So the club have lost £164,000 off our bottom line due to poor club management and being fined. Our books are very tight as it is and we can not afford such errors in the running of the club. Whether that impacts investment in the football side we do not know but it is very disappointing.
As I understand it, the fire alarm went off during a beer festival being held at the stadium. It turned out to be a false alarm, but nobody knew that at the time. At that time, when it was thought that there might be a genuine emergency, there was one or more fire door locked and it took twenty minutes to get disabled visitors off the premises because the lifts wouldn't respond and nobody knew how to operate the evacuation chairs. It looks like there was miscommunication and misunderstanding between the club and the hospitality contractors and nobody had taken responsibility for making sure it was a safe venue.
All a bit of a **** up, and fortunate all round that it wasn't a real emergency or their could have been loss of life and people might have ended up in prison for corporate manslaughter.
The incident must have been reported by someone to prompt the investigation and prosecution, but this was a criminal case against the club and not one brought by an individual for compensation. Since (fortunately) nobody was actually injured, it is difficult to see how a civil claim of any substance could be brought. The size of the fine would have taken into account the size and turnover of the business.
It is a lot of money. It has been five years coming so presumably we have made provision for the anticipated outcome, but it is still money that could have been better spent elsewhere. The club has been keen to emphasise that there is no suggestion that the stadium isn't safe on matchdays and has also repeated some of the mitigation that was accepted by the Judge about our contribution to the community etc, but there is no doubt that it all adds to the general impression that we sometimes make mistakes (the Rawson fax also springs to mind) that are a bit amateurish.
It seems a harsh fine seeing as nobody was hurt. It looks to me as if we will use little old Rotherham as the whipping boys nothing new. Then again if it was Bolton wouldn't matter to them just put it on top of 200 million we are already in debt.
The fine is based on a fairly well established structure that factors in the size of the business and turnover. It is what it is. If somebody had been hurt the punishment would have been far more severe. It was fortunate that the failings came to light in a false alarm not a real one. The fact that the club has accepted the decision and wont be appealing it speaks volumes. You cant really compare it with (for instance) what clubs in Europe are fines for the racist chants of supporters, as some on MM have tried to do. It's a different issue being dealt with in different jurisdiction under a different set of rules. It is definitely an embarrassment and I can see why the club would want to issue a short statement and move quickly on, as they have.
Not being funny but i believe that Rotherham United Football Club do not actually own New York Stadium, i believe it is in fact owned by a small company set up a few years ago when New York was a brown field site call RU Estates. RUFC like any other potential user of the stadium just pay a figure to RU Estates for the use of the facility for perhaps a football match or a Beer Festival.
To my mind this should be dealt with and presented to RU Estates not one of their customers.
It seems a harsh fine seeing as nobody was hurt. It looks to me as if we will use little old Rotherham as the whipping boys nothing new. Then again if it was Bolton wouldn't matter to them just put it on top of 200 million we are already in debt.
That's spot-on TH,
Oh, ****, that's 2 of your posts in one night I've agreed with mate, it must be the beer !!
The fine is based on a fairly well established structure that factors in the size of the business and turnover. It is what it is. If somebody had been hurt the punishment would have been far more severe. It was fortunate that the failings came to light in a false alarm not a real one. The fact that the club has accepted the decision and wont be appealing it speaks volumes. You cant really compare it with (for instance) what clubs in Europe are fines for the racist chants of supporters, as some on MM have tried to do. It's a different issue being dealt with in different jurisdiction under a different set of rules. It is definitely an embarrassment and I can see why the club would want to issue a short statement and move quickly on, as they have.
Rules are rules, but like some people park on double yellow lines in Rotherham and no action is taken for reasons which have nothing to do with rules, and others get a fine, so we pay the fine.... and that's true of a lot of things regardless of rules and law...
-- Edited by Davidedin on Thursday 16th of January 2020 09:38:31 PM
Not being funny but i believe that Rotherham United Football Club do not actually own New York Stadium, i believe it is in fact owned by a small company set up a few years ago when New York was a brown field site call RU Estates. RUFC like any other potential user of the stadium just pay a figure to RU Estates for the use of the facility for perhaps a football match or a Beer Festival.
To my mind this should be dealt with and presented to RU Estates not one of their customers.
I was thinking along those lines Gaz, I was wondering why "the Club" was fined when the stadium is owned by others who surely must be responsible for the safety aspects of the structure including fire safety; just as any other landlord is responsible for the safety and maintenance of say a gas boiler and fitting smoke alarms into property he lets. Its the landlords responsibility not the tenants, as the football club is. At least I think thats the case
Not wanting to be too legalistic but under the Order that was breached, the responsible party is any person (in this case company) having control of the premises at the time in question. 'Control' for those purposes means operating a business from/on those premises. I think you gents are right that the Club leases the ground from a separate holding company but for the purposes of the Order it looks like the Club was in the frame alongside the contract caterers who are also a fixture there. Different to domestic property laws. However Mr Stewart structures it, I suspect it is all out of the same pot in any case.
