Barnsley FC Reply: West Stand Update

Perhaps there is a slither of goodwill remaining in that the Fan Engagement forum is still there for answers to be given on the Trust's points. That letter does nothing to address them and frankly is disrespectful... unless full disclosure of the facts is given on Thursday.

Pretty poor to mention 'stories' circulating. It's inevitable when no sound, detailed reason is being provided. It's no wonder we assume their motives have been found out, otherwise why wouldn't they provide evidence to counter concerns?

It's all becoming a bit laughable. Coming in on a manifesto of transparency and going straight in with the opaque and hollow and not answering straightforward questions posed. Reminds me of the generals in Catch 22.

Thanks to the Supporters Trust for taking the time to press for answers we still aren't being given.

 

It does say one thing, that he is saying he took the decision not the owners. That’s how it read to me anyway.

 

What really astounds me about this type of communication from the club, is that it appears to assume we're all thick, so we won't notice that it doesn't actually say anything. I know full well how committed and enthusiastic you have been over years as a Barnsley fan, and it's so sad to read how it's all been taken apart by these people.

 

Firstly, Thanks for taking time to make sure we get this and everyone involved.

It is good they have replied swiftly and recognised the importance of you BFCST, I think it’s also a positive that he is saying it was his decision.
Hopefully they will be more specific on Thursday at both the fans engagement and with you guys before.

 

A waste of good ink.

 

Maybe that's what they teach at CEO school.

However, try selling coal to Barnsley folk as gold and you'll soon be told what's what.

 

He's got nerves of steel to do that without running it past the owners !

 

Meat shield for the board. He didn't take that decision, no way in hell, he's just saying that to deflect attention away from the owners.

 

Read the letter last night and read it again just now.

Completely agree with you. No way is a brand new CEO making that decision without authorisation/approval from the owners. Or let me rephrase that, no way should a brand new CEO be able to make such a huge decision without oversight and approval of it.

Difficult spot to be in though. He's either a CEO who went chapter and verse to say how honest and transparent he is, to then make one of his first acts completely disproving that very notion.. or... he's taken a personal decision without consultation of owners or fans, particularly those directly affected in the West Stand and unilaterally chosen to cut off income streams from home fans at the expense of away fans. Showing him to be completely out of touch and likely not fit to operate in the role he now finds himself.

 

Firstly, thank you again to you Ben and the Supporters Trust for following this up.

Secondly, I think this is a pathetic response from the club. He’s said the absolute bare minimum he could without remaining silent. The club better start being more open and transparent because this just won’t wash with our supporters. Let’s see what gets said on the 21st but he’s completely failed in his first big task.

 

I agree it’s highly unlikely he made that decision on his own.
However there is a big positive from that statement in that he has no where to hide on Thursday.
He can’t deflect, say doesn’t know or say it was decided upstairs.
On Thursday he now has to reveal the detail or lose the fan base forever, therefore making his position untenable.

 

Actually, that's a good point.

The first thing said to him on Thursday has to be "As you personally took the decision to close the West stand, answers such as 'I don't know', 'I'll have to get back to you on that' or anything else deemed as vague will not be acceptable".

 

I've just read the first two paragraphs again. I don't think we can conclude that he ultimately took that decision on his own.

Firstly he says closing it wasn't an easy decision. It doesn't say it was his decision, but it would suggest it was a decision and not something forced upon them. A choice was made.

Thats followed by "please know that WE have the safety....."

The next sentence... "I (El-Ahmad) am responsible for the wellbeing of people inside Oakwell." As CEO he probably is as he oversees all operational aspects and would probably be cited under corporate manslaughter laws if anything adversely went wrong that led to loss of life (the lawyers may wish to verify that as its most certainly not my field).

You can assume he took personal responsibility for it. But you can't safely conclude from the letter that it is the case. The wording mixes I and We from sentence to sentence (maybe purposefully, though I doubt it).

Therefore the first question I'd ask at the meeting is who ultimately proposed and made the decision to close the West Stand.

 

So far this season Ive seen 3 games at Oakwell and 5 non league games at different clubs. Ive enjoyed none of the Reds games but every single one of the others.

 

OK, I have mentioned this before, in passing, and the more and more I think about it, I might (at long last) actually have a point. We are kind of told, in the ramblings, that KHALED himself took the decision, and that there were FACTS PRESENTED and SPECIFIC aspects.

A bit of background. The rain at the Millwall game was biblical. Chronic. The WSL is not the nicest place to sit in that weather. Lots of people vacated their seats and stood at the back on the gangway just below the WSU. There was no hassle, no purposeful blockage of ingress / egress, no anarchy - just good natured fans watching out for each other and trying to keep the young and old a bit less wet than they would be in their seat. There was ONE over-zealous steward - and I'd love to know if anyone on here has any observations on his actions on the day. He's a regular, and has the word SUPERVISOR on his jacket. He's been doing it a while and he seems to know lots of folk who sit around us. Yet at the Millwall game, he was a man on a mission, demanding people sit down, being provocotive towards those who talked back, and he spent most of the second half marching up and down and around the perimetre of WSL on his walkie talkie and venting frustration at what he obviously perceived were issues. Again, there WERE NO issues, just fans helping each other out. Now he had a go at one older fella, with a young kid stood at the top of the middle gangway near where the red and white bar scarf is hung every home game. It got vocal, without being aggresive. The steward stormed off on his walkie talkie muttering out loud "that's it, I'm getting my supervisor on the blower" and to paraphrase "I've had enough of this". Did anyone else see this? Please.

Because, if a SUPERVISOR has to get on the blower to a SUPERVISOR (who is this) because he can't handle folk keeping dry*, then who is the 2nd Supervisor and have they been told, in a strop, "We can't control these WSL animals, you'll have to do something about it".

* If it had been a local derby / large crowd, then I would have fully understood his concerns of ingress / egress issues, but Millwall was simply not the case. Is it possible Khaled has heard from an over-zealous steward and deemed that the West Stand is unsafe?

EDIT. In fact @Loko the Tyke or BFCST I would like this to be asked please - were there stewarding issues in the West at the Millwall game that led to KHALED himself shutting the stand?

ta

 

He’ll say the Council Safety Advisory Board report in September raised concerns about Safety Management and advised remedial measures that the club couldn’t put into place immediately so on advise from their own Safety Consultants they reluctantly took the decision to move fans until they can meet the SAB concerns. Those concerns are probably stewarding in specific situations like fans gathering on the concourse when it rains ,which they have always done , but when the tenants are in dispute with the landlord situations that have been tolerated for years become ‘ safety concerns’ and statements like ‘helping tenants to meet their safety responsibilities’ are seen as veiled threats .Unfortunately the fans are stuck in the middle of the dispute

 

Good stuff, Andy. I'd add that even if the steward were correct in his approach and that you rain-dodgers were a menace to life & limb, a knee-jerk closure of the whole stand is not standard procedure. You'd have requests & warnings over the tannoy, then a reminder in matchday programmes suggesting that repeat offending could result in closure of the stand etc. How many warnings were issued to the right hand side of the Ponty about standing before they gave up policing it completely??!?

There's a stench about our club at the moment that genuinely makes my heart sink....

 

Isn't it illegal for fans to stand at a football match. In spite of the rain, was the club breaking the law by allowing fans to continue standing under cover.

 

They seem happy for a quarter of the Ponty to stand for the full 90!

 

Exactly right, but as I say this was actually done in a light-hearted, nay compassionate way, without a hint of trouble. And as mentioned elsewhere, if there was a genuine concern then maybe a tannoy announcement, followed by programme notes or official site comms, to point out that it is potentially causing the club an issue and could we cooperate? Also, you know the mentality of folk in the UK, order folk to do something - it usually followed by mass doing of the opposite Bad-boy Boogie?

@Micky Finn rain dodger, lol. I actually chalked f on it at one point and went back to my seat. Can't get any wetter than wet.