United game postponed due to bomb scare

[Silva61]

Is it just a coincidence that the security exercise took place the day after their defeat to West Ham or am I getting paranoid.

 

[Malty]

Security sorted for tonight (of Twitter)

Cowboys LOL sums them up

 

[Mustard Dave]

Does anybody on here actually work in health and safety and knows what the law is here i.e. who is to blame, the contractor who says it is all his fault, the club who have washed their hands or are both to blame

Any business or individual has a common law duty to ensure others do not suffer a loss or injury due to their negligence (tortious liability). With this in mind, all clubs have a responsibility to take reasonable action to ensure the safety of anybody using their stadium; in addition, there is a raft of legislation and codes of practice that provides guidance on how to do this. Clubs also have the responsibility to fulfil their contractual obligations with supporters. These contracts are formed when a fan purchases a ticket.

In terms of tort law, the Rags had a responsibility to take reasonable actions to ensure the ground is safe. As we live in times of increased risk from terrorism, it is reasonable to expect them to have suitable counterterrorism measures in place. Although they will be assisted by government agencies to a great extent, that responsibility lies with the Rags 100%. If this means employing specialist contractors, it is what they must do.

In terms of contractual obligations, the contract they have with each and every ticketholder is to allow them to enter the ground and take up the allocated seat on the date stated. Naturally there are additional reasonable Ts & Cs. There may also be clarification as to what they will do if the fixture is abandoned for whatever reason.

Lets say there was a genuine terror threat. The only person liable for any loss is the perpetrator. The Rags will have paid staff for the day and covered utility costs etc. They have met their contractual obligations and do not owe the fans a penny. It is unlikely the fans will be able to recover their out of pocket expenses from Timmy Terrorist so they have to take it on the chin unless the Rags make some sort of gesture.

In this situation, the perpetrator is known - it is the Rags. The whole reason the fixture could not be played is due to the incompetence of their security staff. It is irrelevant whether those staff were direct employees, agency workers or a specialist security firm; the fans' security is the responsibility of the club so they are responsible for any failings. Whether that device was faker or real, they failed to find something that should have been detected.

As we know now it was left in error by a contractor, the Rags have a chance that they can make a recovery. The contractor should have professional indemnity insurance for this sort of fuck-up. The Rags are still initially responsible to the fans, as they are the parties in the contract formed by the ticket sale. It is then up to the Rags to pursue any recovery from the security firm.

The Rags are still within their rights to refuse to compensate Bournemouth fans. They have a few options, such as offer to lay on coaches, settle individual claims, or do fuck-all. If they do the latter, the fans would have to pursue legal action. Laying on coaches would be by far the best option; they benefit from the economies of scale of utilising a single supplier, and they limit the total admin cost if they don't have to process several individual claims.

As I understand it, Bournemouth have made some sort of arrangement regarding travel; I expect a deal will be done with the Rags following any legal process. If they had not done so, the Rags would be taking a chance on the outcome of future legal action. Ultimately I expect the Rags will be held liable, and some of their costs will be picked up by the security firm's insurers.

 

[jimharri]

Reminds me of this:

I was waiting for "it's a bermb"!

 

[Mad Eyed Screamer]

Security sorted for tonight (of Twitter)

More like these two..... bomb disposal - from me, to you, to you, to me.....

 

[jimharri]

More like these two..... bomb disposal - from me, to you, to you, to me.....

FFS; another new keyboard needed. Twat!

 

[Eds]

Any business or individual has a common law duty to ensure others do not suffer a loss or injury due to their negligence (tortious liability). With this in mind, all clubs have a responsibility to take reasonable action to ensure the safety of anybody using their stadium; in addition, there is a raft of legislation and codes of practice that provides guidance on how to do this. Clubs also have the responsibility to fulfil their contractual obligations with supporters. These contracts are formed when a fan purchases a ticket.

In terms of tort law, the Rags had a responsibility to take reasonable actions to ensure the ground is safe. As we live in times of increased risk from terrorism, it is reasonable to expect them to have suitable counterterrorism measures in place. Although they will be assisted by government agencies to a great extent, that responsibility lies with the Rags 100%. If this means employing specialist contractors, it is what they must do.

In terms of contractual obligations, the contract they have with each and every ticketholder is to allow them to enter the ground and take up the allocated seat on the date stated. Naturally there are additional reasonable Ts & Cs. There may also be clarification as to what they will do if the fixture is abandoned for whatever reason.

Lets say there was a genuine terror threat. The only person liable for any loss is the perpetrator. The Rags will have paid staff for the day and covered utility costs etc. They have met their contractual obligations and do not owe the fans a penny. It is unlikely the fans will be able to recover their out of pocket expenses from Timmy Terrorist so they have to take it on the chin unless the Rags make some sort of gesture.

In this situation, the perpetrator is known - it is the Rags. The whole reason the fixture could not be played is due to the incompetence of their security staff. It is irrelevant whether those staff were direct employees, agency workers or a specialist security firm; the fans' security is the responsibility of the club so they are responsible for any failings. Whether that device was faker or real, they failed to find something that should have been detected.

As we know now it was left in error by a contractor, the Rags have a chance that they can make a recovery. The contractor should have professional indemnity insurance for this sort of fuck-up. The Rags are still initially responsible to the fans, as they are the parties in the contract formed by the ticket sale. It is then up to the Rags to pursue any recovery from the security firm.

The Rags are still within their rights to refuse to compensate Bournemouth fans. They have a few options, such as offer to lay on coaches, settle individual claims, or do fuck-all. If they do the latter, the fans would have to pursue legal action. Laying on coaches would be by far the best option; they benefit from the economies of scale of utilising a single supplier, and they limit the total admin cost if they don't have to process several individual claims.

As I understand it, Bournemouth have made some sort of arrangement regarding travel; I expect a deal will be done with the Rags following any legal process. If they had not done so, the Rags would be taking a chance on the outcome of future legal action. Ultimately I expect the Rags will be held liable, and some of their costs will be picked up by the security firm's insurers.

Thanks for that. I wonder why then nobody in the media has mentioned anything other than the rags acted very professionally and none of it is their fault when quite clearly it is.

 

[Mustard Dave]

Thanks for that. I wonder why then nobody in the media has mentioned anything other than the rags acted very professionally and none of it is their fault when quite clearly it is.

I expect nobody wants to make any such comments until all investigations are completed and the full scale of their incompetence is known. I think this story will keep throwing us titbits for some time!

 

[west didsblue]

Any business or individual has a common law duty to ensure others do not suffer a loss or injury due to their negligence (tortious liability). With this in mind, all clubs have a responsibility to take reasonable action to ensure the safety of anybody using their stadium; in addition, there is a raft of legislation and codes of practice that provides guidance on how to do this. Clubs also have the responsibility to fulfil their contractual obligations with supporters. These contracts are formed when a fan purchases a ticket.

In terms of tort law, the Rags had a responsibility to take reasonable actions to ensure the ground is safe. As we live in times of increased risk from terrorism, it is reasonable to expect them to have suitable counterterrorism measures in place. Although they will be assisted by government agencies to a great extent, that responsibility lies with the Rags 100%. If this means employing specialist contractors, it is what they must do.

In terms of contractual obligations, the contract they have with each and every ticketholder is to allow them to enter the ground and take up the allocated seat on the date stated. Naturally there are additional reasonable Ts & Cs. There may also be clarification as to what they will do if the fixture is abandoned for whatever reason.

Lets say there was a genuine terror threat. The only person liable for any loss is the perpetrator. The Rags will have paid staff for the day and covered utility costs etc. They have met their contractual obligations and do not owe the fans a penny. It is unlikely the fans will be able to recover their out of pocket expenses from Timmy Terrorist so they have to take it on the chin unless the Rags make some sort of gesture.

In this situation, the perpetrator is known - it is the Rags. The whole reason the fixture could not be played is due to the incompetence of their security staff. It is irrelevant whether those staff were direct employees, agency workers or a specialist security firm; the fans' security is the responsibility of the club so they are responsible for any failings. Whether that device was faker or real, they failed to find something that should have been detected.

As we know now it was left in error by a contractor, the Rags have a chance that they can make a recovery. The contractor should have professional indemnity insurance for this sort of fuck-up. The Rags are still initially responsible to the fans, as they are the parties in the contract formed by the ticket sale. It is then up to the Rags to pursue any recovery from the security firm.

The Rags are still within their rights to refuse to compensate Bournemouth fans. They have a few options, such as offer to lay on coaches, settle individual claims, or do fuck-all. If they do the latter, the fans would have to pursue legal action. Laying on coaches would be by far the best option; they benefit from the economies of scale of utilising a single supplier, and they limit the total admin cost if they don't have to process several individual claims.

As I understand it, Bournemouth have made some sort of arrangement regarding travel; I expect a deal will be done with the Rags following any legal process. If they had not done so, the Rags would be taking a chance on the outcome of future legal action. Ultimately I expect the Rags will be held liable, and some of their costs will be picked up by the security firm's insurers.

In normal circumstances the rags would have done their best to recover their losses from the security firm's or the dog trainer's indemnity insurance, however I suspect that their insurance won't cover this. If it did, the owner of the security firm would have been told in no uncertain terms by his insurers not to admit liability. I suspect that pretty much the entire cost of this fiasco will need to be borne by the rags or their own insurers, although I expect that their own insurers won't pay out because the rags would have been expected to ensure any sub-contractors had sufficient indemnity insurance and they presumably failed to do this. In a nutshell, it's going to cost the rags millions.

 

[Colin Bell's Boots]

Thanks for that. I wonder why then nobody in the media has mentioned anything other than the rags acted very professionally and none of it is their fault when quite clearly it is.

Because they are all *rse licking cnuts ?