Burnley at home - 10th March - Match Thread

alderz

Birmingham fans drove Gold and Sullivan out, so we can too, seems to be the logic. But their owners since have been way worse, and their results have gotten worse and worse too. So what's the plan? Make them sell to the first cowboy who offers them a deal?

SuzanneClaret

I’m not sure ‘the plan’ is as advanced as that Ald.

welovethehammers

IronHerb said:

Perhaps Arnie admires the passion, not necessarily the way it was portrayed though.

Ginge was the only other Hammer to stay on the pitch. He looked somewhat distraught.

It told us a lot which about some of our players who were distraught and actively tried to get the fans off (Ie Noble, Collins, Arnie, Hart), as well as those that had their hands on their hips. I may be reading too much into it but to me that shows who the leaders and passionate players are in our team. It also gives an indication as to which players won't actively look to get involved when things go sour.

welovethehammers

Lukerz said:

We capitulated like that only 7 days ago.

Nothing to do with the fans.

We capitulated like that because:

Goal 2 - Collins and Ogbonna weren't concentrating (going through the motions rather than being switched on). I truly believe the fans played a big part in that.

Goal 3 - Hart howler - Very little to do with the fans. Purely down to Hart's poor goalkeeping (just a typical howler from Hart but nothing out of the ordinary from him).

SuzanneClaret

Would I confront a fan who ran onto the pitch, risking injury.

I don’t think I would.

Categorising players in this way in wrong, crowd control is not their job and not to do has nothing at all to do with passion.

welovethehammers

SuzanneClaret said:

Would I confront a fan who ran onto the pitch, risking injury.

I don’t think I would.

Categorising players in this way in wrong, crowd control is not their job and not to do has nothing at all to do with passion.

I'm not saying all players should have done what Noble did.

Collins pulled two fans off in a less aggressive fashion.

Arnie didn't get involved like Noble did but went over to the fans after the match. It's that sort of thing that speaks volumes.

IronHerb

Noble saw the red mist. All this 'I have to defend myself' is nonsense as the fan hadn't really threatened him and appeared to be on his way off the pitch. Noble caught him and threw him to the ground.

alderz

Completely disagree with that Herb. If someone ran into my work who wasn’t meant to be there I think I would be within my rights to stop them. We all hear stories about someone on the street stopping a criminal, this is the same. Noble did absolutely nothing wrong.

alderz

Also, Ashley Barnes tripped one of the invaders too but nobody has mentioned that. It just seems to me that some (particularly on twitter) are looking to absolve the supporters of blame and direct it at the club instead.

(Not that I think you are doing thay Herb, just to be clear ;hug )

IronHerb

But Alderz I think you will find it's not in Nobles rights under the laws of the game. I saw the Barnes trip and he may well be in trouble too.

Adam

Yikes. I hope this doesn’t become us. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/43364162

WHU_Champo_league_in_7_years

Not quite at that stage

Wasnt there only 5 invaders throughout the game?

Pearces_Left_Foot

Brooking has said if the atmosphere continues we will be relegated and I have to say I agree. If people want to protest there are better ways than pitch invasions and hurling abuse and coins at the directors box.

chicagohammer

I do not doubt the report about the coin being thrown at DS and hitting him, the coverage I saw showed him being led away and he clearly looked shaken, I thought at the time that something more than words had been hurled at him.

No excuses can be made for that, period.

alderz

Say what you like about the owners, but David Gold is 81 years old and people were throwing coins at him.

Poshhammer

grey_til_I_dye said:

I hope it is safe to assume you meant 'condemn' there.
.

I meant condemn!

Poshhammer

SuzanneClaret said:

Well that’s ok then....

Birmingham fans did too, only in the car park.



I think an argument starts to become less than water tight once you align your actions with those of Birmingham fans. Let’s not forget how these ‘brothers in arms’ hounded a mangers daughter outside her school.

No one is saying it's right or wrong...however this is not the first time that it's happened to these owners. There appears to be a pattern.

grey_til_I_dye

There is no justification for such behaviour, so there is no relevant pattern.

It's like suggesting if someone is mugged more than once it is something to do with them, not the ones who attack them, and blaming the victim.

chicagohammer

Not sure I agree with you there Grey, I think your comment is a little too black and white for me.

Certainly the actions of those relatively few who threw coins and in other ways disrupted the game yesterday acted in a way that was totally unjustified in any circumstance.

However, I would gauge that there are many west ham fans, myself included, who are very disillusioned at the position we find ourselves in.

Is it really unreasonable to wonder and conclude that the owners (possibly driven by ego and ill placed self belief in themselves) have previous and have managed to create widespread discontent within both clubs they have primarily been associated with.

For the record, irrespective of motivations and who said what and when, I personally fear and believe that the move to the London Stadium will prove to be a very poor decision that is not only irreversible, but a total disaster for the club.

Ho hum

thornburyiron

The most worrying thing to me is the crowd of 200,300 or whatever confronting the board and throwing coins would have caused serious personal injury had they been able to get up close. From the videos I've seen they were like rabid dogs except a rabid dog would have a higher IQ than them.
Protest is one thing when done peacefully but this was well outside any barometer of decency.
If a solution isn't found that will prevent this happening again in three weeks time I can see us forced to play behind closed doors and that will be terminal for us.

grey_til_I_dye

Chicago

Logically, if certain actions are unjustifiable, then the actions of the victims are irrelevant.

If one is to suggest a victim 'brought it on themselves' that is, to me, to suggest justification.

I would argue a clear distinction needs to be drawn between justifiable protest and unjustifiable behaviour, and that by suggesting the owners had 'previous' Posh was intentionally blurring the issues.

Poshhammer

grey_til_I_dye said:

There is no justification for such behaviour, so there is no relevant pattern.

It's like suggesting if someone is mugged more than once it is something to do with them, not the ones who attack them, and blaming the victim.

Sorry Mr Grey but I do not agree with your comparison. Wether it's justified or right or wrong is irrelevant, it is fairly obvious that there is a clear comparison.

The fact is that our owners have owned 2 football Clubs and pretty much precisely the same thing has happened at both of those clubs after a certain period of time.

Can you name any other football club owners whov gone on to own 2 or more clubs and have had match day protests and fan disgruntlement against them at both clubs?

MrsGrey

Poshhammer said:

No one is saying it's right or wrong...

Erm, well yes they are.

SuzanneClaret

By that logic I can just walk up and smack an 80 year old man in the face.

MrsGrey

Poshhammer said:

Can you name any other football club owners whov gone on to own 2 or more clubs and have had match day protests and fan disgruntlement against them at both clubs?

Well, if you want to compare them with other owners, you'll need first to put together a list of owners who have owned 2 or more clubs. It won't be a very long list.

grey_til_I_dye

Again, you deliberately blur the distinction and ignore the point.

match day protests and fan disgruntlement

is not the issue.

Condemning certain actions as unjustifiable, but at the same time suggesting that the owners brought it on themselves, is either contradictory, disingenuous or both.

SuzanneClaret

Both.

Cuz1

Ken Bates did at both Leeds and Chelsea, derek pavis forest and Notts

chicagohammer

grey, i am not sure that anyone is deliberately and intentionally blurring the issue, I trust that we can both agree that violent reaction against person or property is clearly unjustifiable.

However

I actually do hold the owners responsible for my own non violent reaction, and that reaction manifests itself as a strong feeling of disillusionment with where the club currently is and I have a very real fear for its future, and it hurts.

What I hope to see at the Southampton game is a coming together of team and supporters, I hope that Southampton enter the stadium to a cauldron of sound and that they get battered.

In a non violent way of course :-)

grey_til_I_dye

Chicago

But I haven't suggested your feelings are unjustified, and I haven't suggested the owners share no responsibility for those feelings.

My point was specifically directed at Posh for conflating such feelings with violent conduct.