It's incredible that the measurements of the stand were 'miscalculated' and never confirmed in the subsequent capacity revision in 2001 (and the other annual inspections). Maybe this is to do with the inclusion of the uncovered area by the perimeter fence in the original calculations, which may not be allowed to be included in the capacity of an otherwise fully covered terrace.
Also the condition of barriers, steps, exits etc. as well as the frequency and magnitude of 'disorder' (of which standing in the gangways is included) are limiting factors on the capacity in the final calculation of the permissible capacity.
A cynic might suggest that this is part of the softening-up process of converting the Valley End into seating, I for one sincerely hope this is not the case, and that the provision of a decent, covered standing area will continue at Adams Park, as well as be extended to other grounds that have needlessly been made all-seater.
Anyone got an idea of how many people we normally have in the terrace? I hope it doesn't start to sell out, as I tend to buy my ticket on the day and arrive shortly before 3pm.
The terrace capacity WAS supposed to have been reduced from 1,974 to 1,494 in 2001.
The Adams Park capacity was 10,000 when 977 extra seats were added to the away end that year. But in order to keep it at the capacity required by the Safety Certificate, around 500 were removed from the Valley End and around 500 Paddock spaces removed.
The capacity was close to 11,000 for Wasps matches though as the Safety Certificate only applied to football matches.
Are we sure the club have not just got confused between rugby and football requirements?
One Wycombe terrace was 50% over capacity for an 11-year period and the other over (original Hillbottom Road End) 50% capacity for a six-year period, even though the Taylor Report had been released when the ground was officially opened.
Of course the regulations laid down by Sports Grounds Safety Authority (SGSA) and their predecessors Football Licensing Authority could now be new.
When I used to work on the turnstiles some 10-15 years ago, I managed to get hold of a copy of the stewards' handbook, which stated that the Valley End's physical capacity was just over 2,100. I presume that this includes the non-terraced area by the perimeter fence, and that there were no reductions on the basis of limiting factors on the condition of the terrace, sightlines, repeated disorder, exit capacity etc.
With regards to the incorrect formula being applied (for saddos interested in this, you can find the government's Green Guide book with this at http://www.safetyatsportsgrounds.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/green-guide.pdf ,from pages 16-21) for 25 years, this is quite incredible. During this time Frank Knowles and Richard Stanford (although far from perfect, you could at least rely on them to put safety at the top of priorities) would have had to apply for a safety certificate for the ground (I believe I'm right in saying) on an annual basis.
@Midlander - I don't believe you are correct saying that the terrace's licensed capacity was 50% over its actual capacity. The new calculated capacity is most likely due to physical and safety factors (again, see the riveting reading I linked to earlier in the post) causing a reduction in the capacity down from the maximum safe level for the viewing area on the Valley End.
As far as I know SGSA won't have been going about their job that much differently to the FLA.
There were some folks in the bar last night getting really irate about the capacity reduction.....but when was the last time the terrace sold out...? Luton on Boxing Day? In fact when was the last time we sold out at the AP? V Chelsea for Blooms restamonial ?
Plenty of seats in the FA.....and if we keep playing like last night then they'll be lots of empty seats and space on the terrace......
@A_Worboys wrote:
If Wasps were still co-habiting Adams Park, would the terrace capacity remain the same for rugby matches?
That's a good question - it would depend on how many of the 'safety' factors are specific to football (e.g. rugby spectators not standing in the gangways while football spectators did). It is feasible that specific conditions are placed on football events at the ground that would not be imposed on rugby.
FrijidPink
Maybe time to just put seats on it.. Hardly worth having such a small terrace.
I'm a bit dismayed when people come up with this canard.
Presumably they prefer to sit and would be put out if someone who preferred to stand blithely proposed converting all remaining seating areas to standing. A member of the football club board recently suggested to a supporter that they should be happy with the paddock as a replacement standing area for the Valley End, but was firmly put in their place when it was pointed out that the paddock is neither raised above pitch level and not covered.
Having a choice of decent seated and standing accommodation at football grounds is beneficial for those who sit and have no desire to stand at football matches. Anyone who follows Wycombe away from home at a ground with no standing accommodation for visiting supporters will no doubt be familiar with the awkwardness of people who would rather stand not always being able to stand at the back to allow those who wish to sit to view the action unimpeded.
@ReadingMarginalista I do follow Wycombe away and there is often a better atmosphere when the ground is all seated, isn't there. I refuse to attend games now if they shut the FA stand instead of the terrace, ie, JP cup etc. I guess you can't please all the people but I am sick of all the terrace mob being holier than thou about standing vs sitting. Actually sitting fans do more for the club financially 'cos it's more expensive! so if you want to support the club financially come and join all us boring farts in the FA stand!.
They don't seem to have a problem at most all seat grounds - Oxford always seems to have a decent atmosphere, so does Plymouth, Pompey, etc etc even the Cobblers sometimes manage a song.
I'm with @ReadingMarginalista on this. Can't see what's wrong having a choice. We should always keep the terrace for standing. I choose to sit at AP mostly because my knees are knackered, but for some bizarre reason, (unknown even to me), I prefer to stand at away games. Nice to have a choice.
@FrijidPink There's only one person with a 'holier than thou' attitude in this debate, and it isn't those who are trying to ensure there is a choice for those who prefer to sit and those who prefer to stand. I appreciate it may be an annoyance moving from the Woodlands upper to the Main Stand, though you still get to covered seated accommodation.
Plenty of clubs get hauled over the coals for not stopping their supporters from standing in seated areas - it may not be very well publicised but it is a frequent topic of discussion between clubs and the authorities. The matter of atmosphere isn't relevant to this discussion to be honest.
As to your suggestion that those who pay a slightly lower amount to stand at the Valley End are not supporting the club enough, there is such a thing of making supporting the club accessible to those on more modest incomes. Also, if everyone shared your worldview, I'm sure there would be plenty of box holders who would think that you're not pulling your weight either!
Comments
Nearly 500 people over! Quite a miscalculation...
It's incredible that the measurements of the stand were 'miscalculated' and never confirmed in the subsequent capacity revision in 2001 (and the other annual inspections). Maybe this is to do with the inclusion of the uncovered area by the perimeter fence in the original calculations, which may not be allowed to be included in the capacity of an otherwise fully covered terrace.
Also the condition of barriers, steps, exits etc. as well as the frequency and magnitude of 'disorder' (of which standing in the gangways is included) are limiting factors on the capacity in the final calculation of the permissible capacity.
A cynic might suggest that this is part of the softening-up process of converting the Valley End into seating, I for one sincerely hope this is not the case, and that the provision of a decent, covered standing area will continue at Adams Park, as well as be extended to other grounds that have needlessly been made all-seater.
Anyone got an idea of how many people we normally have in the terrace? I hope it doesn't start to sell out, as I tend to buy my ticket on the day and arrive shortly before 3pm.
Hang on here...
The terrace capacity WAS supposed to have been reduced from 1,974 to 1,494 in 2001.
The Adams Park capacity was 10,000 when 977 extra seats were added to the away end that year. But in order to keep it at the capacity required by the Safety Certificate, around 500 were removed from the Valley End and around 500 Paddock spaces removed.
The capacity was close to 11,000 for Wasps matches though as the Safety Certificate only applied to football matches.
Are we sure the club have not just got confused between rugby and football requirements?
Here are the figures at the time from COTN which are different entirely: http://www.chairboys.co.uk/onthenet/news/11may2000-awayend.htm
And if these figures from COTN are correct: http://www.chairboys.co.uk/onthenet/valley.htm.
One Wycombe terrace was 50% over capacity for an 11-year period and the other over (original Hillbottom Road End) 50% capacity for a six-year period, even though the Taylor Report had been released when the ground was officially opened.
Of course the regulations laid down by Sports Grounds Safety Authority (SGSA) and their predecessors Football Licensing Authority could now be new.
The original Gasman produced a good post on this on the remnant of the old gasroom
http://disc.yourwebapps.com/discussion.cgi?disc=31465;article=789529;title=gasroom.co.uk
When I used to work on the turnstiles some 10-15 years ago, I managed to get hold of a copy of the stewards' handbook, which stated that the Valley End's physical capacity was just over 2,100. I presume that this includes the non-terraced area by the perimeter fence, and that there were no reductions on the basis of limiting factors on the condition of the terrace, sightlines, repeated disorder, exit capacity etc.
With regards to the incorrect formula being applied (for saddos interested in this, you can find the government's Green Guide book with this at http://www.safetyatsportsgrounds.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/green-guide.pdf ,from pages 16-21) for 25 years, this is quite incredible. During this time Frank Knowles and Richard Stanford (although far from perfect, you could at least rely on them to put safety at the top of priorities) would have had to apply for a safety certificate for the ground (I believe I'm right in saying) on an annual basis.
@Midlander - I don't believe you are correct saying that the terrace's licensed capacity was 50% over its actual capacity. The new calculated capacity is most likely due to physical and safety factors (again, see the riveting reading I linked to earlier in the post) causing a reduction in the capacity down from the maximum safe level for the viewing area on the Valley End.
As far as I know SGSA won't have been going about their job that much differently to the FLA.
Maybe time to just put seats on it.. Hardly worth having such a small terrace.
There were some folks in the bar last night getting really irate about the capacity reduction.....but when was the last time the terrace sold out...? Luton on Boxing Day? In fact when was the last time we sold out at the AP? V Chelsea for Blooms restamonial ?
Plenty of seats in the FA.....and if we keep playing like last night then they'll be lots of empty seats and space on the terrace......
@Ozzie_the_Relaxed Last AP sell-out was the Chelsea League Cup semi-final - 9,971. Matt's testimonial was only 7,744.
If Wasps were still co-habiting Adams Park, would the terrace capacity remain the same for rugby matches?
The other point is why can't the paddock spaces be put back in to allow the capacity back to 10,000?
Yes it was a "typing on the iPad" issue although I quite like restamonial and so reserve the right to use it again.....
That's a good question - it would depend on how many of the 'safety' factors are specific to football (e.g. rugby spectators not standing in the gangways while football spectators did). It is feasible that specific conditions are placed on football events at the ground that would not be imposed on rugby.
I'm a bit dismayed when people come up with this canard.
Presumably they prefer to sit and would be put out if someone who preferred to stand blithely proposed converting all remaining seating areas to standing. A member of the football club board recently suggested to a supporter that they should be happy with the paddock as a replacement standing area for the Valley End, but was firmly put in their place when it was pointed out that the paddock is neither raised above pitch level and not covered.
Having a choice of decent seated and standing accommodation at football grounds is beneficial for those who sit and have no desire to stand at football matches. Anyone who follows Wycombe away from home at a ground with no standing accommodation for visiting supporters will no doubt be familiar with the awkwardness of people who would rather stand not always being able to stand at the back to allow those who wish to sit to view the action unimpeded.
the whole notion is quackers
@ReadingMarginalista I do follow Wycombe away and there is often a better atmosphere when the ground is all seated, isn't there. I refuse to attend games now if they shut the FA stand instead of the terrace, ie, JP cup etc. I guess you can't please all the people but I am sick of all the terrace mob being holier than thou about standing vs sitting. Actually sitting fans do more for the club financially 'cos it's more expensive! so if you want to support the club financially come and join all us boring farts in the FA stand!.
They don't seem to have a problem at most all seat grounds - Oxford always seems to have a decent atmosphere, so does Plymouth, Pompey, etc etc even the Cobblers sometimes manage a song.
I'm with @ReadingMarginalista on this. Can't see what's wrong having a choice. We should always keep the terrace for standing. I choose to sit at AP mostly because my knees are knackered, but for some bizarre reason, (unknown even to me), I prefer to stand at away games. Nice to have a choice.
@FrijidPink There's only one person with a 'holier than thou' attitude in this debate, and it isn't those who are trying to ensure there is a choice for those who prefer to sit and those who prefer to stand. I appreciate it may be an annoyance moving from the Woodlands upper to the Main Stand, though you still get to covered seated accommodation.
Plenty of clubs get hauled over the coals for not stopping their supporters from standing in seated areas - it may not be very well publicised but it is a frequent topic of discussion between clubs and the authorities. The matter of atmosphere isn't relevant to this discussion to be honest.
As to your suggestion that those who pay a slightly lower amount to stand at the Valley End are not supporting the club enough, there is such a thing of making supporting the club accessible to those on more modest incomes. Also, if everyone shared your worldview, I'm sure there would be plenty of box holders who would think that you're not pulling your weight either!