Banned from using the train ? (1 Viewer)

[ccfcway]

Ricoh Arena Station: Decision to ban Coventry City and Wasps fans from using it signed off by council-headed group

A decision to ban Coventry City and Wasps fans from using the council-owned Ricoh Arena station was signed off by an advisory group chaired by one of the council’s own staff.

It has emerged that the Ricoh Arena Safety Advisory Group (SAG), which made the recommendation to close the station to fans, is chaired by Coventry City Council development officer Barry Butterworth.

The SAG also includes members of the council’s building and licensing teams as well as West Midlands Police, West Midlands Ambulance Service and Ricoh Arena staff.

That means a council-headed group has admitted that the station, which the authority spent four years co-ordinating and millions of pounds producing, is not fit to transport fans on matchdays

The Telegraph revealed this week that train operators London Midland had warned fans not to use the new Ricoh Arena railway station, due to open next month.

They said that was because the SAG had told them to shut the service for one hour after matches due to overcrowding fears.

London Midland also said it would only be able to carry 75 passengers every hour due to a train shortage. Wasps are now in urgent talks with the train firm about finding a possible solution - potentially involving specially chartered trains.

Martin Abrams, from the Campaign for Better Transport said: “Fans have waited years for a much needed rail station to be built at the club and it is quite unbelievable that they are now being told that they will not be able to travel to and from the stadium by train on match days.

“Not being able to use the station is a real waste of public money and undermines its purpose which is to get fans off the road and get them straight to the game by rail which is something our research has shown fans want.

“Also, the claim by London Midland that they can only run one single, 75 seat, diesel carriage due to the lack of available trains is something we are seeing right across the country and the government must act now and work with train operators to sort out this problem.”

The station was delivered as part of a £13.6million rail improvement project to improve the Nuneaton to Coventry rail line - with that money also covering platform extensions at Bedworth at Coventry.

Approximately £5m of the funding came from Centro, £4.75m from Department for Transport and the £3.85m from the European Regional Development Fund.

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/ricoh-arena-station-decision-ban-9941845

 

---

[Ashdown]

Not sure about banned, they don't want it crammed just before and just after events because the set up is not fit for purpose at the moment.

 

[SkyBlue_Bear83]

The SAG are always causing problems, how many other grounds in the UK need nearly a whole stand of segregation for 200 away fans?

 

[torchomatic]

Fucking idiots, the lot of them.

 

[Terry Gibson's perm]

The SAG are always causing problems, how many other grounds in the UK need nearly a whole stand of segregation for 200 away fans?

We should send them a bill each home game for the empty rows of seats, they will soon sort it out.

 

[ccfc1234]

"75 passengers every hour"

Is this a noddy train - hardly the sorts of numbers that is going to drive economic regeneration in a small village let alone a city of circa 350k. When you compare this to the volumes that use the Underground (Metro) in Newcastle it would be more than 75 per train at rush hour and they go every 10 mins across the whole city and suburbs.

What a balls up, how embarrassing and it poses questions about the credibility and intelligence of the fools that sold our club to a Rugby franchise and in turn down the river.

I dont like SISU for many thaings they have done but I would LOVE IT if they won and heads were on the block at city hall.

 

[simonregis]

It will be interesting in the coming weeks to see what CCC told Wasps owners while selling them the stadium regarding the station. I'm sure, with most of their 'traditional' fans coming from London that they saw the station as being an urgent priority as they have to shuttle them by coach from the capital.
The one great difference between our owners and Wasps owners is how they view problems. SISU just plainly avoid them and hope they go away, whereas Wasps owners always try to find a solution.
Reading the Telegraph, who always seem to gloat over these issues instead of reporting the story one would think the world is to end when in fact a solution can be sort.

 

[Nick]

Didn't wasps say something which tried to make out the station was done for or by them?

 

[skybluetony176]

The SAG are always causing problems, how many other grounds in the UK need nearly a whole stand of segregation for 200 away fans?

The SAG has no legal powers. It's an advisory group. It's more likely that the HSE made the decision or even the SAG suggested more than one solution. I.e. more stewards in that area. If the club had the choice of paying more steward's or closing a few row's in a one third full stadium closing some row's was always going to win. Not saying that is the case but to suggest that the decision is made by a group that has no legal powers to enforce something anything is just plain wrong and alot of people seem to be hiding behind the SAG.

 

[Nick]

The SAG has no legal powers. It's an advisory group. It's more likely that the HSE made the decision or even the SAG suggested more than one solution. I.e. more stewards in that area. If the club had the choice of paying more steward's or closing a few row's in a one third full stadium closing some row's was always going to win. Not saying that is the case but to suggest that the decision is made by a group that has no legal powers to enforce something anything is just plain wrong and alot of people seem to be hiding behind the SAG.

Surely if a few different parties are saying they can't do things because of them then maybe it could actually be down to them?

 

[stupot07]

The SAG has no legal powers. It's an advisory group. It's more likely that the HSE made the decision or even the SAG suggested more than one solution. I.e. more stewards in that area. If the club had the choice of paying more steward's or closing a few row's in a one third full stadium closing some row's was always going to win. Not saying that is the case but to suggest that the decision is made by a group that has no legal powers to enforce something anything is just plain wrong and alot of people seem to be hiding behind the SAG.

http://www.safetyatsportsgrounds.org.uk/publications/safety-certification-sports-grounds

This seems to suggest that LA's are responsible for issuing safety certificates for sports (including football) grounds....


And 4.1 says LA's can delegate power to make decisions.....usually to the SAG

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

 

[skybluetony176]

http://www.safetyatsportsgrounds.org.uk/publications/safety-certification-sports-grounds

This seems to suggest that LA's are responsible for issuing safety certificates for sports (including football) grounds....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

You could be right, acting on the advice of the SAG. As I say the SAG has no powers and it's quite possible that they suggested more than one solution. Even if they did you'd have to say that the club took the right course of action given that the stadium is rarely ever more than a third full.

 

[hill83]

http://www.safetyatsportsgrounds.org.uk/publications/safety-certification-sports-grounds

This seems to suggest that LA's are responsible for issuing safety certificates for sports (including football) grounds....


And 4.1 says LA's can delegate power to make decisions.....usually to the SAG

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

Is there information in this that contradicts skybluetony176 so I can laugh at him? I can't be bothered to read it all.

 

[Nick]

Maybe if we could change it so that SISU run the SAG and see if it isn't their fault then?

 

[BackRoomRummermill]

This whole fiasco is on a par with the Edinburgh tram system, which incidently made a huge loss last year, after a huge cost. Council officials Suiting themselves ( read into this as you wish ).

 

[skybluetony176]

Is there information in this that contradicts skybluetony176 so I can laugh at him? I can't be bothered to read it all.

Why don't you read this and laugh at yourself instead.

http://www.hse.gov.uk/event-safety/safety-advisory-groups.htm

Paragraph 2 is very informative.

"SAGs provide a forum for discussing and advising on public safety at an event. They aim to help organisers with the planning, and management of an event and to encourage cooperation and coordination between all relevant agencies. They are non-statutory bodies and so do not have legal powers or responsibilities, and are not empowered to approve or prohibit events from taking place. Event organisers and others involved in the running of an event, retain the principal legal duties for ensuring public safety."

It's not something I've made up. I went on the official goverment website and found out for myself. It's clearly wrong to say that the SAG have ordered this and that when acording to the goverments HSE website they don't have the power too. So if the council, club or joe bloggs is saying that the SAG have ordered them to do something they are clearly hiding behind it as an excuse. The clue was in their title really " Safety ADVISORY Group". The minute I read that word i thought that if they have the powers to order something it contradicts their title so i went and looked and sure enough in paragraph 2 of what a SAG is on the goverments HSE web site confirmed what I'm saying.

 

[stupot07]

You could be right, acting on the advice of the SAG. As I say the SAG has no powers and it's quite possible that they suggested more than one solution. Even if they did you'd have to say that the club took the right course of action given that the stadium is rarely ever more than a third full.

This is when you get into the semantics. The LA can and often do delegate the decision making responsibility to their rep that chairs the SAG, as chair he will lead the SAG discussions around safety, the requirements needed to make the ground safe. He will then make a decision as to whether to implement them. No LA is going to chose an option that it ant the SAG preferred option as if something happens they'll be partially liable. So they will go with what the SAG prefers as then they can point to joint accountability. So the SAG have made the decision, that decision has then been approved by the LA rep/ SAG chair.

I agree with low numbers closing the stand is the right thing to do, I think the original point was about the need for 3-4 block gap between the home and away fans.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

 

[hill83]

Why don't you read this and laugh at yourself instead.

http://www.hse.gov.uk/event-safety/safety-advisory-groups.htm

Paragraph 2 is very informative.

"SAGs provide a forum for discussing and advising on public safety at an event. They aim to help organisers with the planning, and management of an event and to encourage cooperation and coordination between all relevant agencies. They are non-statutory bodies and so do not have legal powers or responsibilities, and are not empowered to approve or prohibit events from taking place. Event organisers and others involved in the running of an event, retain the principal legal duties for ensuring public safety."

It's not something I've made up. I went on the official goverment website and found out for myself. It's clearly wrong to say that the SAG have ordered this and that when acording to the goverments HSE website they don't have the power too. So if the council, club or joe bloggs is saying that the SAG have ordered them to do something they are clearly hiding behind it as an excuse. The clue was in their title really " Safety ADVISORY Group". The minute I read that word i thought that if they have the powers to order something it contradicts their title so i went and looked and sure enough in paragraph 2 of what a SAG is on the goverments HSE web site confirmed what I'm saying.

Ha ha, you are really into this aren't you. What's your angle?

 

[skybluetony176]

Maybe if we could change it so that SISU run the SAG and see if it isn't their fault then?

It wouldn't. Given that the SAG don't have the power they are being portrayed to have.

 

[Nick]

Why don't you read this and laugh at yourself instead.

http://www.hse.gov.uk/event-safety/safety-advisory-groups.htm

Paragraph 2 is very informative.

"SAGs provide a forum for discussing and advising on public safety at an event. They aim to help organisers with the planning, and management of an event and to encourage cooperation and coordination between all relevant agencies. They are non-statutory bodies and so do not have legal powers or responsibilities, and are not empowered to approve or prohibit events from taking place. Event organisers and others involved in the running of an event, retain the principal legal duties for ensuring public safety."

It's not something I've made up. I went on the official goverment website and found out for myself. It's clearly wrong to say that the SAG have ordered this and that when acording to the goverments HSE website they don't have the power too. So if the council, club or joe bloggs is saying that the SAG have ordered them to do something they are clearly hiding behind it as an excuse. The clue was in their title really " Safety ADVISORY Group". The minute I read that word i thought that if they have the powers to order something it contradicts their title so i went and looked and sure enough in paragraph 2 of what a SAG is on the goverments HSE web site confirmed what I'm saying.

They aren't stopping fixtures are they? surely they just say what needs to be done for them to go ahead safely etc?

 

[skybluetony176]

Ha ha, you are really into this aren't you. What's your angle?

No Angle. What angle do you think I have? Just stating fact instead of the assumption of truth that other posters seem to be going by.

It's upto you what you want to believe but there's the link.

 

[Ian1779]

I suppose we should at least be grateful that they didn't come out and just ban CCFC fans from using it.

Coventry City Council.... the gift that keeps on giving.

 

[hill83]

No Angle. What angle do you think I have? Just stating fact instead of the assumption of truth that other posters seem to be going by.

It's upto you what you want to believe but there's the link.

I believe you pal. It's in their name. I've never said otherwise.
You usual angle is defending the council but this doesn't appear to be doing that so I'm confused. In your haste to prove a few people wrong you are actually implicating the council in a balls up.

Edit: just seen your post below. Fair play.

 

[skybluetony176]

They aren't stopping fixtures are they?

Exactly, the same as they aren't stopping trains. Someone else is doing that. Maybe of the back of an SAG report but it has been repeatedly said that the SAG have ordered that the station is closed for an hour after games. My point is how when they have no legal powers or authority? Someone is clearly hiding behind the SAG. I'm not fighting CCC's corner here which is what the suggestion seems to be. Just the opposite in fact, I'm pointing out that they're hiding behind the SAG.

Same goes for the rows being shut of at the Ricoh at football games. But as I've already said that if the SAG made other suggestions and they were going to cost the club then the club have made the right decision given that the ground is rarely more than one thirds full. I'm actually baking the clubs decision on this.

I just wish that people in both cases were more up front rather than hiding behind the SAG.

 

[stupot07]

So who is stopping the trains for an hour after matchday?

I knew this would end up being the club's fault.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

 

[Nick]

But then what happens if people ignore the SAG and something goes wrong? With insurance etc?

If it is a group put together to ensure the safety of people going to events at the Ricoh and they are ignored then does it invalidate insurances? What happens if somebody gets crushed trying to cram into the silly sized station etc?

 

[hill83]

So who is stopping the trains for an hour after matchday?

I knew this would end up being the club's fault.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

 

[stupot07]

But then what happens if people ignore the SAG and something goes wrong? With insurance etc?

If it is a group put together to ensure the safety of people going to events at the Ricoh and they are ignored then does it invalidate insurances? What happens if somebody gets crushed trying to cram into the silly sized station etc?

Exactly. The LA are not going to sign off any anything that contradicts the SAG.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

 

[skybluetony176]

I believe you pal. It's in their name. I've never said otherwise.
You usual angle is defending the council but this doesn't appear to be doing that so I'm confused. In your haste to prove a few people wrong you are actually implicating the council in a balls up.

Whether you usually agree with me or not. I always try and make an opinion on fact and as I said the moment parties involved started saying that they were ordered to do something by an advisory group it didn't ring true with me.

Assuming that the electrifying of the line does go ahead i wouldn't say that the council has ballsed up as reading the whole story it seems clear that the station will be then be able to be used on matchdays and as Fenando has pointed out they were in a use it or lose it scenario with the funding so they seem to have had the choice or either build now or lose the funding and risk re-applying for the funding at a future date when the electrification is complete.

Off course if they had of done the latter people would be moaning why didn't they just build it when they had the funding in place if re-applying for the funding failed and the station build cost had to be directly covered by the council tax payer.

That said it doesn't mean they should be hiding behind an advisory group. Tell it how it is, the truth has a way of coming out anyway.

 

[skybluetony176]

So who is stopping the trains for an hour after matchday?

I knew this would end up being the club's fault.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

London Midland from what I can gather.

 

[Nick]

London Midland from what I can gather.

Wouldn't it be in their interest to make as much money as possible from ours and Wasps match days though?

 

[torchomatic]

It's because people are criticizing CCC. That riles Tony somewhat. You may not have noticed...

Ha ha, you are really into this aren't you. What's your angle?

 

[skybluetony176]

This is when you get into the semantics. The LA can and often do delegate the decision making responsibility to their rep that chairs the SAG, as chair he will lead the SAG discussions around safety, the requirements needed to make the ground safe. He will then make a decision as to whether to implement them. No LA is going to chose an option that it ant the SAG preferred option as if something happens they'll be partially liable. So they will go with what the SAG prefers as then they can point to joint accountability. So the SAG have made the decision, that decision has then been approved by the LA rep/ SAG chair.

I agree with low numbers closing the stand is the right thing to do, I think the original point was about the need for 3-4 block gap between the home and away fans.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

I think you are pretty much right. But the assumption is that the SAG are only giving one piece of advice/solution to solving an issue. There is always more than one way to skin a cat.

 

[skybluetony176]

It's because people are criticizing CCC. That riles Tony somewhat. You may not have noticed...

Take a day of and actually try reading what I've posted. You clearly haven't noticed that I'm actually making the point to criticise CCC.

 

[torchomatic]

Actually I did notice. Just confused, I guess.

Take a day of and actually try reading what I've posted. You clearly haven't noticed that I'm actually making the point to criticise CCC.