The council statement contained facts. The club one doesn't. I know which one is correct. And as for 'probably not' where have you been since these pricks bought the club? I'd trust Charles Ponzi more than I trust this lot.
Who'd have thought that a Q and A session would need to concern itself with the fact that you can't get into Oakwell on one side and you can't get out of Oakwell on the other. I suppose it diverts attention from how you might be able to polish a turd of team performances.
Buzz word bingo, that's all we're getting from them. No substance to any of the statements put out. They could lose many West Stand season ticket holders. It's been a PR and potentially a financial disaster.
What a pointless statement to just say they disagree but not why. All three parties in this mess look childish for letting personal matters get in the way of doing what's best for our club. It's dragged on enough already and needs sorting once and for all.
The council statement said a safety assessment was done preseason that showed no issues. That's it. There's nothing stopping the club having another survey done if they wanted. There are any number of reasons why they'd do that too. Listen, I just want the situation resolving asap, just like everyone else and my opinion of the board has nosedived during the last week, but don't for one second carry on like the council and the Crynes are behaving appropriately during this instance (or at any time for that matter).
It's the club who have pushed the fans under the bus. The spat is one thing, but this is unforgivable. **** off your fans at your peril. Sorry to write this, but this just shows their total disregard for paying supporters, who kept the club going during lockdown. I feel totally lost as a BFC fan over over 45 years with this lot in charge now. Sad & weary.
How many supporters are in the construction trade? Probably a few including engineers. I'm sure we could find enough supporters to do a new structural survey.and carry out any necessary works. All at a price that wouldn't rip the club off.
The council stated that the inspection was done two weeks ago. I don't believe for one second that the club took it upon themselves to rush a second inspection through straight after and find it an absolutely bonkers thing to assume took place.
Maybe the club didn't trust the council appointed surveyor operating on behalf of the council that also holds a financial stake in the structure...
Can I respectfully state that the statement made by the club resembles one of the most vacuous official statements I’ve seen and I have, over my time, read some utter crap.
A council employee wouldn't dare sign something off if it's unsafe. Corporate manslaughter isn't something you'd want on your CV.
“The Council inspected the ground on behalf of Oakwell Community Assets Limited (OCAL) as the landlord on 21 September 2021..”
Of course not, but thinking about it does it not make sense for all parties involved in the structure to have their own surveys done? As I've said before, everyone is just guessing, including me (playing devil's advocate my I add). No one knows the facts apart from the club, council and the Crynes. So just let them get on with sorting it out, which I'm sure they will eventually. Yeah, it sucks balls that people have been inconvenienced by the closure, but if there is even the slightest thread of truth to the club's version of events then I certainly wouldn't want to be sitting in an unsafe stand.