And as a tactic in the future of the ground for me, otherwise things must be really, really tight to completely shaft 10% of the fan base and also alienate a large proportion of the rest.
Not sure if this has been mentioned yet but not reading 240 comments. Doesn’t it seem a bit convenient that they announced the closure of the stand during a period in the season where we haven’t got a home game for 17 days? Gives them plenty of time to sort out new seats for ticket holders. Almost as if they waited until after the Millwall game to close it meaning it can’t be that ‘unsafe’.
There's the prospect of a COVID-19 + influenza surge this winter and this lot decide it's a good idea to shoehorn all of our fans into two stands. I wasn't keen on the unnecessary maxing out of facilities before the pandemic, never mind now. They should have been doing the responsible thing and spread fans out more not the opposite.
“ and we urge them to make their desired improvements and get the fans back in as soon as possible.” That says to me they have to do remedial work before fans can go back , what ever that is , no one is saying , maybe the Council should spell it out
No it doesn't. It says that because the club has optionally chosen to close it then they hope that the club does their DESIRED (wanted not needed) improvements and get the thing back open. How you can read desired and interpret that as 'have to' says you're either thick or blinded by your bias. And I know you're not thick
You must be doing this on purpose. Whenever anything is surveyed there is always a list of Maintainance tasks generated and usually dates by which they should be done. It doesn’t mean that fans can’t be in at the same time unless they are really safety issues which clearly they aren’t. The thing is legally the club still have to do those improvements whether the fans are allowed in or not or they will be breaching the terms of the lease. Though I suspect they won’t and see what consequences if any there are Of course usually with maintainance issues if you leave them too long they don’t go away but cost a lot more to rectify later.
It's perfectly safe, it's been inspected by the relevant authorities. It could be used tommorow if needed but the club have made the decision to pull the plug and then attempt to lie about it by insinuating safety concerns.
I hadn't thought or seen this discussed until your post. An excellent point and high irony that this decision actually endangers fan safety given there's nothing in place to test attendees. A lot of fans who are high risk or older and who may choose seats with space around them may call it day for this reason.
It will be similar to an MOT. You have defects which you have to repair immediately and advisories which you monitor and repair if necessary.
If you take your MOT analogy if something needed doing immediately it would fail Something that unless the council were lying in their statement which is unlikely. Clearly is not the case. There will be defects categorised in terms of seriousness and timescales to fix them but nothing in a report on 27th sept would allow fans in safely for millwall but not the blunts.
It's how shockingly the fans who have bought season passes is the issue. Total disregard by the owners for this. It's obviously brinkmanship regarding the stand off, but to treat the fans like this is frankly unforgivable. THERE IS NO MATCH DAY EXPERIENCE. There is a total breakdown in trust. I've tried to keep out of these arguments, but find myself totally at odds with this new piece of information. It seems like the fabric of the club is crumbling now. I'm sorry to be writing these words. There is always too sides to every story in business, but if you don't respect your supporters you deserve no respect back.
Couldn’t agree more. Nail on the head with that last line. The inconvenience to supporters, who stood up for the club in its hours of need, is inexcusable really and being lost in the tit for tat statements with the council.
To be fair the only tits involved are the 80% lot. The council, as landlords, simply responded openly to the thinly veiled, and extremely inaccurate, accusations that their property was structurally unsafe. This pathetic string of statements is wholly the fault of the 80% crew
I didn't mean there were will have been anything that needed repairing immediately in this case. They will have had the equivalent of advisories.