SYP and SAG

[handworth52]

16 hours ago, Bouncing Owl said:

We have 39814 seats but can’t see us being allowed to sell more than 34k.

cant remember exactly but last spring I think we got allowed 35k , this season it be more like 32000. the lower west usually only sells 12-1300 there are 2600 seats there . upper west 4100 appx think they only allow 2800-3000 tops . sag need to go on a job training scheme take them to the likes of qpr ,leeds and many others ,if they were allowed to do there stuff there capacity at ellend road would be under 30000, and 10-12000 at qpr. they aint fit or qualified to do there job and I hope someone sues the life out of them when someone gets killed crossing over a road due to there disgusting behaviour. 

[handworth52]

13 hours ago, Tudders said:

As far as i’m aware, SYP have made decisions based on expert advice that they sought and duly received. The whole North stand/Leppings Lane exit policy is all due to the aforementioned advice.

 

 If they go against the advice-as a collective or as an individual match commander-and something happens they’ll be at the very least criticised/potentially sacked or prosecuted.

 

If you were in their position, would you put your job on the line to appease a section of mildly inconvenienced fans in relation to exiting the ground or the slightly reduced capacity?
 

Not sure what else they can do? 

I write some cr*p sometimes but the so called expert at university who knows nothing about our ground,our roads ,our rivalry ,etc is suddenly knows 100x more than the rest of us? give us a break.  anyone can commission a report and have is done in someones favour . 99.9% of us know that not only is it very wrong its almost laughable that we have had these crazy restrictions what no other police force in the uk or safety advisory group would do. 

[quinnssweetshop]

14 hours ago, Tudders said:

 

Not sure what else they can do? 

 

Apply common sense ?  Then again.....

[Mr. Tom]

1 hour ago, room0035 said:

My question still stands that no one seem to be able to answer who are SAG, as they seem to decide everything with the ground but no one seem to know who any of them are????

 

Is it an actual committee of people, one person or a computer programme decided on real life situations based on a match that happened 30 years ago not involving any teams from Sheffield.

 

SAG is, from what I can gather, a Council-established but technically independent body. I think all regions were made to establish one at some point after the various safety reports in the wake of '89, but not sure of the exact timeline to be fair.

 

re: membership, seems you can click straight through to this publicly available document with a simple Google search (I'm specifying that to back up the fact it *is* entirely publicly available, not to take the mick!): [Note that this document is from 2012, there's probably a much newer version available - this is just the first thing I found on Google.]

https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/content/dam/sheffield/docs/business/sports-grounds/Safety Certification and SAG Policy.pdf

 

2.4 Membership

2.4.1 The Council uses the safety advisory group process for two distinct procedures. Those two procedures are the safety at sports grounds and concerts/large scale events and any other events where it considers public safety to be an issue.

 

2.4.2 The core membership of each group is the same however other individuals and/or authorities may be invited as and when necessary. Set out below is the core membership at each group:

 

Sports Grounds

    - Head of Licensing or deputy (Chair)
    - Stadium Management/Safety Officer
    - South Yorkshire Police
    - South Yorkshire Fire & Rescue
    - Yorkshire Ambulance Service
    - City Council Building Standards
    - City Council Health Protection Service
    - and the Sports Grounds Safety Authority is invited to observe/advise

 

Section 3.3 obviously very relevant to our situation:

 

3.3 Reduction in Capacity

3.3.1 The Council can reduce the permitted capacity of all or part of a sports ground. This would be appropriate in the following situations:

    - where an incident occurs that suggests that the management is performing unsuccessfully, the Council will review the (S) factor which affects the capacity of the ground. There may have been no incident but the performance of the management raises concerns re the control of the event;

    - where the Council's inspecting officers identify any deficiencies in the structure/ fabric, equipment, records or management systems, which the authority has not already taken into account when accepting or calculating the permitted capacity, the (P) or (S) factor will be reviewed as appropriate.

 

3.3.2 The new capacity will be calculated having regard to the change in circumstances, and a new certificate will have to be issued (or an amendment to schedule 5 in thecurrent certificate). Once the item causing concern has been rectified the capacity can be reassessed following assessment of the (P) or (S) factor.

3.3.3 The Council will follow the same procedures as during the routine annual review of the safety certificate for the setting of the (P) or (S) factor. It should invite the ground management to submit its proposed revised (P) or (S) factor, while reserving the right to overrule this if appropriate.

3.3.4 There is an onus on the Council to act reasonably and in accordance with due process, not least because the certificate holder has a right of appeal against any reduction in capacity.

 

'P and S factors' aren't defined anywhere in that document, but another Google search brings up this:

https://sgsa.org.uk/guidance/p-factor-and-s-factor-national-league/

 

The safe capacity of a sports ground should take account of both its:

- physical condition (P factor); and
- safety management (S factor).

Each of them is given a numerical value of between 0.0 and 1.0. These are used to determine the holding capacity, namely the number of spectators that can safely be accommodated in the area concerned, before the capacities of the entrances, exits and emergency exits are taken into account.

 

The (S) factor for any ground may therefore be determined by judging how far the ground management meets the recommendations contained in Safety Management. When assessing the (S) factor consideration should be given to the

- club’s safety policy;
- competency of the safety officer and his/her deputy;
- quality of the stewarding;
- safety systems and procedures in place; and
- management of the spectator accommodation.

 

We have developed a list of indicative questions and worked examples to help determine the appropriate (P) and (S) factor:

https://sgsa.org.uk/resource/green-guide-worked-examples-and-annexes/

 

Interesting reads, will try to find a more recent version on Council website.

Edited January 28, 2020 by Mr. Tom

[Mr. Tom]

Further to the post above, the main document I linked to seems to be a general policy agreement/outline that is still viewed as current.

Although ratified in 2012, it is still linked on the relevant Council page (https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/home/business/licences-permits-registrations/sports-ground-licences) as the general SAG policy document.

 

In other words, all the info above appears to apply in 2020.

 

Hope it helps re: questions about who's actually on it, anyway.

 

Edited January 28, 2020 by Mr. Tom

[oldtawnyowl]

6 hours ago, Tudders said:

 I don’t blame the SYP powers that be for getting an independent assessment and following those .

 

 

I wonder why the SYP, SC or SAG have never commissioned the same University 'expert' to provide a report on any problems  experienced at Bramall Lane due to the egress of home and away fans from gates only a few yards apart.

 

Perhaps we could ask D.C. to put his hand in his pocket and pay for one.