Safety Officer Removed? (2 Viewers)

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

All I'll say is that I think we should make as much disruption as possible for the rest of the season.

Those bastards could be shown how much he should have been valued and promptly reappoint him!

 

---

[Covstu]

I would think that if TUPE rules were to be employed the situation would need to be either ACL/Wasps had purchased Otium and therefore CCFC or Otium/CCFC sub contracted an independent company to cover the safety officers roll out and the contract moved to another independent company.

It’s more likely they have ran an argument that the role has been fragmented and therefore his role doesn’t exist in the new era.

 

[Grendel]

Sisu should of fuckin bought it then when they had the opportunity too

They had the opportunity to buy half for £10 million and excluding F and B access and hand liability to the loan and on a sub 50’year lease

 

[ccfcway]

Surely no different than them managing the catering staff, groundsman etc.

could the club not have talked to him about the events job ?

Maybe he applied for it and they didn't respond

 

[Grendel]

Surely no different than them managing catering staff, groundsman etc.

could the club not have talked to him about the events job ?

Maybe he applied for it and they didn't respond

Maybe you are full of shit.

 

[ccfcway]

If Otium wanted to keep their own safety officer (which I think they should to protect CCFC fans interests irrespective of what ACL do) then what is to stop them?

exactly, clearly he likes ccfc and already posts on here have said he is helpful and active on matchdays. Surely if SISU wanted to keep him in some capacity they are more than entitled to

 

[Terry Gibson's perm]

Surely no different than them managing the catering staff, groundsman etc.

could the club not have talked to him about the events job ?

Maybe he applied for it and they didn't respond

Jobs that acl do so well, no staff shit food big queues and a terrible pitch

 

[fernandopartridge]

exactly, clearly he likes ccfc and already posts on here have said he is helpful and active on matchdays. Surely if SISU wanted to keep him in some capacity they are more than entitled to

He'd be a safety officer with no teeth. If Wasps want the liaison with the police etc carried out by their own man, how on earth could be replicate it? Why would the police talk to him?

 

[clint van damme]

Not sure the Council or ACL moved us to Northampton.

don't think they assassinated Archduke Ferdinand either which has probably about the same relevance.

 

[ccfcway]

He'd be a safety officer with no teeth. If Wasps want the liaison with the police etc carried out by their own man, how on earth could be replicate it? Why would the police talk to him?

in the same way that if he goes to away games the home team will have someone the police talk to. Not even saying he should be doing same job, just that the club surely could make use of a passionate, committed person in some role within the club ?

 

[oldskyblue58]

Just a thought but could this a result of having a one year agreement or the type of agreement we now have. I assume previously there were hand over procedures that passed stadium responsibility from ACL to Ccfc and back again. If the new agreement doesn't do that then the insurance underwriters could flag that as a problem. Ultimately it is the directors of ACL that have responsibility and if the Ccfc stadium safety officer is not under their direct control I would think the insurers would say they are not covered and at risk. It could be as simple as that and both companies have no choice.

It is a shame that someone by all accounts passionate about Ccfc is no longer involved in home games. Seems to say he will be at away games..... what's the difference we are effectively away its not our ground.

 

[Nick]

Maybe ACL wanted him out because he was the one telling people last season that all of the nonsense that happened with Stewards was under ACL / Wasps orders?

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Just a thought but could this a result of having a one year agreement or the type of agreement we now have. I assume previously there were hand over procedures that passed stadium responsibility from ACL to Ccfc and back again. If the new agreement doesn't do that then the insurance underwriters could flag that as a problem. Ultimately it is the directors of ACL that have responsibility and if the Ccfc stadium safety officer is not under their direct control I would think the insurers would say they are not covered and at risk. It could be as simple as that and both companies have no choice.

It is a shame that someone by all accounts passionate about Ccfc is no longer involved in home games. Seems to say he will be at away games..... what's the difference we are effectively away its not our ground.

I’m curious of your thoughts, what do you think the long term future of the club regarding a stadium? Is the way to go to build a stadium?indefinitely rent the RICOH? Groundshare with Cov RFC? Etc.

 

[Adge]

Just a thought but could this a result of having a one year agreement or the type of agreement we now have. I assume previously there were hand over procedures that passed stadium responsibility from ACL to Ccfc and back again. If the new agreement doesn't do that then the insurance underwriters could flag that as a problem. Ultimately it is the directors of ACL that have responsibility and if the Ccfc stadium safety officer is not under their direct control I would think the insurers would say they are not covered and at risk. It could be as simple as that and both companies have no choice.

It is a shame that someone by all accounts passionate about Ccfc is no longer involved in home games. Seems to say he will be at away games..... what's the difference we are effectively away its not our ground.

Yeah, that’s a good shout. If there is still uncertainty regarding a permanent “home”, why would there be a need for a Ccfc safety officer permanently?

 

[chiefdave]

why would there be a need for a Ccfc safety officer permanently?

It wasn't a full time job AFAIK. The reason for having a CCFC safety officer is to have someone who knows about football.

If you need an example of how badly wrong things can go when you swap out someone who is experienced with dealing with football crowds for someone who isn't just look at the Hillsborough disaster.

Obviously with the changes to grounds and the fact the ground is only a third full there won't be an incident as devastating and tragic as that but its the same principle.

Look at how things have been since ACL insisted in taking a bigger role in our matchday operations. How many times have you seen supporters pulling up the netting and moving towards opposition fans unchallenged?

Different crowds need different approaches. Putting someone in charge who doesn't understand that and / or doesn't understand football crowds is just going to create problems in an environment where it doesn't take a great deal for things to escalate rapidly.

 

[oldskyblue58]

Except the command position is shared between the safety officer and a senior police officer who you might expect could deal with public order situations football related or otherwise. A lot of what a safety officer does is to ensure compliance, deal with people flows, authorise things opening stands or turnstiles those issues do not particularly change because it is football.

Training and regulations have improved since Hillsborough. There are recognised qualifications in stadium safety.

The ACL safety officer deals with or oversees all events at the stadium, so by definition you would expect them to have far more experience of stadium safety than one who does it every other week.

I believe that the reason it was a Ccfc one before is because the agreement defined a complete hand over of responsibility from ACL to otium between set hours on match days and that was all defined in the 2014 and previous rent agreements. I would suggest that has changed.

On the bright side it could be a cost saving allowing more cash to go to the team

 

[Nick]

Except the command position is shared between the safety officer and a senior police officer who you might expect could deal with public order situations football related or otherwise. A lot of what a safety officer does is to ensure compliance, deal with people flows, authorise things opening stands or turnstiles.

The ACL safety officer deals with or oversees all events at the stadium, so by definition you would expect them to have far more experience of stadium safety than one who does it every other week.

I believe that the reason it was a Ccfc one before is because the agreement defined a complete hand over of responsibility from ACL to otium between set hours on match days and that was all defined in the 2014 and previous rent agreements. I would suggest that has changed.

On the bright side it could be a cost saving allowing more cash to go to the team

Judging by some of the nonsense they have done at some games I wouldnt say they have much experience at all with football crowds.

There wasn't a complete hand over of responsibility last season was there?

 

[oldskyblue58]

If there wasn't last year then there hasn't been since 2014 as it was the one agreement.

Perhaps they have to take a hard line because of the protests and pitch invasions? That cost the club financially I would think and would have been a blot on things for ACL too at a guess.

What are the basic differences between safety responsibility for a football crowd and any other stadium event then ? Perhaps football crowds have had it easy with their level of behaviour in the past? Certainly the reports of poor behaviour seem to have increased on this site.

Just thoughts not defending anyone by them just asking why?

Not really my problem to be honest. I have never encountered a problem from the stewards at the ricoh. On to more important things like three points today

 

[fernandopartridge]

If there wasn't last year then there hasn't been since 2014 as it was the one agreement.

Perhaps they have to take a hard line because of the protests and pitch invasions? That cost the club financially I would think and would have been a blot on things for ACL too at a guess.

What are the basic differences between safety responsibility for a football crowd and any other stadium event then ? Perhaps football crowds have had it easy with their level of behaviour in the past? Certainly the reports of poor behaviour seem to have increased on this site.

Just thoughts not defending anyone by them just asking why?

Not really my problem to be honest. I have never encountered a problem from the stewards at the ricoh. On to more important things like three points today

The 2014 agreement of course was made before Wasps arrived on the scene, so it makes a bit of sense what has happened. Like you say it might save a couple of grand.

 

[chiefdave]

Except the command position is shared between the safety officer and a senior police officer who you might expect could deal with public order situations football related or otherwise.

That's great in theory but back in the real world of an emotionally charged matchday thats not how it works. Its been very clear that there have been more issues since ACL became more 'hands on'. Its regularly mentioned on matchday threads on here and on social media.

Training and regulations have improved since Hillsborough. There are recognised qualifications in stadium safety.

Indeed there are and we were lucky to have in Chris O'Neill someone who was trained and qualified in the specifics of spectator safety who had a good relationship with our fans.

The ACL safety officer deals with or oversees all events at the stadium, so by definition you would expect them to have far more experience of stadium safety than one who does it every other week.

Again great in theory, and might possibly apply if ACL had a full time safety officer. However that's not what they have. It's an existing ACL employee who has had the additional responsibilities added to their existing full time job. A person who has a background in facilities management / H&S and no experience as a safety officer for football matches or other sporting events.

I believe that the reason it was a Ccfc one before is because the agreement defined a complete hand over of responsibility from ACL to otium between set hours on match days and that was all defined in the 2014 and previous rent agreements. I would suggest that has changed.

That may well be the case but from my point of view I'm more concerned about the matchday experience I and the rest of our fans have every week. When the quality of that is reduced people aren't going round looking at why, instead the calls will be going in to CWR and the finger will be pointed at the club again.

On the bright side it could be a cost saving allowing more cash to go to the team

If recent history regarding matchday charges is anything to go by we'll now be paying more out to get a lower level of service.

 

[chiefdave]

What are the basic differences between safety responsibility for a football crowd and any other stadium event then ? Perhaps football crowds have had it easy with their level of behaviour in the past? Certainly the reports of poor behaviour seem to have increased on this site.

Football is vastly different to practically any other event. How many concerts have you been to where sets of fans are yelling abuse at each other for hours an trying to get to each other for a punch up?

As some are always very keen to tell us even at Wasps games its all very polite and being nice to each other. Although that's not entirely reflected by the views of visiting rugby fans on social media.

Also worth considering that on more than one non-sporting event held at the Ricoh since the change in ownership of ACL there has been considerable issues, both in the organisation of crowd control and the poor performance of the stewarding and security. Might have been best to get that in order before moving control of more volatile events over.

 

[stupot07]

Interesting. I heard from a couple of people I know who are stewards that acl/wasps are trying to get rid of them as they want to control, charge for and deliver stewarding. No doubt at an inflated rate. That's the reason they have been so rigerous with all the checks, acl note anything not done properly and are trying to use it to force the ccfc stewarding out.

Probably the same with this guy.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk