It’s more likely they have ran an argument that the role has been fragmented and therefore his role doesn’t exist in the new era.I would think that if TUPE rules were to be employed the situation would need to be either ACL/Wasps had purchased Otium and therefore CCFC or Otium/CCFC sub contracted an independent company to cover the safety officers roll out and the contract moved to another independent company.
Sisu should of fuckin bought it then when they had the opportunity too
Surely no different than them managing catering staff, groundsman etc.
could the club not have talked to him about the events job ?
Maybe he applied for it and they didn't respond
If Otium wanted to keep their own safety officer (which I think they should to protect CCFC fans interests irrespective of what ACL do) then what is to stop them?
Surely no different than them managing the catering staff, groundsman etc.
could the club not have talked to him about the events job ?
Maybe he applied for it and they didn't respond
He'd be a safety officer with no teeth. If Wasps want the liaison with the police etc carried out by their own man, how on earth could be replicate it? Why would the police talk to him?exactly, clearly he likes ccfc and already posts on here have said he is helpful and active on matchdays. Surely if SISU wanted to keep him in some capacity they are more than entitled to
Not sure the Council or ACL moved us to Northampton.
He'd be a safety officer with no teeth. If Wasps want the liaison with the police etc carried out by their own man, how on earth could be replicate it? Why would the police talk to him?
Just a thought but could this a result of having a one year agreement or the type of agreement we now have. I assume previously there were hand over procedures that passed stadium responsibility from ACL to Ccfc and back again. If the new agreement doesn't do that then the insurance underwriters could flag that as a problem. Ultimately it is the directors of ACL that have responsibility and if the Ccfc stadium safety officer is not under their direct control I would think the insurers would say they are not covered and at risk. It could be as simple as that and both companies have no choice.
It is a shame that someone by all accounts passionate about Ccfc is no longer involved in home games. Seems to say he will be at away games..... what's the difference we are effectively away its not our ground.
Yeah, that’s a good shout. If there is still uncertainty regarding a permanent “home”, why would there be a need for a Ccfc safety officer permanently?Just a thought but could this a result of having a one year agreement or the type of agreement we now have. I assume previously there were hand over procedures that passed stadium responsibility from ACL to Ccfc and back again. If the new agreement doesn't do that then the insurance underwriters could flag that as a problem. Ultimately it is the directors of ACL that have responsibility and if the Ccfc stadium safety officer is not under their direct control I would think the insurers would say they are not covered and at risk. It could be as simple as that and both companies have no choice.
It is a shame that someone by all accounts passionate about Ccfc is no longer involved in home games. Seems to say he will be at away games..... what's the difference we are effectively away its not our ground.
It wasn't a full time job AFAIK. The reason for having a CCFC safety officer is to have someone who knows about football.why would there be a need for a Ccfc safety officer permanently?
Except the command position is shared between the safety officer and a senior police officer who you might expect could deal with public order situations football related or otherwise. A lot of what a safety officer does is to ensure compliance, deal with people flows, authorise things opening stands or turnstiles.
The ACL safety officer deals with or oversees all events at the stadium, so by definition you would expect them to have far more experience of stadium safety than one who does it every other week.
I believe that the reason it was a Ccfc one before is because the agreement defined a complete hand over of responsibility from ACL to otium between set hours on match days and that was all defined in the 2014 and previous rent agreements. I would suggest that has changed.
On the bright side it could be a cost saving allowing more cash to go to the team
The 2014 agreement of course was made before Wasps arrived on the scene, so it makes a bit of sense what has happened. Like you say it might save a couple of grand.If there wasn't last year then there hasn't been since 2014 as it was the one agreement.
Perhaps they have to take a hard line because of the protests and pitch invasions? That cost the club financially I would think and would have been a blot on things for ACL too at a guess.
What are the basic differences between safety responsibility for a football crowd and any other stadium event then ? Perhaps football crowds have had it easy with their level of behaviour in the past? Certainly the reports of poor behaviour seem to have increased on this site.
Just thoughts not defending anyone by them just asking why?
Not really my problem to be honest. I have never encountered a problem from the stewards at the ricoh. On to more important things like three points today
That's great in theory but back in the real world of an emotionally charged matchday thats not how it works. Its been very clear that there have been more issues since ACL became more 'hands on'. Its regularly mentioned on matchday threads on here and on social media.Except the command position is shared between the safety officer and a senior police officer who you might expect could deal with public order situations football related or otherwise.
Indeed there are and we were lucky to have in Chris O'Neill someone who was trained and qualified in the specifics of spectator safety who had a good relationship with our fans.Training and regulations have improved since Hillsborough. There are recognised qualifications in stadium safety.
Again great in theory, and might possibly apply if ACL had a full time safety officer. However that's not what they have. It's an existing ACL employee who has had the additional responsibilities added to their existing full time job. A person who has a background in facilities management / H&S and no experience as a safety officer for football matches or other sporting events.The ACL safety officer deals with or oversees all events at the stadium, so by definition you would expect them to have far more experience of stadium safety than one who does it every other week.
That may well be the case but from my point of view I'm more concerned about the matchday experience I and the rest of our fans have every week. When the quality of that is reduced people aren't going round looking at why, instead the calls will be going in to CWR and the finger will be pointed at the club again.I believe that the reason it was a Ccfc one before is because the agreement defined a complete hand over of responsibility from ACL to otium between set hours on match days and that was all defined in the 2014 and previous rent agreements. I would suggest that has changed.
If recent history regarding matchday charges is anything to go by we'll now be paying more out to get a lower level of service.On the bright side it could be a cost saving allowing more cash to go to the team
Football is vastly different to practically any other event. How many concerts have you been to where sets of fans are yelling abuse at each other for hours an trying to get to each other for a punch up?What are the basic differences between safety responsibility for a football crowd and any other stadium event then ? Perhaps football crowds have had it easy with their level of behaviour in the past? Certainly the reports of poor behaviour seem to have increased on this site.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?