Shrewsweb catches up on safety certification and arrangements for the Man City game with Chief Executive Steve Wellbeloved.

When will the ticketing arrangements for Man City be announced?

Basically we can't announce the ticketing arrangements until we know what capacity we will be granted and what areas of the ground can be opened. That's out of the Club's hands as it's a decision taken by County Council officials who issue the safety certificate. The Safety Advisory Group meets in full session Monday afternoon and then, after that, the Council officials will have a smaller private meeting to decide what they want to do next. We'll then have to look at that and decide how best to go forward. Given the timescales, that's far from ideal, but there isn't much we can do about it.

What's your guess?

Impossible question. If I could second guess Council decisions I'd be putting that talent to use in predicting lottery results. What is clear is that we were asked to fill the West stand for the first game and that was achieved. Then we were asked to fill the South stand for the Coventry game and that was done. Queries and procedural points have arisen from each game and the Club has been working very hard to ensure these are addressed.

No one in their right mind would want to cut corners on safety, but that isn't where we appear to be because we aren't currently aware of any overriding safety concerns. And, of course, if any arise we still have more than a week to address them before the game.

We won't be represented when the decision on capacity is taken and I guess it will probably boil down to the balance between natural caution and the desire to progress. At its crudest, that comes down to mindset, so it's difficult to call. Bear in mind, we don't know exactly who will be in the room to take the decision, at what level it will be taken or what criteria, if any, will used.

So you think capacity should rise?

Of course we do. After all the hard work we'll be bitterly disappointed if it doesn't. We feel we've been doing well and also that it's important to keep moving forward. We believe a higher capacity is needed to give the ground its next and more realistic test. It's also key to being able to move on to the position where fans can start to choose where they want to sit rather than have to fill certain areas in a set - and unrealistic - sequence. We also need to bear in mind that we had an 8,000 certificate at Gay Meadow with all the limitations of that site, whereas the new stadium is state of the art with an enormous array of safety measure built in.

Of course, the Manchester City game was part of the contractual agreement for Joe Hart, so from that point of view we also want to be able to have a decent capacity. And finally, it also makes sense to get the full capacity certified as soon as possible so that if we have a cup run we can take full advantage of it. Some may see this as a paperwork exercise, but for the Club and its supporters there really is a great deal at stake as we work to make this our 'home'.

It has always been our understanding that the first two games would be at the same capacity. Then, unless we had failed something badly, we would move on to a higher capacity for the third game. So, given how the first two games went, we would expect to be moving forward.

I have to say I was concerned on Friday to hear that a test at current capacity using the whole ground might now be requested because the first two tests only used part of the ground. Firstly, of course, the decision on what was used for the first two tests wasn't made by us. Secondly, it is logistically extremely difficult to ensure use of the whole ground when capacity is set at just 6,000. In effect, it would mean continuing to be extremely prescriptive about what seats are made available and the order of sale.

Are there any particular sticking points?

That's hard to say in as much as there isn't a standard, defined, objective checklist. If there was we would have got all the boxes ticked from the start. Instead it's almost entirely subjective and quite open ended. We understand why that is from a safety point of view, but it's also a recipe for inertia and bureaucracy unless there's a positive drive from all parties to keep moving forward.

How does our progress compare with others?

No two situations are the same. However, from our studies, several stadia have progressed through this 'ramping up' process with very significant outstanding issues - something we don't have.

In particular, we have seen this with a number of stadia built and operated by Councils themselves. Again this underlines that the certification process is not well defined and universally applied - there's room for quite a lot of pragmatism and some Council's appear to have adopted this flexibility more than others. It's not always clear whether that's because officers have taken a subjective view on the specific safety issues or been guided by a wider view about keeping a flagship project on track.

In our case, the stadium is owned and operated by the Club so the situation is different. That said, we have been working very well with senior people in the Council in recent months and that's obviously to everyone's benefit, as I'm sure we all want to see the stadium up and running as an asset for Shropshire.

We need to be clear? if there is a significant concern about safety, then we shouldn't be increasing capacity until it is resolved. We would never argue for that. However, if that's not the case, then we do believe we should continue to progress.

If the decision is that capacity isn't to be increased then we will of course want to see the reasons for that in writing and reflect on our options. After all, this is far from an academic exercise - if we don't move forward then it could jeopardise financial investment in the team and our thousands of fans will continue to be inconvenienced.

I wouldn't want anything I've just said to be taken as a criticism of Council officers. They have an important job to do and safety is a vital issue. It would be fairer on them as well as us if this was a more tightly defined process with fixed goalposts and less scope for subjectivity. The fact that it isn't makes it all the more important for the 'top brass' on both sides to work together to protect safety and maintain progress. We have a stadium the county can be proud of and I'm sure we all want it up and running to full effect.