EFL rules dictate they have to be under cover. There was another issue with moving them to the East Stand hospitality as well I think but can't remember what that was. I'm not sure the kiosk and disabled issues are the same across the different stands. I think it's fair to say the West Stand suffers on that front, but at the same time that's not a reason on it's own to close a stand, so like you I'm not sure why they continue to mention that. The structural safety parts are the ones that have validity.
I'm not sure if that's a funny or not. It sounds like one of those ridiculous facts on Qi that can't really be true but actually is.
Interesting one regarding the west stand safety issue. The EFL membership criteria for the football league states "THE CLUB is to be responsible for the maintenance of the pitch and for the general maintenance of the ground, including (but not limited to) ground safety". I read that to say that as THE CLUB has failed to maintain the ground then THE CLUB is actually currently in breach of the membership criteria to the league and are actually at risk of expulsion. It also says "The external boundary wall to be of sound construction" which again, by Khaleds own admissions, we are in breach of.
From the EFL membership regulations for this season: I don't think they do need to be undercover, they just need to be in a prime position. They also don't need to be heated in anyway.
That's an interesting take. The club haven't CONSISTENTLY cited anything with regard the West Stand closure - that's the main issue. They're subtly changing the story with each communication. Had they been remotely consistent - and stated in remotely clear terms what the problem is - they wouldn't be suffering the backlash they are.
Theres been consistent since the backlash that it wasn’t one major factor that closed the West Stand and it was multiple. That’s all I’m commentating on.