|
Post by dinsdale on Oct 3, 2018 18:31:26 GMT
Ive just had enough
|
|
|
Post by twoblues on Oct 3, 2018 18:40:39 GMT
Sadly the day to day running of the club appears to have been better under the old regime, Perhaps with hindsight the club should have appointed a new Stadium manager after Ian Holtby left.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2018 18:44:59 GMT
Sorry but those running this club have turned us into a f**king laughing stock. f**k off and let someone else in I just dont understand how the hell the club would make such a basic error who is in charge of the new stands!?
someone needs to be made accountable for this shambles!
Presumably in the absence of a stadium manager it's the man who mistakenly agreed sponsorship with 2 betting companies thus contravening league rules...
|
|
|
Post by 84gas on Oct 3, 2018 19:21:34 GMT
Beef stock Chicken stock Bristol Rovers FFS
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Oct 3, 2018 19:22:07 GMT
Sadly the day to day running of the club appears to have been better under the old regime, Perhaps with hindsight the club should have appointed a new Stadium manager after Ian Holtby left. Had the wrong type of sand, now the wrong type of stand.
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Oct 3, 2018 19:24:07 GMT
Everyone needs to quickly wake up to this absolute farce of a regime at Rovers and unlike when we needed to force out The board when the boardroom split over a decade ago and during Higgs’ worst days we need to act as one and send a clear message to this shamble to sell up and sod off. Rant over To be fair, this is just as likely to be a miscommunication somewhere in BCC, as a mistake our end.
|
|
|
Post by stokegiffordgas on Oct 3, 2018 19:34:31 GMT
Unless I have missed it where is the official club statement on this?
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Oct 3, 2018 19:45:50 GMT
www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/rovers-emergency-meeting-new-stands-2071893Fire, police and council officers are to hold an emergency meeting at Bristol Rovers’ Memorial Stadium on Thursday morning to thrash out confusion over the issue of safety certificates for two new stands. The meeting will take place as part of a Safety Advisory Group, chaired by Bristol City Council, to look at the two new stands erected by Rovers to seat hundreds of fans. The new stands were first opened and used at the most recent home game against Coventry City, but ahead of Saturday’s home match against Walsall, questions have been raised about whether fans will be allowed to sit there. The confused situation began when it emerged Bristol Rovers had submitted a planning application for the two new stands they erected and opened in September, indicating that the two stands do not presently have planning permission. Bristol City Council issued a statement to Bristol Live which stated that the council had advised the club not to use them until all the relevant licensing issues had been sorted out. The statement said: “The council is working with the club to formalise two new stands at the Memorial Stadium to ensure compliance with planning and building regulations. “In the meantime the club have been advised that the stands should not be used until the Ground Safety Certificate has been re-issued,” a council spokesperson added. This statement left senior figures at Bristol Rovers baffled, as they had already opened the stands, and hundreds of fans had enjoyed watching the victory over Coventry from covered seats, rather than areas of the ground that had previously been terracing. Bristol Rovers told Bristol Live that they had been working all summer with the Safety Advisory Group on their plans for the two new stands and, as far as they were concerned there was no outstanding issues. A club source said the stands are considered ‘temporary structures’ in planning law, until they obtain planning permission, and they had not been made aware of any problems that might mean they would have to close down the two stands again. The club said they were baffled by the council’s suggestion that they should not use the stands, and said the council’s initial statement was ‘not consistent’ with anything they had discussed with the different authorities on the Safety Advisory Group. Every sports club like Bristol Rovers or Bristol City has a Safety Advisory Group, which consists of public authorities such as the fire brigade, police and ambulance service and the local council, which meets to discuss public safety issues. Every football stadium in the country needs a valid and up to date Safety Certificate, and any major changes to that stadium would require a fresh certificate to be re-issued taking into account the alterations and additions. Bristol Live went back to Bristol City Council to clarify what the issue was, and after a day of discussions between Bristol Rovers and council officers, the council issued a second statement. “Like the club, we want all fans to be able to enjoy the matches safely,” a spokesperson said. “We have been in touch with Rovers regarding the use of the new stand and are due to meet them tomorrow, along with other agencies involved in granting Safety Certificates, to discuss this and ensure we all have the same understanding and can find a speedy solution,” she added. Bristol Live has asked Bristol Rovers if this means it had a valid and up-to-date Safety Certificate for the new stands at the time they were opened for the game against Coventry in September. We are awaiting the club’s response.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2018 19:47:58 GMT
There really isn't any excuse for this kind of cock-up. Rovers should have engaged an architect to liase with council and ascertain exactly what planning consent would be required and clarify the position regarding building regulations and safety certificates. This is standard procedure for any self-respecting professional business and wouldn't have cost the club a lot of money.
Instead we blunder forward and attempt to do things on the cheap then it costs more in the long run. Pretty appalling if you ask me.
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Oct 3, 2018 19:49:32 GMT
There really isn't any excuse for this kind of cock-up. Rovers should have engaged an architect to liase with council and ascertain exactly what planning consent would be required and clarify the position regarding building regulations and safety certificates. This is standard procedure for any self-respecting professional business and wouldn't have cost the club a lot of money. Instead we blunder forward and attempt to do things on the cheap then it costs more in the long run. Pretty appalling if you ask me. They did: The club said they were baffled by the council’s suggestion that they should not use the stands, and said the council’s initial statement was ‘not consistent’ with anything they had discussed with the different authorities on the Safety Advisory Group.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2018 19:59:20 GMT
There really isn't any excuse for this kind of cock-up. Rovers should have engaged an architect to liase with council and ascertain exactly what planning consent would be required and clarify the position regarding building regulations and safety certificates. This is standard procedure for any self-respecting professional business and wouldn't have cost the club a lot of money. Instead we blunder forward and attempt to do things on the cheap then it costs more in the long run. Pretty appalling if you ask me. They did: The club said they were baffled by the council’s suggestion that they should not use the stands, and said the council’s initial statement was ‘not consistent’ with anything they had discussed with the different authorities on the Safety Advisory Group. Well in that case if they'd done things properly and followed proper procedure they would have the written documents from the council supporting and authorising their actions. It wouldn't then be a case of what the club had understood or assumed and they wouldn't be left baffled by inconsistency!
|
|
|
Post by matealotblue on Oct 3, 2018 20:03:49 GMT
They did: The club said they were baffled by the council’s suggestion that they should not use the stands, and said the council’s initial statement was ‘not consistent’ with anything they had discussed with the different authorities on the Safety Advisory Group. Well in that case if they'd done things properly and followed proper procedure they would have the written documents from the council supporting and authorising their actions. It wouldn't then be a case of what the club had understood or assumed and they wouldn't be left baffled by inconsistency! And maybe they have.....and it’s BCC who have cocked up?
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Oct 3, 2018 20:07:54 GMT
They did: The club said they were baffled by the council’s suggestion that they should not use the stands, and said the council’s initial statement was ‘not consistent’ with anything they had discussed with the different authorities on the Safety Advisory Group. Well in that case if they'd done things properly and followed proper procedure they would have the written documents from the council supporting and authorising their actions. It wouldn't then be a case of what the club had understood or assumed and they wouldn't be left baffled by inconsistency! Well, you said they should have been liaising with BCC, which they clearly were. Obviously something has happened. But, istm, it's just as likely to be within BCC, a massive, disjointed organisation, than anywhere else. Or merely a miscommunication between BCC and BRFC. Of course, when you do get a miscommunication with a govt org, it's not usually the govt that suffers.
|
|
|
Post by pirate49 on Oct 3, 2018 20:23:02 GMT
Naivety at best. You can't just bang up a stand on a Friday then have 200+ people sitting in it next day. Did they have a trial run with 200+ volunteers sitting in it to test its safety?
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Oct 3, 2018 20:35:04 GMT
Naivety at best. You can't just bang up a stand on a Friday then have 200+ people sitting in it next day. Did they have a trial run with 200+ volunteers sitting in it to test its safety? Well i presume thats why the club dealt with the SAG and spoke to people while it was all planned What was the head of the SAG saying when in contact with them?
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Oct 3, 2018 20:56:48 GMT
|
|
irene
Reserve Team
Posts: 382
|
Post by irene on Oct 3, 2018 21:11:26 GMT
Embarrassment piled on embarrassment just get out of our club useless owners and their useless lackeys
|
|
|
Post by toddy1953 on Oct 3, 2018 21:48:47 GMT
Well in that case if they'd done things properly and followed proper procedure they would have the written documents from the council supporting and authorising their actions. It wouldn't then be a case of what the club had understood or assumed and they wouldn't be left baffled by inconsistency! Well, you said they should have been liaising with BCC, which they clearly were. Obviously something has happened. But, istm, it's just as likely to be within BCC, a massive, disjointed organisation, than anywhere else. Or merely a miscommunication between BCC and BRFC. Of course, when you do get a miscommunication with a govt org, it's not usually the govt that suffers. BCC probably think we have rebuilt the Mem without asking for PP.
|
|
|
Post by midlandgas213 on Oct 3, 2018 21:53:31 GMT
Sorry but those running this club have turned us into a f**king laughing stock. f**k off and let someone else in I just dont understand how the hell the club would make such a basic error who is in charge of the new stands!?
someone needs to be made accountable for this shambles!
It's all DC's fault sack him
|
|
|
Post by wertongas on Oct 3, 2018 21:55:55 GMT
Over the summer the club were in talks with planning and would have taken the advice of the planning officers, regarding planning permission. With regards to the safety certificate I was informed that it would be re-issued by the council the day after I contacted them. So people coming here with their anti club rants maybe jumping the gun and I am sure things will be sorted.
|
|