|
Post by Paul Spencer on Aug 22, 2014 20:33:37 GMT
Indeed Malcolm. Rather than individual campaigners emailing the club with links to the manufacturer's web site, surely it would be better for the supporters council to be presenting it as a considered suggestion and presented in a context of cost and feasibility when compared to other possible solutions. There will be loads of H&S issues with these chairs I think. For 1, what is there to stop these chairs falling forward onto the people in front? You would need a barrier at least 5-6 foot high to prevent this. Then you have the issue of raised chairs blocking the advertising boards and maybe even the people behind. I know they will probably only raise a few feet but everything around will be exaggerated. 1. So you're suggesting that if somebody owned one privately then they wouldn't be allowed to use it on H&S grounds? What would be the point in owning one then? they'll surely be used in all manner of public situations, I guess the manufacturer's will have had to undergo stringent testing to ensure that they don't fall forward. 2. Blocking the advertising boards I give you - the revenue lost here would need to be factored into the overall 'cost'. 3. There's easily enough room already there not to block people's view on the row behind - I don't see why anything else will be exaggerated. Having said all that, it's just an idea that might indeed turn out to be completely unfeasable but at least it is an idea in what appears to be a complete desert of alternatives right now.
|
|
|
Post by Stafford-Stokie on Aug 22, 2014 20:41:07 GMT
There will be loads of H&S issues with these chairs I think. For 1, what is there to stop these chairs falling forward onto the people in front? You would need a barrier at least 5-6 foot high to prevent this. Then you have the issue of raised chairs blocking the advertising boards and maybe even the people behind. I know they will probably only raise a few feet but everything around will be exaggerated. 1. So you're suggesting that if somebody owned one privately then they wouldn't be allowed to use it on H&S grounds? What would be the point in owning one then? they'll surely be used in all manner of public situations, I guess the manufacturer's will have had to undergo stringent testing to ensure that they don't fall forward. 2. Blocking the advertising boards I give you - the revenue lost here would need to be factored into the overall 'cost'. 3. There's easily enough room already there not to block people's view on the row behind - I don't see why anything else will be exaggerated. Having said all that, it's just an idea that might indeed turn out to be completely unfeasable but at least it is an idea in what appears to be a complete desert of alternatives right now. I am not saying it shouldn't be put forward just pointing out some things I think may scupper it. With the chairs being at the front of the platform they will be about 4 feet above ground level before the chair is raised. Again with the chairs being at the front if the platform when raised they would possibly block the view of those behind of any action on the near side of the pitch. The bit where I meant exaggerated was that if the chair is raised about 2-3 feet at the front of the platform it will seem a lot more to those behind.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Aug 22, 2014 20:50:53 GMT
1. So you're suggesting that if somebody owned one privately then they wouldn't be allowed to use it on H&S grounds? What would be the point in owning one then? they'll surely be used in all manner of public situations, I guess the manufacturer's will have had to undergo stringent testing to ensure that they don't fall forward. 2. Blocking the advertising boards I give you - the revenue lost here would need to be factored into the overall 'cost'. 3. There's easily enough room already there not to block people's view on the row behind - I don't see why anything else will be exaggerated. Having said all that, it's just an idea that might indeed turn out to be completely unfeasable but at least it is an idea in what appears to be a complete desert of alternatives right now. I am not saying it shouldn't be put forward just pointing out some things I think may scupper it. With the chairs being at the front of the platform they will be about 4 feet above ground level before the chair is raised. Again with the chairs being at the front if the platform when raised they would possibly block the view of those behind of any action on the near side of the pitch. The bit where I meant exaggerated was that if the chair is raised about 2-3 feet at the front of the platform it will seem a lot more to those behind. As you say - there's a possibility that it might not work but I guess also there's equally a possibility that it might. Neither of use know enough to be able to offer an educated opinion either way but I can't see any harm in exploring it a bit further.
|
|
|
Post by arnieforpresident on Aug 22, 2014 20:52:36 GMT
just rip another 3 rows of seats out and fill in the corners, simples
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Aug 22, 2014 21:32:40 GMT
In fact the cheapest elevating chair on that link was £2.1k, not £4.8k . I've no idea about specifications or quality but the total cost might be much less than calculated by some posters, and as you say they would only be used for a couple of hours on 20 days per year. Also the total cost would have to compared with the cost of any alternative solutions. There is no doubt that this is a "left field" idea and there may well be reasons why it isn't viable or appropriate, but I don't think it should be dismissed on cost grounds, or ridiculed or dismissed without a proper evaluation and consultation. Indeed Malcolm. Rather than individual campaigners emailing the club with links to the manufacturer's web site, surely it would be better for the supporters council to be presenting it as a considered suggestion and presented in a context of cost and feasibility when compared to other possible solutions. Agreed. For some reason Paul, the Supporters' Council seems unwilling to engage on the issue on this thread. I'm sure you are aware (although others may not) that Malcolm is no longer a member of the Supporters' Council having stood down at the recent elections.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Aug 22, 2014 21:39:46 GMT
Indeed Malcolm. Rather than individual campaigners emailing the club with links to the manufacturer's web site, surely it would be better for the supporters council to be presenting it as a considered suggestion and presented in a context of cost and feasibility when compared to other possible solutions. There will be loads of H&S issues with these chairs I think. For 1, what is there to stop these chairs falling forward onto the people in front? You would need a barrier at least 5-6 foot high to prevent this. Then you have the issue of raised chairs blocking the advertising boards and maybe even the people behind. I know they will probably only raise a few feet but everything around will be exaggerated. Stafford, obviously the sight lines from the chairs would need to be checked but there may be no need for the chairs to be at the front of the bay, they might get a decent view if they were parked against the back wall. I should imagine that the conventional chairs are sited at the front of the bay to give the occupants the best chance of a half decent view but the higher viewing point might enable the chairs to be moved back. The helpers could be sited in front of the chairs or beside the chairs on high seats. A trial should sort these matters out quickly and easily.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Aug 22, 2014 22:19:08 GMT
Indeed Malcolm. Rather than individual campaigners emailing the club with links to the manufacturer's web site, surely it would be better for the supporters council to be presenting it as a considered suggestion and presented in a context of cost and feasibility when compared to other possible solutions. Agreed. For some reason Paul, the Supporters' Council seems unwilling to engage on the issue on this thread. I'm sure you are aware (although others may not) that Malcolm is no longer a member of the Supporters' Council having stood down at the recent elections. It's not unusual for them to be nowhere to be seen when it comes to engaging people on here is it John? I asked what specific ideas they had got to tackle the issue on the knot fm show last Sunday but not surprisingly got a completely vague and extremely unspecific answer in response - sadly.
|
|
|
Post by ange1 on Aug 22, 2014 23:02:21 GMT
Perhaps I'm the only one who is daft enough to take the pretty constant abuse dished out to the Council members Paul. As for my "unspecific response", that is because until the club have completed the research and investigations we as a Supporters Council can't be that specific. After the meeting with the disabled reps, they were happy that the club are trying to solve the problem and stated that. I have read all the comments on this and other threads. It is easy to criticise and to find "obvious" solutions on paper, but in reality, it isn't that simple. John, I believe that Malcolm decided not to stand for election because of family and time issues. I can testify that being on the Council is a time consuming and very often thankless task. I give up my time because I am believe it is better to try to make a difference than do nothing or just moan.
I wish a similar length thread had ensued when the Council strongly advised against the increase in season ticket prices two seasons ago and were successful in helping keep the costs the same.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Aug 23, 2014 6:00:13 GMT
Can the seats infront of the wheel chair users bay next season be allocated to those supporters who have to sit eg the elderly , infirm medical conditions . It would be less expensive for the club to offer incentives eg heated seat warmers, blankets free cup of tea or coffee at half time.? They could be - but that would be harsh on the existing fans who have their season tickets in those seats. As I mentioned earlier, I know one family group of 5 who sit in those seats - what are the chances of them finding 5 decent seats together? And these are people who have has their STs there since the Brit opened.
|
|
|
Post by wembley4372 on Aug 23, 2014 6:12:10 GMT
Putting people into an unfamiliar chair that rises, presumably storing their existing one seems like a disaster waiting to happen on so many levels.
Perhaps Bindy's on to something, we should create dwarf zones (are you allowed to say that?) or have a maximum height limit!
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Aug 23, 2014 7:00:48 GMT
They could be - but that would be harsh on the existing fans who have their season tickets in those seats. As I mentioned earlier, I know one family group of 5 who sit in those seats - what are the chances of them finding 5 decent seats together? And these are people who have has their STs there since the Brit opened. Ive been reading some more reports comments elsewhere and one person said it unfair sit wheelchair users at the front.they will get soaked.so do many more of us at the ground and non of us melt. There isnt a fair to everyone answer. I'd have thought that the last group who should be sitting at the front would be the disabled in wheelchairs. It is inevitable that wheelchair users will contain a higher than normal proportion of the frail and elderly and a higher proportion of people with other medical problems. Those are the last people who it would be sensible to put at the front of the stands exposed to the elements. At the moment every season ticket holder who sits at the front has the choice whether they sit there or not. If they don't want to sit there they could, every year, choose to move to a more sheltered location. To give wheelchair users no choice in the matter just doesn't seem right to me. The club will have to get its finger out and find a solution which does not discriminate against the disabled. The solution may be expensive but the problem is of the club's making.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Aug 23, 2014 7:11:59 GMT
Perhaps I'm the only one who is daft enough to take the pretty constant abuse dished out to the Council members Paul. As for my "unspecific response", that is because until the club have completed the research and investigations we as a Supporters Council can't be that specific. After the meeting with the disabled reps, they were happy that the club are trying to solve the problem and stated that. I have read all the comments on this and other threads. It is easy to criticise and to find "obvious" solutions on paper, but in reality, it isn't that simple. John, I believe that Malcolm decided not to stand for election because of family and time issues. I can testify that being on the Council is a time consuming and very often thankless task. I give up my time because I am believe it is better to try to make a difference than do nothing or just moan. I wish a similar length thread had ensued when the Council strongly advised against the increase in season ticket prices two seasons ago and were successful in helping keep the costs the same. I am aware of why Malcolm chose not to stand Angela. I was merely pointing out to Paul (in case he was not aware) that Malcolm was no longer on the council. I also share your concern about the abuse of people who give up their time to try to help. I would never join in that abuse - and I hope you do not think that I would. However, nor will I remain silent on important topics for fear of offending Council members or club officials. I remain convinced that the problems with the disabled bays are a running sore that have plagued this club for 17 years and I also feel that it is a disgrace that it has taken until now for a concerted effort to be made to sort it out. And, I feel it would have been much easier to sort out when the club was in the Championship and there were about a third of the number of season ticket holders that we have now. as I replied to you above, I simply don't agree with you when you say that it wasn't a problem until we reached the Premier league. It was a problem then - more importantly, it was much easier to sort out then - if someone had made the effort to do so.
|
|
|
Post by Stafford-Stokie on Aug 23, 2014 8:06:50 GMT
Ive been reading some more reports comments elsewhere and one person said it unfair sit wheelchair users at the front.they will get soaked.so do many more of us at the ground and non of us melt. There isnt a fair to everyone answer. I'd have thought that the last group who should be sitting at the front would be the disabled in wheelchairs. It is inevitable that wheelchair users will contain a higher than normal proportion of the frail and elderly and a higher proportion of people with other medical problems. Those are the last people who it would be sensible to put at the front of the stands exposed to the elements. At the moment every season ticket holder who sits at the front has the choice whether they sit there or not. If they don't want to sit there they could, every year, choose to move to a more sheltered location. To give wheelchair users no choice in the matter just doesn't seem right to me. The club will have to get its finger out and find a solution which does not discriminate against the disabled. The solution may be expensive but the problem is of the club's making. What about discriminating against anyone that has to move to accommodate the disabled? Do they call this positive discrimination? Like I said before, there are 2 sides to this. Maybe better to have a few pissed off than a lot?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2014 8:13:23 GMT
I'd have thought that the last group who should be sitting at the front would be the disabled in wheelchairs. It is inevitable that wheelchair users will contain a higher than normal proportion of the frail and elderly and a higher proportion of people with other medical problems. Those are the last people who it would be sensible to put at the front of the stands exposed to the elements. At the moment every season ticket holder who sits at the front has the choice whether they sit there or not. If they don't want to sit there they could, every year, choose to move to a more sheltered location. To give wheelchair users no choice in the matter just doesn't seem right to me. The club will have to get its finger out and find a solution which does not discriminate against the disabled. The solution may be expensive but the problem is of the club's making. What about discriminating against anyone that has to move to accommodate the disabled? Do they call this positive discrimination? Like I said before, there are 2 sides to this. Maybe better to have a few pissed off than a lot? Careful Stafford, That sort of thinking can lead to all sorts of problems for the 'moral minority' telling the majority what they should think or do. Please conform and shut up GD
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Aug 23, 2014 9:40:56 GMT
I'd have thought that the last group who should be sitting at the front would be the disabled in wheelchairs. It is inevitable that wheelchair users will contain a higher than normal proportion of the frail and elderly and a higher proportion of people with other medical problems. Those are the last people who it would be sensible to put at the front of the stands exposed to the elements. At the moment every season ticket holder who sits at the front has the choice whether they sit there or not. If they don't want to sit there they could, every year, choose to move to a more sheltered location. To give wheelchair users no choice in the matter just doesn't seem right to me. The club will have to get its finger out and find a solution which does not discriminate against the disabled. The solution may be expensive but the problem is of the club's making. What about discriminating against anyone that has to move to accommodate the disabled? Do they call this positive discrimination? Like I said before, there are 2 sides to this. Maybe better to have a few pissed off than a lot? I couldn't agree more Stafford. I'm not advocating forcing anyone to move to accommodate the disabled.
|
|
|
Post by potterglen on Sept 26, 2014 18:59:25 GMT
Disabled supporters are allowed a free ticket for their carer, surely seating the carers in the row of seats in front of the disabled area would help the situation - assuming they don't stand of course. Another scenario would be to utilise the clear view available from the seats immediately above the disabled areas, using the current disabled areas for wheelchair ramp to said area - going from one end to the other to avoid too steep a gradient and remove the current row of seats to accommodate wheelchairs.
|
|