Shocking from our club

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,219]

7 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

What about asking if you can be moved to the front of the seated section and your rail seat unlocked? 

The seats are not locked. The safe standing is just your normal seat with a rail in front of you.........

[Google Bot 3,922]

2 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

What about asking if you can be moved to the front of the seated section and your rail seat unlocked? 

The seats are just the normal seats, they've just added rails in front that are quite low down anyway.  So anyone 'standing' in front are usually bent over leaning most of the match.  Personally I think it's easier to see for the majority of the match as you haven't got the constant sitting/standing going on every-time there's a moment.

Obviously, it completely depends on who you've got around you though.

[littleyellowbirdie 3,138]

2 minutes ago, Google Bot said:

The seats are just the normal seats, they've just added rails in front that are quite low down anyway.  So anyone 'standing' in front are usually bent over leaning most of the match.  Personally I think it's easier to see for the majority of the match as you haven't got the constant sitting/standing going on every-time there's a moment.

Obviously, it completely depends on who you've got around you though.

Sounds like a bit of a dog's breakfast. 

[Google Bot 3,922]

1 minute ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Sounds like a bit of a dog's breakfast. 

Kinda is I guess, but I also remember people moaning about the club for over-spending when this was announced  - so perhaps it's a good middle ground where we've got the option, but it's not cost us a fortune?

Just looked up an image to show you as it may not be clear on TV, and as luck has it, Looks like this is a shot of the railings where they end in the Thorpe section:

It's no surprise that they're a concern when you look at that image they need running off to the end of that section really. 

But there's also inconsistencies that appear at random, like above the Ambulance crew heads here:  

4 rows that just end without the curved finish. It's like they didn't have enough parts or something! 🙂

[Robert N. LiM 6,247]

3 minutes ago, Google Bot said:

 

This is just ridiculous. Really embarrassing.

[littleyellowbirdie 3,138]

4 minutes ago, Google Bot said:

Kinda is I guess, but I also remember people moaning about the club for over-spending when this was announced  - so perhaps it's a good middle ground where we've got the option, but it's not cost us a fortune?

Just looked up an image to show you as it may not be clear on TV, and as luck has it, Looks like this is a shot of the railings where they end in the Thorpe section:

It's no surprise that they're a concern when you look at that image they need running off to the end of that section really. 

But there's also inconsistencies that appear at random, like above the Ambulance crew heads here:  

4 rows that just end without the curved finish. It's like they didn't have enough parts or something! 🙂

It seems to me that the club needs to reach out to people in seated only areas and see who wants to go standing and vice versa, then arrange swaps?

I can see this is going to be disastrous for anyone who really wanted to sit as they're not going to be able to see. 

Edited September 30 by littleyellowbirdie

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,219]

14 minutes ago, Google Bot said:

Kinda is I guess, but I also remember people moaning about the club for over-spending when this was announced  - so perhaps it's a good middle ground where we've got the option, but it's not cost us a fortune?

Just looked up an image to show you as it may not be clear on TV, and as luck has it, Looks like this is a shot of the railings where they end in the Thorpe section:

It's no surprise that they're a concern when you look at that image they need running off to the end of that section really. 

But there's also inconsistencies that appear at random, like above the Ambulance crew heads here:  

4 rows that just end without the curved finish. It's like they didn't have enough parts or something! 🙂

Re the top photo, the guy in the white t-shirt (next to "alamy") is in my seat 😀. 

Noe of the ends at Seats 215 are finished off. I am guessing the curved end would have been even more of a hazard re hitting your head on it.

Personally think the safe standing should have just been in the Snakepit corner, it would have made sense to stop it there. The half arsed effort looks daft, and now the whole Thorpe Area has to be done. IMHO a poorly executed and poorly communicated project.........

[Google Bot 3,922]

57 minutes ago, Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB said:

Personally think the safe standing should have just been in the Snakepit corner, it would have made sense to stop it there. The half arsed effort looks daft, and now the whole Thorpe Area has to be done. IMHO a poorly executed and poorly communicated project.........

It's quite surprising that this didn't make it's way back to the supporters panel in hindsight, seems the club asked for feedback and the panel said it was all good other than exiting taking a bit longer:

https://www.canaries.co.uk/club/supporters-panel-meeting-17-09-2024

"The club sought feedback from the Panel on safe-standing following its installation over the summer. The Panel were positive about the project and stated that it does what it says on the tin and creates a safer environment for supporters, although exit from the ground is longer and space slightly tighter."

Not having a dig, as i've never realised how daft it seems until it's now come up as a topic of discussion.  Looking at the photo it seems really bizarre how this was even ok'd to start with.

Edited September 30 by Google Bot

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,219]

5 minutes ago, Google Bot said:

It's quite surprising that this didn't make it's way back to the supporters panel in hindsight, seems the club asked for feedback and the panel said it was all good other than exiting taking a bit longer:

https://www.canaries.co.uk/club/supporters-panel-meeting-17-09-2024

"The club sought feedback from the Panel on safe-standing following its installation over the summer. The Panel were positive about the project and stated that it does what it says on the tin and creates a safer environment for supporters, although exit from the ground is longer and space slightly tighter."

Not having a dig, as i've never realised how daft it seems until it's now come up as a topic of discussion.  Looking at the photo it seems really bizarre how this was even ok'd to start with.

I would also add that the plates that secure the rails to the concrete have not been counter sunk. I tripped over the plate as I went to my seat, a chap in the row behind also tripped over a plate as he when to his seat. We have got used to the set up now though.

I know that a couple of us fed back to the club re safe standing so I too was surprised the panel thinks all is good.

I am not against safe standing, but I do think the club has executed and communicated the project poorly........

 

[JonnyJonnyRowe 958]

9 hours ago, Nik Vawn said:

They offered us seats at the very back of the Wensum in the corner

That is depressing! 

I'd counter say that you want 50% of the cost of your season ticket back for compensation for having to to move to a the sh!ttest bit of the ground and first dibs in the summer on seat swaps.

[JonnyJonnyRowe 958]

2 hours ago, Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB said:

Re the top photo, the guy in the white t-shirt (next to "alamy") is in my seat 😀. 

Noe of the ends at Seats 215 are finished off. I am guessing the curved end would have been even more of a hazard re hitting your head on it.

Personally think the safe standing should have just been in the Snakepit corner, it would have made sense to stop it there. The half arsed effort looks daft, and now the whole Thorpe Area has to be done. IMHO a poorly executed and poorly communicated project.........

Those blunt ends do look quite lethal, it doesn't surprise me that they are requiring the change for it to be extended to the full row. 

Edited September 30 by JonnyJonnyRowe

[Duncan Edwards 2,424]

Just can’t imagine this happening under Delia. Another prime example of be careful what you wish for, I guess. 

[city4eva 241]

10 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

It seems to me that the club needs to reach out to people in seated only areas and see who wants to go standing and vice versa, then arrange swaps?

I can see this is going to be disastrous for anyone who really wanted to sit as they're not going to be able to see. 

Should have been done in the close season like the rest of that section and the lower Barclay. I was surprised at the time that they only went for half of the Thorpe section.

 Solution now is to make those rails safe and leave the other half as is. 

 

 

 

[TIL 1010 5,246]

Surely the Panel can only give a positive view on the matter if one of them is seated, standing or whatever in that particular area of the ground so is that the case ?

[Mello Yello 2,571]

Hopefully the club will be handing out milk crates for those who are vertically challenged to stand on?....

[Google Bot 3,922]

25 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

Surely the Panel can only give a positive view on the matter if one of them is seated, standing or whatever in that particular area of the ground so is that the case ?

Yeah, they can only give a perspective of course, but at the same time it's frustrating that such an obvious short-coming didn't in some way make it to the club.

It fell on the club to tell supporters, which feels the wrong way around to me.   But this is so much easier to say in hindsight, I never looked over and questioned it.

[TIL 1010 5,246]

1 minute ago, Google Bot said:

Yeah, they can only give a perspective of course, but at the same time it's frustrating that such an obvious short-coming didn't in some way make it to the club.

It fell on the club to tell supporters, which feels the wrong way around to me.   But this is so much easier to say in hindsight, I never looked over and questioned it.

A classic case of the club further down the line ticking the box under consultation with approval from the SP.

[essex canary 621]

12 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

A classic case of the club further down the line ticking the box under consultation with approval from the SP.

So why not challenge the brazen advocates of such a policy?

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,219]

10 hours ago, Duncan Edwards said:

Just can’t imagine this happening under Delia. Another prime example of be careful what you wish for, I guess. 

Given that the area we are talking about was installed by May 24 and Delia did not announce standing aside until August 24 I would say it did happen under Delia...........

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,219]

19 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

A classic case of the club further down the line ticking the box under consultation with approval from the SP.

This sums up how I feel about it. Personally I question the value of the SP to the wider fanbase whilst it operates as it currently does.......

[shefcanary 2,945]

I note the fact the letters regarding the changes were sent to STH's the day after the supporters panel met, that meeting being when the panel were briefed on the changes without much notice (i.e. dropped on them) and that the panel doesn't seem to have been asked to do any follow up work on this specific issue?

Club is asking for trouble. To add to what Duncan said above, no sign of corporate governance being applied here, it seems they are back in making it up as they go along mood again.

[GMF 1,010]

Having regards to the above discourse, the minutes of the supporters panel meeting, relating specifically to safe-standing, actually read as follows:

”The club sought feedback from the Panel on safe-standing following its installation over the summer. The Panel were positive about the project and stated that it does what it says on the tin and creates a safer environment for supporters, although exit from the ground is longer and space slightly tighter.

The club informed the Panel that following a review by the Sports Ground Safety Authority and the Safety Advisory Group it has been identified that for safety reasons further Safe Standing rails are required to be installed in the remainder of the Thorpe Area. These supporters will be being notified shortly.”

None of the panel members sit in the relevant section of the Thorpe area, and were therefore unfamiliar with the exact issues surrounding the proposals.

Being informed that this was a requirement of the Sports Ground Safety Authority and the Safety Advisory Group, probably means that it was readily accepted by those in attendance, especially given the assurances that consultations would occur with the relevant fans 

Although I can understand why some might be critical of the role of the Supporters Panel in this instance, frankly, having subsequently seen the photos, it begs a question of how the initial proposal was actually signed off by the safety groups in the first place?

[TIL 1010 5,246]

8 minutes ago, GMF said:

Having regards to the above discourse, the minutes of the supporters panel meeting, relating specifically to safe-standing, actually read as follows:

”The club sought feedback from the Panel on safe-standing following its installation over the summer. The Panel were positive about the project and stated that it does what it says on the tin and creates a safer environment for supporters, although exit from the ground is longer and space slightly tighter.

The club informed the Panel that following a review by the Sports Ground Safety Authority and the Safety Advisory Group it has been identified that for safety reasons further Safe Standing rails are required to be installed in the remainder of the Thorpe Area. These supporters will be being notified shortly.”

None of the panel members sit in the relevant section of the Thorpe area, and were therefore unfamiliar with the exact issues surrounding the proposals.

Being informed that this was a requirement of the Sports Ground Safety Authority and the Safety Advisory Group, probably means that it was readily accepted by those in attendance, especially given the assurances that consultations would occur with the relevant fans 

Although I can understand why some might be critical of the role of the Supporters Panel in this instance, frankly, having subsequently seen the photos, it begs a question of how the initial proposal was actually signed off by the safety groups in the first place?

Thanks for that Gary but in the circumstances as they are now known regarding the SAG and SGSA review the minutes stating ' that it does what it says on the tin and creates a safer environment ' appear somewhat to be a stretch..

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,784]

Somebody at the Club has dropped a clanger . Looking at those pics it’s clear that that doesn't work. 
If I had purchased a seat and mid season I had to stand I would be very unhappy . 
 

[shefcanary 2,945]

35 minutes ago, GMF said:

Although I can understand why some might be critical of the role of the Supporters Panel in this instance, frankly, having subsequently seen the photos, it begs a question of how the initial proposal was actually signed off by the safety groups in the first place?

Absolutely no criticism of the SP themselves. My criticism like yours is firstly how we got into such a state, but secondly with the way the club have gone about resolving this, merely hiding behind external officialdom and the volunteers in the SP. Very poor governance issue again.

[GMF 1,010]

23 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

Thanks for that Gary but in the circumstances as they are now known regarding the SAG and SGSA review the minutes stating ' that it does what it says on the tin and creates a safer environment ' appear somewhat to be a stretch..

To be honest, John, I can live with the shade thrown at the Supporters Panel in this instance, but quite how that was signed off in the first place beggars belief. 

[essex canary 621]

2 minutes ago, GMF said:

To be honest, John, I can live with the shade thrown at the Supporters Panel in this instance, but quite how that was signed off in the first place beggars belief. 

The irony is in general the Supporters Panel minutes are far, far better this time. The problem is essentially with the Club. There should be a pro-forma for Supporters to ask questions in which case the Supporters using the facilities could have fed in.

[Feedthewolf 5,885]

43 minutes ago, GMF said:

To be honest, John, I can live with the shade thrown at the Supporters Panel in this instance, but quite how that was signed off in the first place beggars belief. 

Unfortunate timing, with the panel meeting being just before this issue was communicated to fans. The club certainly needs to employ some judicious reputation management around this issue, as it's a pretty catastrophic failure of due diligence.

[NewNestCarrow 290]

The reality is NCFC didn't really want 'safe standing'

The club have tried to appease the vocal minority by installing rails but have also tried to do it as cheaply as possible.

In these more safety-conscious times if someone had suggested a project that increased stand evacuation times (and cost money) the response would have been mostly negative.

[ncfcstar 342]

33 minutes ago, NewNestCarrow said:

The reality is NCFC didn't really want 'safe standing'

I don't think that's true tbh, having sat through OSP meetings where it's potential introduction was discussed the club have been keen to do it for a while.  The problem they had was choosing the correct supplier (oops) and the fact that if they introduced it into the Barclay and Snakepit, it also had to be introduced into the away end.

What does surprise me is that the club spent a long time researching exactly what to do here, I believe they visited Celtic Park and some stadia in Germany to get a clear understanding of what they were going to introduce.  In fact, I'm sure the club even stated that proper rail seating was going to be installed?  How on earth they ended up with the installation that has taken place I do not know, it doesn't align with anything that the club communicated (imo) prior to it being installed.