CarefreeMuratcan

Stamford Bridge Upgrades

Recommended Posts

Sciatika   

There was talk a couple of years ago about increasing the number of seats available to wheelchair users and those that need carers. I wonder if the net loss of seats as a result of installing the rail seating might be something to do with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bert19   
18 hours ago, Ham said:

Looks like the entire Shed Lower tier and possibly both tiers of the east corner are rail seating.

Screenshot_20210719-225135_Gallery.jpg

When I poked my head through that door/window in the East Lower a few weeks ago, it definitely looked like the whole Shed Lower had been prepped for the installation of the rail seats (from memory).  From the angle I was at, I couldn't see much of the MHL, but there was a chunk there that seemed to be the same. 

5 hours ago, Martin1905 said:

 

They can not stop us standing so maybe this is their way of making it safer without officially allowing safe standing.

I just hope, with the whole of the lower shed end being done and I have been told the upper shed will follow, that we move the away fans out. They should never have been there in the first place 

This. 1000x this. Away fans should not be in the Shed.  The West or East stands, yes, but not the Shed.  I understood Jose's gripe about them being behind the one of the dugouts, but the solution they found as a result of his moaning was never the right one.  The Shed End is famous, it's always been associated with Chelsea FC, it should be 100% ours.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ruudboy   
1 hour ago, bert19 said:

The Shed End is famous, it's always been associated with Chelsea FC, it should be 100% ours.  

Totally agree. Still in shock from being made to sit in an away seat while Scousers poured ketchup over my seat. The Shed is for Chelsea. Can you imagine us being given seats in the Kop?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ham   
4 hours ago, Sciatika said:

There was talk a couple of years ago about increasing the number of seats available to wheelchair users and those that need carers. I wonder if the net loss of seats as a result of installing the rail seating might be something to do with that.

No the additional wheelchair sections had already been added.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ham   
5 hours ago, Droy was my hero said:

No not at all.  As you point out the seats we have put in end up with a loss of 500 seats, 1:0.93 or 1:0.95 depending on what that 500 in the statement was meant to refer to.

Even if we did create more seats we still be stuck with the same egress limits so would just create perhaps more room for the corporates to spread out.

 

If there is a rationale for what we and other clubs have done, it is that the club recognises it can't stop fans standing, and so recognised that the old seating was dangerous as fans only has a small back of seat barrier in front of them which they could easily fall over. That and seating for non-football events.

I can't see the SSGA changing their policies mid-season, or even in July, 3 weeks before the Prem starts. 
This seems to me like safer seating for people who want to take risks.  Not permitted standing.

I keep answering this. 

The egress limitation was only likely to be an issue if we attempted to increase capacity beyond 50000. 

Egress is fine for the additional rail seating as evidenced by the fact that the club have installed them FFS. The club comment that the seats are in ready for a change in the law. 

If the decision was to stop people falling forward who insist on standing, the rail seats would be better off in the top tiers surely?

Also, the capacity is currently reduced by 500 with the seats being occupied. They're won't be 500 empty seats. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ham said:

I keep answering this. 

The egress limitation was only likely to be an issue if we attempted to increase capacity beyond 50000. 

That isn't something I had understood before.  It does make it odd that the rail seats don't add capacity though.

2 hours ago, Ham said:

Egress is fine for the additional rail seating as evidenced by the fact that the club have installed them FFS. 

No that doesn't make sense.  Increased capacity would be evidence that Egress is fine.  Reduced capacity doesn't support the idea at all.

2 hours ago, Ham said:

The club comment that the seats are in ready for a change in the law. 

no the club comment says:  This change, which will be ready for the 2021/22 season subject to approval by the Sports Ground Safety Authority (SGSA) and its Safety Advisory Group (SAG), will enhance supporter safety by replacing the current seats in those sections of the stadium.

Which begs a host of different questions, none of which have been addressed in this thread:    Does safe standing in PL football require a change of law, an SGSA decision or both?  Are there any plans for a change in law - has a bill been drawn up?  Have the SGSA announced any intention to change policies?

I'd be grateful to answers to any of these.

2 hours ago, Ham said:

If the decision was to stop people falling forward who insist on standing, the rail seats would be better off in the top tiers surely?

perhaps but I would have thought the priority would go to first the areas where standing (and drunken or lively standing) are common, and secondly where the slope is steepest.  I think the risk is falling one or two rows down, not over the front edge (where there is already a fairly high wall).  

 

2 hours ago, Ham said:

Also, the capacity is currently reduced by 500 with the seats being occupied. They're won't be 500 empty seats. 

I simply don't understand what you mean by this.  It sounds like a witty response to someone who said it would cause 500 empty seats.  No one said that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ham   
8 minutes ago, Droy was my hero said:

That isn't something I had understood before.  It does make it odd that the rail seats don't add capacity though.

Are you being deliberately dense for attention? They do, once the law changes.

No that doesn't make sense.  Increased capacity would be evidence that Egress is fine.  Reduced capacity doesn't support the idea at all.

See above and then move on.

no the club comment says:  This change, which will be ready for the 2021/22 season subject to approval by the Sports Ground Safety Authority (SGSA) and its Safety Advisory Group (SAG), will enhance supporter safety by replacing the current seats in those sections of the stadium.

Which begs a host of different questions, none of which have been addressed in this thread:    Does safe standing in PL football require a change of law, an SGSA decision or both?  Are there any plans for a change in law - has a bill been drawn up?  Have the SGSA announced any intention to change policies?

You're a fan of research.  Google is your friend here. There has been much discussion and fan consultation.

There have been successful trials. The good people of Glasgow's lives (even Celtic) wouldn't be recklessly risked if there wasn't an acceptance that safe standing was safe. Everything points to a change of law soon. 

I'd be grateful to answers to any of these.

perhaps but I would have thought the priority would go to first the areas where standing (and drunken or lively standing) are common, and secondly where the slope is steepest.  I think the risk is falling one or two rows down, not over the front edge (where there is already a fairly high wall).  

No. This particular discussion is pointless. The only reason for the installation of these seats at great cost is to be prepared for safe standing, not to create a baby pen for falling drunks.  

I simply don't understand what you mean by this.  It sounds like a witty response to someone who said it would cause 500 empty seats.  No one said that.

You mentioned a loss of 500 seats presumably suggesting that they can't be used currently. I'm saying 500 less people initially.  Bigger seating spaces, meaning fewer people, not 500 fewer seats.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ham said:

That isn't something I had understood before.  It does make it odd that the rail seats don't add capacity though.

Are you being deliberately dense for attention? They do, once the law changes.

I think you are explaining this badly.  

perhaps you mean the rail seats will be updated in the future to allow for 1.8 times as many people as they are being installed for now.
That at least explains some of your comments - but not why you made them so opaque.

1 hour ago, Ham said:

You're a fan of research.  Google is your friend here. There has been much discussion and fan consultation.

So you can't answer any of these questions either.  

1 hour ago, Ham said:

Everything points to a change of law soon. 

But not parliament of the SSGA apparently.  Don't you see why that is odd?
I get the impression that you are drumming up enthusiasm, rather than highlighting actual progress.

1 hour ago, Ham said:

The only reason for the installation of these seats at great cost is to be prepared for safe standing,

So either a rule or law change is expected before Christmas, or we are going to great effort to build the wrong sized rail seats a year or more early so slighlty fewer people can stand in the places they were standing already.

1 hour ago, Ham said:

You mentioned a loss of 500 seats presumably suggesting that they can't be used currently. I'm saying 500 less people initially.  Bigger seating spaces, meaning fewer people, not 500 fewer seats.

Anyone else care to translate this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ham   
21 minutes ago, Droy was my hero said:

I think you are explaining this badly.  

perhaps you mean the rail seats will be updated in the future to allow for 1.8 times as many people as they are being installed for now.
That at least explains some of your comments - but not why you made them so opaque.

So you can't answer any of these questions either.  

But not parliament of the SSGA apparently.  Don't you see why that is odd?
I get the impression that you are drumming up enthusiasm, rather than highlighting actual progress.

So either a rule or law change is expected before Christmas, or we are going to great effort to build the wrong sized rail seats a year or more early so slighlty fewer people can stand in the places they were standing already.

Anyone else care to translate this?

If you can't even be bothered to look at how a rail seat simply folds back to instantly allow standing for more than one person then I'm out. They don't need to be "updated in the future". 

Like I said you could do some research if you really wanted to understand how close we are to safe standing becoming legal but you'd rather spend every waking minute arguing on the internet. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Droy was my hero said:

So either a rule or law change is expected before Christmas, or we are going to great effort to build the wrong sized rail seats a year or more early so slighlty fewer people can stand in the places they were standing already.

Agree DWMH - this effort seems quite a waste of time, one can assume the legislation is probably on the back burner at the moment due to other more important issues for the government, also it is highly likely additional measure will be in place for what are deemed super spreader events to try and contain COVID and Flu this autumn / winter

Edited by RobertoftheGiz
Zager and Evans "in the year 2525" Hopefully

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now