eedyut
Well-Known Member
Ha! Nice, a health and safety anomaly to back up the devil's advocate too, nice work. Especially off the back of footage of fans hurling flares at each other to reinforce another balancing act.
Ha! Nice, a health and safety anomaly to back up the devil's advocate too, nice work. Especially off the back of footage of fans hurling flares at each other to reinforce another balancing act.Not what you want to hear I know but the council can close down any business that requires a licence from them.
One of my businesses is subject to yearly and random inspections and can be closed by them if required.
Again I'm branded for putting the other side of the story.
Not what some on here like to hear but it will come a bit stale if we all nod together in synchro.
Just fuelling the fire.....
Nottingham Forest: City Ground capacity reduced to zero by local council
I must have missed the memo on what is allowed on here.Ha! Nice, a health and safety anomaly to back up the devil's advocate too, nice work. Especially off the back of footage of fans hurling flares at each other to reinforce another balancing act.
Thought Blackpool got fined £50K and played a game behind closed doors when they got a game abandoned.
So Blackpool whose pitch invasion caused a game to be abandoned would only have to play a game behind closed doors if they had another pitch invasion causing the players to be taken off the pitch.Following the Independent Regulatory Commission hearing, the club have also been ordered to play its first home competitive game of the 2015/16 season behind closed doors.
This part of the sanction will be suspended for one year and will be immediately effective in respect of the game following (whether in that current season or the following season) any further pitch incursion that results in a suspension of play whereby the referee directs that players shall leave the field of play.
Just fuelling the fire.....
Nottingham Forest: City Ground capacity reduced to zero by local council
So a technicality a month before the season starts based on, from what is in the article, someone being off work. Results in the club and council working together to ensure everything is in place for the start of the season.However, due to recent staff changes at the City Ground there was no person nominated as safety certificate holder in time for the initial annual review of the stadium.
"It's unusual," McKay said. "Normally these things would be planned.
"They've had a named person, that person is unable to fulfil those duties at the moment so the club are looking to appoint a new safety certificate holder.
"What I want to assure people is that we are working very closely with Forest. We had a number of meetings with them and we are hoping this might be resolved in the next few days."
Nottingham Forest said they were working with the council to ensure a suitable person will be appointed as the club's safety certificate holder.
"[The club] has a healthy, long-standing relationship with the county council and all parties are working together to resolve this matter as quickly and efficiently as possible," a statement said.
At what point has there been any hint of something serious happening. Were people terrified of being severely injured by one of the handful of tennis balls thrown?The idea is to prevent anything serious happening.
Councils can do lots of things, that shouldn't mean they can go around doing things unchecked and be allowed to get away with actions that are clearly based on a grudge.Not what you want to hear I know but the council can close down any business that requires a licence from them.
This is the key isn't it. If this was reasonable action by the council there would be numerous instances of similar action to refer to but there isn't.So again, show me a single council who have ever threatened to have their local football team play behind closed doors? You're clearly trying to defend this, I wonder why?
Strange, unless you look really good for 74, it should be obvious you will be using a concession ticket!They checked my season ticket.
I'm nearly 74 with grey hair. It's obvious I'm not a 25 year old trying to get in on a kid's ticket.
At what point has there been any hint of something serious happening. Were people terrified of being severely injured by one of the handful of tennis balls thrown?
On that basis can you show where action was taken against ACL for the pitch invasion following the charity match or against Wasps when they had a naked pitch invasion?
Councils can do lots of things, that shouldn't mean they can go around doing things unchecked and be allowed to get away with actions that are clearly based on a grudge.
This is the key isn't it. If this was reasonable action by the council there would be numerous instances of similar action to refer to but there isn't.
Lets looks at what's actually happened:
Whistles - no problem there from a SAG perspective there
Tennis balls - no problem there from a SAG perspective there
Wembley celebration - shouldn't be an issue here as I can't think of any single instance where a teams fans celebrating on the SU pitch has drawn any sort of negative response.
So that leave the protest on the pitch during a televised game in the middle of December. Why have they suddenly decided that's an issue now, there's been no repeat.
You missed the flare that was thrown on the pitch.
The movement around the pitch before the S.U. pitch invasion was quite scary for some people.
Both incidents could have a different outcome next time.
Voids most your comments for me.
Two differing reasons I would think.Question though, how is searching everybody and checking tickets going to prevent that from happening again?
You missed the flare that was thrown on the pitch.
The movement around the pitch before the S.U. pitch invasion was quite scary for some people.
Both incidents could have a different outcome next time.
Voids most your comments for me.
Not what you want to hear I know but the council can close down any business that requires a licence from them.
One of my businesses is subject to yearly and random inspections and can be closed by them if required.
Again I'm branded for putting the other side of the story.
Not what some on here like to hear but it will come a bit stale if we all nod together in synchro.
Just fuelling the fire.....
Nottingham Forest: City Ground capacity reduced to zero by local council
Two differing reasons I would think.
Searches are for things like flares etc as thrown at Northampton
Ticket check is for incorrect usage.
I have answered the question about the responsibility of any council to restrict a business and the reasons that are relevant to do so.You don't have to nod in synchro, you might just want to try answering the question though without endless whataboutery... Otherwise it looks like you don't really have an answer but aren't quite up to admitting it.
The link you sent has nothing at all to do with pitch invasions - it's about a technicality because Forest didn't have a nominated safety certificate holder. Do you actually read what you send?
You're not fuelling the fire so much as throwing random trash around to avoid answering the question! Has there ever been another council that has acted in this way towards the club that (supposedly) represents its city?
When has a flare been thrown on the pitch at the Ricoh?You missed the flare that was thrown on the pitch.
In the three months between that happening and the changes being made how many repeat incidents were there?The movement around the pitch before the S.U. pitch invasion was quite scary for some people.
Both incidents could have a different outcome next time.
Convenient way to avoid the question.Voids most your comments for me.
There's aren't relevant reasons to do so. If there were you would be able to give literally hundreds of examples of the same treatment being applied to clubs by their local councils.I have answered the question about the responsibility of any council to restrict a business and the reasons that are relevant to do so.
I have answered the question about the responsibility of any council to restrict a business and the reasons that are relevant to do so.
The problem is that the answer does not want to be listened to by a few on here who think the council can just close the stadium down out of spite with and without justification.
Here's the question.
When did a council ever threaten to do this to a club previously because of a pitch invasion?
Answer that one and stop whining about people not listening. We're listening fine, but you're not answering. Now's your chance.... waiting....
This was the question: When did a council ever threaten to do this to a club previously because of a pitch invasion?
This was your answer: The answer is that a council can issue a prohibition order for a multiple of reasons including pitch invasions if there is a safety issue.
That's not an answer to the question asked. Its very simple, if the action of the council is reasonable there will be literally hundreds of examples you can can give us of local councils in England doing similar to their local club.
OK then, has any council ever even threatened to force their local team to play behind closed doors following a pitch invasion. I can't find a single shred of evidence to suggest that is the case but as you are so sure this is perfectly reasonable action by the council I'm sure you can cite plenty of examples.Is a pitch invasion a safety issue ? Answer Yes
Can a council restrict attendance because of a safety issue ? Answer Yes
I have no idea if it has ever happened or not, but it's irrelevant as it hasn't happened here either.
Can you prove it hasn't happened. Certainly hasn't happened in Coventry but reading this forum you would think it had.
You mean the 16 year old staff helped get in to an over 18 event?OK then, has any council ever even threatened to force their local team to play behind closed doors following a pitch invasion. I can't find a single shred of evidence to suggest that is the case but as you are so sure this is perfectly reasonable action by the council I'm sure you can cite plenty of examples.
Here's another question for you. Do you think a few fans peacefully protesting against our owners on the pitch is more or less of a safety issue than crowd violence, a stabbing or death from drugs overdose as the council didn't seem to bat an eyelid over those incidents.
Is a pitch invasion a safety issue ? Answer Yes
Can a council restrict attendance because of a safety issue ? Answer Yes
I have no idea if it has ever happened or not, but it's irrelevant as it hasn't happened here either.
Can you prove it hasn't happened. Certainly hasn't happened in Coventry but reading this forum you would think it had.
So it's threatened now ?You're just dodging the question and you know it. The fact is that there's never been a council that's threatened to make its home town club play behind closed doors in anything like these circumstances. You're trying to justify something exceptional by ducking and diving around.
The point isn't that CCC can do it, but that they've threatened to do it. That's utterly remarkable and what's equally surprising is that someone who claims to be a fan would twist themselves into knots to try to justify it.
You mean like where I just said I was against them and it was intimidating? What about where I've said all along I didn't agree with the pitch invasion but the only violence I saw was a couple of stewards all along? The atmosphere was intimidating that night.Let's put the record straight I think the stewards are a load of tossers doesn't matter who has ran them or given them orders.
What I find amusing about this thread is the posters who attacked protesters for protesting at games even blaming them for a couple of loses, scaring kids etc are now saying well there was nothing threating going on.
Make your minds up.
Maybe you can all join in the next protest it's not far away
But other councils don't do it. If they did you could spend a few seconds on Google and give us a nice long list of other clubs who have been threatened with similar treatment.Can't believe people get so worked up on a counter argument why councils actually do these things.
Two differing reasons I would think.
Searches are for things like flares etc as thrown at Northampton
Ticket check is for incorrect usage.
It's in their remit to do it and as such who knows whether the 'threat ' to do it has taken place elsewhere or not elsewhere.But other councils don't do it. If they did you could spend a few seconds on Google and give us a nice long list of other clubs who have been threatened with similar treatment.
i was searched and had a bottle in my coat pocket which i made no attempt to hide. I wasn't asked to show what it was, or asked to take it out. So whats the point in the search to just pat me down when they dont actually care what's in there anyway?
and fair enough, check my ticket at the turnstile, but why check it every 5 steps once im in? Im not going to morph into a 12 year old girl and all of a sudden have the wrong ticket!
There is no point searching if the reason for searching is not carried out.
I take a monocular in my coat and its never been picked up when searched.
I think they must take a calculated risk depending on what you look like.
Just seeing the checks though should have the desired effect of preventing people taking stuff in although if it becomes known that stewards are not bothered that will change.
Can't see the point in checking tickets inside the stadium unless it's on entering the premium blocks.
Just because it is within their power to do something doesn't mean they are correct to do it or that their actions shouldn't be questioned. Its clear to everyone but you that this hasn't happened elsewhere as there is not one single piece of evidence to suggest it has.It's in their remit to do it and as such who knows whether the 'threat ' to do it has taken place elsewhere or not elsewhere.
It was hardly a large section, it was a few of the wannabe gangsters from the naughty corner. Pretty much every away game you can wander around like that with no issue.When was the last time a large section of the crowd was moving around the ground like the Sheffield game?
You're seriously comparing the Sheff Utd game to Heysel or the ongoing violence at West Ham games?I can remember West Ham more recently and the obvious Heysel stadium which everybody should work to avoid.
It's in their remit to do it and as such who knows whether the 'threat ' to do it has taken place elsewhere or not elsewhere.
When was the last time a large section of the crowd was moving around the ground like the Sheffield game?.
I can remember West Ham more recently and the obvious Heysel stadium which everybody should work to avoid.
You're seriously comparing the Sheff Utd game to Heysel or the ongoing violence at West Ham games?
The movement around the pitch before the S.U. pitch invasion was quite scary for some people.
Just because it is within their power to do something doesn't mean they are correct to do it or that their actions shouldn't be questioned. Its clear to everyone but you that this hasn't happened elsewhere as there is not one single piece of evidence to suggest it has.
It was hardly a large section, it was a few of the wannabe gangsters from the naughty corner. Pretty much every away game you can wander around like that with no issue.
You're seriously comparing the Sheff Utd game to Heysel or the ongoing violence at West Ham games?
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?