I am that soldier.

I didn't go to KR for the very reason that not only was it a dump but and a wet, cold and insanitary dump. (Aye but it was our dump.......).

As you say, if they have run out of money, then I can accept it if they need to put it off for a while but if they have no intention of doing anything, I'll continue to miss the odd game like Friday when the weather is poor.

Unless it is specfically written into their contract that is untrue. If employed by an employer for more than a month the staff must provide a minimum of one weeks notice.

The employer does have a duty of care, 16C is generally considered to be the minimum working temperature without PPE or heaters being used. However this remains guidence only and the basic rule of thumb is the more active the role the cooler a workroom can be.

Therefore the faster they serve the beer the cooler the bar can be. No Cl4dding = faster bar staff... in theory.

Well at least we have our own cladding thread, saves this stuff turning up elsewhere.

But I do know of 5 season ticket holders who are hoping they can renew but for the south stand next year or they may not get season tickets next year. And 3 of them where season ticket holders at KR and Widnes.

In the end you can call people soft, and say what about Bradford etc, but at bradford your paying less than £100 per season ticket. Bradford has not been redeveloped. If people choose not to take another season ticket the club won't be saying oh they are soft or they should count their lucky chickens, they will be saying was all the money invested worth it.

Fans will still come, it's whether they come in numbers that matters.

Like I've said previous, I'm in the posh stand (south) thanks to being tipped off by someone at saints about getting rained on.

If I was in the north stand and I was getting wet or having to sit on a wet seat, I'd have no doubt I'd ask to be moved or my season ticket money back. I don't care if people say its soft or what, I've not paid to get wet and spoil my enjoyment of watching the game.

The cladding problem is a disgrace really for the "best purpose built rugby stadium in englAnd "

Yep, that is correct but it will not be the case for the bar staff at Saints as they are agency workers. Or the majority of them are. They could walk out without any notice at all if they chose.


Indeed you are correct about the law in relation to temperature. However, there is nothing to suggest that it is guidance only. Here is what the Health & Safety Executive say:

[iTemperatures in the workplace are covered by the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992, which place a legal obligation on employers to provide a “reasonable” temperature in the workplace.[/i

It would appear that a single temperature cannot be used due to the varying nature of workplaces and duties undertaken. [url=http://www.hse.gov.uk/contact/faqs/temperature.htmSee here.[/url The reference to a lower temperature than 16C is in workplaces where the tasks are active and in those instances the temperature can fall to 13C. In both cases the employer is obliged to make staff 'comfortable' if the temperature is lower than either 16C (for sedentary jobs) or 13C (for active jobs). Saints appear to have failed to meet their obligations at Langtree Park on occasion. Therefore, there could be grounds for action if the staff chose to take it.


See above. If they have products that require chilling, the employer is obliged to make the staff comfortable. The bar staff at Saints have rarely been comfortable. On one occasion, back in winter when the snow fell, they were without gloves or outdoor clothing. Their hands were red and two staff were visibly shivering.

However, in spite of all that, I have not been able to discover yet what the legal consequences would be - if any - if staff walked out of their employment due to the temperature being too low (and, by implication, the employer not making them comfortable). I need to do some more investigating.

I think the staffing issue is a red herring. In the end it's about the paying customers. Never forget, it maybe sport, it maybe entertainment, but the minute sport went pro, it became a business and in business those who pay are called customers.

What is that famous mantra???

The customer is always right!!!!

Whilst sporting fans are customers who may not go and shop elsewhere, they may just stop shopping!!!!

I disagree. I disagree firstly because how staff are treated is never a red herring but secondly, I am simply following through my own initial point which rested on staff AND paying customers.


Exactly, which is why the staff issue is not a red herring. McManus has spoken of Saints being a business. There are two sides to that coin. If Saints can charge a fiver for putting your birthday wishes on the scoreboard then they can also ensure the health and safety requirements are met in relation to their customers AND their staff. In addition there is also the point that any business not providing the most customer-friendly service will ultimately pay the price, as you suggest.

I thi k it's £10 for your name on scoreboard when I enquiried about it, which I told them to go and get stuffed.

Doubled in price since my friend arranged it in that case. She organised it about two months ago.

They may have dropped the price then. I know for fact it was £10 when we played Catalan at home.

I paid for a hospitality package for 8 people for someone's birthday which wasn't cheap (really good tho) and while I booked I asked them to put the name on scoreboard and she told me its a extra £10. I told her I've just spent a fortune and couldn't they do it free of charge and they says no.

I told them to get stuffed, I'm not paying £10 for that!!!!

Surely cladding won't make a blind bit of difference to the temperature in the concession stands?

We've been told it's 50% maximum due to the construction of the stadium so while it may stop some of the rain coming in, it won't stop wind or warm the place up.

If it protects staff from the wind then it will, even if it cuts down the impact of it rather than obliterates it completely. Sometimes that wind has been biting. Obviously, though, a proper wall would have been better. A proper wall is, of course, what most of us thought we were going to get!

It's cladding with thermals



But it should provide some protection from the wind in the stadium, I think the wind and the rain effects different areas.

The rain has not bothered me in the seating sections that seams to be in the areas outside where it pools the worst, but the wind does blow through the stadium something cronic. You maybe right and it may not effect the climate inside at all, but if the club said such then that would be the end of it, put up or shut up.

You didn't look at the plans properly then? They just had a wooden fence round the outside, not even the brick wall we have.



I can understand it stopping some of the rain coming in (and the problems with wet concourses currently), but I've not noticed wind being a major problem within the concourses, I've only been in the North Stand myself though.

Usual pacifists. McClennan would have a haircut for the rest of his days to save the trouble of telling his hairdresser he wanted to change it 15 years ago.



The questions are thus:-

1) If you were to receive a new ground in 2012 would you expect it to be fully protected from the elements in both your seats and on the concourse? If not, why not?

2) If your chairman said that you would be getting said cladding six weeks after fans expressed reservations then would you expect it a) to happen or b) when it doesn't happen, get an explanation why/ If not, why not?

There are too many of our supporters who are too happy to settle for second best. They think that being runners-up is acceptable and they think that accepting a ground that has been shockingly designed is acceptable on the basis that is better than Mount Pleasant. Well it isn't. The designers have ballsed up and that is a cast iron fact. If you want to settle for a shoddily designed affair without question after all these years then that says everything about your weak personalities.

NO - That is a cast iron OPINION.

Anyone would think you actually contributed to paying for the building of the stadium and therefore your OPINION has some weight. And before you do, PLEASE don't spout that you've bought a 5 year season ticket. That does nothing but give you admission to games, nothing more noithing less and at a price lower than it would be if you bought either matches one by one or seasons.

Why don't you just come out and say what you mean DD?

Cladding money on Willie Manu me thinks

Everyone who has bought tickets has contributed to the stadium, without them there would be no club and no stadium.

I like the stadium, but I do agree with a lot of what DD says. The design would be fantastic for a stadium in a hot sunny country, but alas, England is not one of them. We don't have enough games in a hot sunny climate to justify not having cladding round the back of the stands to protect those inside from the elements that are prevalent, such as rain. The fact that it rains in on those at the ends and backs of the stands is a basic design error.

No they haven't - the monies from season ticket sales would not be diverted into capital expenditure. It would be used as part of their ongoing cash flow. Capital projects are funded totally differently.

Who will have put up capital funding with no money coming into the club, with the money coming into the club being almost solely due to fans?

The sky monies, sponsorship, corporate revenue, shareholders funds. Investors may also provide funding on the basis of future returns. The value of income from season ticket sales although significantly higher than previous years would do nothing to fund a £30m investment. It may pay some debt repayments but Mr McManus has already stated we are debt free!

Don't suppose you fancy answering the questions that I asked do you?

Sky monies only come in because fans watch it on tv. Sponsors only buy advertising because fans see that advertising. Investors invest either for profit, or because they are fans.

Without fans, professional sport is nothing.

Which, in all honesty, is nothing to do with design flaws in the stadium.

Agreed - all I am arguing is that we as supporters have not actually paid anything towards the building of the stadium and whilst it may not be to yours or DD or some of the others on here liking you actually havent actually put any of the money up so have little recouse if it doesnt fit your utopian dream. And from where I sit its a damn site better than we have ever had and I am yet to get wet (I sit in the North Stand Block C).