Animis

Hopefully the club's legal action against the SAG prohibition notice will prove successful. I assume we will have employed H&S experts to draft and submit proposals to the courts that gain their support in allowing us to operate under the same rules as all other football grounds across the country. This finally should be an objective assessment rather than a subjection opinion which currently appears to be the case. We may end up being able to increase our capacity as a result of this, and alter the safety certificate accordingly. This would come in handy towards the end of the season when demand could be around 35k.

Why has this ended up an anti-labour thread? Mothersole is a civil servant, who by definition is non-political. SAG are an independent body of with membership made up of several statutory bodies, including the council. SAG's are a statutory body set up under the HSE to locally manage sports stadiums. The licencing department of the council issues the safety certificate. Not sure what the labour party issue is other than giving a public statement either way - which I've not seen from any councillor to date?

I think the relationship between was always good from my time watching from mid 70s. I think the change was two fold - Dave Allen's preposterous media campaign to try a force the council to sell the training ground and spilt the money and let us have Westfield school site - it was never going happen and it drove a very public wedge between the two parties. The other event was McCabe's rise at SUFC. He effectively courted and highjacked the council and the development agency their ran and got some very below-market deals just before and after the financial crash. We've been second best in the city in the eyes of the council since.

Again Mothersole isn't a councilor. Julie Dore is the leader of the Council - she a Wednesdayite and perhaps she should be asked for an opinion on the fact her CEO has chosen to publicly pick a fight with one of the oldest and important institutions and businesses in the city. The contrast in his approach and tone in his statement to that of shear joy and support for SUFC's promotion is unashamedly obvious. I do wonder whether Mothersole ran his intention to go to the press with her - I would suggest not, and hope she's fuming and disciplines him publicly.

Long season ahead - he'll play a part at some point.

Is there precedence on this at the magistrates court? - I imagine they'll be out of there league with the legal opinion and technical arguments.

Thanks - wasn't aware of this. I wonder if the appeal stimulated Mothersole's 'outburst'? We ought to file civil proceedings against him as well for defamation.

Yes Andy - that is the route it should go. Once a civil servant starts acting like a councillor it's time for the elected councillors to reign him in. I urge all SWFC to write/email to their councillor/MP and raise this matter.

Remember Mothersole isn't a councillor and is simply an unelected civil servant. People should distinguish between two.

What does the following mean:? ...there are legal proceedings pending before the Magistrates Court and their own Licensing Sub Committee. I thought we were just subject to a prohibition notice - have we issued legal proceedings against SAG?

DC is waiting for the sacred Canada Geese to once more fly over Hillsborough to give him the sign.

When the CEO of the Council gets involved publicly, and issues that type of statement, I think it's safe to say it's gone beyond the in-tray of their ex-gardener Steve Lonnia. I sense some frustration in his tone, and indeed threat. This is going to get interesting, as our official attendance is 34.5K at present and even less if SAG don't agree to open up netted off seats and restricted views. Whilst we are pulling mid 20K, the club can probably take the restrictions. However, if we continue to hover around the top, we'll start to push 30k and at that point the commercial impact will start to be felt. Therefore, we need to sort this out, hopefully with some sensible diplomacy, but have the lawyers on stand by if the other side refuse to be reasonable.

The silence from SWFC on this hopefully means they've escalated the matter to their lawyers. Even the most bias fan against SWFC would see this is total persecution, based solely on the SYP slating of their handling of 89 and their inability to manage a local derby at Hillsborough when the return fixture at the stain had home and away fans openly fighting and throwing bottles at each other on Bramhall Lane with no mention of 'sanctions'. We need to stand up and fight this because it's only going to get worst.

Thank god he cost us:

I think before the club commit to spending 10s millions of £ in major planning and civils works, we need to know why Wednesday are treated differently to all other clubs in the country, with rival fans merging on the roads directly outside the ground.