oxford
First Teamer
Posts: 406
|
Post by oxford on Apr 15, 2012 9:52:32 GMT
Saw in todays NLP that Aggborough may be looking most likely as the place we go to share at? Lovely ground but, from a personal point of view, it will prevent me from getting to evening games as those few extra miles make the difference between getting in just in time or missing quite a bit of the game. This will also mean that I won't bother to get a season ticket. Not for one minute suggesting that the problems encountered by one long distance supporter,or any other individual, should make any difference to the final decision made but just wondered what preferences other fans have and what they think the pros and cons are for the various different options that are available?
|
|
|
Post by maybe1day on Apr 15, 2012 10:45:23 GMT
Hoped it wouldn't come to this, but it has. I prefer Harriers stadium and so do a few others I know. The station is right by the ground and its easy to get to, also good parking facilities not like Bromsgrove-None! Bromsgrove will attract even less support, the train station is 1.5 mile away and we will have to spend a bit of money on the floodlights, changing rooms apparently.
So for me, I will be happy with grond sharing at the Harriers ground
|
|
|
Post by The Verner on Apr 15, 2012 13:48:22 GMT
Bromsgrove does have parking but only about 80-100 cars worth.
Kiddy has everything going for it and we can make a little more money from there !!
|
|
|
Post by prestonwcfc on Apr 15, 2012 22:50:15 GMT
Personally I would prefer Kiddy - Better standard ground and also likely to have an overall better surface if two teams are using it. I would still get a season ticket. I miss games each season so this would nt make a difference - i just see it as a donation to the club for the games i dont get to
|
|
|
Post by JohnInglisIsGod on Aug 21, 2012 20:20:02 GMT
Something very funny occurred to me after the game last night Just imagine Worcester City (who are currently top) get promoted And just imagine Kidderminster (who are currently bottom) get relegated and we have to share a ground with them We then share a BSBN team ground as a premier league side.... how Ironic! hahahahah
|
|
|
Post by Bstander on Aug 22, 2012 11:14:13 GMT
And of course is we get promoted and Kiddy stay up do we get the "home" dressing room when we play them at "home"? And do we keep the gate takings?
|
|
|
Post by The Verner on Aug 22, 2012 11:57:33 GMT
Any promotion for us would need to see Hereford bugger off by either going up or down, dont want them again !
|
|
|
Post by JohnInglisIsGod on Aug 22, 2012 14:22:39 GMT
Would be easier to control them at Kiddy. Just give them one side of the ground, lock 'um in and throw away the key. They can help support Kiddy when they play at home next
|
|
|
Post by The Verner on Aug 22, 2012 15:18:31 GMT
Well Aggborough worries me only for one thing and that is the lack of barriers between the pitch and terraces / stands. OK theres more barriers in place than Bradford Park have got but it wouldnt take much to jump those boards. At least with the canal end theres a hell of a drop if someone wanted to brave it !! Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by The Verner on Aug 22, 2012 15:19:15 GMT
Another Example Attachments:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2012 19:55:51 GMT
FFS This is non-league football. What worries me more is the amount of barriers! Have we drifted back into the dark ages of 1980's league football or something? I don't want any barriers between me and the pitch, although the advertising boards do protect from sliding players etc. But come on, what do want? the return of cages?
|
|
|
Post by The Verner on Aug 22, 2012 20:05:58 GMT
FFS This is non-league football. What worries me more is the amount of barriers! Have we drifted back into the dark ages of 1980's league football or something? I don't want any barriers between me and the pitch, although the advertising boards do protect from sliding players etc. But come on, what do want? the return of cages? By law barriers have to be 1.1m high, so that's what I want fella !! Anyway it doesn't matter if you don't want barriers between you and the pitch, non league football grounds no longer entertain your Saturday afternoons
|
|
|
Post by The Verner on Aug 22, 2012 20:13:07 GMT
FFS This is non-league football. What worries me more is the amount of barriers! Have we drifted back into the dark ages of 1980's league football or something? I don't want any barriers between me and the pitch, although the advertising boards do protect from sliding players etc. But come on, what do want? the return of cages? That proves it then ! Boddy designed NW for you !! It won't have any barriers, no steps to fall down, no turnstile to squeeze your beer belly through, plenty of car parking. Didn't realise what a gent he was towards you !!
|
|
|
Post by nuffinbettatwodo on Aug 23, 2012 7:24:33 GMT
Something very funny occurred to me after the game last night Just imagine Worcester City (who are currently top) get promoted And just imagine Kidderminster (who are currently bottom) get relegated and we have to share a ground with them We then share a BSBN team ground as a premier league side.... how Ironic! hahahahah hahahah that tickled me. And the home and away dressing rooms. Certainly would be very ironic if we were the higher placed side. As long as we keep all the old traditions at Kiddy, It will be even more impreitive to keep our identity at Kiddy
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Aug 23, 2012 8:22:45 GMT
Thanks, but no thanks.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2012 11:59:58 GMT
By Law?? Thankfully the FA are not the law of the land! And a barrier in front of a seated area does not need to be 1.1 metre high. In fact it doesnt need to be a fixed barrier at all, providing the club can provide assurances that no spectators will stand in this area to watch a match. You're right non-league no longer entertains my Saturday afternoons, or any other day for that matter. And talk about barriers is one of the reasons!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2012 12:21:51 GMT
FFS This is non-league football. What worries me more is the amount of barriers! Have we drifted back into the dark ages of 1980's league football or something? I don't want any barriers between me and the pitch, although the advertising boards do protect from sliding players etc. But come on, what do want? the return of cages? That proves it then ! Boddy designed NW for you !! It won't have any barriers, no steps to fall down, no turnstile to squeeze your beer belly through, plenty of car parking. Didn't realise what a gent he was towards you !! I don't drink beer. I prefer a full bodied Gevry-Chambertin or a Chateauneuf du Pape.
|
|
|
Post by The Verner on Aug 23, 2012 14:24:57 GMT
By Law?? Thankfully the FA are not the law of the land! And a barrier in front of a seated area does not need to be 1.1 metre high. In fact it doesnt need to be a fixed barrier at all, providing the club can provide assurances that no spectators will stand in this area to watch a match. You're right non-league no longer entertains my Saturday afternoons, or any other day for that matter. And talk about barriers is one of the reasons! Check out the 'Green Guide To Safety at Sports Ground' also check out the Ground Grading for each level, pretty much speaks for its self. Then again if talk of barriers is why you no longer have football entertain you then it leads me to question why waste your time commenting in the first place !!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2012 19:17:10 GMT
www.thefa.com/Leagues/NationalLeagueSystem/~/media/Files/PDF/Leagues/Ground%20grading/2012/grade-b-2012.ashxSection 1.7 Para. 4 - Pretty much speaks for itself. Its the same wording for both Grade B and Grade A "Immediately in front of seated accommodation the boundary of the playing area may be indicated by means other than a permanent fixed barrier, provided that the Club is able to provide assurances that no spectator will be allowed to stand in this are to watch the match." Green Guide to Safety at Sports Grounds - Section 12.6 - "Note that the provision of pitch perimeter fences in front of seated areas is not recommended unless specifically required for the protection of spectators from the activity taking place (as, for example, in hockey)." Barriers aren't the reason football no longer entertains me, barriers are symbolic of whats going wrong at non-league level, along with segregation. That's not my idea of non-league football at all.
|
|
|
Post by The Verner on Aug 23, 2012 19:39:25 GMT
www.thefa.com/Leagues/NationalLeagueSystem/~/media/Files/PDF/Leagues/Ground%20grading/2012/grade-b-2012.ashxSection 1.7 Para. 4 - Pretty much speaks for itself. Its the same wording for both Grade B and Grade A "Immediately in front of seated accommodation the boundary of the playing area may be indicated by means other than a permanent fixed barrier, provided that the Club is able to provide assurances that no spectator will be allowed to stand in this are to watch the match." Green Guide to Safety at Sports Grounds - Section 12.6 - "Note that the provision of pitch perimeter fences in front of seated areas is not recommended unless specifically required for the protection of spectators from the activity taking place (as, for example, in hockey)." Barriers aren't the reason football no longer entertains me, barriers are symbolic of whats going wrong at non-league level, along with segregation. That's not my idea of non-league football at all. It does indeed speak for itself. If you could argue the colour of the guide you would. 1.7 Subject to the provisions detailed below, there must be a permanent fixed barrier ideally 1.1 m high as measured from the spectator side, of sound construction (eg concrete and steel) and free from all sharp edges, surrounding the pitch on all sides that may be occupied by spectators. Existing barriers/rails not at 1.1m high may be acceptable, provided they meet the requirements set out in 1.7 of the Appendix. APPENDIX 1. GROUND 1.7 Pitch Perimeter Barrier It is important to distinguish between a pitch perimeter barrier/rail which exists to separate spectators from the playing area and a crush barrier which has been constructed and tested according to the requirements of the Green Guide. Where the structure cannot be designated as a crush barrier, e.g. its height exceeds 1.1m, the maximum depth of standing behind it is limited to 1.5m and this must be borne in mind in any capacity calculations. It is recognised that the above may not be an issue for normal attendances but, when a larger crowd is anticipated, the Club should
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2012 7:51:38 GMT
Kev, its not an argument, but you must read the whole of Section 1.7 and if you are going to quote from it, then here's the whole section. Its not me saying it, its the Ground Grading document, and the Green Guide
1.7 Pitch Perimeter Barrier Subject to the provisions detailed below, there must be a permanent fixed barrier ideally 1.1 m high as measured from the spectator side, of sound construction (eg concrete and steel) and free from all sharp edges, surrounding the pitch on all sides that may be occupied by spectators. Existing barriers/rails not at 1.1m high may be acceptable, provided they meet the requirements set out in 1.7 of the Appendix. The barrier, if other than solid wall type of construction, must be infilled so that the ball cannot pass through or under it. Ideally there should be 2.75 metres, but no less than 2.25 metres between the touchline, goal line and the pitch perimeter barrier. Page 3 Immediately in front of seated accommodation the boundary of the playing area may be indicated by means other than a permanent fixed barrier, provided that the Club is able to provide assurances that no spectator will be allowed to stand in this are to watch the match. Where there is a walkway in front of a standing terrace that itself is fronted by a crush barrier that has been subject to an annual risk assessment and, if necessary, tested, an alternative to a fixed barrier (e.g. “A” Frames) may be used, provided no spectators are allowed to stand in this area to watch the match. The Club must implement a safety management system to ensure this and also to protect the integrity of the playing area. NB where A-frames are utilised instead of a fixed barrier, they must be continuous.
Its obvious really, as the Green Guide points out, if you had a 1.1 metre high perimeter fence in front of a seated area, no-one in the first 5 rows at least could see the pitch!
You're trying to introduce a problem that doesn't exist and doesn't need to exist. You are implying that the perimeter barrier is there to stop people jumping onto the pitch, its not, its there for spectator safety, hence the need for it to be infilled if not solid construction. This is the design recommended in the Green Guide for a modern seated stadium, and those photos of Aggborough show full compliance and good design. Having been there a few times to watch County Finals, its a great view from those first few rows of seats.
|
|
|
Post by The Verner on Aug 24, 2012 9:31:49 GMT
Kev, its not an argument, but you must read the whole of Section 1.7 and if you are going to quote from it, then here's the whole section. Its not me saying it, its the Ground Grading document, and the Green Guide 1.7 Pitch Perimeter Barrier Subject to the provisions detailed below, there must be a permanent fixed barrier ideally 1.1 m high as measured from the spectator side, of sound construction (eg concrete and steel) and free from all sharp edges, surrounding the pitch on all sides that may be occupied by spectators. Existing barriers/rails not at 1.1m high may be acceptable, provided they meet the requirements set out in 1.7 of the Appendix. The barrier, if other than solid wall type of construction, must be infilled so that the ball cannot pass through or under it. Ideally there should be 2.75 metres, but no less than 2.25 metres between the touchline, goal line and the pitch perimeter barrier. Page 3 Immediately in front of seated accommodation the boundary of the playing area may be indicated by means other than a permanent fixed barrier, provided that the Club is able to provide assurances that no spectator will be allowed to stand in this are to watch the match. Where there is a walkway in front of a standing terrace that itself is fronted by a crush barrier that has been subject to an annual risk assessment and, if necessary, tested, an alternative to a fixed barrier (e.g. “A” Frames) may be used, provided no spectators are allowed to stand in this area to watch the match. The Club must implement a safety management system to ensure this and also to protect the integrity of the playing area. NB where A-frames are utilised instead of a fixed barrier, they must be continuous. Its obvious really, as the Green Guide points out, if you had a 1.1 metre high perimeter fence in front of a seated area, no-one in the first 5 rows at least could see the pitch! You're trying to introduce a problem that doesn't exist and doesn't need to exist. You are implying that the perimeter barrier is there to stop people jumping onto the pitch, its not, its there for spectator safety, hence the need for it to be infilled if not solid construction. This is the design recommended in the Green Guide for a modern seated stadium, and those photos of Aggborough show full compliance and good design. Having been there a few times to watch County Finals, its a great view from those first few rows of seats. I just find it funnier that you say this is why you no longer have football entertain you yet you entertain all off us by arguing about it. However I must apologise, I didn't realise your original post said 'seated areas' which means I made a boo boo as I didn't read you post correctly !! Whooopsy !!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2012 11:13:12 GMT
No argument Kev, its just whats written in the documents you mentioned. And those photos you used to illustrate the point also showed seated areas. Where there is standing at Aggborough, there are perimeter fences.
|
|
|
Post by The Verner on Aug 24, 2012 12:59:32 GMT
No argument Kev, its just whats written in the documents you mentioned. And those photos you used to illustrate the point also showed seated areas. Where there is standing at Aggborough, there are perimeter fences. It does also say that they must illustrate that people dont stand in that area !! Its all very Boddy like. Anyway, we might not go there anyway !
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2012 14:09:19 GMT
Thats correct, and people don't stand there, its just the walkway to get into the stand, and anyone loitering there gets moved on by stewards. I hope the club do go to Aggborough, is there a better financial option?
|
|
|
Post by The Verner on Aug 24, 2012 14:50:01 GMT
Thats correct, and people don't stand there, its just the walkway to get into the stand, and anyone loitering there gets moved on by stewards. I hope the club do go to Aggborough, is there a better financial option? Its a better financial option than Nunnery Way !!, but as to Kiddy or Bromsgrove then I cannot comment. Im sure the Board will release something in the near future.
|
|
dragon
First Teamer
Posts: 355
|
Post by dragon on Aug 24, 2012 18:47:27 GMT
Tenants of Kidderminster Harriers! What in hell`s name is Worcester City about that? The people who brought us to this low should hang their heads in shame.Instead they will be enjoying their free tickets in the front seats of those Aggborough stands you are arguing about. From everything I read on here,I can only summise that the real owners of our club are St Modwins.Well why not let them get on with it? When the gates close on St.George`s Lane,they will close on WCFC as well.RIP
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2012 7:19:32 GMT
AC Milan groundshare, and so do AS Roma
|
|
dragon
First Teamer
Posts: 355
|
Post by dragon on Aug 25, 2012 8:50:13 GMT
Yes, but with other Milan and Rome clubs-not with Kiddy Harriers!!
|
|
|
Post by maybe1day on Aug 25, 2012 10:11:13 GMT
Saw this on the BSN Website!
Financial Boost For Non-League Clubs The Football Association have announced a new scheme which will provide non-league clubs with the chance to bid for grants of £50,000.
The campaign, called Budweiser Club Futures, will give clubs from steps five, six and seven of the league pyramid the chance to apply for 16 individual grants of £50,000 over the next two years.
Eight grants are up for grabs during the 2012-13 season, with a further eight to be awarded the following season.
Of the eight clubs who are granted a £50,000 financial boost, one could then receive a further £100,000.
The FA's director of football development, Sir Trevor Brooking, said: "This £1million investment as part of the Budweiser Club Futures programme is a fantastic gesture, with the £100,000 super grant being a real pot of gold for the clubs involved."
Applications close on October 31 and can be made via the FA's website.
A statement on the Football Association website read: Budweiser Club Futures will give eight grants of £50,000 to clubs across the country per season over the next two years.
Those grants aim to help clubs to become more financially sustainable by improving their facilities.
Projects that could be funded by the grants include everything from building conference facilities, improving any part of the clubhouse interior or exterior, and expanding the car park.
Anything that helps a club grow and play an even larger role in their local community.
Within each season, one of the chosen eight clubs will be given the chance to win an additional £100,000 super grant - as voted by football fans through the official FA Cup and Budweiser UK Facebook pages.
|
|