use the 'seats' as 'safe-seating' then all well and good, but if not then they can simply be classed as 'seats'. 

 

The rugby fans can be given the choice of 'sitting' in our new 'seats' or sitting/standing elsewhere.

 

An extremely simplistic solution, and no doubt this is a major reason it would not be acceptable, but I should be interested to learn why this would not be feasible.

In the normal course of events with a new build or a stadium redevelopment like ours, the club would simply go out and choose its preferred model of stadium seat and have that fitted. Indeed, clubs sometimes have a totally new design of seat made just for them (e.g. Arsenal at the Emirates). The manufacturer will make the seats to the guidelines set out in the Green Guide and the seats will be installed. The local council safety officer and the Sports Ground Safety Authority will subsequently take a look at them (and the rest of the stadium infrastructure) and grant their licences.

 

However, in the case of 'rail seats' the authorities have made it quite clear that they're not sure if they are 'seats' or not and that if a club proceeded as outlined above, it would be quite possible that when they came to inspect the ground they would refuse to grant it a licence unless the rail seating section was closed. That being the case, clubs are naturally reluctant to fit rail seats until the issue of whether or not they will be classified as seats by the authorities has been clarifled.

[RedYoshi]

I am aware that Monkeh has responded to your post, but I am confused too.

 

What is wrong, and I am sure that Blagdon Red can advise, with simply installing the 'seats' as 'seats' in the new stand and just leaving them bolted down pending enquiries with the relevant authorities - surely they would not be classed as being different to existing seats in other parts of the ground.

 

If the club are later given permission to use the 'seats' as 'safe-seating' then all well and good, but if not then they can simply be classed as 'seats'. 

 

The rugby fans can be given the choice of 'sitting' in our new 'seats' or sitting/standing elsewhere.

 

An extremely simplistic solution, and no doubt this is a major reason it would not be acceptable, but I should be interested to learn why this would not be feasible.

 

The trouble is that "the law" does not have room for such basic logic.

 

We have all agreed that this is an obvious, simple solution, and is the approach that the club themselves were intending to use. There is no disputing the logic and sense behind it, and the fact that they are, essentially, just a slightly different design of seat.

 

The problem arises due to a ridiculous argument based around semantics, in which rail seats have yet to be ruled (in the eyes of "the law") as "seated accommodation". As our ground is still subject to "all-seater" restrictions, it can only include "seated accommodation", and if we were to just install them we would then be subject to an array of restrictions, and perhaps not even be able to use the entire stand at all - or entire ground.

 

It's ridiculous, annoying, and somewhat mind-boggling, but unfortunately (as Blagdon Red's said before) the law is an ass.

 

Hopefully, at some point it will be ruled that they can be classed as "seated accommodation", at which point we can fit them. Until then, though, it's just a bit too much of a risk.

 

 

 

Ah, Blagdon Red's already responded. Apologies. Still, my fingers will be annoyed at me if I don't post this, so have two answers for the price of one.

[Monkeh]

commen sense doesn't come into it when health and Safety is involved

[beaverface]

In the normal course of events with a new build or a stadium redevelopment like ours, the club would simply go out and choose its preferred model of stadium seat and have that fitted. Indeed, clubs sometimes have a totally new design of seat made just for them (e.g. Arsenal at the Emirates). The manufacturer will make the seats to the guidelines set out in the Green Guide and the seats will be installed. The local council safety officer and the Sports Ground Safety Authority will subsequently take a look at them (and the rest of the stadium infrastructure) and grant their licences.

 

However, in the case of 'rail seats' the authorities have made it quite clear that they're not sure if they are 'seats' or not and that if a club proceeded as outlined above, it would be quite possible that when they came to inspect the ground they would refuse to grant it a licence unless the rail seating section was closed. That being the case, clubs are naturally reluctant to fit rail seats until the issue of whether or not they will be classified as seats by the authorities has been clarifled.

 

...and this is why it's all so bonkers!! A seat is a seat - it's a flappy piece of material that you plonk your backside on. As I keep repeating myself, it's the rail behind the seat that makes it different.

 

What I'd like to know is, what about all these "recaro" seats that you see posh fans and managers sitting in? Surely these can't be seats because they have high backs which could be seen as rails!!?!!

 

Alternatively, maybe we could just fit rows and rows of recaro seats which the footy fans can sit in and the rugby fans can stand behind?!

[phantom]

Blagdon, apologies for bombarding you with questions.

Has there been any work done on how much it will cost to convert from a normal seat into one of the pre-mentioned "rail seats" ?

 

Also am I wrong in assuming that the style of "step" that it is placed on is different to that what a seat would be bolted to?

Essentially is it a case of unbolting one and installing another ?

 

Apart from the waste in money in building a new stand and then rebuilding it not long after, is it still possible to do with the current South Stand?

[Blagdon red]

Blagdon, apologies for bombarding you with questions.

Has there been any work done on how much it will cost to convert from a normal seat into one of the pre-mentioned "rail seats" ?

 

Also am I wrong in assuming that the style of "step" that it is placed on is different to that what a seat would be bolted to?

Essentially is it a case of unbolting one and installing another ?

 

Apart from the waste in money in building a new stand and then rebuilding it not long after, is it still possible to do with the current South Stand?

There is no huge expense involved in doing a retrofit, other than the manpower required to unbolt the conventional seats and bolt on the rail seats. On a viewing deck like we'll have in the South Stand I would not anticipate any further work being required. Indeed it has been designed with retrofitting in mind.

 

In theory, therefore, if the green light was given for the use of rail seats during the course of 2015, it might well be possible to take the then unwanted conventional seats out of the back of the South Stand and the front of the Dolman, use them as part of the seating for the new main stand and retroft rail seats in their place.

 

The video below shows the process.

 

[Cowshed]

I can't speak on behalf of the SC&T, but personally I find the delay disappointing.

I think you are being asked about joining thinking up.

When the club via Jon Lansdown promised full engagemnent the Supporters Trust should be imploring the to finally release images of the stand that is being built for fans right now.

The Supporters Trust cannot fully engage with fans regarding the South stand when you do not have images of the design to show supporters. The Supporters Trust are putting forward suggestions / propositions forward before being able to establish details with supporters.

[Ohbasso]

The idea of high backed seats seems a good one.

How about instead of rail seats the club install seats where the backs are all joint together and the same height as the rails, they'd obviously need to be a lot sturdier then the backs of normal seats, which would in theory give fans a safe area to stand but they'd just be seats rather than the safe standing design the authorities are unsure of?

[WTMS]

As for the suitability of the ground's most passionate, colourful, noisy fans being alongside a family section: what better way to get those kids enthralled by the buzz of being a City fan. Unless, of course, you think those fans would sing about nothing but 1970s aggro, using a vocabulary of filth and bile. However, I'm sure you don't encourage that, so having the kids close to the noise and passion can only be good.

@WTMS: Yes, we will ask.

How can suitability be assessed without images of the stand?

The Atyeo was never considered suitable for a significant element of the support you are mentioning. The Atyeo's design and dynamics were a factor.

@WTMS: Yes, we will ask... Good, but a question was not answered earlier. Surely it makes sense to assess the design first before asking for A,B & C in the South stand?

[T R]

I do like these seats, is there any chance that we could install these instead? I would like to stand in the comfort with my prawn sandwiches. http://www.eheim-moebel.de/english/arena/hockenheimring/index.html

 

I read through this again, I wondered if we added seat belts to the rail seats perhaps the authorities may pass it. http://www.safestandingroadshow.co.uk/news/everwonderedwhenisaseatnotaseat

[Guest]

Any one with common sense will see this for what it is, this is about safe standing.

 

So be up front, say it's safe standing, show why it's as safe as seating and stop trying to sell a pup.

 

This can't be difficult can it? They've already got this in place in Germany and it has a demonstrable safety record.

 

This is a dual purpose design which allows people to stand safely. And as when and necessary, it can easily be converted to seating.

[RedYoshi]

Any one with common sense will see this for what it is, this is about safe standing.

 

So be up front, say it's safe standing, show why it's as safe as seating and stop trying to sell a pup.

 

This can't be difficult can it? They've already got this in place in Germany and it has a demonstrable safety record.

 

This is a dual purpose design which allows people to stand safely. And as when and necessary, it can easily be converted to seating.

 

This is essentially what is happening.

 

The point is that the process to get safe standing approved (especially with all the emotional baggage attached to it in this country) will not be completed by the time we're installing the seats in the new stand(s). Therefore, they will have to be retrofitted.

 

In an attempt to avoid having to retrofit them, there was an attempt to get the rail seats accepted as 'seated accommodation' (as you say: "as when and necessary, it can easily be converted to seating") so that they can be installed from day one but simply used as normal seating.

 

Then, when the day comes when safe standing is approved, they're already there to be used appropriately.

 

Unfortunately, it's clear that this hasn't been successful in time, so we are left with merely waiting until safe standing is approved outright, probably.

 

Ironically, getting all the publicity and pushing the safe standing argument forward (which is obviously a good thing in terms of that development) has potentially counted against us getting them installed from day one. Had we done it a bit more under the radar, not bringing attention to the fact that they could be used for standing - "selling a pup" as you put it - then perhaps we could have been more confident that the inspectors would have come in and used their common sense and said "oh, yeah, they can be used as seats" and we wouldn't have had the worry.

 

Who knows.

 

The point is, we didn't try to sell a pup, we stated they were for safe standing, and now no one's sure if they can accept them as seating.

[Guest]

The reason all seater stadiums came about was safety and it was a knee jerk response to a tragic incident.

 

Time has moved on and it's time for a measured look. What we have to be careful of is a fudge.

 

Standing is not illegal, it's down to the individual football stadium regulations:

http://www.fsf.org.uk/campaigns/safe-standing/the-legalities-of-standing/

 

If standing is not illegal, what is the purpose of the seating? Is this just to regulate crowds?

I'd argue that multi teared rails (as provided by rail seating) is just as safe as seating so is the seat really needed?

 

So maybe a step back is required to understand what regulations are trying to achieve and does multi tear railing meet the requirements. The problems is, we have a raft of middle tear bureaucrats who couldn't organise a drink poos in a brewery between the people who 'really' make the decisions and those who are trying to effect change. For me, that would be a judicial review (this is what JDs are really for i.e. to stop arbitrary decision making by faceless f**kwits who happen to be in positions of power, commonly know as a jobs worth).

 

For me, rail seating is one of the best solutions because of the dual feature.

 

However is seating really necessary for safety?

Hence the pup remark (the opportunity for the f**kwits to try and point out that 'seat' in a railseat is just a ploy to 'get' around regulation - when if fact it's the regulation that needs looking at again).