Club Statement

[McRightSide]

14 minutes ago, kilnhurstowl said:

Not talking about the police but as if the police were saying it about themselves and passing responsibility of everything back on to the club. As in we(the police) caused a problem. And we(the police) have blood on our hands, but we are gonna pass on responsibility to the club. That's what I took from it. If I'm wrong then fair enough. 

 

No you are correct, just imagine it with quotation marks around it

[Flat Owl]

51 minutes ago, sw1867 said:

 

Whilst I agree it looks like a good idea, as others have said though, we are spending money to find a solution to a problem that didn’t exist.

 

A problem that is far worse at many other grounds, so what’s to say we do all this and then SAG or whoever still continue with their agenda.

 

Perhaps there is an opportunity here, relatively cost effectively, to be seen to be offering solutions rather than merely defending a position - a solution that allows the ground to be used as close to its real uncompromised capacity.

 

Its about acknowledging an issue and being 'reasonable' and will carry more weight than being stubborn.

 

Don't forget, that this recent 'prohibition notice' is only the latest in a long line of capacity reductions going back many years, back to the DA era and certainly from the Taylor report.

 

It is not helpful to the club or safety going forward just to address the current tranche of measures - we have to go back to square one and revisit the initial reason why the first reduction was introduced - if we can be seen to be 'leading' the improvements rather than kowtowing to arbitrary and ill informed myopic solutions that cause other problems elsewhere in the ground then that will carry greater weight in any analysis.

Edited August 23, 2019 by Flat Owl

[Flat Owl]

29 minutes ago, zico.b said:

We are a City of engineering excellence.

 

Time to call in some favours/expert opinions.

 

There may be an agenda, but courts like facts and solutions.

 

Bang on Zico...

[Flat Owl]

By all means call these people to account, potentially including misconduct in public office if necessary through the courts as a separate issue.

However, In terms of making real progress in the meantime, surely it would be better to convene a meeting with SAG immediately and agree a [any?] wider solution in principle, secure an engineered design & planning consent and spend money that would just line lawyers pockets in a protracted and expensive technical row on a possible big picture solution that has traction and that can start paying for itself with larger capacities when hopefully we are challenging for the top spots later in the season?

 

Face saved for all concerned...

 

 

Edited August 23, 2019 by Flat Owl

[nevthelodgemoorowl]

4 hours ago, sweetsheri said:

Ha ha! My political campaign. I haven't got one mate. Just stating an observation

 

Wednesday is my politics

Tell em Sheri Football is people. People is Politic. So you are on the right page. Still think a slow motorcade in S2 90 mins re kick off would draw attention !

[The Regulator]

I emailed John Mothersole last night and have at least had an acknowledgement of receipt from his PA who told me that the Director of Business Strategy would be responding.

[Salmonbones]

8 minutes ago, The Regulator said:

I emailed John Mothersole last night and have at least had an acknowledgement of receipt from his PA who told me that the Director of Business Strategy would be responding.

 

A few people, possibly several dozen that I've seen (various groups, not people I personally know) have said pretty much the same.   I've seen a canned response pasted several times.

Dozens of people voicing concern won't really work, it would need a concerted, coordinated effort and i'm not sure we have anyone with a big enough voice willing to do the coordinating on behalf of the fans - the kind of thing the club can't do.

As it stands, the fans reactions potentially will only bring negative action back on ourselves and the club, which obviously is not what we are wanting.

[Sham67]

38 minutes ago, Salmonbones said:

 

A few people, possibly several dozen that I've seen (various groups, not people I personally know) have said pretty much the same.   I've seen a canned response pasted several times.

Dozens of people voicing concern won't really work, it would need a concerted, coordinated effort and i'm not sure we have anyone with a big enough voice willing to do the coordinating on behalf of the fans - the kind of thing the club can't do.

As it stands, the fans reactions potentially will only bring negative action back on ourselves and the club, which obviously is not what we are wanting.

 

Surely Wednesdayite should be doing this.  As I've seen nothing I have to assume they're doing nothing.  Yet another local organisation not fit for purpose?

[fpowl]

Sheffield council and local authorities have got to be the most understaffed, under trained power tripping clowns in the country anything to do with licensing or enforcement is nothing short of farcical and the sooner these so called people in power start to become accountable for how the operate the better 

 

you go DC 

[Ibbo48]

Surely a bit of banner waving and chanting on the Town Hall steps should get us on the front page of the Star or Look North.

It seems to work for people who  aren’t happy about what’s happening in the Yemen.

[mozzy85]

3 hours ago, sw1867 said:

 

Whilst I agree it looks like a good idea, as others have said though, we are spending money to find a solution to a problem that didn’t exist.

 

A problem that is far worse at many other grounds, so what’s to say we do all this and then SAG or whoever still continue with their agenda.

Well if we go to court and win, they would have to pay our legal costs I think plus I'd be tempted to go for loss of income. That would cost SCC a pretty penny and they'd probably think twice before coming after us again, although considering the dumb fizzes are doing this in the first place I wouldn't rule it out. 

[chrisf]

1 hour ago, Flat Owl said:

By all means call these people to account, potentially including misconduct in public office if necessary through the courts as a separate issue.

However, In terms of making real progress in the meantime, surely it would be better to convene a meeting with SAG immediately and agree a [any?] wider solution in principle, secure an engineered design & planning consent and spend money that would just line lawyers pockets in a protracted and expensive technical row on a possible big picture solution that has traction and that can start paying for itself with larger capacities when hopefully we are challenging for the top spots later in the season?

 

Face saved for all concerned...

 

 

This is a good idea.

SYP could also just save face and reverse the current restrictions, and then hold away fans back in the stand for 15 minutes after a match, where necessary. As so many fans have pointed out. It doesn't have to be so bloody difficult!

[Retired Owls Fan]

I think this whole situation is quite easy to explain:

Since the battle of Orgreave, The Liverpool fans disaster, the Rotherham sex abuse scandal, the world student games, austerity measures and the chopping down of tree farce, SCC and SYP have simply run out of things to waste our Council Tax on.

So to make sure they empty the annual budgets, in order to have full budgets next year, they have made up this entire situation. 

 

What i would like is for someone to make a genuine appearance on local news (TV or radio), to explain what on earth are doing and their reasons and then promptly resign. From what i can see, there is no reason to do this at all.

[Flat Owl]

5 hours ago, Lord Snooty said:

 

Still think @Flat Owl's proposal should be considered for the long term as a longer term solution.

 

 

 

 

Sent to the Club today to the Operations Team.

 

Even if it promotes all parties looking at the issue from a wider perspective, it might help...

[Striggy]

2 minutes ago, Flat Owl said:

 

Sent to the Club today to the Operations Team.

 

Even if it promotes all parties looking at the issue from a wider perspective, it might help...

 

I like your plan, segregation works but it's hardly a quick fix. Building a bridge aint a quick job, with design and planning to go through.  And who owns the land on the opposite bank of the river?  Environmental Agency would presumably get involved with any proposed works in, adjacent or over the river.  Good long term strategy though, unless we could get a quick fix temporary Bailey Bridge, good army training exercise?

[Flat Owl]

23 minutes ago, Striggy said:

 

I like your plan, segregation works but it's hardly a quick fix. Building a bridge aint a quick job, with design and planning to go through.  And who owns the land on the opposite bank of the river?  Environmental Agency would presumably get involved with any proposed works in, adjacent or over the river.  Good long term strategy though, unless we could get a quick fix temporary Bailey Bridge, good army training exercise?

 

Fair points Striggy,

 

The bridge could be a simple girder construction craned in from either side.  Planning could be done in shortish order using the Notice No.1 procedure notifying the owner of the land between the Catch Bar Lane carriageway and the edge of the bank [might even be SCC!] and possibly the Riparian owner of the Don at that point and giving them 21 days notice of their intention to submit - presumably the club have these details for the South Stand bridge?  The bridge would of course only be used for matchdays for limited periods - the land reverts to its current use as parking at all other times.

 

The Environment Agency comment will be triggered by the planning application or a direct approach - again the club have dealt with the EA recently and will know Datum levels and minimum heights of the underside to prevent flood blockage or obstruction when the river is in spate.

 

If everyone got their ducks in order [excuse the pun] including an agreement in principle from SAG / SYP and other key players that its worth progressing, there should no reason a fully DDA compliant bridge could not be in by the end of January or Easter next, ready for the promotion run in....

 

Costs of construction and installation may be broadly equal to fighting a protracted legal and technical row through the courts involving Barristers, Expert Witnesses sifting through a dozen box fulls of papers...Perhaps the whole thing could be sponsored by ELEV8?

 

Edited August 23, 2019 by Flat Owl

[HOOTIE AND THE SHIT TU]

Good though ti is, I can see a major traffic flow problem with @Flat Owl's idea

 

Having lived on Wadsley Park Village for 14 years, we moved away last year, closing Catchbar Lane to traffic would cause no end of problems. Traffic coming from the city centre would be diverted up Parkside Road (blue arrow), to it's junction with Middlewood Road, this junction is busy at the best of times. Traffic coming from Deepcar/Oughtibridge would either be directed along Middlewood Road to Hillsborough Corner, another logistical nightmare, or down Leppings Lane presuming Leppings Lane isn't cordoned off (red arrow) and then along Penistone Road.

 

Personally, I think if any road is to be closed and cordoned off, it has to be Leppings Lane. The only other alternative is to park coaches on Parkside Road, closing Catchbar Lane would cause too many problems in my opinion.

 

[Flat Owl]

Critique always welcome Hootie...

 

I would hope these points are thrashed out professionally and constructively by all partners.

 

Coaches can discharge on Catch Bar Lane - park up somewhere else [Clay Wheels] and then return?

 

I must say that having been in ICO and other Coach convoys on away matches, police outriders just block roads for the coaches to run through, cut corners or up kerbs, no matter whether they are one way or not! - Depends who needs to get of town quick enough!

 

 

Edited August 23, 2019 by Flat Owl

[Flat Owl]

Also Hootie,

 

Catch Bar Lane is three lanes wide opposite the school + a massive pavement / hardstanding on the bank side - by parking the coaches towards Penistone Road, there should be plenty of room for the away support to congregate, board their buses whilst, and if necessary, two way traffic and access for emergency vehicles is maintained?

[Sham67]

35 minutes ago, HOOTIE AND THE poo TU said:

Good though ti is, I can see a major traffic flow problem with @Flat Owl's idea

 

Having lived on Wadsley Park Village for 14 years, we moved away last year, closing Catchbar Lane to traffic would cause no end of problems. Traffic coming from the city centre would be diverted up Parkside Road (blue arrow), to it's junction with Middlewood Road, this junction is busy at the best of times. Traffic coming from Deepcar/Oughtibridge would either be directed along Middlewood Road to Hillsborough Corner, another logistical nightmare, or down Leppings Lane presuming Leppings Lane isn't cordoned off (red arrow) and then along Penistone Road.

 

Personally, I think if any road is to be closed and cordoned off, it has to be Leppings Lane. The only other alternative is to park coaches on Parkside Road, closing Catchbar Lane would cause too many problems in my opinion.

 

 

I thought LL was closed before the match?  It certainly used to be.