ricoh grows in value......according to wasps (14 Viewers)

[italiahorse]

Wanker

Giver but not a taker then ?

 

---

[italiahorse]

Best make sure the leicester fans are safe when they come over

I'll take your word for it if your counting. :watching:

 

[Terry Gibson's perm]

.... and I can report that the stadium will be monitored for Wasps crowds above 30,000. CCFC fans need not worry.

But bond holders might start

 

[Terry Gibson's perm]

Best make sure the leicester fans are safe when they come over

Ah the derby that isn’t a derby and only one team are bothered about

 

[italiahorse]

But bond holders might start

Not this one.

 

[italiahorse]

Ah the derby that isn’t a derby and only one team are bothered about

CCFC ? Particularly as we have moved into 3rd place behind ladies rugby.

 

[Terry Gibson's perm]

CCFC ? Particularly as we have moved into 3rd place behind ladies rugby.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

We had a letter home from leicester offering cheap tickets against your team doesn’t mention it as a derby just a game yet your lot push it as some massive grudge match.

 

[italiahorse]

I have no idea what you are talking about.

We had a letter home from leicester offering cheap tickets against your team doesn’t mention it as a derby just a game yet your lot push it as some massive grudge match.

7,000 for ladies rugby at the Ricoh last night.
As for the tickets I've just struggled to get 2 together seated. It will be a full house for the 'derby'

 

[Grendel]

7,000 for ladies rugby at the Ricoh last night.
As for the tickets I've just struggled to get 2 together seated. It will be a full house for the 'derby'

I actually had to google to find out what you were talking about. No parking restrictions were there?

 

[italiahorse]

I actually had to google to find out what you were talking about. No parking restrictions were there?

Nope. Although offsite parking was free.

No need to Google just ask me

 

[wingy]

Nope. Although offsite parking was free.

No need to Google just ask me

Why?
That does seem questiinable beyond doubt Italia.
Published figure last night was 8.5K.

 

[Grendel]

Nope. Although offsite parking was free.

No need to Google just ask me

I know they were no parking restrictions.

That’s impacting local residents. You disagree with that don’t you?

 

[italiahorse]

I know they were no parking restrictions.

That’s impacting local residents. You disagree with that don’t you?

A full season of inconvenience to residents should be avoided.

 

[Grendel]

A full season of inconvenience to residents should be avoided.

What a wanker you are

 

[Terry Gibson's perm]

If it was 8.5k that does seem very near to the threshold seems to be real double standards

 

[wingy]

If it was 8.5k that does seem very near to the threshold seems to be real double standards

Yep I agree.
Aa I've said earlier the green travel plan is a vehicle which aids the stadium oporaters model.
Of course were there to be Prem football played there then there would be logic behind it .
If it were overhauled I can't help believe they'd apply that lost income to a different area of operation.

 

[italiahorse]

What a wanker you are

I’ll take that as a compliment from you ?
Typical selfish out of town attitude.
There was free parking available for this one so why would you want to upset locals ?

 

[italiahorse]

If it was 8.5k that does seem very near to the threshold seems to be real double standards

Offsite parking was free. No excuses.

 

[Terry Gibson's perm]

Offsite parking was free. No excuses.

The point is that is a higher crowd than we have had at times this year but they seem to play with the rules when they want

 

[italiahorse]

A full season of inconvenience to residents should be avoided.

What a wanker you are

The point you are missing (and loosing) is that local residents don't want the streets blocked every weekend and in some cases unable to park their own cars.
Selfishly you think this is okay.

 

[Grendel]

The point you are missing (and loosing) is that local residents don't want the streets blocked every weekend and in some cases unable to park their own cars.
Selfishly you think this is okay.

The rule has been set and should be honoured. The notion this is anything to do with local residents is laughable and you know it.

 

[italiahorse]

The point is that is a higher crowd than we have had at times this year but they seem to play with the rules when they want

You are right in respect that this was the compromise (10K) for residents around the Ricoh when planning permission was given.
However at the time CCFC were the only draw over 10,000 and it was unlikely at the time that crowds would be below that.
Other events at the Ricoh could be accommodated in existing car parks and pressure to park on street would be minimal.
The signs for the parking need to be approved and ordered several weeks before the events and with an unknown walk up on the day it cannot be guaranteed that crowds will be below 10,000.
Overall though people should look at it from the point of view of residents and how you would feel if the Ricoh was dropped on your doorstep.
The green plan in essence is to reduce travel by cars and move it to other means like walking and public transport.

 

[Nick]

You are right in respect that this was the compromise (10K) for residents around the Ricoh when planning permission was given.
However at the time CCFC were the only draw over 10,000 and it was unlikely at the time that crowds would be below that.
Other events at the Ricoh could be accommodated in existing car parks and pressure to park on street would be minimal.
The signs for the parking need to be approved and ordered several weeks before the events and with an unknown walk up on the day it cannot be guaranteed that crowds will be below 10,000.
Overall though people should look at it from the point of view of residents and how you would feel if the Ricoh was dropped on your doorstep.
The green plan in essence is to reduce travel by cars and move it to other means like walking and public transport.

Bollocks, people should see it that somebody who owns a car park is the one giving it the feeling sorry for the residents line.

If the limit is 10,000, that's the limit. If it's too high and will cause disruption they should have set it lower. There's no point in putting it as 10,000 if that's still too high.

 

[italiahorse]

The rule has been set and should be honoured. The notion this is anything to do with local residents is laughable and you know it.

The rule was set when CCFC crowds were considered to always be well above 10,000 and hopefully that will return.
You are right that there is a conflict where the people making the rules also gain from it financially.
But it does fit in with the overall policy of moving people from cars to public transport.
To be honest even crowds of 5,000 would fill the streets with cars if there were no restrictions so the rule may have to change if it becomes a problem.

 

[Nick]

The rule was set when CCFC crowds were considered to always be well above 10,000 and hopefully that will return.
You are right that there is a conflict where the people making the rules also gain from it financially.
But it does fit in with the overall policy of moving people from cars to public transport.
To be honest even crowds of 5,000 would fill the streets with cars if there were no restrictions so the rule may have to change if it becomes a problem.

It doesn't matter what the crowds are then, it should have been set at a figure which would be worked out as not causing too much disruption surely? That goes for CCFC and other events.

 

[italiahorse]

Bollocks, people should see it that somebody who owns a car park is the one giving it the feeling sorry for the residents line.

If the limit is 10,000, that's the limit. If it's too high and will cause disruption they should have set it lower. There's no point in putting it as 10,000 if that's still too high.

For the record I do not open for crowds under 10,000.
10,000 was set when all regular crowds for CCFC were considered to always be above that.
We are now at a position where it could be argued that CCFC crowds are always below 10,000 although this is not 100% when sign orders go out because of the walk up.
Hopefully once out this league the argument goes away.

 

[Nick]

For the record I do not open for crowds under 10,000.
10,000 was set when all regular crowds for CCFC were considered to always be above that.
We are now at a position where it could be argued that CCFC crowds are always below 10,000 although this is not 100% when sign orders go out because of the walk up.
Hopefully once out this league the argument goes away.

It doesn't matter what the figures and attendances were at the time.

If there is a figure put on when to allow street parking because it wouldn't be too disruptive, it should be the figure that isn't too disruptive else it is completely pointless.

The attendances then could have been 40,000, that doesn't mean they can say if it's above 20,000 there's a restriction in place and then whinge that a 15,000 game might be disruptive.

The sign is a little bit of text on a white background that slides into the holder, let's not pretend they are massive works of art that take months.

 

[italiahorse]

It doesn't matter what the crowds are then, it should have been set at a figure which would be worked out as not causing too much disruption surely? That goes for CCFC and other events.

I would say that regular disruption is the problem for residents. CCFC and Wasps are the regular events regardless of crowd size.
Most people can expect the occasional street blockage but would hate it if it was a regular. weekly event.

 

[Nick]

I would say that regular disruption is the problem for residents. CCFC and Wasps are the regular events regardless of crowd size.
Most people can expect the occasional street blockage but would hate it if it was a regular. weekly event.

You are still either completely missing the point or ignoring it.

The 10,000 number should have been set at something that doesn't cause disruption then shouldn't it, which is surely the whole point of it.

 

[italiahorse]

It doesn't matter what the figures and attendances were at the time.

If there is a figure put on when to allow street parking because it wouldn't be too disruptive, it should be the figure that isn't too disruptive else it is completely pointless.

The attendances then could have been 40,000, that doesn't mean they can say if it's above 20,000 there's a restriction in place and then whinge that a 15,000 game might be disruptive.

The sign is a little bit of text on a white background that slides into the holder, let's not pretend they are massive works of art that take months.

Your looking at it as a fan wanting to park for an event rather than a local resident.
Surely restricting parking needs to be approved by the council, and order for changing signs made, signs produced and traffic wardens arranged ?

 

[italiahorse]

You are still either completely missing the point or ignoring it.

The 10,000 number should have been set at something that doesn't cause disruption then shouldn't it, which is surely the whole point of it.

That's seems to be happened by default. It's any Wasps and CCFC league game.

 

[Nick]

Your looking at it as a fan wanting to park for an event rather than a local resident.
Surely restricting parking needs to be approved by the council, and order for changing signs made, signs produced and traffic wardens arranged ?

No, I am looking at it with common sense.

They set a figure of 10,000 which is when parking restrictions come into play, at the time they probably thought it would never happen. Now it is happening it just gets ignored anyway, so what's the point of it?

There was an event the other night which didn't seem to have any, which they claim was over 8000.

 

[italiahorse]

No, I am looking at it with common sense.

They set a figure of 10,000 which is when parking restrictions come into play, at the time they probably thought it would never happen. Now it is happening it just gets ignored anyway, so what's the point of it?

There was an event the other night which didn't seem to have any, which they claim was over 8000.

Its easier for everyone to just restrict the Wasps and CCFC events which are assumed to be above or around the 10,000 mark.
The odd occasional event does not appear to be a problem for residents.

 

[stupot07]

It doesn't matter what the crowds are then, it should have been set at a figure which would be worked out as not causing too much disruption surely? That goes for CCFC and other events.

100%. We've only had 3-4 home gates larger than this ladies rugby game this season, and only 2 above the 10k threshold. Regardless of disruption to residents, the travel plan gives a threshold figure. What's the point of having a figure if you're not going to use it.

The bottom line is wasps are making the decision to enforce the parking restrictions despite knowing at 90%+ of our gates have been well under the threshold, because its in their interests to make money from parking.

Funny that with free parking and not being able to make money from parking, they didn't enforce the parking restrictions despite them knowing the expected attendance was around the same as a cov game.

I'm guessing the gate on Saturday vs Grimsby will about 7.5-8k and similar to last nights game, and the car park will be charging £10 per car....i wonder if thr parking restrictions will be on...?




Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[Nick]

Its easier for everyone to just restrict the Wasps and CCFC events which are assumed to be above or around the 10,000 mark.
The odd occasional event does not appear to be a problem for residents.

So why put a figure on it in the first place?

Assumed by who? Can they count?

Maybe it should be assumed that every event should have them, to save the headache?