Council Statement re West Stand

I guess there may be an argument about repairing obligations within the lease. The way it generally works in commercial leases is that the tenant has an obligation to repair the premises as demised, with the landlord being obliged to repair anything which is not demised to the tenant.

Typically the demised property for something like an office would end at the plaster finishes, with the landlord retaining an obligation to repair any structural elements. It is, however, down to the parties to define the limits of repairing covenants (**** knows what common practice is when leasing a football stadium) but ambiguities as to who is responsible for what are not uncommon.

 

You know it's bad when you criticise the club

Joking aside, his account does seem true.

 

Making life hard for ourselves and putting unnecessary workload and stress on the people at the club who will have to sort this out. This after the 15 months of games without fans.

I don't know what is happening, but it looks from the outside like petty point scoring from one, or maybe two, of the sides in the matter.

Whatever, everyone can do without this. It impacts not only on the future of the club, but also impacts the day to day operations. This could do with sorting out sooner rather than later

 

This with bells on.

It’s the reason they closed the North Side of the West Stand.

Makes complete business sense, but carried out in the wrong way.

Crowds have dropped off, and they’re facing the issue with away fans getting tickets in the home end. I know a lot of Sheff Utd fans with tickets in home areas.

So by closing the West, they save money and gives less chance of away fans getting into home areas.

The negative output is the annoyed 1,100 fans moved (myself included) and reduced overall capacity. As well as the way it has been handled.

 

safety concerns is a very broad phrase and could mean a lot of different things.

 

To ensure safety of spectators and staff but not journos and media.

 

Time for a bit of transparency, it seems.

 

It certainly tries to imply that and I think that is intentional. Clearly is safe though as BMBC are denying it isn't.

 

They're getting Remploy in to do the work.

 

Safety concerns for Markus Schopp perhaps.
Safety concerns that elsewhere in the ground we don't have enough stewards.
Safety concerns that plenty of Sheffield United fans has already claimed they'd bought tickets in the West Stand.
I know there were some Forest fans in there the other day.

Either way it's pants, and we need some resolutions sooner rather than later.

 

A bit like shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted if Blunt fans already have tickets in the home ends.

 

“Easily re-homed elsewhere”. In many cases fans who have had their seats for years, bought a season ticket for a season we weren’t allowed in, renewed early for this season to aid the club’s cash-flow then kicked out of our preferred seats to be offered the **** leftover seats that couldn’t be sold in the East Stand and the Ponty.

No, sorry, f*ck ‘em, refund please.

 

Not really - other teams will bring just as many. WBA etc.

They should have made the call this summer.

 

Our Club owners are just laying the seeds in supporters minds, preparing us for a later announcement that they are going to ground share then relocate . At the end of the day they are business men who invested on a premise that cannot be achieved - they cannot grow revenues with the current ownership model and the constraints that apply. It is getting to breaking point where they either sell up or change the model

 

I agree with that sentiment. I think they've looked at the demographic of the West Stand supporters and thought "fck em' they'll be dead soon anyway".

 

It's a right melting pot. I think everyone needs to take some nice deep breaths. Let's sit down and hold hands and count to ten.

 

On the face of it, this looks to be another round of brinkmanship on the owners' part in terms of their frustrations in securing the ground.

The difference on this occasion, compared to the 'looking into moving away' fiasco, is that they've chosen to directly impact season ticket holders in that stand, some of whom have taken up the option to get refunds and state that they're done watching Barnsley (I've seen one tweet to this effect already).

That's taking things to another level, when you're prepared to sacrifice committed long-term supporters as part of, what now transpires, to be the latest round in an ongoing dispute.

 

I'm no wiser,the ground owners are asking the tenants to pay for the upkeep of the West Stand that they don't own,is that correct.?