Shocking from our club

[Feedthewolf 5,885]

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.

Whatever they may do in future, it still can't justify the mistakes from the past. This is something that I feel strongly about... there needs to be some proper PR management over this. It's a case of 'choose your battles', I think – for an error this egregious, it's not a good look for the club to do anything other than investigate it thoroughly, hold up its hands and say 'we got this wrong, and we're sorry'.

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,750]

22 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

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. 

I couldn’t agree more. On the face of it , and as I said before , a clanger has been dropped. I would be v unhappy if I was the OP .

[Fosterslager88 20]

I feel so strongly about this I just recovered my account from 15 years ago! 

After several years in the south stand, I moved my ST to the Thorpe area for this season and was told this area would not be included in the safe standing. It feels like they spilled it over into thorpe area as they had some leftovers from the Thorpe corner/snakepit.

I agree with previous posters about what a shambles it is and I can see an even bigger backlash if and when ST holders in 59ers area etc are told they have to have safe standing frames installed around their padded seats.

What I cannot understand for the life of me that no one else has raised so far, if the inspection has found a safety issue with the partial safe standing in the Thorpe area would it not be far easier, cheaper and likely less controversial to remove those new safe standing frames from there so they are completely eliminated from the Thorpe area instead of installing more which will be more expensive and more unpopular!?!?! 

Someone make it make sense!! 

Edited October 2 by Fosterslager88

[TIL 1010 5,228]

All you guys and girls who are not happy with the situation talk to everybody else at the game v Hull this weekend and organise a sit in protest at the end of the game v Middlesbrough the day before the work starts. 

That will attract a response of some sort from the club and if Elliott King reads this i will probably be put on the naughty step.

[Feedthewolf 5,885]

20 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

All you guys and girls who are not happy with the situation talk to everybody else at the game v Hull this weekend and organise a sit in protest at the end of the game v Middlesbrough the day before the work starts. 

That will attract a response of some sort from the club and if Elliott King reads this i will probably be put on the naughty step.

Another alternative might be to try to contact somebody in the local press and run a story about it... anyone know a local paper that's interested in running challenging stories? 😉

 

[hogesar 10,700]

What still perplexes me is the way the rails just stop currently. They look an absolutely obvious health and safety risk and surely only takes one of the hundred club officials to notice it on day one?

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,215]

5 hours ago, Big Vince said:

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.

Dear Parody Account, the club stated in their communication 7 months ago that their contractor is Ferco.......

Edited October 2 by Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB

[Google Bot 3,917]

2 hours ago, shefcanary said:

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

I think an equal risk is that most people lean on those bars at the front, so it only takes a moment where you're so engaged in the game, or turn to have a conversation that you don't check where your hands are when returning back to that position.

Not to be extreme but if you lean forwards and there's no rail, there is a risk that your teeth could end up in the back of someones head.

So if anyone wants a nice insurance claim, i'll can sit in front with a few sauce sachets tucked under my hair and we'll go halves! 😉

...In fact, what an earth would happen if something like that genuinely occurred now?

Edited October 2 by Google Bot

[Matt Juler 208]

So is the plan to 'just' extend the rail to the next set of stairs, where the arrow is on the photo (appreciate that it's old and doesn't have the current mid-block rail)?

If that is the case, we're probably looking at 100 seats, give or take. The club should make this widely known and give people the option to move to one of these seats, hopefully freeing up much better options for those who don't want to be in the extended rail seats section.

[Fosterslager88 20]

25 minutes ago, Matt Juler said:

So is the plan to 'just' extend the rail to the next set of stairs, where the arrow is on the photo (appreciate that it's old and doesn't have the current mid-block rail)?

If that is the case, we're probably looking at 100 seats, give or take. The club should make this widely known and give people the option to move to one of these seats, hopefully freeing up much better options for those who don't want to be in the extended rail seats section.

As I understand the below will be filled but I am unsure whether the padded seats like the 59ers will also be affected.

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,215]

22 minutes ago, Matt Juler said:

So is the plan to 'just' extend the rail to the next set of stairs, where the arrow is on the photo (appreciate that it's old and doesn't have the current mid-block rail)?

If that is the case, we're probably looking at 100 seats, give or take. The club should make this widely known and give people the option to move to one of these seats, hopefully freeing up much better options for those who don't want to be in the extended rail seats section.

That would be my guess and that of my fellow Thorpe Area occupants following our discussion about it on Tuesday evening.. The sensible option would have been to finish at the first set of stairs.

I agree the club should make it clear where the new section of safe standing will end...........

[Hairy Canary 746]

For me the better option is to admit the cook up and take the safe standing away from the snake-pit. Then next season sell the tickets on the basis of the whole Thorpe area being safe standing. Fans can then make an informed judgement on whether they want to stay there or not.
 

Lets be honest the snake-pit will still stand anyway!

[Fosterslager88 20]

Just remove the existing ones from the Thorpe area and leave the snake pit as it is like this, job done! 

[CANARYKING 706]

1 hour ago, Fosterslager88 said:

As I understand the below will be filled but I am unsure whether the padded seats like the 59ers will also be affected.

Surely that can’t be correct , best to leave it as far as the snake pit, wonder how many fans in the next part to the left want or do stand all game, can’t be too difficult to ask them by e mail ?

[nutty nigel 7,890]

It's a rum old kettle of fish really.

We used to have a stadium with stands purpose built for terracing. Then they bodged those red and blue seats into the south stand. Now we have a stadium purpose built for seats and they're bodging in terracing.

The only stand remaining that was built for terracing is the riverend lower. But they've left that as seats.

 

[Duncan Edwards 2,424]

Again, you just can’t imagine that such a cataclysmic ****-up would have happened on the watch of Delia. 

[dylanisabaddog 6,108]

12 hours ago, Feedthewolf said:

Another alternative might be to try to contact somebody in the local press and run a story about it... anyone know a local paper that's interested in running challenging stories? 😉

 

No

[essex canary 610]

8 hours ago, Duncan Edwards said:

Again, you just can’t imagine that such a cataclysmic ****-up would have happened on the watch of Delia. 

Hmm.

[Fosterslager88 20]

9 hours ago, CANARYKING said:

Surely that can’t be correct , best to leave it as far as the snake pit, wonder how many fans in the next part to the left want or do stand all game, can’t be too difficult to ask them by e mail ?

All of those (admittedly very squiggly) lines represent the whole Thorpe area.

I sit right on the edge next to the 59ers and I haven’t had an email or letter from club yet though.

[ncfcstar 342]

12 hours ago, Fosterslager88 said:

Just remove the existing ones from the Thorpe area and leave the snake pit as it is like this, job done! 

 

I don't think that the SAG would allow it under the ground regulations.

My assumption, based on what the club shared previously in the OSP meetings, is that the current installation includes all the seats needed to comply with the % of safe standing in the home end vs the away end. 

I envisage someone sitting in one of the South Stand offices thinking, "well we've got 1.5k of safe standing in the away end, and that allows us to have ??k safe standing in the home areas, so I can include these extra seats in the City Stand"...they didn't then think of the practicalities of having safe standing ending part way through a row.  I'd bet a pretty penny that is exactly what has happened here.

[Fosterslager88 20]

What an utter balls up!!!

[essex canary 610]

9 minutes ago, ncfcstar said:

I don't think that the SAG would allow it under the ground regulations.

My assumption, based on what the club shared previously in the OSP meetings, is that the current installation includes all the seats needed to comply with the % of safe standing in the home end vs the away end. 

I envisage someone sitting in one of the South Stand offices thinking, "well we've got 1.5k of safe standing in the away end, and that allows us to have ??k safe standing in the home areas, so I can include these extra seats in the City Stand"...they didn't then think of the practicalities of having safe standing ending part way through a row.  I'd bet a pretty penny that is exactly what has happened here.

The spreadsheet mentality of the NCFC £3 million per year SMT exposed.

[Jim Smith 2,578]

15 hours ago, Fosterslager88 said:

I feel so strongly about this I just recovered my account from 15 years ago! 

After several years in the south stand, I moved my ST to the Thorpe area for this season and was told this area would not be included in the safe standing. It feels like they spilled it over into thorpe area as they had some leftovers from the Thorpe corner/snakepit.

I agree with previous posters about what a shambles it is and I can see an even bigger backlash if and when ST holders in 59ers area etc are told they have to have safe standing frames installed around their padded seats.

What I cannot understand for the life of me that no one else has raised so far, if the inspection has found a safety issue with the partial safe standing in the Thorpe area would it not be far easier, cheaper and likely less controversial to remove those new safe standing frames from there so they are completely eliminated from the Thorpe area instead of installing more which will be more expensive and more unpopular!?!?! 

Someone make it make sense!! 

Presumably the issue is where they end midway through a block because the people sat next to the end of the railings can hit themselves on it when they stand or jump up? They just needed to finish them at on a gangway not mid way through the block. So I assume they are now taking them up to the next gangway? 
 

I suppose as you say they could resolve it by removing the railings from the part of the block they’ve already done. That said, that would mean my seat is no longer safe standing and I quite like it so hope that doesn’t happen. 

 

[Jim Smith 2,578]

20 minutes ago, ncfcstar said:

I don't think that the SAG would allow it under the ground regulations.

My assumption, based on what the club shared previously in the OSP meetings, is that the current installation includes all the seats needed to comply with the % of safe standing in the home end vs the away end. 

I envisage someone sitting in one of the South Stand offices thinking, "well we've got 1.5k of safe standing in the away end, and that allows us to have ??k safe standing in the home areas, so I can include these extra seats in the City Stand"...they didn't then think of the practicalities of having safe standing ending part way through a row.  I'd bet a pretty penny that is exactly what has happened here.

I doubt it’s that as I don’t think they really wanted to have to do it in the away end. They will have looked at the areas where people regularly stand. In the snake pit there is a block of about 150 people who always stand and who have seats to the left of the snake out entrance  (as you look at it from the pitch). This is a hardcore group of fans and they know they are not going to sit. In my view, that’s why they carried the safe standing area on to where they did. They have out safe standing into the areas where they struggle to get fans to sit because it means they no longer get threats of sanctions from the safety authorities if fans then stand in those areas. 

[Jim Smith 2,578]

13 hours ago, Matt Juler said:

So is the plan to 'just' extend the rail to the next set of stairs, where the arrow is on the photo (appreciate that it's old and doesn't have the current mid-block rail)?

If that is the case, we're probably looking at 100 seats, give or take. The club should make this widely known and give people the option to move to one of these seats, hopefully freeing up much better options for those who don't want to be in the extended rail seats section.

Yes it will be to there for the reason I I cited above. The rails currently stop around a third of the way through that block 

[ncfcstar 342]

2 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

I doubt it’s that as I don’t think they really wanted to have to do it in the away end. 

They didn't want to, but they had to, that's what the club told us.

[Jim Smith 2,578]

Just now, ncfcstar said:

They didn't want to, but they had to, that's what the club told us.

Yes I know but the previous post was suggesting they did extra in the Thorpe corner to reflect the number they had to do in the away end. That would not make sense if they didn’t want to do them in the away end.

[ncfcstar 342]

1 minute ago, Jim Smith said:

Yes I know but the previous post was suggesting they did extra in the Thorpe corner to reflect the number they had to do in the away end. That would not make sense if they didn’t want to do them in the away end.

No, but my understanding is that the club were told by the SAG that they needed to do the away end otherwise no home areas would be allowed to be made safe standing at all. 

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,215]

22 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

Presumably the issue is where they end midway through a block because the people sat next to the end of the railings can hit themselves on it when they stand or jump up? They just needed to finish them at on a gangway not mid way through the block. So I assume they are now taking them up to the next gangway? 
 

I suppose as you say they could resolve it by removing the railings from the part of the block they’ve already done. That said, that would mean my seat is no longer safe standing and I quite like it so hope that doesn’t happen. 

 

The irony for me is that there was a group of lads in the row in front of ours who used to stand a lot (didn't bother us at all) and were always getting told to sit down by the stewards. Now safe standing is in place they mainly sit and lean against the rail in front 😀..............

 

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,215]

46 minutes ago, ncfcstar said:

I don't think that the SAG would allow it under the ground regulations.

My assumption, based on what the club shared previously in the OSP meetings, is that the current installation includes all the seats needed to comply with the % of safe standing in the home end vs the away end. 

I envisage someone sitting in one of the South Stand offices thinking, "well we've got 1.5k of safe standing in the away end, and that allows us to have ??k safe standing in the home areas, so I can include these extra seats in the City Stand"...they didn't then think of the practicalities of having safe standing ending part way through a row.  I'd bet a pretty penny that is exactly what has happened here.

Your assumption may be right. My assumption is the club were only going install safe standing in the Snakepit corner (up to the first set of steps) but decided to go for the half arsed option on the basis that the seats up to seat 215 are slightly cheaper than the rest of the Thorpe Area.

Did the OSP ever get informed why the club moved away from their communicated solution of Ferco rail seats similar to those installed at QPR and Celtic?..........