You couldn't make it up....
Printed From: National League Rugby Discussion Forum
Category: League Rugby - www.leaguerugby.co.uk
Forum Name: Clubhouse chat
Forum Description: For rugby related posts that fit nowhere else.. When you're ready Sandra.
URL: http://www.leaguerugby.co.uk/forum_posts.asp?TID=19399
Printed Date: 23 May 2025 at 21:49
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: You couldn't make it up....
Posted By: Richard Lowther
Subject: You couldn't make it up....
Date Posted: 19 Oct 2022 at 22:14
|
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/oct/19/saracens-lacking-safety-certificate-to-admit-10000-or-more-fans-to-stadium%20" rel="nofollow - https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/oct/19/saracens-lacking-safety-certificate-to-admit-10000-or-more-fans-to-stadium
------------- Moderator http://www.leaguerugby.co.uk" rel="nofollow - National League Rugby Message Boards Remember Wakefield RFC |
Replies:
Posted By: castleparknight
Date Posted: 20 Oct 2022 at 06:58
|
One rule and all that...... ------------- Onward and Upwards C'mon Donny! |
Posted By: Robb
Date Posted: 20 Oct 2022 at 07:58
| They'll hide behind that old grandfather clause. "Oh we were in the Prem before that rule came into effect, so it doesn't apply to us". This is just more evidence for Ealing to produce in court when they inevitably have to sue to get in next season if the PRL tries to block promotion again. |
Posted By: 373
Date Posted: 20 Oct 2022 at 08:44
|
Or you could read the article itself and see that it’s simply a case that the local authority are slow to issue the relevant paperwork. There’s a world of difference between that and having a capacity of about 2000.
|
Posted By: Richard Lowther
Date Posted: 20 Oct 2022 at 09:34
Yes but without the relevant paper work it is a stadium that fails to meet the minimum 10,001 capacity that Premiership clubs are meant to have. Its another example of Premiership hypocrisy. ------------- Moderator http://www.leaguerugby.co.uk" rel="nofollow - National League Rugby Message Boards Remember Wakefield RFC |
373 wrote:Posted By: Steve@Mose
Date Posted: 20 Oct 2022 at 09:56
Interesting as it is the the Sorry'uns stadium does not currently meet MSC I hope we haven't overlooked the end of the http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/oct/19/saracens-lacking-safety-certificate-to-admit-10000-or-more-fans-to-stadium" rel="nofollow - article :
|
Posted By: 373
Date Posted: 20 Oct 2022 at 10:01
| It isn’t though, is it? It was 10,500 before renovation work took place, it will return to being as such afterwards. Its not like the capacity was 3000 and they were let in. |
Posted By: tigerburnie
Date Posted: 20 Oct 2022 at 10:12
| Links not working anymore. |
Posted By: Richard Lowther
Date Posted: 20 Oct 2022 at 10:27
You miss the point. NOW it doesn't meet the minimum criteria that the Premiership insist on others meeting. It doesn't matter if the capacity is 3000 or 9999, it is still not 10,001, yet they've been allowed to play on. Why can they play without meeting the criteria but others would not be allowed to? ------------- Moderator http://www.leaguerugby.co.uk" rel="nofollow - National League Rugby Message Boards Remember Wakefield RFC |
Posted By: WEvans
Date Posted: 20 Oct 2022 at 12:42
Come on Richard you know the answer to this - Premiership regulations do not apply to Saracens. How many times have we discovered this?
|
Posted By: GreenThrough&Through
Date Posted: 20 Oct 2022 at 12:49
|
Please let's not let anger over ridiculous entry criteria or a personal dislike of Saracens cloud what is a fairly simple scenario. It's not a case of one rule for one and not for another. Saracens had a ground with a capacity in excess of 10,000 and held the relevant safety certificate. They invested in improving the ground and whilst those improvements were being made, the capacity dropped to below 10,000 and the safety certificate was essentially void. This would have applied throughout last season whilst work was ongoing. Work has completed bringing the capacity back above 10,000 and the safety certificate has been applied for, awaiting issue. Whilst awaiting issue, they have to operate on a reduced capacity. It's not like they've moved to a new ground that is under capacity and have been allowed to play there whilst doing the relevant improvements.. Before anyone shouts at me, im not defending Saracens, Premiership clubs, PRL or the RFU. The governance of the game and the pandering to a dozen clubs at the top of the pile is shambolic to the detriment of the wider game. But let's try and see this for what it is - a club improving their facilities and infrastructure, not an attempt to work around the current regulations. For what it's worth, my recommendation would be to change the entry criteria to remove the minimum capacity element (which i believe is justified on the basis that a capacity in excess of 10,000 makes a safety certificates mandatory) and replace with a requirement that clubs must hold the relevant level of safety certificate regardless of capacity. My understanding is Doncaster hold this despite their capacity being c.5,000. I don't think there is anything stopping a club for applying for a safety certificate based on capacity (feel free to correct me if im wrong).
|
Posted By: Thunderbird
Date Posted: 20 Oct 2022 at 15:06
Coventry live strap line , Wasps total debt £100 million. 
|
Posted By: OldNick
Date Posted: 20 Oct 2022 at 17:25
As confirmed by their CEO yesterday. As I understand it he hasn't lost his job as he is working with the administrators.
|
Posted By: Richard Lowther
Date Posted: 20 Oct 2022 at 18:24
Saracens just perfectly illustrate the hypocisy around the minimum ground capacity. They have redeveloped the ground whilst in the Premiership - an option that wouldn't have been available to Doncaster, Ealing et al - what is it that allows them to do that but not clubs currently outside the Premiership? If Ealing had been promoted why couldn't they develop their ground during the season, rather than have to have the 10,001 capacity before the season started? It illustrates that the 10,001 capacity isn't there for legitimate rugby reasons. It is a figure litterlly plucked out of the air - and seemed to co-incidence with the capacity at the Rec at the time. If Saracens can play in a stadium without that minimum capacity in place - and presumably it was lower whilst the stand was being built - why can't others play with whatever capacity they want? Premiership football have capacities ranging from approx 11,000 to 74,000 - they don't seem to think it is a worry. Let clubs play with what they want and develop at a pace they can financial afford - that is what the Premeirship clubs have done but the cartel don't want others to do the same. ------------- Moderator http://www.leaguerugby.co.uk" rel="nofollow - National League Rugby Message Boards Remember Wakefield RFC |
Posted By: 373
Date Posted: 20 Oct 2022 at 18:33
|
It isn’t plucked out of the air though, it’s legislation: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2022/122/made" rel="nofollow - https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2022/122/made |
Posted By: Richard Lowther
Date Posted: 20 Oct 2022 at 18:45
You are conflating two things. Yes you need the SSG licence for 10,000 capacity but the Premiership didn't have to set thier minimum capacity at that figure - they could have set it at 12,000 or 15,000 or 20,000... The only reason they seem to have settled on 10,000 is because it was about the capacity of the Rec at the time they decided upon this figure. ------------- Moderator http://www.leaguerugby.co.uk" rel="nofollow - National League Rugby Message Boards Remember Wakefield RFC |
Posted By: Halliford
Date Posted: 20 Oct 2022 at 22:09
That’s nonsense, Richard. The legislative level applies to all sports, not just rugby union. As I have pointed out before, however, the FA sought a derogation for Bournemouth when promoted to the Premiership because their ground was less than 10,001. PRL could have done the same but didn’t. Nothing to do with the Rec!
|
Posted By: Richard Lowther
Date Posted: 21 Oct 2022 at 07:11
Sorry but you are conflating two different things. Having a safety certificate and having a minimum ground capacity to play in the Premiership. One does not have to follow on from another. As you will see from from the football example all clubs have to have a safety certificate in place but the Premier league don't have a minimum ground capacity, I. E they didn't force Bournemouth to have a 20,000 capacity before they were allowed in. Rugby could follow in the same manner. Clubs would still have to a safety licence * either under the SASG or via their local council. There is no reason why a minimum capacity could not be set at 5000, but for fear of repeating myself it is set at 10,000 to keep out clubs, that 10,000 being the minimum capacity of Bath at the time. (* The fact Saracens currently don't have one but can theoretically hold 9999 proves that it is not essential to hold one under the SASG) ------------- Moderator http://www.leaguerugby.co.uk" rel="nofollow - National League Rugby Message Boards Remember Wakefield RFC |
Posted By: GreenThrough&Through
Date Posted: 21 Oct 2022 at 09:52
|
We are on the same page in that the minimum capacity requirement is stupid and clubs should be allowed time whilst in the Premiership to develop their grounds accordingly to meet whatever appropriate standards are required. However, i go back to my original point - Saracens already had a 10,001+ capacity stadium. They then chose to redevelop part of it which meant they had to operate for a period of time under reduced capacity and are having to continue to do so until they get the new safety certificate for the updated ground. This is not uncommon across pretty much every sport where clubs want to redevelop their ground without moving out temporarily whilst it's done. It's not like they were starting at 2,000 and wanting to grow from there. In addition, im pretty sure the decision to not approve promotion for both Ealing and Doncaster (the incorrect decision) stated that neither club had any plans in firm place at the time to develop their grounds further. So whilst one club had a definitive plan for redevelopment and carried that out, 2 clubs had no plans for development. Trying to compare the 2 situations is like trying to compare apples with oranges.
|
Posted By: Richard Lowther
Date Posted: 21 Oct 2022 at 10:21
I agree with your first paragraph but not the rest. When Saracens first moved to the then Copthall Stadium it didn't meet the 10,000 capacity. One report I have read said the capacity was 2000 when they first moved in. They have developed it over time whilst being in the Premiership (and during their period on the naughty step in the Championship). Doncaster and Ealing were not allowed to follow this approach. They had to have 10,000 capacity BEFORE they would be allowed to play in the Premiership - not a gradual increased from 2,000 etc. Explain to me why is there a difference. It is a fact that Saracens didn't meet the 10,000 capacity when they first moved it. You can't excuse it for reasons that they had plans to develop it later - but deny exactly the same principle for Doncaster and Ealing. ------------- Moderator http://www.leaguerugby.co.uk" rel="nofollow - National League Rugby Message Boards Remember Wakefield RFC |
Posted By: GreenThrough&Through
Date Posted: 21 Oct 2022 at 11:45
|
We're now getting into a different debate here. Your initial issue was about them redeveloping a ground they were already in that met the minimum capacity nonsense prior to redevelopment. That's where im saying there is a difference in the scenarios. The question about whether they should have been allowed to move to that ground in the first place is completely different and one where i agree with you though it should be noted that they didn't actually play a Premiership game there until the capacity was 10,000 - see the final sentence of the below taken from the Wikipedia entry for Copthall Stadium: In November 2010, Saracens, searching for a new home after their landlord https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watford_F.C." rel="nofollow - Watford F.C. activated a break clause in their groundshare agreement, revealed they were in discussions with Barnet Borough Council about a move to the stadium. Under the plan, Saracens would redevelop the stadium into a modern facility with 3,000 permanent seats. De-mountable stands would allow a capacity of 10,000 for rugby matches while retaining the stadium's ability to host athletics events. Finally, the plans called for the use of an https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_pitch" rel="nofollow - artificial pitch , the first in English rugby union. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnet_Copthall#cite_note-3" rel="nofollow - [3] Since final approval from Barnet Council was still required in May 2011, Saracens and Watford agreed to a one-season extension of the groundshare agreement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnet_Copthall#cite_note-4" rel="nofollow - [4] The project was approved in February 2012. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnet_Copthall#cite_note-5" rel="nofollow - [5] The stadium opened in January 2013, after Saracens began the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012%E2%80%9313_English_Premiership_%28rugby_union%29" rel="nofollow - 2012–13 season as a nomadic club, using six different venues for home matches across all competitions ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twickenham_Stadium" rel="nofollow - Twickenham , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wembley_Stadium" rel="nofollow - Wembley , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicarage_Road" rel="nofollow - Vicarage Road , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stadium_MK" rel="nofollow - Stadium MK , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldington_Road" rel="nofollow - Goldington Road and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Baudouin_Stadium" rel="nofollow - King Baudouin Stadium ). On 25 January 2013, the newly renovated ground had its "soft opening", hosting its first https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saracens_F.C." rel="nofollow - Saracens match against the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardiff_Blues" rel="nofollow - Cardiff Blues with Saracens winning 19–11 in the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012%E2%80%9313_LV_Cup" rel="nofollow - LV=Cup before a crowd limited to 3,500. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnet_Copthall#cite_note-6" rel="nofollow - [6] The new artificial pitch was reported to be very good after the game. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnet_Copthall#cite_note-7" rel="nofollow - [7] The full opening came on 16 February, with Saracens defeating https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exeter_Chiefs" rel="nofollow - Exeter Chiefs 31–11 in a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012%E2%80%9313_English_Premiership_%28rugby_union%29" rel="nofollow - Premiership match before a capacity crowd of 10,000. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnet_Copthall#cite_note-8" rel="nofollow - [8] |