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

1…1213141517

Comments

  • IronHerbIronHerb
    Sorry Ironduke but that's not the case anymore. There are often police in the grounds, some in the bar area and some in the segregation zone. I've only seen dogs at Tottenham, apart from sniffer dogs that are at a few grounds.
  • IrondukeIronduke
    no need to be sorry,my input is 7 yrs old.....but there are none at WEST HAM
  • eskimokingeskimoking
    Here you go. So Airwave is my company. As far as I can see they still haven't ordered it from us.
    https://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/sep/13/west-ham-olympic-stadium-radio-system-met-police?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
  • thornburyironthornburyiron
    Problem is with the BBC being the most non impartial media organisation going, all these problems are giving them big sticks to beat us with
  • IronHerbIronHerb
    What's it got to do with the BBC? This mostly all our own doing.
  • MrsGreyMrsGrey
    Name me one media organisation that IS impartial!!
  • SuzanneClaretSuzanneClaret
    I can't because there isn't any.
  • MrsGreyMrsGrey
    Is the correct answer ;wahoo
  • SuzanneClaretSuzanneClaret
    Thanks Miss ;biggrin
  • MrsGreyMrsGrey
    Gold ;star on the chart for you.

  • AdMeus_CaputFiliusAdMeus_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.
  • MrsGreyMrsGrey
    edited September 2016
    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 )
  • SuzanneClaretSuzanneClaret
    Ooooo a ;star

    ;wahoo
  • HammerexHammerex
    SuzanneClaret said:

    Thanks Miss ;biggrin

    Teachers Pet..
    ;bowdown
  • AdMeus_CaputFiliusAdMeus_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.
  • MrsGreyMrsGrey
    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.
  • IronHerbIronHerb
    Small percentage but large number!
  • MrsGreyMrsGrey
    edited September 2016
    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...
  • thornburyironthornburyiron
    And that was my point earlier. Almost exactly how the BBC's Dan Roan has been reporting it.
  • MrsGreyMrsGrey
    ;ok

    Good news never sold a single newspaper.
  • OutcastLondonerOutcastLondoner
    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?
  • IronHerbIronHerb
    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..
  • MrsGreyMrsGrey
    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
  • YeoldhammerYeoldhammer
    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.
  • MarkNobleLocalHeroMarkNobleLocalHero
    They've brought in the lor!!

    whufc.com/News/Articles/2016/September/15-September/E20-confirm-Chris-Allison-CBE-appointment
  • AdMeus_CaputFiliusAdMeus_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_BeardSlaven_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_BeardSlaven_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_BeardSlaven_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
  • IronHerbIronHerb
    '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
Sign In or Register to comment.