The FSF are non biased...

An archive of news, events and discussion leading up to and post West Ham United's historic move from Upton Park to Stratford in 2016.

Moderators: Gnome, Rio, bristolhammerfc, the pink palermo, chalks

Locked
User avatar
sanchoz
Posts: 12444
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 3:41 am
Location: Founder of the Carlton Cole Fan Club - Rainham & Guildford Branch
Total likes: 11 likes

Re: The FSF are non biased...

Post by sanchoz »

Club Holds Annual General Meeting
Posted on: Wed 06 Apr 2011
THE Club held its Annual General meeting on Wednesday with over 70 shareholders in attendance in the Olympic Suite.

The Club announced that it made an operating loss for the year ended June 30 2010 of £787,936, down from a loss the previous year of £1,077,687.

The Club's turnover remained stable at £3,328,727 (£3,364,001 in 2009), but operating costs fell in 2010, giving the reduced loss.

On a brighter note the Chairman confirmed that following the Club's FA Cup run he expected the current year's results (year ended 30 June 2011) would show a profit in excess of £500,000

Chairman Barry Hearn also took the opportunity to update shareholders on the Olympic Stadium situation, stating that the Club are pursuing a judicial review against the Government's decision to ratify the OPLC decision to award West Ham United the stadium following the 2012 games.

He said that the club were taking action against a number of bodies involved with the decision, including the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, Department for Communities and Local Government and the Greater London Authority along with separate action against London Borough of Newham and the Premier League.

In addition, Steve Dawson and David Dodd were re-elected to the board, while the meeting ended with Barry Hearn, Chief Executive Matthew Porter and O's manager Russell Slade taking questions from the floor.

http://www.leytonorient.com/page/FromTh ... 01,00.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
User avatar
mywhufc
Posts: 3326
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 8:25 pm
Contact:

Re: The FSF are non biased...

Post by mywhufc »

as a member of the fsf i attended the natinal council meeting on sunday the 10th of april, the first item on the agenda was the olympic stadium and our move into it, a member of leyton orient fans trust and a member of their supporters club attended as well, i was there to give a west ham fans view that was anti move, no hammers fans were there to give a pro move, so i actually tried to give some of the pro move reasons as well.
their stance on the petition is they are HOSTING it on behalf of the orient fans trust/supporters club who are affialate members and approached them as they did not have the capability of doing so themselves, they voted to continue with the petition.the fsf did admit they have made mistakes over using quotes from barry hearn and had removed them they believe hearn has no leg to stand on legally as well after his letters to both the premier league and spurs backing their bid over ours. app hearn is looking at moving the club when we move in ,fairlop waters was mentioned as was harlow, also a site on the olympic park called eton manor, this is still in waltham forest. the fsf re-iterated its stance that clubs should only move after consultation has been carried out with its fans.
3 things i learnt from the meeting

1. app taksin franksinatra earned personally 130 million from the sale of maine rd
2.the football league have yet to comment over whether our move would vialate their anti move rules as they dont have juristriction over premier league clubs, this of course changes should we be relegated
3. crystal palace fan was glad gold n sullivan didnt buy their club, to which i replied so am i because then they wouldnt have bought west ham.

this thread is the fsf are non biased...... i believe they are non biased
User avatar
Romford
Big X
Posts: 39027
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 1:16 pm
Location: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYyxdmHogLU
Contact:

Re: The FSF are non biased...

Post by Romford »

What was the score with the Os fans fella ?

Did they understand the argument about staying in our own borough.....
User avatar
mywhufc
Posts: 3326
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 8:25 pm
Contact:

Re: The FSF are non biased...

Post by mywhufc »

the orient fans were more concernd with the future damage to their fanbase rather than currnt damage, they seemed to be no lovers of hearn not much was made of the fact that we were staying in our borough, but in my 5 min speech i did point out not only we were staying in our boro, but the town hall in stratford is known as west ham town hall not stratford.
the crystal palace fan did make me laugh when he said he was glad our owners didnt buy his club, i know we are struggling but i also know where we would be without them, and also were still better off than palace.
dont get me wrong, im still opposed to the move but i gave both sides of the argument so the fsf commitee could realise why its a diversive argument.
User avatar
Romford
Big X
Posts: 39027
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 1:16 pm
Location: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYyxdmHogLU
Contact:

Re: The FSF are non biased...

Post by Romford »

Well Done Sir...
User avatar
York Ham(mer)
Posts: 9644
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2005 6:15 am
Location: In exile up north
Has liked: 111 likes
Total likes: 149 likes

Re: The FSF are non biased...

Post by York Ham(mer) »

No chance of Leyton Orient moving moving to Fairlop Waters. Barkingside FC would complain that they're moving into the immediate vicinity of their ground and it could put the club out of business. :wink:
User avatar
sanchoz
Posts: 12444
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 3:41 am
Location: Founder of the Carlton Cole Fan Club - Rainham & Guildford Branch
Total likes: 11 likes

Re: The FSF are non biased...

Post by sanchoz »

Just got an email from the FSF thanking me for my name on the safe standing petition so I sent this back:

Due to the FSF hosting of a wholly bias and factually incorrect petition in support of Leyton Orient and the perceived “threat” to Orients existence due to West Ham United potential move to the Olympic Stadium I wish to remove my previous support on this matter and have no wish to hear from your organisation in future.

Regards,
************"
Locked