to merge
 

Seeing as Pete has announced at the WSF meeting that the platform was shelved for now I expect a formal announcement from the club and WST very very soon.


I also wonder why the focus group hasn't been invited to meet about this?

Re: Second Disabled Platform
 

How long since the resolution was passed by the members??

Fan owned, my @rse. The WST is just a vehicle for the chosen few to own and run the club at our expense.... Well, not mine as I stopped going after Keates came back.

Re: Second Disabled Platform
 

[QUOTE=Wxm boy;2342058]How long since the resolution was passed by the members??

Fan owned, my @rse. The WST is just a vehicle for the chosen few to own and run the club at our expense.... Well, not mine as I stopped going after Keates came back.[/QUOTE]

Just over a year and a half, I think?

The bizarre thing is there are STILL people who react to criticisms of the board with “get a motion passed at a meeting” even though it clearly doesn’t always work!

Second disabled platform plan shelved?
 

[url]https://twitter.com/r77ulr/status/1225877053188321283[/url]
[I]
"WST Chairman Pete Jones informed a meeting of the Wrexham Supporters Federation last night that the second disabled platform has been shelved until next season. A resolution was passed at the 2018 AGM forcing the board to build the platform, 20 months and still nothing.
"[/I]

Will merge in other posts from previous thread - can anyone confirm the above who was at the WSF meeting and reasons why?

(posts moved from previous thread [url]http://www.redpassion.co.uk/forums/wrexham/115199-second-disabled-platform-8.html[/url] )

Re: Second Disabled Platform
 

[QUOTE=WrexhamO;2342038]Seeing as Pete has announced at the WSF meeting that the platform was shelved for now I expect a formal announcement from the club and WST very very soon.


I also wonder why the focus group hasn't been invited to meet about this?[/QUOTE]

Was he reminded that he nor the club have any mandate to “shelve” the platform as it was an instruction from the owners?

Re: to merge
 

[QUOTE=WrexhamO;2342038]Seeing as Pete has announced at the WSF meeting that the platform was shelved for now I expect a formal announcement from the club and WST very very soon.


I also wonder why the focus group hasn't been invited to meet about this?[/QUOTE]

Pete Jones is an absolute joke and seems to dig a bigger hole for himself every day. How he has got the brass neck to carry on whilst thinking he is a twenty first century Michael Parkinson is mind boggling.

Re: Second disabled platform plan shelved?
 

No second platform in the strategy house ! Hopefully the house will now fall down and new owners can build a new one.

Re: Second disabled platform plan shelved?
 

It's one thing after another these days, week in, week out. I feel bad for all the times I used to defend the board in general. There is nothing fan owned about this club. They just do whatever they please, question people's loyalty to the club when trying to help and ignore members voting instructions, along with the alleged stuff too.

Apologies to those who I used to 'tangle' with on here.

Re: Second disabled platform plan shelved?
 

[QUOTE=Rob;2342068][url]https://twitter.com/r77ulr/status/1225877053188321283[/url]
[I]
"WST Chairman Pete Jones informed a meeting of the Wrexham Supporters Federation last night that the second disabled platform has been shelved until next season. A resolution was passed at the 2018 AGM forcing the board to build the platform, 20 months and still nothing.
"[/I]

[/QUOTE]

Rich’s tweet seems to have been deleted now.

Re: Second disabled platform plan shelved?
 

[QUOTE=Jaded;2342076]Rich’s tweet seems to have been deleted now.[/QUOTE]

[url]https://twitter.com/r77ulr/status/1225878667282321409[/url]

Seems to have been reposted

Re: Second disabled platform plan shelved?
 

According to the Strategy House wasn’t Phil Salmon supposed to be “onit” ?

Re: Second disabled platform plan shelved?
 

- can anyone confirm the above who was at the WSF meeting and [B]reasons why?[/B]

[I]"...delayed as site is wanted for entrance/exit access for the Ritchie concert".[/I]

Re: Second disabled platform plan shelved?
 

[QUOTE=Foxy;2342080]According to the Strategy House wasn’t Phil Salmon supposed to be “onit” ?[/QUOTE]

Yes, I believe that’s what Welsh Kiwi was told.

Re: Second disabled platform plan shelved?
 

Maybe more disabled people could have seen the Ritchie concert if there was an adequate 2nd platform in place.

Re: Second disabled platform plan shelved?
 

[QUOTE=terrytactics;2342081]- can anyone confirm the above who was at the WSF meeting and [B]reasons why?[/B]

[I]"...delayed as site is wanted for entrance/exit access for the Ritchie concert".[/I][/QUOTE]

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

Re: Second disabled platform plan shelved?
 

Anyone involved in the decision to not proceed with the building of this platform should resign with immediate effect, they are not fit to represent the owners

Re: Second disabled platform plan shelved?
 

[QUOTE=Foxy;2342080]According to the Strategy House wasn’t Phil Salmon supposed to be “onit” ?[/QUOTE]

Harris and Jones on different pages of the hymn sheet

Re: Second disabled platform plan shelved?
 

[QUOTE=Cenotaff;2342083]Maybe more disabled people could have seen the Ritchie concert if there was an adequate 2nd platform in place.[/QUOTE]

Whilst I support the disabled platform construction, there is an issue with safe egress from the lower GUS. Sounds like the ground safety committee have had an input here.
The platform has been redesigned at least 2 times and for what the DSA gain, 3 or 4 spaces with carers we could lose a lot more if the exit is impeded by this as it fits across part of the steps in that corner.
I honestly believe that there is a much better though more expensive solution to provide additional disabled spaces in the lower GUS.

Re: Second disabled platform plan shelved?
 

[QUOTE=Quay Red;2342092]Whilst I support the disabled platform construction, there is an issue with safe egress from the lower GUS. Sounds like the ground safety committee have had an input here.
The platform has been redesigned at least 2 times and for what the DSA gain, 3 or 4 spaces with carers we could lose a lot more if the exit is impeded by this as it fits across part of the steps in that corner.
[B]I honestly believe that there is a much better though more expensive solution to provide additional disabled spaces in the lower GUS[/B].[/QUOTE]

The DSA's suggestion for some time, and prior to the club's P2 plan. Argument against, was primarily the removal of seating (in a lower tier which is pretty much unused!). The DSA pointed out the rather moot nature of the club's argument, and our objections to the corner idea, but the current plan was steamrollered through.:(

Re: Second disabled platform plan shelved?
 

[QUOTE=Jaded;2342082]Yes, I believe that’s what Welsh Kiwi was told.[/QUOTE]

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?.:confused:

[QUOTE=dlrwrexham;2342097]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?.:confused:[/QUOTE]


Sure there'll be more excuses by the end of the concert to push it back far enough for people to forget about
[size=1][i]Posted via mobile theme[/i][/size]

Re: Second disabled platform plan shelved?
 

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

[I]"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."[/I]

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

Re: Second disabled platform plan shelved?
 

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.

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]

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.

Re: Second disabled platform plan shelved?
 

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.

Re: Second disabled platform plan shelved?
 

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".:(

Re: Second disabled platform plan shelved?
 

[QUOTE=Inside Left;2343302]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.[/QUOTE]

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

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.

Re: Second disabled platform plan shelved?
 

[QUOTE=Welsh Kiwi;2343403]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.[/QUOTE]

Superb summation. There are workable solutions if the will is there to commit to them.