Second disabled platform plan shelved?

[jacthelad]

Originally Posted by dlrwrexham

It's what we were all told, via the club's press release.

If the LR concert requires the corner for entry and exit, does this put the mockers on future concerts, when P2 is completed?.

Sure there'll be more excuses by the end of the concert to push it back far enough for people to forget about
Posted via mobile theme

[The Only Way Is Up]

Progress report about the platform, taken from the December WST Board Minutes:

"GJ – disabled platform plans with Phil Salmon. Original plans rejected by WCBC. Plans re-drawn. He has the materials to build, and it is ready to put together. On board meeting agenda for tomorrow night. New plans are better. Have full support of Dave Sharp (planning officer). Blessing of all the people that could stop it happening. Kit is three-quarters assembled in workshop. Matter of days assembling it on site here. Plans just need to be approved by Council."

Subsequent announcement of further delays until after the Lionel Richie concert defy credibility!

[Welsh Kiwi]

No surprises here.

It is consistent with everything that has gone before.

The WST members voted democratically to build the platform. The WST board were against it.

The WST members won the vote.

Result. The platform does not get prioritised. There are differences of opinion between the key stakeholders of where the platform should be located.

The platform does not get build. The platform is continually delayed for one reason or another.

I do recognise it certainly isn't a very easy and simple thing for the Club to do. It requires design and build engineering, back and to planning approval, the loss of a few seats and allocating the finance budget to pay for it that would have been allocated to another area.

It also requires good clear communication to keep everyone updated. (Though this hasn't happened. It has seemed like visiting a dentist. Pulling teeth)

The bit I really don't get is why the WST board and Club board wouldn't have wanted to vote to support something that is truly an exceptional marketing asset for any club owned by its community of fan members. And apart from its marketing potential (media and press) the most important thing is providing fans (customers) of the Football Club with an equal playing field through equal accessibility and equal amenity.

The DSA have done and continue to do a fantastic job for those fans of Wrexham AFC with disabilities.

Diversity, accessibility and inclusivity for all are incredibly important elements in any progressive organisation in 2020.

I really don't get it at all.

[Quay Red]

Originally Posted by Welsh Kiwi

No surprises here.

It is consistent with everything that has gone before.

The WST members voted democratically to build the platform. The WST board were against it.

The WST members won the vote.

Result. The platform does not get prioritised. There are differences of opinion between the key stakeholders of where the platform should be located.

The platform does not get build. The platform is continually delayed for one reason or another.

I do recognise it certainly isn't a very easy and simple thing for the Club to do. It requires design and build engineering, back and to planning approval, the loss of a few seats and allocating the finance budget to pay for it that would have been allocated to another area.

It also requires good clear communication to keep everyone updated. (Though this hasn't happened. It has seemed like visiting a dentist. Pulling teeth)

The bit I really don't get is why the WST board and Club board wouldn't have wanted to vote to support something that is truly an exceptional marketing asset for any club owned by its community of fan members. And apart from its marketing potential (media and press) the most important thing is providing fans (customers) of the Football Club with an equal playing field through equal accessibility and equal amenity.

The DSA have done and continue to do a fantastic job for those fans of Wrexham AFC with disabilities.

Diversity, accessibility and inclusivity for all are incredibly important elements in any progressive organisation in 2020.

I really don't get it at all.

The platform position doesn't require the loss of seats.
It's a poor solution to the problem in creating a stand alone area for a very limited no. of supporters. Preference given to away fans.
For home fans it is remote and whilst anything is better than nothing, this is as close to nothing that the disabled fans could get.

[Inside Left]

As I see it there is no notice about this on the WST site. This is where such announcements should be posted first !!!!!! Or have I missed something?

The 'Fed' have their role but I would have thought paid up members should be kept informed first. It was after all a resolution of the members.

[dlrwrexham]

Toby - It wasn't the building of another platform per se, that the WST board opposed when voting took place, it was the actual resolution, and the necessity therein to bring such projects to fruition "at the earliest possible opportunity".

[dlrwrexham]

Originally Posted by Inside Left

As I see it there is no notice about this on the WST site. This is where such announcements should be posted first !!!!!! Or have I missed something?

The 'Fed' have their role but I would have thought paid up members should be kept informed first. It was after all a resolution of the members.

An announcement has been delayed, as the club are still waiting for official confirmation that the concert will mean the project being further delayed. This is very much expected, but hasn't yet been rubber-stamped.

[dlrwrexham]

Originally Posted by Haruki

If they had built it in the right place in the first place this wouldn't have been an issue

Very much so, and again, where does this leave the club re future income generating concerts?.

[Ruabon Red]

Originally Posted by Welsh Kiwi

No surprises here.

It is consistent with everything that has gone before.

The WST members voted democratically to build the platform. The WST board were against it.

The WST members won the vote.

Result. The platform does not get prioritised. There are differences of opinion between the key stakeholders of where the platform should be located.

The platform does not get build. The platform is continually delayed for one reason or another.

I do recognise it certainly isn't a very easy and simple thing for the Club to do. It requires design and build engineering, back and to planning approval, the loss of a few seats and allocating the finance budget to pay for it that would have been allocated to another area.

It also requires good clear communication to keep everyone updated. (Though this hasn't happened. It has seemed like visiting a dentist. Pulling teeth)

The bit I really don't get is why the WST board and Club board wouldn't have wanted to vote to support something that is truly an exceptional marketing asset for any club owned by its community of fan members. And apart from its marketing potential (media and press) the most important thing is providing fans (customers) of the Football Club with an equal playing field through equal accessibility and equal amenity.

The DSA have done and continue to do a fantastic job for those fans of Wrexham AFC with disabilities.

Diversity, accessibility and inclusivity for all are incredibly important elements in any progressive organisation in 2020.

I really don't get it at all.

Spot on. To not consider the needs of our differently able fellow fans is reprehensible from a moral, legal and business standpoint.
It displays an astonishing lack of empathy. There will be issues that need sorting - there always are - but this isn't complicated. Focus on what's important here, stop making excuses and to paraphrase.. GET THE PLATFORM DONE

[Iesty]

I assume that the current safety certificate for the ground for hosting concerts lists this as an access/egress route and is therefore the reason for it being delayed??

nonetheless, and having myself being involved in the scheme in some capacity over the years, this is a very frustrating situation for all involved.