Board/Fan Relationship

1…3637394142…53

Comments

  • SuzanneClaretSuzanneClaret
    It’s not, for me at least, the distance between seat and pitch, it’s the temporary nature of them.

    They look and feel temporary, the ‘making good’ around them is poor. It’s makes the place feel like we are only visiting and our visit is only short term.
  • PrestonHammerPrestonHammer
    edited March 2018
    Definitely. Where I sat, I could see the running track and all I could think of was Mo Farah ran right underneath me, in fact I was waiting for him to pop up and say hello.
  • grey_til_I_dyegrey_til_I_dye
    Suze

    ;ok

    I'm sure there are a good few things the club could do to make things better for fans.
  • buffybegoodbuffybegood
    grey_til_I_dye said:



    We do, however believe that we delivered against our commitment of bringing the seats as close to the pitch as possible under the roof whilst maintaining sightlines.

    For clarity, the retractable element would not bring seats closer to the pitch; it merely speeds up the transition between modes to aid the multi-purpose use of the Stadium.


    However, if the roof had been extended further, then the seats could have been closer; the board must have agreed the design so they have to accept responsibility for the huge distance from the seats to the pitch. If they couldn't deliver on the stands being closer (as I'm sure they promised they would be before the move), they shouldn't have accepted the deal. As for the "retractable" stands themselves, they really are a joke, and the transition time is ridiculous. They most certainly aren't retractable, they have to be dismantled and reassembled and so will always have a temporary feel and look to them.

    The move, like most everything about the board, was done on the cheap because all they wanted was to get us there as they felt it would make them more money when they sell us if we're in a big, shiny stadium, even if it isn't ours (yet).
  • MrsGreyMrsGrey
    edited March 2018
    buffybegood said:

    As for the "retractable" stands themselves, they really are a joke, and the transition time is ridiculous. They most certainly aren't retractable, they have to be dismantled and reassembled

    They aren't retractable, they're removable - which is rather the point being made? It's not the club's fault if everyone insists on referring to the seating solution by the wrong name.
    buffybegood said:

    As The move, like most everything about the board, was done on the cheap

    Isn't it a case of the LLDC doing it on the cheap?
  • IronHerbIronHerb
    But I believe it was the club who first called it retractable seating.
  • MrsGreyMrsGrey
    edited March 2018
    Isn't that because (as I understand it) it WAS going to be retractable at first. But the firm doing it went bust. After that, a new arrangement was made, and we have 'removable' seating.

    But people still call it retractable, even though it isn't.
  • OutcastLondonerOutcastLondoner
    edited March 2018
    I think that’s exactly the problem MrsGrey. Everyone expected retractable seating and got removable seating.

    “A ground-breaking retractable seating solution will be used to cover the Athletics track when the Stadium is in football mode, with 21,000 retractable seats bringing supporters as close as possible to the action”

    https://www.whufc.com/new-stadium/about/design-features#etxqtk8fB4MUJCBJ.99
  • ASLEFshruggedASLEFshrugged
    MrsGrey said:

    Isn't that because (as I understand it) it WAS going to be retractable at first. But the firm doing it went bust. After that, a new arrangement was made, and we have 'removable' seating.

    But people still call it retractable, even though it isn't.

    According to the Moore Stephens Report Page 128- 131 the "baseline scheme" was for retractable seating powered by hydraulics but these systems are prone to faults if not used regularly (i.e. more twice a year) so they require a high level of maintenance. When they tendered the contract with a budget of £28m only two bids were received, neither of which was for a powered system (possibly because £28m was never going to be enough for a powered system)

    ESG offered a system similar to the baseline without the electro-mechanical, hydraulic system however that would require a large number of specialist workers and it seemed unlikely that the team could "retained long term when there are only two (separated) weeks of work per year on offer."

    So instead they went for the Alto bid with removable seating which didn't need the specialised workers. And then Alto bust before the seating was fully installed.

    https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/olympic-stadium-review.pdf
  • MrsGreyMrsGrey
    Cheers, aslef. I had conflated the two events ;ok
  • MrsGreyMrsGrey
    outcast, yes.

    But while a retractable system might have been 'nicer', it wouldn't have brought the seats any closer to the pitch than they are at present.


    Interestingly (well, I thought it interesting) much of the secondary reporting of the recent 'Karren Brady letter' is saying that she has promised to bring the seats closer to the pitch. Which is just not true.
  • OutcastLondonerOutcastLondoner
    MrsGrey said:

    outcast, yes.

    But while a retractable system might have been 'nicer', it wouldn't have brought the seats any closer to the pitch than they are at present.


    Interestingly (well, I thought it interesting) much of the secondary reporting of the recent 'Karren Brady letter' is saying that she has promised to bring the seats closer to the pitch. Which is just not true.

    Do you know that for sure, that they wouldn’t have been closer? There could be some mechanical difference between the systems. (Fair enough, if they have said it’s the same distance.)

  • MrsGreyMrsGrey
    Only based on what was in that letter - says it wouldn't have mattered in terms of distance.
  • Slaven_Cups_His_BeardSlaven_Cups_His_Beard
    Retractable made no difference to how far away the seats were

    For gold to now say that they were mislead is absolutely staggering tbh

    Either they didn’t do their due diligence or they knew and spun it. Imo
  • YeoldhammerYeoldhammer
    they said the seats would be as close as the Boleyn they quite simply aren't. Now they can't or (won't) do it because of costs.
  • MrsGreyMrsGrey
    Yeoldhammer said:

    they said the seats would be as close as the Boleyn

    I don't remember them saying that ;hmm
  • OutcastLondonerOutcastLondoner
    The mock ups they showed were definitely misleading. Of course they’re not going to show exactly what it would look like but it was so far off the reality.
  • ASLEFshruggedASLEFshrugged
    edited March 2018
    Also in the Moore Stephens Report (Page 112) the minutes of an LLDC Stadium Committee meeting from 23 August 2012 says
    WHU has asked for all seats, including the demountable/retractable, seats to be fully covered by the roof of the Stadium and that the front row of seats to be no more than 16.9 metres from the edge of the playing surface along all four sides of the pitch.
    16.9m is 18.5 yards or roughly the same length as two double decker buses parked end to end which sounds to me a bit more than the distance between the pitch and the stands at the Boleyn.
    MrsGrey said:

    Yeoldhammer said:

    they said the seats would be as close as the Boleyn

    I don't remember them saying that ;hmm
    I remember a video of Gold walking beside the West Stand saying it
  • OldCastleSwiftOldCastleSwift
    edited March 2018


    Soccer AM had a couple of Hammers on today, whose views echo quite a few on here.
  • grey_til_I_dyegrey_til_I_dye
    Thought that Tom D spoke an awful lot of tosh, tbh.
  • OldCastleSwiftOldCastleSwift
    Which bits on particular Grey?

    I thought the Trump comment was a bit flippant at first, but I can kind of see where he's coming from. IMO, both Trump and Sully are out of their depth in their respective fields, both are unprofessional, both crave media attention and both seem to be unpopular amongst a large number of their electorate/fans but neither has any intention of going anywhere.

    I respect that you think it's tosh, but if it is there's a lot of tosh being spoken by a lot of people out there.
  • grey_til_I_dyegrey_til_I_dye
    OCS

    . What was the point of getting shot of Bilic if nothing changed

    . When Noble goes that will be the end of a great club

    . The only positive from the season is the fans

    Just felt it was ill-thought out 'crowd-pleaser' nonsense.
  • Slaven_Cups_His_BeardSlaven_Cups_His_Beard
    and there you go, don’t agree with pitch invaders and some plum trying to mimick the bond scheme corner flag moment

    But they’ve brought this all on themselves, so many half truths a bodged move, flawed +2 scheme, stadium that isn’t fit for purpose, giving up the stewarding as part of a deal of the century, taking interest payments out of the club in the season you spend nish (net)......

    Perhaps now they’ll understand this isn’t just a small pocket of fans, it’s many many



  • OldCastleSwiftOldCastleSwift
    Yeah, not sure there's any way back for the 'relationship' now...
  • madridhammermadridhammer
    I've made my views on this clear earlier on in the thread so I'm not going to add any further criticism. I don't like them but they don't deserve to be escorted out of the ground for their own safety. To go back to the original topic of the thread, Board/Fan Relationship, it's toxic & I can't see it getting better. I think it would be in everyone's interest including their own if they put the club up for sale. I say this with a heavy heart, today has been a very bad day to be a West Ham fan.
  • grey_til_I_dyegrey_til_I_dye
    edited March 2018
    But they’ve brought this all on themselves,
    Totally disagree,

    There is no excuse for the behaviour of some of the fans today, none whatsoever, imo.

    I'd be very disappointed if they let themselves be influenced by a cretinous minority.

    Note to users:

    the actions of the 'fans' is mostly being discussed in the match thread.

  • MrsGreyMrsGrey
    No excuses for that behaviour. No justification. None.
    Disgusting.
  • buffybegoodbuffybegood
    No excuse for the fans on the pitch. Every right for the chanting to the board, imo.
  • Slaven_Cups_His_BeardSlaven_Cups_His_Beard
    edited March 2018
    grey_til_I_dye said:

    But they’ve brought this all on themselves,

    Totally disagree,

    There is no excuse for the behaviour of some of the fans today, none whatsoever, imo.

    I'd be very disappointed if they let themselves be influenced by a cretinous minority.

    Note to users:

    the actions of the 'fans' is mostly being discussed in the match thread.

    As I said don’t agree with the pitch invaders

    This isn’t a minority anymore it’s growing into an unhappy majority imo and I would think they’re going to be pretty concerned about the events of today off and on the pitch
  • grey_til_I_dyegrey_til_I_dye
    I'm referring to the fans who went on the pitch, and anyone who thinks what they did was a good thing.
Sign In or Register to comment.