Board/Fan Relationship

1…3132343637…55

Comments

  • 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
  • thornburyironthornburyiron
    That was the point I was making. The OS had to remain a stadium which could be used for athletics especially with the World Championships in 2017.
    Spurs offer to take the stadium was always known to be a non starter and they got what they really wanted with being able to redevelop WHL into a much bigger stadium.
  • claretandblueskyclaretandbluesky
    Maybe it should have been a non starter for us which would have left them a difficult choice to either let it gather dust and haemorrhage more money than now or become more agreeable to greater control and redevelopment than they were. I think we capitalised on their need through driving a good price but possibly, and I mean possibly we could have had more leverage, such as we stay at the Boleyn until after World Championships and then have greater say by dropping the legacy afterwards.

    There was a lot of leverage as no one else could really have filled it each time as we do but maybe we cashed in our leverage for money rather than control.
  • Slaven_Cups_His_BeardSlaven_Cups_His_Beard
    this deal of the century probably isn’t helping anyone tbh
  • IronHerbIronHerb
    But we were done for, football stadium wise, once it was built as designed.
  • ASLEFshruggedASLEFshrugged
    edited February 2018
    claretandbluesky

    Do you have any evidence that the Olympic Stadium would "gather dust and haemorrhage more money" as a 25k athletics stadium, similar in size to Crystal Palace, than it does as the 60k mess it is now?
  • MrsGreyMrsGrey
    edited February 2018
    I don't think you can have evidence of something that hasn't happened yet. ;hmm
  • ASLEFshruggedASLEFshrugged
    True but there would have been estimates, budgets and costings calculated before the thing was built, somewhere there are a bunch of figures that show just how much it would have cost to go with the original scheme but as far as I'm aware they were never made public.

    Boris said that it would be a "white elephant", that it needed a football team in order to be successful and no one seems to have questioned him despite his record for being, er, well, slightly over-optimistic when it comes to finances
  • Slaven_Cups_His_BeardSlaven_Cups_His_Beard
    It was a perfect fit for Newham and our owners......
  • PrestonHammerPrestonHammer
    If it has just been left as a running track, then it would have just been left to rot. The track at Crystal Palace is still rotting. The local track to me would have rotted but Saracen RFU now play the home matches there.
  • ianbishoplegendianbishoplegend
    I do wish the athletic legacy had been allowed to run its natural cause. Beyond ridiculous, of Coe and others, to think they could support that stadium.
  • ASLEFshruggedASLEFshrugged
    PrestonHammer said:

    If it has just been left as a running track, then it would have just been left to rot. The track at Crystal Palace is still rotting. The local track to me would have rotted but Saracen RFU now play the home matches there.

    Crystal Palace hosted the IAAF London Athletics Grand Prix (now called the Anniversary Games) from 1992 until 2012, if it was "still rotting" as you say it is then why did the IAAF accept it as a suitable venue?
  • MrsGreyMrsGrey
    edited February 2018
    Well, it could be called 'a way out'.

    But if they can't do something without their permission, and the permission is not given, it might just be a simple explanation as to why something wasn't done.

    Unless we are now holding people accountable for things that they have no power to do?

    In which case.... I blame the board for not compulsorily purchasing a nice chunk of land around the Boleyn, knocking down the old stadium and other properties on 'our' newly purchased land, and building a state of the art stadium directly on the site of the old one. This whole shambles could have been avoided if they has just done that, but oh no... ;wink
  • TheMadcapLaughsTheMadcapLaughs
    Macca, this is my biggest problem, I have to admit, I haven`t been to the new stadium so cannot judge it from first hand experience, but I know a few people that have been and although not hating it are not too keen, they prefer The Boleyn. It does seem all a bit pointless, and was definitely miss sold. No move, no RWHFAG (imo)
  • Slaven_Cups_His_BeardSlaven_Cups_His_Beard
    RWHFAG have announced they were invited to a meeting TODAY by the club to talk about the 5000 word letter Brady released, this is on the back of it being revealed Andy Swallow attended Sullys house the other week before last weeks meeting when Sully was ill.

    I’d say they’re rattled......
  • grey_til_I_dyegrey_til_I_dye
    Or, they want to make sure they do as good a job of making the match day experience as good as possible for as many fans as possible, and realise that good communication, and clarity is important for that?

    Not sure why people insist on seeing it in confrontational terms.

    They aren't going to be bullied/threatened into doing anything they don't want to, so I don't see where 'rattled' comes into it.
Sign In or Register to comment.