But why not be specific about the reasons old turnstiles and lack of a decent bog aren't going to kill anyone, If the floor was dangerous and likely to collapse come out and say where and explain - the holes in the floor is extremely vague - are we talking about a small knot hole or something someone can put a foot through - and why did the stand pass a safety inspection if that was the case Why is there no mention of a long term plan. Why cant the west lower be kept open. its the fact that the story keeps changing that sets alarm bells ringing for me I cant help but conclude that he has decided its financially beneficial to convert the ground to a 3 stand one and is scratching around for reasons to justify it other than its just cheaper. Im also not sure he has taken unintended consequences into account very well
Ok.. if it's so unsafe... Which the Council who had inspected it said it was fine. Then we can't think much of the press, media not to mention or own board members and those of the opposition .. Load of b0ll0cks..
Food for thought re the future...my opinions below.... In answer to this thread Don't forget he's also planted the seed of doubt re the East stand ...specialist firm needed re maintainance etc plus the mobility issues and access issues for many and not forgetting the segregation of supporters and turnstiles problems with the North stand ......all priming tactics in my mind for the future .... now having planted the seed of doubts it gives him the perfect excuse o follow that up later with...having had an independently survey done that's another 2 stands I can't put my name to re health and safety...you can then see the next statement coming from him ....sorry guys I've taken the decision that Oakwell isnt feasible we are now going to have to ground share outside of the area due to the safety and welfare of supporters ...our hands are tied....theres no blame game but the landlords who own the ground need to update oakwell and then we will gladly move back...until then we can't its not safe .......we need to resolve this quickly with the landlord's of oakwell....or words to that effect... You can see it coming a mile away if you open your eyes...the writings on the wall Just my opinion For those that say it won't pan out this way....i bet you never thought they'd shut the west stand in the manner they have let alone pay the crynes with club profit....anything is possible with this set of cowboys By the way did anybody pull him about the 2million we supposedly got for big val and the extra compensation for the coaching staff whilst at the meeting
But everything in H&S is about it being reasonably practicable, and that means balancing doing the activity with the hazards and risk and the cost of doing it safely. When you leave the house, you don't wear a kevlar vest (i assume) because someone got shot in Yorkshire at the weekend, one because the risk to you is very low and two because kevlar vests are both expensive and not on the shelves at Tesco. If there was one safety issue with any one of the stands, you could make an argument that on it's own the likelihood of the risk causing a problem is infinitesimally small, and say that you'll rectify the problem at some point in the future when investment works (haha) are carried out. If there are a number of issues as stated by Khaled, and the cost to bring the risk down to what he deems an acceptable level is too great, then the only reasonably practicable way to avoid the risk is to shut the stand. If as stated it's due to these issues, I can't imagine it was an easy decision.
Just so I'm clear. The asbestos in the West Stand is unsafe for Farnham Red and his 87 year old Dad, but fine for Paul Conway? Right.
You say everything perfectly & the only thing I would add is that the OP is obviously stirring the pot & frankly I cannot be bothered to take issue , what I do take issue with is the top brass sat in the stand I love whilst I have to witness them taking the proverbial whist I look on from the opposite side of the pitch seething with anger .
As I keep saying, I'm taking what the CEO has said on face value. And if it's true then it's a whole combination of factors. Can I keep running this old car that's worth £500 when it's costing me £1000 a year to maintain it, and whilst it's passed it's MOT at the garage where I know the owner, I know myself that the brakes are a bit shifty and the clutch is spongy and sometimes it doesn't start... and one day it's going to catch me out. I don't think he's taken the unintended consequences into account at all. And that's either because he's a heartless lying bar steward who puts profitability above history and the emotions of the fan base, or because there are serious issues with the West Stand which he felt he couldn't ignore.
Yeah, i can see this coming. It's pretty obvious that when they do finally get a quote for carrying out works on the west stand (after they've finally decided what's wrong with it) that the club will say that the quote is too much and it will be uneconomical to carry out the works and the stand will stay shut. Except to all hoards that sat there yesterday of course.
Fortunately I wasnt there but I could see from a photo posted on here the directors all sitting happily in their usual seats and just to really rub it in there were people sitting in mine and Dads seats I could clearly see from the photo - no idea who they were but guess club employees or guests
I think that if this was decided nearly twenty years ago when the Cryne's took over as @Turbotyke said, it won't have got any cheaper.
The car analogy is an interesting one though My Mrs is still running a 17 year old Mazda 6 sport which she loves its perfectly safe to drive though it does need work to get though MOT's now. A couple of years ago it needed £500 worth of welding which the garage said would give it a couple more years - for a car which is now essentially worth nothing more than its scrap value that seems to make no sense - until you consider the car I bought 2 years ago lost £10000 in depreciation in one year. Spending £500 to £1000 a year on an old car which is no longer depreciating isn't actually a bad economic decision. Note keeping the car is her decision because she loves it - not mine I've told her to get a new one but she doesnt want to part with the current old and well loved one
Any report signed off as 'safe' is only pertinent at the actual time of the signing off. From the time he was appointed Khaled as CEO became responsible for supporter safety .
Absolutely accept that she loves the car and is entitled to do as she wishes with it, but the key there is she has an emotional attachment to it and is willing to pump money into sentimentality. It's clear that Patrick Cryne, despite knowing all the problems with the stand kept it open whilst not spending any money on it. Until a couple of weeks ago, our current owners were following suit. The only major thing that has changed since the beginning of the season is the person who has to sign off on safety procedures.
If i didnt know any better, id describe this as political chess.....between the 80 and 20 percenters.
The CEO completely untrained in H&S management and not a structural engineer overrides people who are. Ok. In that case my man I have a bridge to sell you.