If it had been closed in July for clear reasons with a plan of action and programme of works to reopen the stand then there would probably have been support If it had been closed in July for the same vague reasoning as now there would still have been an outcry. Especially from people like me who have been kicked out of their seats only to watch a hundred or so people sitting in the stand yesterday.
I suggest you read mine and others' posts again as you are either avoiding a very key point or intentionally trying to antagonise people.
THE COUNCIL ISSUED A STATEMENT SAYING IT IS PERFECTLY SAFE. Marek, I must admit I am really disappointed to be honest. I appreciated you checking in on me when I was going through a rough time and you came across as a decent bloke but these posts today are coming across as intentionally trying to get a rise out of people.
Yep the Council trumps Barnsley F.C as the authority here. What I don't get is the Council and the Cryne's own the ground. Where did the authority on closure come from?
The owners of the ground can't force the Tennant to use it. Think of it like renting a house. The landlord I can tell you till he's blue in the face that the conservatory on the back of the house is safe to sit in but he can't force you to sit there everyday
You're a good egg yourself TM ! But what actually goes on in an establishment deemed 'safe' by the council is the responsibility of those who own/manage/run that establishment. For instance it is the Club who have to ensure adequate stewarding. The CEO having assessed the West Stand has concluded that it is too risky for it to remain open because the Club or he personally could be held culpable for any incident that may occur in the West Stand. Yes, the shutdown timing was bad, the communication was bad but the CEO was doing his job as he saw fit.
A few questions: The CEO states that the wooden floor is the main reason for closure. The lower tier is a separate structure with no wood at all. Do you accept that the wooden floor has no bearing on the safety of the lower tier? The CEO states that the perimeter wall (not attached to the stand) may possibly potentially be unsafe as part fell down last year (and was repaired) and so he can't risk letting people near it. Do you accept that him stating this fact publicly yet doing nothing to make the wall safe makes him culpable if the wall falls outwards killing a member of the public? Do you find it odd that someone so keen on health and safety has knowingly put the publics lives at risk in this way? The CEO gave a series of other justifications for closing the stand based on it not being disabled friendly (high turnstiles, high counters and steps). Do you accept that the East stand has all of these same issues yet remains open?
My mind may be playing tricks but the last time I went in the West Stand there was no turnstile just an open gate to show my pass. That would be more disabled friendly than any gate with a full height turnstile.
There is one gate like that about half way along t- the last one after the usual turnstiles for the half of the stand thats been in use - its not really for the general supporters but for guests, special invitation etc but it has definitely been used for wheelchairs as well
In the Chronicle he is quoted as saying after he made the decision to close the stand. "Should i have waited till the end of the season to do it" now if that thought entered his head he either doesn't really care about the safety of fans or there is no danger at all to the safety of any fan in that stand.