Re: Second disabled platform plan shelved?
 

[QUOTE=Haruki;2342084]If they had built it in the right place in the first place this wouldn't have been an issue[/QUOTE]

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

Re: Second disabled platform plan shelved?
 

[QUOTE=Welsh Kiwi;2343283]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.[/QUOTE]

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

Re: Second disabled platform plan shelved?
 

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.

Re: Second disabled platform plan shelved?
 

[QUOTE=Quay Red;2343295]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.[/QUOTE]

It doesn't sound very clever to me.

Why can't we do clever ?

Why do we have to do poor and close to nothing.

Re: Second disabled platform plan shelved?
 

[QUOTE=dlrwrexham;2343303]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".:([/QUOTE]


Thanks. Though I guess in a way it's all semantics.

A resolution was passed democratically. It instructed the board to act on behalf of the membership.

This action may have been started by the board in some respects, but it hasn't been fulfilled. So it is therefore still non existent and not fruiting or flowering or any other productive term.

The addition of 'earliest possible opportunity' could be interpreted in many ways. Though it clearly suggests with goodwill that is should be expedited and not continually delayed.

I still don't get why the board would have been opposed to the necessity to bring the project to fruition at the earliest opportunity.

What was the reason for that ? I can't recall their official response to the resolution.

Re: Second disabled platform plan shelved?
 

[QUOTE=Welsh Kiwi;2343313]Thanks. Though I guess in a way it's all semantics.

A resolution was passed democratically. It instructed the board to act on behalf of the membership.

This action may have been started by the board in some respects, but it hasn't been fulfilled. So it is therefore still non existent and not fruiting or flowering or any other productive term.

The addition of 'earliest possible opportunity' could be interpreted in many ways. Though it clearly suggests with goodwill that is should be expedited and not continually delayed.

I still don't get why the board would have been opposed to the necessity to bring the project to fruition at the earliest opportunity.

What was the reason for that ? I can't recall their official response to the resolution.[/QUOTE]

My understanding was that there was a concern about loss of seats if the second platform was to be located in an existing stand. That's why this new platform is remote from other fans.
Any platform situated over 2m from the ground would also need servicing by a lift.
The idea of a second platform is simple but the execution of this can be complicated. ( Egress from the concert etc.)

Re: Second disabled platform plan shelved?
 

[QUOTE=Quay Red;2343319]My understanding was that there was a concern about loss of seats if the second platform was to be located in an existing stand. That's why this new platform is remote from other fans.
Any platform situated over 2m from the ground would also need servicing by a lift.
The idea of a second platform is simple but the execution of this can be complicated. ( Egress from the concert etc.)[/QUOTE]

in addition to that, i think additional concerns included was having the platform beneath the away support, the length of the access ramp required and alterations to existing welfare facilities to cater for disabled access

however, it wasnt impossible!

Re: Second disabled platform plan shelved?
 

[QUOTE=Quay Red;2343319]My understanding was that there was a concern about loss of seats if the second platform was to be located in an existing stand. That's why this new platform is remote from other fans.
Any platform situated over 2m from the ground would also need servicing by a lift.
The idea of a second platform is simple but [B]the execution of this can be complicated[/B]. ( Egress from the concert etc.)[/QUOTE]

There will be issues that need overcoming, there always are. Dialogue invariably sorts these out. Excuses can be made in any walk of life, but equally solutions can be found if the will is there.

Proposals were first drafted in July 2016.

Differently-abled fans needing to use wheelchairs have missed the 2016-17 season, the 2017-18 season, the 2018-19 season and will miss the 2019-20 season.

That's four - yes FOUR - seasons they've not been afforded the ability to watch a football match, over 100 matches.

I wonder how many times any of the seats that would have been lost as a result of the DSA's proposals have been sat in during that time?

If the latest proposal affects means of egress for concerts (I don't know, but that seems to be the excuse for delaying its implementation), its installation would appear to affect the ability to stage future concerts. If so, that would seem to be a far greater loss of revenue than a few seats in the Yale Paddock.

Re: Second disabled platform plan shelved?
 

I think Ruabon Red has summed that up perfectly.

Am truly ashamed of our football club who I have supported all my life through thick and thin, if the governance of the football club felt it was reasonable to object to a proposal for an amenity that provides inclusivity and a level playing field and accessibility for all of our fans, rather than risk losing a few seats for our non disabled fans.

Are we Manchester United ?

Nothing the club has done in the last 10 years has made me feel as upset as that does.

I can absolutely appreciate the difficulty involved and potential costs in meeting all the requirements, but had the WST tried to find a workable solution from the very outset, rather than oppose the resolution I feel our club would be in a much stronger position today both on and off the pitch.