Everybody speaking sense here, too many poor poor grounds around the country.
Sorry I didn't realize Clones had any new parts.
Which bit is new ? It all looks pretty ancient.
'Newest'.
Right so not in any way comparable to PuC.
I didn't compare them, you did.
Aren't Cork GAA suing Sisk for negligence, so who knows why capacity might have been reduced. I merely stated it was a possibility.
The reason for the drop in capicity seams a bit odd
https://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/rugby/arid-41004146.html
Seems to be a H&S issue in one of the stands, just like the Clones issue. (Which by the way was quickly, if expensively, resolved.)
One suspects for that, we need to go back to the teeming stands and terraces of Roy Keane, Man Utd and Celtic at the sell-out Liam Miller testimonial in September 2018, and consequent discussions between the safety authorities on access, egress, vomitaries and the appropriate use of same.
But how is it an issue for a Rugby game and not Football,Hurling or Soccer. Do Rugby have slightly different H&S rules
Different insurers maybe? No idea...the issue in Clones was fine for 20 years, then somebody saw it as an issue.
It sounds like it won't hold 45k for any sport as things stand. Its stupid really as if the extra 3000 are gonna tip 40000 people over the edge to unsafe.
I think pretty much every stadium that age has seen reductions. Limerick is that age and has lost 5k. Semple I think has lost 10k and in fairness needed to facilities are a joke on the terrace.
Having had some experience of 'inspections', it's a completely arbitrary process...one opinion versus another. There is no science/engineering tests etc involved. One person's danger point is fine with another.(it was fine and passed here for 20 years approx) Once an issue has been flagged nobody is going to overrule it because if something subsquently happens the buck will rest with them.
Seems something was identified as an issue in the egress/vomitories, from that article to me.
Ive been through many inspections myself on small premises and ya they always had to find "something" to look like they were doing the job.
Surely though a stadium isnt down to one individual (just guessing here)
Can you give more details here if you have them?
There is usually a team...all on the one hymnsheet.
Not saying it is wrong, these things need continuous monitoring.
No, to be honest. I was only privvy to the outcome of the review, not the deliberations themselves. I heard about them from reliable secondhand sources.
The egress/vomitories was mentioned in that article, the journalist must have found that phrase while doing some research and thought that using it would make it sound like they have some clue and cover for the fact that they didn't answer the question they were attempting to answer.
My understanding is that these H&S reviews come down to those two things; toilets and gates to escape in the event of an emergency. The toilets is calculated based on number of facilities per attendee, if you don't meet the ratio the attendance is reduced. The escape thing isn't so clear cut but there needs to be sufficient gates for people to escape and enough space o approach to them people don’t get crushed on the way to the gate. These things generally have little to do with the area from which people view the game.
H&S concerns itself with a lot more than toilets and gates. Seat numbering, crush barriers, restraining barriers, waymarking, even step heights and yellow marking etc is up for review.
Edit: add assembly areas to that as well.
What was the outcome. What exactly was wrong with the stadium.
Uniformity of steps was one I had trouble with loads of times.
The outcome was massive remedial work to a lenghty barrier that was deemed not strong enough to withstand a crush. Even though it was there for 20 years without issue and had no signs of deterioration.
They are general H&S concerns but usually don't influence the permitted capacity. They are regulatory items and standards which have to be complied with, not things which can be ignored if you reduce capacity by X,000. The things I mentioned directly relate to the number of people you can have there.
I dont understand how there could be an issue with PUC it is a brand new stadium
That is wrong Pete. They can affect capacity.
Maybe the fact it was there 20 years with no work done was the issue. Maybe safety standards changed in 20 years.
Seems if the article is correct that its that they felt there was issues with alighting after the Liam Miller game.
Maybe. There was zero deterioration in the galvnised steel and concrete. That was the opinion of the guys brought in to fix it, anyhow.
A trip hazard is a trip hazard, no H&S inspection will ignore it if you just let less people in. Same with inadequate signage, yellow markings on steps, etc, there are regulations to comply with regardless of whether you have 10 or 10,000 people there. Some things are yes/no whether you can open at all, only certain things influence capacity.
From experience, that is wrong Pete. Capacity can and has been reduced due to issues mentioned above. Not gonna argue with you about it. Take it or leave it.
Any word of the proposed redevelopment works in clones are going to go ahead?
I think (not in the loop) the front and Hill entrance have gotten the go ahead.
I thought their plan was to let Clones go to rack and ruin and build the white elephant in Belfast??
Hopefully not, i know the GAA want to build casement because of the british grant but clones is far better location overalll and better craic ahead of a game
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
