Barnsley FC Reply: West Stand Update

Has the most recent certificate actually been seen by anyone on here?

 

I'm not sure? Do you think BMBC were lying?

 

As I said the other day, the structural safety certificate may well say the stand is ok to use for now, but a number of highlighted remedial works must be carried out as soon is is reasonably practicable.
Our new CEO will ultimately be responsible for H&S at the club and is entitled to be risk averse and say "I'd hate for any thing to go wrong in the West Stand after I've already been briefed about safety issues" whether that was by either the Council, or an independent surveyor.
But if that's the case he should come out and say it straight away. In this case I believe he was the one to make the decision to shut the stand. The owners of a business may sign off on it, but the CEO is the one who should be taking responsibility for the safety of everyone attending matches. For all we know Dane Murphy ignored the same remedial works on last years certificate because there were no fans, and that has led to even more problems this season.
For me, until we get a definitive answer from Khaled (assuming we do) we can't criticise the decision, just the way it was handled.

 

It would be difficult for him not to recognise the strength of feeling.
I've not heard him complaining about rumours or over reaction.
Addressing the fans face to face is a good thing. He'll certainly be put under pressure to answer questions directly.
Better that than put something out now for which he's only going to get hammered.

 

A calm and logical suggestion.
Calmness and the application of logic are quite useful when emotions are running as high as they are on this issue.
Listening to "the other side" is not such a bad idea either.

 

How many times do you reckon is sufficient? I reckon twice is more than enough personally.

 

I’d be surprised if they were lying about having done the checks when they said.
That’s not why I asked though,I asked because people are making claims about what is in it, so was wondering if it has actually been seen.
If so I would be interested to read as well.

 

Fully agree with that.
The handling of the decision and the actual decision itself are two different issues.

 

I have made no assumptions. The council have publicly stated that the ground is safe. That’s a matter of record.

The limits on the away end are again on record did to insufficient stewarding. Again a matter of record.

By closing the West stand they have solved the problem and released potential additional income. The argument whether taking a short term view that prioritises away fans rather than home fans is a difficult one for the club to make but they should be making it not hiding behind lies.

Your initial post was absolutely full of assumptions as others have pointed out.

A 3 sided ground with a disillusioned fan base heading to L1 will make little of no sense. This time next year when clubs with smaller followings turn up at Oakwell in their low 100s we shall see whether the financial argument is a good one.

 

3.
1. holding statement.
2. second holding statement in response to BFCST.
3. Face to face meetings and press comms.

Just an opinion.
I certainly won't condemn anyone without hearing what they have to say first.
Nor will I start abusing them on social media

 

I've not seen anyone making any assumptions about the certificate other than those who appear to be excusing the club's behaviour to date.

It is fact, however, that BMBC released a statement which said the stand was safe. The onus should be on the club to refute this with evidence to the contrary, yet they continue not to do so despite being aware of the level of anger amongst fans.

 

The vast majority of fans who are angry about this will not have been abusing them on social media.

I think three is excessive personally, especially after an open letter from the Trust demanding answers, but fair enough if that's what you think.

 

It will be a lot of face to face meetings to explain to all 20,000 reds fans the situation. You'd think it would just be easier to put out a clear and concise statement

 

Very strange for people to make that argument when the clubs follow up statement agreed that the west Stand was safe.

 

there were also some sheltering in East Stand lower and some on the Ponty. Possibly we should close all the home stands and just open for away fans.

 

Well it confirms that it is safe to seat people in the stand and is fit for purpose

 

Not sure what argument is being made?
All I asked was has the actual report been seen, as I would like to read too

 

Exactly. I will draw my own conclusions from why they aren't willing to address this at present. It could've been nipped in the bud very quickly.