I won't stand for this - The thread all about standing at the OS.

AdMeus_CaputFilius

MrsGrey said:

I also think it is important to keep things in perspective: over 270 000 people have been to games at the stadium so far and how many have been involved in fisticuffs?

It is a tiny %.

;hmm ...... Really, how did you work that out? Or is there some information out there you can quote.

MrsGrey

Well, subject to my not great mental maths skills, I looked at the attendance figures for the home games.

(They are on the club site, under 'Fixtures and Results' - click on the individual match and go to 'review'. The attendance is down the bottom of the match report ;ok )

SuzanneClaret

Ooooo a ;star

;wahoo

Hammerex

SuzanneClaret said:

Thanks Miss ;biggrin

Teachers Pet..
;bowdown

AdMeus_CaputFilius

So not actual individuals then, just based on attendance - 52K ST holders ....... how many have been to every game? or all but 1.....

So you cant just use a cumulative figure, without actual hard figures about 190,000 ( Just over 70%) of that total could be ST holders who have been to all or most of the games so far, we know from people posting that some CM's and also non-ST/CM's have been twice at least so maybe that would account for another 16,200 (6%), 10,000 (being generous) of the total for away fans.

Taking that into account the total number of individuals attending the stadium, including all those who have only be once, would be somewhere between 106,000 - 112,000.

MrsGrey

But if you are wanting to limit the attendance to everyone who has been once, and don't double count them, then you have to limit the 'troublemakers' likewise.

As you say, depend how you calculate it - if you can't use a cumulative figure... how many recidivists were causing trouble at more than one game?

I still maintain 'naughty' is a very small %.

Let's go with your guesstimate of between 106 and 112 thousand. Call it 100 thousand.

1000 people causing trouble?

1%.

Very Small.

IronHerb

Small percentage but large number!

MrsGrey

Yup.

But then '100 000 West Ham fans have a good time and no problems watching West Ham' don't make for good headlines.


Ask any neutral, 'what do you know about the move to the new stadium?'

They'll say... ah, trouble, fans fighting each other, loads of problems with the move, fans are unhappy, they need the police to keep it under control but won't pay for it...

thornburyiron

And that was my point earlier. Almost exactly how the BBC's Dan Roan has been reporting it.

MrsGrey

;ok

Good news never sold a single newspaper.

OutcastLondoner

If there wasn't fighting/standing problems there wouldn't be any news. We'd been talking about half of these issues before they'd come up in the media, so why would you expect the media to then ignore them?

DawudMarsh

Did anyone notice any media attention that was not given to the crowd trouble at the Manchester derby last weekend?

IronHerb

But it is news and not media bias.
Fans fighting amongst themselves in a stadium is almost unheard of so it makes the news. Reporting that no terrorist acts were carried out in London today is not news, as is 50,000 fans not causing trouble..

MrsGrey

outcast

I wasn't saying it shouldn't be reported.

I was more bemoaning the fact that the (wider) public perception is now skewed to one (incomplete) version of events.

'Twas ever thus, and not just on the subject of West Ham. ;ok

Yeoldhammer

I think the wider public would always take that approach anyway due to the fiasco over the "taxpayers stadium" and all to rain down more frustration at West Ham's lucrative deal. You wouldn't find sympathy from a rival club either who would look to just put down other clubs anyway.

Outside of West Ham fans I don't think you will find many "neutrals" so to say in favour of West Ham or viewing us in a "good light" so to speak regardless of Media.

MarkNobleLocalHero

They've brought in the lor!!

whufc.com/News/Articles/2016/September/15-September/E20-confirm-Chris-Allison-CBE-appointment

AdMeus_CaputFilius

But if you are wanting to limit the attendance to everyone who has been once, and don't double count them, then you have to limit the 'troublemakers' likewise.

You are correct Mrs G - it is more than likely the same people causing the problems, particularly regarding the standing issue,

Slaven_Cups_His_Beard

I don't know, something doesn't seem quite right about all this with the additional 3,000 (to 9,000) license thingy to me.

It could just be me and the wobblypops ;wahoo who knows?

So a couple of games in we have breakouts of trouble amongst our own fans, in the main fair to say due to the sitting / standing issue and in some cases regarding the fruity language. People get thrown out and ST's cancelled and season bans (possibly for further actions like unsocial behavour started by initial standing issue?) The club comes down hard with letters and the stewards don't appear to be up to the job in some cases before what appear to be bouncers get involved.

Then we have the situation of the club demanding a police presence before being told that won't happen yet due to the Airwave system not being in place for the police to use, even though it was for the olympics but then removed?

Add to that DG (and family) tweeting he understands but fans need to sit now in harmony and then you can do what you like (to a point) after the license is granted.

Furthermore there are PL guidelines on having to have a family area, DG however is quoted that the entire upper tier is "family friendly" which is not the same.

The club now say that they've only received SEVEN complaints about standing for the last game to the founders email feedback. Seems a bit low considering what has been witnessed/reported?

Now we have the club admitting that they have started to relocate people to a family area that never before existed in all the build up in the last year at the Reservation Center.

All the while the additional 3,000 seats were not granted a license even though they are in the upper tier yet it would appear much of the problem with the standing issues are in the lower tier?

Why do I get the feeling that the SAG decision isn't mainly about the stander problems, of course it hasn't helped but that there are other reasons why SAG didn't agree to the 57,000 license and the club are using the standing problem as a kind of smokescreen?

Perhaps I'm getting cynical in my old age ;hmm

;ok

Slaven_Cups_His_Beard

grey_til_I_dye said:

Slizzy

For me, there isn't an issue for the club to sort out, beyond enforcing 'no persistent standing'

I would say there are plenty of issues for them to sort out and they already have by relocating fans to a new family area.

Slaven_Cups_His_Beard

Scrap that about the 3,000 being in the upper tier, they could be mainly in the lower as the other 6,000 are in the upper at the back covered. Is say the 3,000 not in use are dotted around the ground which goes hand in hand any other posters on another thread have mentioned empty seats

IronHerb

'This time last month the LS-SAG, chaired by Newham enforcement officer, Sheila Roberts recommended that capacity be restricted to 57,000 over concerns over persistent standing, away fan segregation and supporters drinking alcohol in view of the pitch.'

So there is still persistent standing, no proper away fan segregation, and supporters bringing drink into the seating area. Other than that I think the licence is being adhered to. ;whistle

SuzanneClaret

Dear SAB member,

Many thanks for registering your interest in next Tuesdays meeting.

To ensure that all perspectives are represented at the forum, could you please make sure that you send us the following information:

The games you’ve attended this season
Your seat and block number
The question or issue you would like to raise
Spaces at the meeting are limited but if you are selected to attend you will be notified on Friday with full details of the event. Even if you are not present in person, you can rest assured that the issues you have raised will be discussed.

The Board is committed to working together with supporters to create and provide a fantastic matchday experience at London Stadium, would like to thank all those who have shared feedback, and look forward to discussing your views and suggestions on Tuesday.

Best wishes,


--

I answered all those question in my first reply. ;doh

I'm also irritated by the lack of a name at the end of the email.

SuzanneClaret

Then this..

Dear Supporter Advisory Board Member,

Following the announcement of the planned Supporters’ Forum, which had originally been due to take place on Tuesday 20 September, the Club have received a large number of requests from Hammers fans for a longer lead-time before the meeting, so that ‎they can make themselves available.

As a result, the Club have decided to push back the date of the Forum to 6.30pm on Monday 26 September, to ensure that more fans have the chance to apply to attend, and so we can ensure the fair representation of all views.

The time and location will remain the same:

Location: London Stadium
Doors: 6pm
Event begins: 6.30pm

If you haven’t already registered and you would like do so, please reply to this email with the below information, so we can ensure that all perspectives are represented as spaces are limited:

The games you’ve attended this season
Your seat and block number
The question or issue you would like to raise
Please note the deadline for confirming your interest is at 12 noon on Thursday 22 September.

If you have been selected to attend the Forum, you will be notified on Friday 23 September with full details regarding the forum. Even if you are not present in person, you can rest assured that the issues you have raised will be discussed.

The Board is committed to working together with supporters to create and provide a fantastic matchday experience at London Stadium, would like to thank all those who have shared feedback, and look forward to discussing your views and suggestions.

Best wishes,

Slaven_Cups_His_Beard

;lol

re-arrange these 7 words for a famous old saying.....


up
organise
in
Couldn't
a
Brewery
"blank"

Honestly I think they may of got worse ;nonono

SuzanneClaret

It's making me quite ;angry ;weep and ;doh

I have a mind to email them and say, thank you for inviting me to your meeting then twice asking me to apply to come to your meeting, then moving your meeting, unfortunately I am now clean out of boverd.

PrestonHammer

Wasn't the lady who was in charge of Arsenal's move to the Emirates now in charge of our move to the Olympic Stadium? If so, maybe she lied on her CV because I don't remember hearing of any aggro with their fans during and after their move.

AdMeus_CaputFilius

So I can see the point f those questions Suzi, but after knocking out a few where they have the same issue, what is to stop them then knocking back those with questions they don't want to answer?

If it were me I would put down one that was a bit mundane that they could answer easily and make them look good - maybe make up that you have received loads of requests regarding the catering - food and drink on offer or something.

The when you are called to ask the question you sent in, stand up and say "Actually I have changed my mind - I have been contacted by a number of interested parties and we want to know what is happening with .........?" And then watch the ensuing panic set in when you badger for a replay when they are not prepared to give you a firm answer of statement.

Torpedo fired, hit and the target is sinking......

Colchester_Iron

The mundane question could be what happened to all of the food concessions from Green Street and why do I now have to part with £9 cos my hot dog is now described as 'pulled pork'?

MrsGrey

Because it's there.

Fortunately, you can decline their kind offer, and bring your own sandwiches.

Alternatively, If you'd like to buy a hot dog from a Green Street vendor... well, you know where they are. ;wink

Colchester_Iron

Pretty sure they aren't in Green Street.

Fortunately there is a reasonably priced café next door to Ye Olde Black Bull where you can get full English for six quid. I leave the new food stalls to the tourists.