Shocking from our club

[shefcanary 2,939]

35 minutes ago, NewNestCarrow said:

but have also tried to do it as cheaply as possible.

My experience of safe standing at away games shows all clubs must be doing it the same then - apart from the issues people have pointed out on this thread specific to the Thorpe, safe standing at other grounds is no different than at the Carra', just railings behind the row in front. I'm sure as more new stadia are developed or stands are replaced they will become more sophisticated.

I regularly watch the drone footage of the new Everton ground; all the seating has been fitted in that stadium, but no sign of any safe standing! It does highlight a lack of adaptability in that project that they will be faced with another large bill to retrofit safe standing rails into it. 

[NewNestCarrow 290]

1 minute ago, shefcanary said:

My experience of safe standing at away games shows all clubs must be doing it the same then - apart from the issues people have pointed out on this thread specific to the Thorpe, safe standing at other grounds is no different than at the Carra', just railings behind the row in front. I'm sure as more new stadia are developed or stands are replaced they will become more sophisticated.

https://www.canaries.co.uk/content/safe-standing-to-be-introduced-at-carrow-road ]

If you look  at Ferco's site there are clearly different systems being offered / fitted.

https://www.fercoseating.com/news/sports/history-safe-standing-football

CR looks nothing like the systems installed at Shrewsbury & Celtic, for example.  

[shefcanary 2,939]

Just now, NewNestCarrow said:

https://www.fercoseating.com/news/sports/history-safe-standing-football

CR looks nothing like the systems installed at Shrewsbury & Celtic, for example.  

You have me there - so far City haven't played either of them since safe standing was allowed. But if the example of Liverpool when re-fitting their Anfield Road Stand only installing a rail, they may be the exceptions in the short term.

[NewNestCarrow 290]

14 minutes ago, ncfcstar said:

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.

A vocal minority of fans drove the return of legalised standing at football.

First it was to increase capacity, then it was to make tickets cheaper, and then it was because it made the atmosphere better.

Clubs had no interest in doing it until they saw the easy PR win.

[hogesar 10,700]

44 minutes ago, ncfcstar said:

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.

Yeah, it's shoddy work done at a cut price, although apparently still cost the club a fair chunk, and having just seen how the rails end in the Thorpe corner, it really does defy belief

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,215]

1 hour ago, NewNestCarrow said:

https://www.canaries.co.uk/content/safe-standing-to-be-introduced-at-carrow-road ]

If you look  at Ferco's site there are clearly different systems being offered / fitted.

https://www.fercoseating.com/news/sports/history-safe-standing-football

CR looks nothing like the systems installed at Shrewsbury & Celtic, for example.  

Begs the question why the club moved away from the communicated Ferco system and why the change was not communicated to supporters.

On a side issue, the communication from NCFC says "Thorpe Corner (Snakepit)", we looked at the stadium plan and did not think we would be affected as our seats are not in the area denoted as "Thorpe Corner" on that plan.

Turns out our seats are designated as "Thorpe Corner" even though we are not in the corner. Apparently I pay slightly less for my Season Ticket than the chap to my right 😀.

Now the people in the more expensive seats are going to have Safe Standing whether they like it or not.

As I say a poorly planned, executed and communicated project...........

[Commonsense 802]

3 hours ago, hogesar said:

Yeah, it's shoddy work done at a cut price, although apparently still cost the club a fair chunk, and having just seen how the rails end in the Thorpe corner, it really does defy belief

Disagree almost entirely. I don’t know about the Thorpe Corner but in the Barclay it works well. It means the club is able legally to let people stand in that area, but seating is available if they prefer not to. It helps resolve conflicts (Remember the B block debacle) by being clear. We are not in the UK going to return to terracing like the yellow wall in Germany etc- Pesonally I think that is a good thing as for all it’s ‘ atmosphere’ it’s pretty uncomfortable and dangerous to stand on. It’s somewhat unfair to criticise the club for formalising an arrangement which was already happening in the Barclay.

I do though sympathise with the OP as changing the Thorpe Corner after the season has started seems wrong.

[Google Bot 3,917]

7 hours ago, GMF said:

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.

But that's only one element of this, When told by the club, why was it not questioned how such areas had been implemented and supporters allowed in to start with? 

Secondly, It's also concerning that out of all those SP members, no-one appears to react to supporters being notified that their seat is being changed to a standing position mid-season too.

And thirdly, how did the SP not question the entire project, when it was clear during pre-season that it wasn't the rail-seating we were expecting?

I do feel sympathy for the OP who may be one of many in the position where they could be forced to move out of their paid seats.

[Commonsense 802]

5 hours ago, Google Bot said:

But that's only one element of this, When told by the club, why was it not questioned how such areas had been implemented and supporters allowed in to start with? 

Secondly, It's also concerning that out of all those SP members, no-one appears to react to supporters being notified that their seat is being changed to a standing position mid-season too.

And thirdly, how did the SP not question the entire project, when it was clear during pre-season that it wasn't the rail-seating we were expecting?

I do feel sympathy for the OP who may be one of many in the position where they could be forced to move out of their paid seats.

Who was expecting rail seating. What we have is the same as the safe standing in the other grounds we’ve visited this season. Even Liverpool’s revamped Anfield Road end was the same last season in the cup ( though that was a ridiculously tight squeeze). 

[Google Bot 3,917]

53 minutes ago, Commonsense said:

Who was expecting rail seating.

As discussed already, it's what the club put in regards to Ferco and the quote similar projects:

https://www.canaries.co.uk/content/safe-standing-to-be-introduced-at-carrow-road

"Ferco have previously carried out similar works at Celtic Park and Loftus Road, the respective home stadiums of Celtic and Queens Park Rangers."

Celtic : https://www.fercoseating.com/projects/sports/celtic-fc

QPR : https://www.fercoseating.com/projects/sports/queens-park-rangers-stadium

Maybe i'm wrong, but I don't think people were expecting it to be implemented as it was from the first time we went in for those pre-season games?

[GMF 1,006]

12 hours ago, Google Bot said:

But that's only one element of this, When told by the club, why was it not questioned how such areas had been implemented and supporters allowed in to start with? 

Secondly, It's also concerning that out of all those SP members, no-one appears to react to supporters being notified that their seat is being changed to a standing position mid-season too.

And thirdly, how did the SP not question the entire project, when it was clear during pre-season that it wasn't the rail-seating we were expecting?

I do feel sympathy for the OP who may be one of many in the position where they could be forced to move out of their paid seats.

I’m not going down the rabbit hole of what was said, or should have been said, in your opinion, at the meeting.

The Club indicated that this was a requirement, following a review by the Sports Ground Safety Authority and the Safety Advisory Group.

Fan safety is clearly of paramount importance to everyone and, had the recommendations not been implemented, it is highly likely that certain seats would have been deemed unsafe and unusable until compliance occurred.

Like I mentioned before, the fact that the current design layout was approved, beggars belief, both from the Club’s perspective and by the two safety groups.

I too have sympathy with the OP, but we are where we are and have to deal with the consequences of the decision of the safety groups.

[Paul101 189]

8 hours ago, Commonsense said:

Who was expecting rail seating. What we have is the same as the safe standing in the other grounds we’ve visited this season. Even Liverpool’s revamped Anfield Road end was the same last season in the cup ( though that was a ridiculously tight squeeze). 

not been in any of the railed areas this season but it looks a right squeeze for the larger people 

was thinking they might have done rail seats not this half arsed version 

[CANARYKING 706]

From where I was it looked as if half of the area where standing the other half sitting ?

[dylanisabaddog 6,108]

18 hours ago, hogesar said:

Yeah, it's shoddy work done at a cut price, although apparently still cost the club a fair chunk, and having just seen how the rails end in the Thorpe corner, it really does defy belief

Having seen the photos it would be impossible to draw any other conclusion. I absolutely despair and I think we need to raise this at the shareholders meeting. It doesn't affect me but I have sympathy for those who are suffering.

It's so bad I can only assume it was subcontracted to Norwich City Council. 

[Hairy Canary 746]

The point of safe standing is to provide choice, which I think most would agree is a good thing. People can purchase their season ticket knowing in advance that they will be sitting or standing, as is their preference.

What you absolutely do not do is sell tickets as per one option and then impose a change to the other. I’m finding it hard to understand how anyone could think that was acceptable! 
 

The only justification I can think of is that the club are concerned about safety issues and consider that extending safe standing is the least worst option. 

[hogesar 10,700]

14 hours ago, Commonsense said:

Disagree almost entirely. I don’t know about the Thorpe Corner but in the Barclay it works well. It means the club is able legally to let people stand in that area, but seating is available if they prefer not to. It helps resolve conflicts (Remember the B block debacle) by being clear. We are not in the UK going to return to terracing like the yellow wall in Germany etc- Pesonally I think that is a good thing as for all it’s ‘ atmosphere’ it’s pretty uncomfortable and dangerous to stand on. It’s somewhat unfair to criticise the club for formalising an arrangement which was already happening in the Barclay.

I do though sympathise with the OP as changing the Thorpe Corner after the season has started seems wrong.

I'm in the Barclay. I don't disagree that it works well, but the way it's been allowed up until now to just "end" in the pictures in the Thorpe Corner is poor, and the actual quality of the install is very poor too.

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,215]

9 hours ago, Commonsense said:

Who was expecting rail seating. What we have is the same as the safe standing in the other grounds we’ve visited this season. Even Liverpool’s revamped Anfield Road end was the same last season in the cup ( though that was a ridiculously tight squeeze). 

Based on the communication from Norwich City FC 7 months ago I was expecting rail seating, I do not think I was alone in this. An excerpt of that communication is set out below:

"Providers Ferco will install safe standing in the Lower Barclay, Thorpe Corner (Snake Pit) and a section of the away supporter area over the coming summer period.

Ferco have previously carried out similar works at Celtic Park and Loftus Road, the respective home stadiums of Celtic and Queens Park Rangers.

I have highlighted "Loftus Road" as an image of that installation is available on the Ferco web site (see link below), it is the same system as installed at Celtic Park. 

https://www.fercoseating.com/projects/sports/queens-park-rangers-stadium

I have also included a link from the Ferco website regarding the products they provide, none look anything like what has been installed at Carrow Road.

https://www.fercoseating.com/products/sports

As an aside, we sat in the Lower Barclay for the Lionesses game against the Republic of Ireland and we thought it was a tighter fit than the safe standing for our usual seats in the Thorpe Area (they were in place last season for the Leeds play off game)..............

 

[Feedthewolf 5,885]

1 hour ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Having seen the photos it would be impossible to draw any other conclusion. I absolutely despair and I think we need to raise this at the shareholders meeting. It doesn't affect me but I have sympathy for those who are suffering.

It's so bad I can only assume it was subcontracted to Norwich City Council. 

Yep, whether it's through the shareholders, the Canaries Trust or the supporters' panel, this definitely needs escalating. The club's really dropped a bóllock on this one, and needs to be held to account for it.

Edited October 2 by Feedthewolf

[Google Bot 3,917]

2 hours ago, GMF said:

Fan safety is clearly of paramount importance to everyone and, had the recommendations not been implemented, it is highly likely that certain seats would have been deemed unsafe and unusable until compliance occurred.

The resulting action of ticket holders being told their seat is changing to standing is what I imagine a supporters panel would have at least questioned.  I'm not asking anyone to go down a rabbits hole, i'm just genuinely surprised.

And yes, i'm also surprised that the initial install wasn't questioned either.  But that's a more subjective topic, as it appears some of us were expecting a more professional installation that provides more leg movement than the 'cost-effective' one.

As Wolfy mentioned above, the release of the SP minutes and this thread is unfortunate timing and we're all experts in hindsight when viewing the images as above, as we are when reading the OP's perspective too.  So if you're a part of the SP please don't think i'm taking aim here, as I sense that you're being very defensive on the subject.

If I had a suggestion it would be for someone from the SP to create a thread here or via social media asking for fans feedback in that area so you can relay it back to the club in a future meeting.  As I think that would make an excellent vehicle for this to be brought back to the table and questions asked retrospectively.

It also enforces the fact the SP exists for any of us to tap on their door should we have genuine issues, because I doubt the majority are even aware.

Edited October 2 by Google Bot

[essex canary 610]

46 minutes ago, Feedthewolf said:

Yep, whether it's through the shareholders, the Canaries Trust or the supporters' panel, this definitely needs escalating. The club's really dropped a bóllock on this one, and needs to be held to account for it.

Yes it does. Clearly though there is no obvious escalation procedure as there ought to be. Doubtless the AGM will take it up hopefully alongside other unacceptable issues too but it shouldn't need to wait that long.

[Jim Smith 2,578]

I don’t really care as there is still just about enough room and I like being able to stand but the new rails do make it “tighter” and a bit of an effort to squeeze past people when trying to get to your seat. I can only assume the club have gone for the cheapest option given how basic it is. I can’t help noticing that “proper” rail seat systems preserve the space because when the seats are thinner and when they are not in use they can be folded/locked back into essentially a vertical position under the rail whereas we’ve just kept the same seats which do protrude more. 

[Feedthewolf 5,885]

1 hour ago, essex canary said:

Yes it does. Clearly though there is no obvious escalation procedure as there ought to be. Doubtless the AGM will take it up hopefully alongside other unacceptable issues too but it shouldn't need to wait that long.

Why does there need to be an 'obvious escalation procedure'? The panel itself has always taken the temperature of fan feeling, and escalated those issues which affect the greatest number of people or are receiving the most vituperative criticism.

You yourself have said that the panel process seems to be working better now – maybe just wait and see how the issue is approached and dealt with by the club through the various feedback mechanisms that exist? It might offer an opportunity to offer more positive feedback down the line – you get a lot more credibility when you're prepared to do that as well as just complain about things.

[Big Vince 420]

20 hours ago, Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB said:

Begs the question why the club moved away from the communicated Ferco system and why the change was not communicated to supporters.

On a side issue, the communication from NCFC says "Thorpe Corner (Snakepit)", we looked at the stadium plan and did not think we would be affected as our seats are not in the area denoted as "Thorpe Corner" on that plan.

Turns out our seats are designated as "Thorpe Corner" even though we are not in the corner. Apparently I pay slightly less for my Season Ticket than the chap to my right 😀.

Now the people in the more expensive seats are going to have Safe Standing whether they like it or not.

As I say a poorly planned, executed and communicated project...........

Why Ferco? You don't need a specialist contractor just to dump some metal tubes into concrete terracing. Could be done as a bespoke job by any number of local contractors at a fraction of the cost. This is where it's all wrong. When it's not the decision maker's personal money at stake the cost doesn't matter. Much like HM Government procurement.

[Google Bot 3,917]

14 minutes ago, Big Vince said:

Why Ferco? You don't need a specialist contractor just to dump some metal tubes into concrete terracing.

It will help no end for final approval if you go to a recognised supplier I expect, plus they've already been approved for works at the club as put the training room seating in.  Whether that's right or wrong, I don't know, but if you're signing off on the contractor you want to be confident a job like this would be completed over summer without delay, and they ticked that box for sure.

Presuming that Ferco did do the final installation, of course.  Anyone know for sure?

Edited October 2 by Google Bot

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,750]

2 hours ago, Google Bot said:

The resulting action of ticket holders being told their seat is changing to standing is what I imagine a supporters panel would have at least questioned.  

It also enforces the fact the SP exists for any of us to tap on their door should we have genuine issues, because I doubt the majority are even aware.

Or the people in question could( and should ) take the matter up with the club themselves. Personally I don’t need a supporters panel to raise issues on my behalf. But that’s my personal position. Others may . 

[Google Bot 3,917]

7 minutes ago, Graham Paddons Beard said:

Or the people in question could( and should ) take the matter up with the club themselves. Personally I don’t need a supporters panel to raise issues on my behalf.

I wasn't suggesting it as an alternative, rather that the presence of a panel that can ask questions directly to the club in a formal setting should be embraced as best as possible.

[TIL 1010 5,228]

3 hours ago, Feedthewolf said:

Yep, whether it's through the shareholders, the Canaries Trust or the supporters' panel, this definitely needs escalating. The club's really dropped a bóllock on this one, and needs to be held to account for it.

My money is on the club will hide behind the mask of consultation . Somewhere down the line apart from the SP they will bring Along Come Norwich and Barclay Project into the mix.

[dylanisabaddog 6,108]

1 hour ago, Graham Paddons Beard said:

Or the people in question could( and should ) take the matter up with the club themselves. Personally I don’t need a supporters panel to raise issues on my behalf. But that’s my personal position. Others may . 

The option given by the club in this case is 2 seats in one of the worst positions in the ground which simply isn't good enough. The other option is to claim a full (not partial) season ticket refund but I assume that the OP would prefer what he originally contracted to pay for. Like me he wants a seat without a tw*t persistently standing in front of him. Our season tickets aren't cheap and that really isn't too much to ask for. 

[Robert N. LiM 6,175]

7 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Like me he wants a seat without a tw*t persistently standing in front of him.

In my experience, wherever I sit in the ground, there is always a tw*t just in front of or just behind me, usually shouting 'gerrit forward!'. If the club could genuinely offer a tw*t-free seat, it would sell at a premium to make Oasis look like absolute amateurs.

[shefcanary 2,939]

1 hour ago, TIL 1010 said:

My money is on the club will hide behind the mask of consultation . Somewhere down the line apart from the SP they will bring Along Come Norwich and Barclay Project into the mix.

At the moment the club are hiding behind the threat that if the rails are not completed across the rest of that Thorpe area, the safety groups will impose a closure on that part of the ground (which will probably include the Snake Pit / Thorpe Corner as well as the Thorpe seats yet to be converted). I am sure with a modicum of common sense, the issue could be managed "operationally" with a few black plastic warning decals ("Mind your head") and additional stewarding plus other support measures (yes even asking for help from ACN and BP) for those fans affected for the rest of the season.  What is happening now is the club are digging themselves into an ever increasing hole!

Looking on the positive side, one benefit may be the club finally has to bite the bullet and go for a complete rebuild of the City Stand!