Board/Fan Relationship

1…2930323435…53

Comments

  • MrsGreyMrsGrey
    Seems reasonable.
  • MrsGreyMrsGrey
    Well, I've just read it and I there ARE some dates for action, actually.

  • YeoldhammerYeoldhammer
    hopefully the group keep the pressure up.
  • MrsGreyMrsGrey
    edited February 2018
    In addition (for anyone who hasn't read it) there are dates/timescales put on

    1. Consultation on events to commemorate 125years
    2. Wider consultation on the evolution of the badge design
    3. Consultation on a commemorative crest for use during anniversary season
    4. Expanding ex-Boleyn stewards in senior role from 2 to 4
  • Pearces_Left_FootPearces_Left_Foot
    re the seating from what I read they gave the information based on what the stadium operators gave them before the move , obviously the firm doing the retractable seating went bust and the operators went for a cheaper option at the time. I'm glad they are getting involved with the fans and hopefully we can get some positive outcomes.
  • TheMadcapLaughsTheMadcapLaughs
    Yeoldhammer said:

    hopefully the group keep the pressure up.

    I think they need to, at present nothing concrete has happened, the board have offered "commitments" and future promises.

    It is only via militant action, or the threat of militant action, that any positive change will occur.

    Nothing is ever willingly given from above, all progress is fought for from below.

    Without the RWHFAG I`m pretty sure messrs Gold, Sullivan and Brady would have bumbled along quite contentedly.
  • MrsGreyMrsGrey
    Well, the thing about the board - the letter claims it was said by the reps during the mtg.

    If it wasn't, then someone can call her out on it - there were enough of them there. If they don't call her out on it, I am happy to accept that her comment reflects the truth.



  • MrsGreyMrsGrey
    edited February 2018
    billybondsbeard said:

    The 'commitments' that Mrs Grey refers in her points 1-3 to are to 'consult' (whatever that means)on the badge/crest , and not until 2020 - I can hear a can being kicked down the road. (we could be in the Champo by then !).

    Well, you are misrepresenting it somewhat.

    The consultations are for things to take place in and after the 2019/20 season (ie the season after next).

    I suppose they could get cracking on the consultation immediately, but I don't think it unreasonable to schedule that process for the summer preceding, and use the intervening time to do things that are a bit more urgent.

    So we shall hold different opinions on whether or not the timescale is a reasonable one.

    But presumably you now acknowledge that there ARE dates attached to some of the commitments, despite your earlier claim that there were none?
  • MrsGreyMrsGrey
    billybondsbeard said:


    I couldnt find the piece that talks about promoting another 2 of our stewards ??

    Pg 8 point 4.
  • HamstewHamstew
    So what they doing with the flags? Parading them or are they a permanent thing?
  • VorselaarhammerVorselaarhammer
    edited February 2018
    Some waffle, gone through the lawyers which explains some of the wording and then through PR will accounts for the positive projection but to be expected in an official statement.

    But at least they have responded and we have black and white something to judge against.

    I would be interested, anyone in the know did they miss anything off the letter that was discussed in the meeting?

    The seating remains a bit unclear as they say everything was done the first time round to make it as close to the pitch as possible but they now say they will review again. So a bit contradictory.

    By and large I watch with interest.
  • MrsGreyMrsGrey
    edited February 2018
    Hamstew said:

    So what they doing with the flags? Parading them or are they a permanent thing?

    Flags depicting the 16 'core crests' (? previous club badges) to be displayed before every home fixture and again at half time. DateTimescale - with immediate effect and for the foreseeable future.

    This is one of the things agreed to to meet the 'there should be more stuff reflecting our history and heritage' demand.
  • HamstewHamstew
    Yeah I was just wondering how they are going to do this. So on the pitch or in stadium?
  • MrsGreyMrsGrey
    If it's before and at half time, I'm thinking on the pitch.
  • ASLEFshruggedASLEFshrugged
    Pearces_Left_Foot said:

    re the seating from what I read they gave the information based on what the stadium operators gave them before the move , obviously the firm doing the retractable seating went bust and the operators went for a cheaper option at the time.

    Not quite, according to the Moore Stephen report pages 128 - 131 a tender for retractable or relocatable seating went out in September 2013 with a budget of £28m but only two bids were placed, Alto's scheme at £16m and ESG's at £17m. For various reasons listed in the report the contract was awarded to Alto who then went bust in October 2015.

    https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/olympic-stadium-review.pdf
  • grey_til_I_dyegrey_til_I_dye
    Vorse

    The seating remains a bit unclear as they say everything was done the first time round to make it as close to the pitch as possible but they now say they will review again. So a bit contradictory.
    It's the difference between seats under the roof or not, as far as I could tell.

  • ASLEFshruggedASLEFshrugged
    Is it just me or does anyone else think that renaming the primary walkway to the London Stadium "The West Ham Way" is childish nonsense?
  • MrsGreyMrsGrey
    edited February 2018
    I can see nothing but mockery and derision from outsiders if we do*. But, you know, if it makes them (real fans) happy, let them get on with it I suppose. I have no strong feelings either way.




    No change there then.
  • ASLEFshruggedASLEFshrugged
    grey_til_I_dye said:

    Vorse

    The seating remains a bit unclear as they say everything was done the first time round to make it as close to the pitch as possible but they now say they will review again. So a bit contradictory.
    It's the difference between seats under the roof or not, as far as I could tell.

    Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe its a requirement of the Premier League or some other official body that all seats are covered by a roof so if they want seating closer to the pitch they're going to have to rebuild the roof which is not going to be cheap.
  • MrsGreyMrsGrey
    edited February 2018
    I know. It's not clear from the letter (maybe someone who was at the meeting or knows what was discussed in more detail can explain how this might be allowed). It specifically refers to seats not being covered, rather than changing the roof.
  • VorselaarhammerVorselaarhammer
    Grey - Yeah that's sort of what I thought but with line of sight I don't see how they can get more seats in now even if not covered by the roof, as it will block people behind.

    The solution I've seen used in Germany Russia stadiums is they lowered the pitch.

    I think that's still an option but I imagine that won't happen under the current agreement.
  • ASLEFshruggedASLEFshrugged
    1. As requested we will commence work looking into bringing seats closer to the pitch that do not require cover by the roof
    As I said I'm pretty sure that somewhere there is a requirement that all seats are covered by a roof, the board can say they'll look into it but I imagine they already know the answer and just don't want to say it can't be done.
  • Slaven_Cups_His_BeardSlaven_Cups_His_Beard
    Brady saying that the board thought spending money on the squad would be preferred by fans rarher than trying to look at the seating solution

    We made £1m profit on transfers this season and the £40m ticket sales was nowhere to be seen
  • ASLEFshruggedASLEFshrugged
    Vorselaarhammer said:

    Grey - Yeah that's sort of what I thought but with line of sight I don't see how they can get more seats in now even if not covered by the roof, as it will block people behind.

    The solution I've seen used in Germany Russia stadiums is they lowered the pitch.

    I think that's still an option but I imagine that won't happen under the current agreement.

    I thought the pitch was lowered as far as it could be because of the "membrane" over the top of the contaminated undersoil.
  • VorselaarhammerVorselaarhammer
    Great....

    ;doh
  • claretandblueskyclaretandbluesky
    The cost of moving in to the stadium was very cheap, some would say the deal of the century. The problem is that the stadium is not made for football but athletics which led Spurs to say we will take it but we want to make it a football stadium , but our guys are more barrow boys and just said we'll take it.



  • thornburyironthornburyiron
    How were they going to make it into a football stadium when the legacy was it had to be an athletics stadium. Were they having a stadium where all the seats had to be taken out to lay an athletics track.
  • IronHerbIronHerb
    Spurs wanted to knock it down and rebuild and then redevelop Crystal Palace athletics stadium.
  • ASLEFshruggedASLEFshrugged
    Spurs proposed dismantling the Olympic Stadium, putting it back up at Crystal Palace and building a football stadium from scratch on the Stratford site

    It was never going to be accepted, I suspect all they really wanted was to get Haringey Council to drop a load of Section 106 requirements by threatening to move out of the borough.
  • Slaven_Cups_His_BeardSlaven_Cups_His_Beard
    The cheap deal is truly wonderful, unless you want something done that is, he more E20/LS185 lose the less accommodating they’ll be.

    Thorn I would think that would’ve been for our owners to ask the question, especially when shown the designs which they’re now admitting weren’t the way it turned out, or what they spouted from the rooftops about
Sign In or Register to comment.