|
|
Post by salisburyhands on Mar 11, 2011 14:23:19 GMT 1
Ground Address : Raymond McEnhill Stadium, Partridge Way, Old Sarum, Salisbury, SP4 6PU.
Admission Prices :
Adults £10
Concessions £7
Students 16-21 £5
Accompanied Under 16's £2
Seat Transfer £2
Car Parking £2
Programmes £2-50
For anyone objecting to paying £2 for the car park, space can be found at the industrial estates near the entrance to the ground. However, do not use the housing estate as the natives tend to get very restless!
Travel by road: Take A345 towards Salisbury from A303 at Amesbury. Signposted at Beehive Park & Ride site near Old Sarum.
Travel by train : Ray Mac is approx 4 miles from Salisbury Railway Station. Unfortunately, the football special bus service from there has been discontinued following our demotion from the BSP, so the alternative is a walk down Fisherton Street towards the City Centre and the Market Square. The 69A bus leaves Endless Street (where the bus station is situated, just off the Market Square) at 2.00 to Partridge Way, with a bus back at 5.27pm. The return fare is £2.80.
Alternatively, any bus heading in the Amesbury/Andover direction (No 5, 6, or 8 from the bus station) will take you as far as the Beehive, followed by a 10 minute walk to the ground.
A number of local fans meet in the City Centre then share taxis to the Ray Mac.
Weather Forecast : Cloudy 10C
Bar (Sarum Suite) : open to both home and away fans - real ales and Sky Sports Screens available. Please note there is no entry to the Sarum Suite once you have passed through the turnstiles until after kick-off, so on arrival enter via Outside Gate 5, located at the far end of the main building.
Turnstiles : The Ray Mac's Safety Certificate sets out minimum stewarding requirements. To save costs, as Saturday's game is not segregated, the "away" end of the ground will be closed and all fans will be located in the "home" end. Entry will be by way of Turnstiles B, C, & D, for both standing and seated areas. For seating only, Turnstile E may also be used.
Please be aware that more stewards than you are used to seeing may be present, and pat-down and bag searches may also be in force for both sets of fans, which should not be taken as a reflection on your supporters.
We look forward to welcoming you to the Ray Mac.
Peter Matthiae
Safety Certificate Holder
Salisbury City FC
|
|
|
|
Post by Steve T on Mar 11, 2011 17:02:10 GMT 1
Turnstiles: The Ray Mac's Safety Certificate sets out minimum stewarding requirements. To save costs, as Saturday's game is not segregated, the away end of the ground will be closed and all fans will be located in the home end.
Please be aware that more stewards than you are used to seeing may be present, and pat-down and bag searches may also be in force for both sets of fans, which should not be taken as a reflection on your supporters. More H&S nonsense (and I don't want that to be seen as a criticism of Mr Matthiae or SCFC). What do the licensing authorities imagine is going to happen if fans are allowed into the away end? Looking at Salisbury's attendances this season I'd make a guess at an attendance of around 650-700 with 30-40 from Banbury. That's a deadly riot waiting to happen... There are plenty of other grounds in this division and elsewhere at this level that use very few stewards if they use any at all. Are these clubs and their local authorities neglectful – or sensible? As for the searches... |
|
gadge
Junior Member
Posts: 76
|
Post by gadge on Mar 11, 2011 19:43:34 GMT 1
Sounds like they're going to give Leamington stewards a run for their money!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Sparky on Mar 11, 2011 20:48:01 GMT 1
A club that's so far up itself it's meeting itself coming back,are they expecting the Taliban to turn up.The sooner they go up the better,the bigger they think they are the harder they fall.
|
|
|
|
Post by Steve T on Mar 11, 2011 21:44:25 GMT 1
I was careful to direct my criticism more at the local authority than the club. However, it is not to go back on that to say that I wish some organisations would show a bit of backbone now and then and challenge some of the edicts of their local Politburos. I am not suggesting that they be irresponsible, simply that they apply safety rules with some sense of proportion in respect of the risk involved.
I went to Salisbury in '03 and '04. This was before they reached the Conference and had to install the fences for segregation. On one of those visits, when the home team was kicking towards the open (away) end, we were at the covered end. There were probably about 50 of us and a scattering of home fans adding up to fewer than 100 in a terrace that at a guess accommodates something like 1,500 when full. A gimp in an orange coat told several supporters (home too) not to stand at the back of the terrace because it was a walkway and they were causing an obstruction. There was a certain frisson in the air for a few moments, thankfully interrupted by a Banbury attack...
|
|
|
|
Post by Sparky on Mar 12, 2011 0:02:13 GMT 1
Reminds me of Kings Lynn when some spotty irk told my lad not to sit on the low wall surrounding the pitch at Half Time with the threat if he did'nt do as he was told we would be ejected from the ground.
|
|
|
|
Post by porternigel on Mar 12, 2011 9:18:40 GMT 1
H & S does seem to change from local Authority to local Authority we don't need a Licence from the OXon County Council for our ground ,they say our capacity is not great enough but they do keep an eye on us There could well be a queue for a pat down !!  |
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Mar 13, 2011 9:08:11 GMT 1
For a venue to be licenced it has to have either a 5000 capacity or one covered stand with 500 or more seats in it.
It was good of Salisbury Hands to post on here so that expectations of a good spectator experience for the highest entry cost in the league would not be too high.
What it didn't emphasise was that not only could you not stand at one end you could not actually get within 70 yards of it. Having said that as we were attacking that way in the second half we wouldn't have seen so much but might have been spared seeing just how bad things were at the other end.
It is a shame that Salisbury are prepared to reduce their overheads at the expense of a small group of away fans but of course they have a full time team to fund.
Whereas the requisite stewarding levels were of course provided, the same could not be said for the catering which offered one small outlet with very expensive fayre and one very long queue which might or might not have been over some of the yellow zig-zagged "no hanging about in" access routes. I didn't check but as it was also an access route assume it should.
In an attempt to make the programme quirky and entertaining Salisbury chose to highlight two of Banbury's most infamous ex-residents which was tasteless in the extreme.
It is a ground unsuited to our level of football and of course Salisbury were playing at a higher level until, for reasons I am not clear on they were demoted two divisions to start afresh. No doubt they will be hoping that they do not have to play at this level again and so do I.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sparky on Mar 13, 2011 11:08:06 GMT 1
Seems my comment about the sooner they go up the better was right. A comparison can be made with Newcastle United,a club that thinks it's bigger and better but sadly falls short.I never thought I would say this but well done to Brackley Town for beating Truro as this puts SCFC a step closer to, as they hope greater things and away from us.
|
|
|
|
Post by Steve T on Mar 13, 2011 13:15:07 GMT 1
It is a shame that Salisbury are prepared to reduce their overheads at the expense of a small group of away fans... Not just the away fans who can't use the 'away' end. In an attempt to make the programme quirky and entertaining Salisbury chose to highlight two of Banbury's most infamous ex-residents which was tasteless in the extreme. Not the first club to do this (can't remember the previous guilty party/parties). It is a ground unsuited to our level of football and of course Salisbury were playing at a higher level until, for reasons I am not clear on they were demoted two divisions to start afresh. No doubt they will be hoping that they do not have to play at this level again and so do I. Salisbury had 10 points deducted last season then were demoted. I think the deduction was for entering administration the previous season but the Conference decided that there were other misdemeanours unpunished and so they were thrown out. Conference rules on financial matters have been the subject of some criticism in recent seasons. When Salisbury's financial troubles first became public knowledge, the club cut the playing budget and for a while the team slipped down the table. Noble statements were issued to the effect that they would rather be relegated one division with their finances intact than be demoted three levels with their finances in ruins. The FA and the leagues came up with a suitable compromise. They appear to think they are still a Conference club and are acting like it to the detriment of visiting clubs and their supporters. Of course, this is what you get every week when watching Conference football. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve T on Mar 13, 2011 13:23:03 GMT 1
I never thought I would say this but well done to Brackley Town for beating Truro as this puts SCFC a step closer to, as they hope, greater things and away from us. Banbury may well be safe by the last weekend of the season but if not then should Salisbury already be promoted, Truro won't have anything to play for when they visit, except perhaps to ensure home advantage in the play-offs. We should also be cheering on Brackley again on Tuesday when they play Weymouth. |
|
|
|
Post by yogi on Mar 13, 2011 13:34:30 GMT 1
well i guess gary glitter was one,but who was our other sinful dweller.
table still looks a bit scary,esp with no game next sat
|
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Mar 13, 2011 13:40:56 GMT 1
well i guess gary glitter was one,but who was our other sinful dweller. table still looks a bit scary,esp with no game next sat The male nurse at the Horton. I agree the table not looking as healthy this week. |
|
|
|
Post by futchscfc on Mar 13, 2011 17:39:31 GMT 1
Hi everyone.
I have great memories of my last trup to Banbury (wasn't this year alas), but the last time which was our 8th from last game of the season in 05/06 season when we were 1-0 up, you equalized with 15 mins to go and then we went on to win in the last few minutes (Ashan Holgate who was on work experience from Swindon Town, now at SSM) and won the league not losing another game...... yesterday was our 8th from last game so am hoping that 'de ja vue' kicks in once again (even if it was at our ground this time that we finally beat you after many years of hurt!).
I thought I'd register and post on here, just to show a bit of interest, and some dissapointment, to your comments about the ground and club and what you experienced yesterday. All I can say is that If it were the clubs chosing and we had money to burn we gladly open the away end.
But it isn't the club's chosing. We are one of three clubs in this league that have to hold a safety certificate because of the size of it now. However the difference between us and the other two are quite simply - Wiltshire Police and the licensing authorities. To have the whole ground open they would require another 20 SIA licensed stewards (which means you have to pay them) and potentially pay the cost of having policing at every game. Quite simply, the people in charge at Wiltshire police think that we are Swindon Town (we are one of the counties who don't have much experience of league football except Swindon) and one size fits all. We hate it as much as you did - but they wont move on that because of the safety certificate.
That is why you also have all the passes and checks as it is apart of the safety certificate - I mean do you think we want to do it! But the police and local authority insist as apart of the certificate.
When you hear the comments of 'they are saving money for their full time team' it is frustrating. You are probably right in one aspect - however running a full time squad with failed acadamy kids, with a couple of experienced pro's is actually far cheaper than a lot of the sides are paying in this league for a part time squad (Truro for example with the likes of Hayles, Clay, etc).
We don't disagree with you about the food aspect - its woeful and has been since the year dot... I think the new board will eventually sort it out as its a cash cow if you get it right.
Finally, all the talk of 'hope Salisbury get out of this league because they are so up their behinds' etc, well - do you think we really wanted to be relegated - once you've tasted Conference and Conference South you don't want to go back to Southern League without actually being relegated. Yes, we, the fans paid the penalty for a stupid board and investor who threw his toys out the pram - while other clubs like Histon and Kiddiminster just cheated the rules in their accounts. In fairness we've enjoyed go to our old haunts this season and I think its reminded us of what non-league football is about again, especially those who were not with our support in 05/06 and came with the success. But like any team who is in competitive football, we want to win and get back to where we were again.
I've nothing against Banbury - good southern league club with history in the division, as we had up to 05/06 ( if I remember you were a side pushing us to the title with chippenham until we beat you). And I'm sure that once you get to the promised land you'll understand how we feel about it, and what its all about. I would finally comment if you think coming to us is bad, you should try somewhere like Rushden and Diamonds in the conference where if you breath wrongly you get ejected. But if you reflect on it, I'm sure it wasn't as bad at the Ray Mac as it could have been
I say in a nice way - and I mean it, hope we don't see you next year, but wish you all the success this and in following seasons...... you are too good to go down and perhaps it will be your time to mount a challenge for the title to get to Conference south.
|
|
|
|
Post by Steve T on Mar 13, 2011 20:02:36 GMT 1
Futch's reply confirms our suspicions, namely that over-zealous officialdom has made apparently unreasonable demands on the club – but has SCFC ever challenged those demands? Futch writes: "To have the whole ground open...would require another 20 SIA licensed stewards...". This should be questioned. Is the number of stewards required dependent on the size of the arena, the number of spectators or a combination of both? What do the police imagine spectators will do if not supervised by the number of stewards that their formulae require? Rip up the terraces? Worry the sheep? Launch a nuclear strike on Basingstoke? (Hmm...) And you just know that sooner or later there will be an incident in which spectators require help and will be let down...
Bureaucrats. God save us from them.
|
|
