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
loopyludo
Posts: 501
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2007 12:08 pm

Re: The FSF are non biased...

Post by loopyludo »

Malcolm Clarke wrote:Granted, the Boleyn Ground is also quite close to the new stadium and in the same Borough, which makes these issues not straightforward. but what is beyond doubt, is that it would bring WHU much closer to the Os than at present.
Malcolm Clarke
FSF Chair
Sorry Malcolm you are wrong here

As the crow flies according to Gmap Pedometer
We are currently just under three miles (2.97) from them:- http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=4308350
OS is a little under a mile and a half (1.49) from them:- http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=4383745
OS is a little under two and a half miles (2.42) from Upton Park:- http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=4383749

That will bring us less than a mile (0.9) closer to them. Many thanks for coming on the board though and posting the FSF views
User avatar
Georgee Paris
Posts: 27162
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 3:07 pm
Location: The Amazing Adventures of Wicked Willy & Fearless Steve
Has liked: 496 likes
Total likes: 1038 likes
Contact:

Re: The FSF are non biased...

Post by Georgee Paris »

4752 feet or 1448 meters.
User avatar
the pink palermo
Huge noggin
Posts: 45056
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: The Notorious Gate B @LS
Has liked: 759 likes
Total likes: 2939 likes

Re: The FSF are non biased...

Post by the pink palermo »

Monkey Spanner wrote:I'm staggered that a West Ham supporter can have sympathy for Leyton Orient fans just because we're moving closer to West Ham.
Well there you go . And, yep I am a West Ham fans one that goes home and away as a ST holder , but one who isn't so one eyed not to appreciate for us to have a club to support other clubs have to exist as well .Be pointless watching West Ham play West Ham reserves every week wouldn't it .

My sympathy though is more about the fact Orient fans are going to get shafted by Hearn .

It's obvious .

Two years after we move into Startford he will say he can no longer sustain the losses - blame it all on us , and that will be the end for Orient .We will provide him with the excuse he needs .

Your post though is typical of some of the board members who have appeared since the Stratford debate kicked off .Pretty much all of them have been toeing the Dave's line and sticking to the script . :think:
User avatar
The Collector
Posts: 5799
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2004 11:59 am
Location: The Misty Isle
Has liked: 4 likes
Total likes: 12 likes

Re: The FSF are non biased...

Post by The Collector »

loopyludo wrote:As the crow flies according to Gmap Pedometer
We are currently just under three miles (2.97) from them:- http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=4308350
OS is a little under a mile and a half (1.49) from them:- http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=4383745
OS is a little under two and a half miles (2.42) from Upton Park:- http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=4383749

That will bring us less than a mile (0.9) closer to them. Many thanks for coming on the board though and posting the FSF views
Thanks for putting up those links, this is useful on two counts;

1, This is an "as the crow flies" calculation. The distances by public transport, the mode by which most travel to games, would be much further, except for Clapton Orient who can just jump on the central line.

2, I never realised that Hackney Wick and Pudding Mill Lane stations will be much closer to the OS than Stratford. Anyone in the know will be opening pubs in those areas.
AMC1964
Posts: 1079
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 8:19 am

Re: The FSF are non biased...

Post by AMC1964 »

Malcolm, thanks for coming on here and putting your point across. The whole issue of the OS is highly emotive, not just to us as West Ham supporters, but to a good number of folks who go over the Orient. Those are the people who we are concerned about, because if you were to read their web sites, they completely believe Hearn's total rubbish.

A number of posters here have asked exactly how close we can get to them to be of less impact. what say you about Hearn's proposal to move to the Hockey stadium? Much closer to West Ham's new ground then they are now?

What also do you have to say about the hypocrisy expressed by Hearn related to moving grounds when his own club moved from Clapton (not in the borough of Waltham forest) to Leyton in 1937, and very much contributed to the downfall of Leyton FC and Walthamstow Avenue.
I feel that for any West Ham supporters to now engage in a dialogue with the FSF would be a pointless exercise in attempted diplomacy. To be completely honest, they (Orient) as a club and support, have thrown their hat into the ring alongside that of Daniel Levy and the hated filth from N17. The real villans of the piece who everyone knew that the real idea behind their proposed move would be to exterminate West Ham by marketing to our future support in East london and Essex. Any West ham supporter that previously frequented Brisbane road has now firmly withdrawn any support we ever had for the Orient. There were loads of us over there....
Not any longer.
The FSF did nothing when spurs wanted to move 5 miles to Newham, so why are you against our own move inside our own borough.
You need to closely examine the whole issue and determine whether this is really an issue for you to involve yourselves. I very much doubt it.

Best of luck with your other campaigns....
User avatar
Georgee Paris
Posts: 27162
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 3:07 pm
Location: The Amazing Adventures of Wicked Willy & Fearless Steve
Has liked: 496 likes
Total likes: 1038 likes
Contact:

Re: The FSF are non biased...

Post by Georgee Paris »

Malcolm do you know Dave?
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 »

I've now seen the arguments of the FSF and Leyton Orient fans....and neither has a foot to stand on.

I think the whole way they are arguing the point is really sad because anyone can see from a mile off that LOFC are looking for a handout...and nothing else.

The FSF should feel ashamed of themselves :evil:
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 »

Malcolm Clarke wrote:I am the Chair of the FSF, and would like to comment on some of the points raised. When this issue first arose, we published a news story on it, and asked for reaction from the 3 clubs involved - the Os, the Hammers and Sp*rs. The majority of the hammers fans who responded to us were against the move to the Olympic Stadium. But it's always difficult to assess how representative such responses are. That's why we think that any football club should only take a major decision on a ground move after a thorough, neutral survey of its supporters.

On this issue we have supported the Orient fans when the two FSF affilaites at that club asked us to do so. We did so because it appears to us that the WHU move to the stadium breaches both Premier League and Football League rules, because of its close proximity to the Os ground.

Granted, the Boleyn Ground is also quite close to the new stadium and in the same Borough, which makes these issues not straightforward. but what is beyond doubt, is that it would bring WHU much closer to the Os than at present.

It is not true that we did not oppose Sp*rs move. I was personally contacted by David Lammy, MP for T*ttenham, who asked for support in opposing that move, and we readily gave it, as we did to Sp*rs fans who opposed the move. It would have been absurd for us to do otherwise.

We are supporting our affiliates at Orient, not Mr.Hearn. We do not support his actions, motivations or behaviour in supporting the Sp*rs move, which was deplorable. The fact that we used one quote of his does not mean that we support what he has done in this matter. Quite the reverse.

His action in supporting the Sp*rs move undermined any chance of the PL enforcing its rules on this matter. They could not refuse a move of either WHU or Sp*rs on the grounds of the harm it would do to another club, when that Club's own Chairman was supporting the Sp*rs move. A classic own goal by Mr.Hearn. We are supporting the fans not their Chairman.

We are a democratic, members organisation. Two of our affiliates asked us to support on them on a matter which is in line with FSF policy, so we did so.

The FSF Council meets in London on April 10th. I will be very happy to invite a couple of representatives of both the Os and WHU fans to discuss this with Council. We have a slight problem in that we do not currently have an affiliate at WHU, so I am not sure who has legitimacy to represent our members at WHU. But if the moderators of this Board can sort out someone who can express the concerns of some WHU fans on what we have done, I will happily invite them. Dialogue is always important on these difficult issues.

Malcolm Clarke
FSF Chair

Dear Malcolm

Is it any wonder that you do not have an affiliate at WHUFC ?

I must also ask if you are the person i chatted to when the FSF held their council at the Emirates Stadium and i made them well aware of the issues that the local community had been shafted by Arsenal Footbal Club in breaking promises to them. Your argument was that it was free....

As someone who follows his club and country around the world...I should be exactly the person you should be trying to get on board. What can you say to me now that what change my very low opinion of you being a very biased Federation with very few scruples ?
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 »

Malcolm Clarke wrote:palermo - I suspect that's exactly what Hearn is doing. :evil: My only regret on this is that by using a quote of his, we inadvertently gave the impression that we were supporting all his actions on this, which we most certainly don't. This type of issue of defining "territories" is not easy in a connurbation - but the people who you need to convince on this if you think the move is justified, is not so much the FSF, as the Os fans themselves. It was they who asked for our help. We didn't initiate this. And what would they have (rightly) said if we turned them down when what they are asking for is in line with our policy and what they are opposing is against PL and FL rules. The offer for a couple of people to come on 10th April from both the Os and our critics on this board very much stands and I hope the moderators can sort this.
http://www.leytonorient2.com/forum/view ... &start=150" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As someone who was born within spitting distance of BR...i know exactly the situation that the local area is in.Sadly Mr Hearn has pushed LOFC into a love in with another club and has made a rival of us. It is quite obvious from my chats on there, that they are after a handout and know that is their best way forward.

You have backed that campaign...

I think that is a shocking decision for a Federation such as yours.
ooh look who it is
Posts: 8524
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 11:29 am
Location: I'm a reasonable guy. But, I've just experienced some very unreasonable things.

Re: The FSF are non biased...

Post by ooh look who it is »

[quote="
...I should be exactly the person you should be trying to get on board. What can you say to me now that what change my very low opinion of you being a very biased Federation with very few scruples ?[/quote]

:lol:
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 »

8-)

I wont let you come to Wigan on the Chuff Chuff...
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 »

In keeping my promise to get hold of every blog / website / supporters club / association / message board / fanzine etc I have made a start overnight.

I will of course be updating this and would ask that if anyone can help publicise the message / petition to get in touch. I have absolutely no idea or even where to start to put a figure on it, but there must be in excess of 10 million of the above easily. I have set myself a target of contacting at least 5,000 sites etc covering at least 300 clubs.
If say 10,000,000 people saw the advert then we only need 1 in every 100 to sign for it to have the magical 100,000 signatures to take to No 10.

The list of "people / organisations" contacted so far are as follows:-

TOTAL CONTACTS - 341

INDEPENDENT CLUBS / ASSOCIATIONS
Middlesex FA, Surrey FA, Berks & Bucks FA, Hertfordshire FA, Birmingham FA, London FA, Amateur FA, Liverpool FA, Manchester FA, Birmingham FA
Sheffield FA, Essex FA, Bedfordshire FA, Cambridge FA, Cornwall FA
Cheshire FA, Cumberland FA, Devon FA, Derbyshire FA, Dorset FA, Gloucester FA
Hampshire FA, Kent FA, Isle of Man FA, Jersey FA, Lancashire FA, Leicestershire FA
Norfolk FA, Northamptonshire FA, Northumberland FA, Nottinghamshire FA
Oxford FA, Shropshire FA, Somerset FA, Staffordshire FA, Suffolk FA, Sussex FA
Wiltshire FA, Worcestershire FA

INDEPENDENT MESSAGE BOARDS
Football Forever, Football Chatter

ARSENAL FANZINES
The Gooner Fanzine, @FC, ArseWeb (Guide to Arsenal Fanzines), Up The Arse
Gunflash

ARSENAL CLUBS / ASSOCIATIONS
Arsenal America, Arsenal Supporters Club – London Branch, Antrim , Cork, Dublin
Norfolk, East Sussex, West Midlands, Gloucester, Scotland, Manchester / Lancashire
Dover, South Wales, Hertfordshire / Bedfordshire, South Africa, North Wiltshire
North Wales, Overseas Official, Western Australia, South Africa, Germany, Holland
France, Arsenal Facebook Page

ARSENAL WEBSITES / BLOGS
Arsenal World

MANCHESTER UNITED FANZINES
Red Issue, Red Café, Under The Broadwalk, Red News, United We Stand

MANCHESTER UNITED WEBSITES / BLOGS
Man Utd Talk, Republik Of Mancunia, Red Rants, Stretford End, Truly Reds, M.Utd
Red Conspiracy, CarlyluvsManUtd, Just Manchester United Blogs, Simply Reds
Love United - Hate Glazer

MANCHESTER UNITED SUPPORTERS CLUBS
Edinburgh, Bridgewater, Aberystwyth, North Devon, Bristol & Avon, Kent
Northern Ireland, Disabled Branch (UK), Plymouth, Cardiff & Glamorgan, Omagh
Oldham, Heywood, Stalybridge, Knutsford, Rossendale, Blackpool & Preston
Fleetwood, Cumbria, Bradford & Leeds, Humberside, North Yorks, Stoke, Nottingham
Oxford & District, Peterboro & District, London, London Fan Club, Hampshire
Hastings, Yeovil, Isle of Man, Gibraltar, Holland, Germany, Switzerland, Norway
Iceland, Malta, Hong Kong, Western Australia, Victoria, New South Wales
New Zealand. Official Independent (UK), Man Utd Facebook Page

LIVERPOOL SUPPORTERS GROUPS / ASSOCIATIONS
Liverpool Facebook Page

CHELSEA WEBSITES / BLOGS
**** Chelsea Blogspot, Blue Champions, Chelsea Chelsea, Offside, Chelsea Draft

CHELSEA SUPPORTERS CLUBS A/ ASSOCIATIONS
Chelsea Independent (UK) group, Birmingham, Bristol & Bath, Cornwall, Hastings, Lincolnshire, North West, Surrey, Yorkshire, Dromore, North West Ireland, Orangefield, Lagan valley, Ayrshire, Dundee, Greenock, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Jersey & Channel Islands, Eire, USA, Waterford, Perth, NS Wales, Belgium, South Africa, Switzerland, UAE, Thailand, Canada, France, Hong Kong, Japan, Iceland, Malta, Maritius, Norway, Chelsea Facebook Page

CHELSEA FANZINES
The Shed, Independent Chelsea Fanzine, The Sky is Blue

TOTTENHAM WEBSITES / BLOGS
Footymad, Spurs Odyssey, Top Spurs, Spurs Network, Planet Spurs, Tottenham Daily News, North London Pride

TOTTENHAM FANZINES
My Eyes Have Seen The Glory

TOTTENHAM SUPPORTERS GROUPS / ASSOCIATIONS
Anglesey, Banbury, Bedford, Bridgewater, Cumbria, Dorset, Hants, Midsomer Norton, Milton Keynes, North Devon, North West, Plymouth, South Coast, Swindon, South Dorset, SE Wales, Isle of Wight, West Sussex, Scotland, Ballymena, Carrickfergus, Lisburn, Limavady, Newry, Omagh, South Belfast, Geurnsey, Jersey, Waterford, Cork, Cyprus, Denmark, Belgium, Germany, Iceland, Malta, Norway, Paris, Spain, Spain (Islands), Sweden, Switzerland, Atlanta, Canada & USA, Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, Richmond, Canada, W.Canada & British Columbia, Japan, Hong Kong

MANCHESTER CITY FANZINES
King of the Kippax, Blue Moon

MANCHESTER CITY BLOGS / WEBSITES
Blue Mist, M.City Blog, Man City Footy Mad, View from the Blue, Blue Days, Bitter & Blue, Blue Moon

MANCHESTER CITY SUPPORTERS CLUBS / ASSOCIATIONS
Independent Supporters Group (Official), Independent Supporters Group (Unofficial), Cheadle, Belfast, Huddersfield, Brisbane, Winchester, Sussex, North West

ASTON VILLA FANZINES
Heroes & Villans

ASTON VILLA WEBSITES / BLOGS
AVillafan.com,

ASTON VILLA SUPPORTERS CLUBS / ASSOCIATIONS
Aston Villa Fan Club, North West, London, South Wales, East Midlands

ASTON VILLA MESSAGE BOARDS
Footy Mad

QUEENS PARK RANGERS MESSAGE BOARDS
Official Board, QPR.ORG, QPR Report, QPR.net

NORWICH CITY MESSAGE BOARDS
Official Board

SWANSEA CITY MESSAGE BOARDS
Fans On Line

NOTTS FOREST MESSAGE BOARDS
NFTL

LEICESTER CITY MESSAGE BOARDS
Foxes On Line

MIDDLESBROUGH MESSAGE BOARDS
Come On Boro

CRYSTAL PALACE MESSAGE BOARDS
Holmesdale Online

PORTSMOUTH MESSAGE BAORDS
Fans On Line

BURNLEY MESSAGE BOARDS
Footy Mad

ABERDEEN MESSAGE BOARDS
Footy Mad

ACCRINGTON TOWN MESSAGE BOARDS
Footy Mad

AFC WIMBLEDON MESSAGE BOARDS
Footy Mad

ALDERSHOT TOWN MESSAGE BOARDS
Footy Mad

ALTRINCHAM MESSAGE BOARDS
Footy Mad

BRIGHTON & HOVE ALBION MESSAGE BOARDS
Official Board

WALSALL MESSAGE BOARDS
Official Board

CARLISLE UNITED MESSAGE BOARDS
Official Board

ROCHDALE MESSAGE BOARDS
Official Board

GILLINGHAM MESSAGE BOARDS
Official Board

COLCHESTER UNITED MESSAGE BOARDS
Official Board

IPSWICH TOWN MESSAGE BOARDS
Independent Board

BLACKPOOL MESSAGE BOARDS
Footy Mad

BOLTON WANDERERS MESSAGE BOARDS
Footy Mad

BLACKBURN ROVERS MESSAGE BOARDS
Footy Mad

GLASGOW CELTIC MESSAGE BOARDS
Footy Mad

ENGLAND MESSAGE BOARDS
Footy Mad

SUNDERLAND FANZINES
A Love Supreme

SUNDERLAND WEBSITES
Ready To Go

SUNDERLAND SUPPORTERS GROUPS / ASSOCIATIONS
Close House, Consett, Crook, Coxhoe, Durham, Dublin, Cumbria, Disabled Section, Eastington, Ellington, Ferryhill, Netherlands, Manchester & District, Guernsey, Heart of England, Hebburn, Jarrow, Langley Park, London & SE, Newton Aycliffe, North Herts, North Yorks, Northern Ireland, Sedgefield, Scandanavia, SE Northumberland, South West, South Yorks, Tyne & Wear, West Yorks, USA, Western Australia, Stapleton, Wingate, Sth Eastington

AC MILAN SUPPORTERS GROUPS / ASSOCIATIONS
AC Milan Facebook Page

REAL MADRID SUPPORTERS GROUPS / ASSOCIATIONS
Real Madrid Facebook Page

BARCELONA SUPPORTERS GROUPS / ASSOCIATIONS
Barcelona Facebook Page

**** UNITED MESSAGE BOARDS
Footy Mad

ROTHERHAM UNITED MESSAGE BOARDS
Footy Mad

STOKE CITY MESSAGE BOARDS
Footy Mad

WALSALL MESSAGE BOARDS
Footy Mad

MILLWALL MESSAGE BOARDS
Footy Mad


Yet he only has 25 pages of people backing them... :lol:
Malcolm Clarke
Posts: 14
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2011 10:24 am

Re: The FSF are non biased...

Post by Malcolm Clarke »

I will respond to the points raised above.

Romford asks what I can do to change his very low opinion of us being a biased Federation with very few scruples. I think the answer to that is probably not much, because your mind appears to be fairly firmly made up, but I will make two points, one specific to this issue, and one a personal response.

On this specific issue I have both responded to the criticisms on here, and, more importantly, offered a discussion at our National Council in London on 10 April. I think that is the best way forward and the Orient Trust have accepted the invitation. I hope that the moderators of this board can sort out a couple of people to come. AMC says it's pointless to engage in dialogue with the FSF on this. If that's the view, there's no point in me spending any more time on it, but I've offered it and it's all I can do.

More personally, I have spent the whole of my life involved in a range of political, campaigning and community groups. If I had resigned or tried to discredit those groups every time I had a disagreement about a particular policy line or issue taken by one, I would have spent a lot of time on negative activity which ignored the bigger picture of what those organisations were trying to achieve. I would also have terminated any influence I had on changing the decision. When I have been in the minority on issues within FSF I have tried to persuade colleagues, and if unsuccessful accepted the decision, not condemned the organisation.

Romford asks if it is any wonder that the FSF has not got an affiliate at WHU. I don't know why the engagement of Hammers fans with the FSF has been less than at some other clubs, but I do know that this and the lack of an affiliate existed well before the Olympic stadium issue arose and cannot be attributed to that.

Romford, I don't recall a conversation with you at the Emirates, but that doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't me :?

AMC - I'm not sure that events in 1937 long before any of us, or Hearn, was around is very relevant to the current issue. You ask about the Hockey Stadium proposal/idea. I don't know any details of that but I can respond in general terms about FSF policy on Stadium moves, which is that the club involved should undertake a full and impartial consultation with its supporters, who should be behind the move. That is a necessary but not sufficient condition in our view. Even if such support is obtained, the effect on other clubs and possibly other factors might come into play.

I am asked by AMC and Persil how far away would be acceptable. I don't think that such a hypothetical question advances the debate at all. I might say x miles, the FSF Council might say y miles, the Orient fans might say z miles, and it would get us nowhere. All you can do is to assess a particular proposal which is on the table, in this case the Olympic Stadium. There are no other proposals on the table, so hypothetical speculation about other distances is pointless.

George asks if I know Dave. Forgive me, but who's Dave ? If its David Sullivan , the answer is No. If it's David Gold, the answer is Yes. If it's someone else, you'll have to tell me who.

Just to repeat - the FSF has most definitely not supported Mr. Hearn and his actions and motivations on this. We have supported the Os fans, not their Chairman. And as I said in my earlier post, we did - and do - oppose the Spurs proposed move to the OS. AMC, your repeating the statement on here that we did nothing doesn't alter the reality that we did.
User avatar
Georgee Paris
Posts: 27162
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 3:07 pm
Location: The Amazing Adventures of Wicked Willy & Fearless Steve
Has liked: 496 likes
Total likes: 1038 likes
Contact:

Re: The FSF are non biased...

Post by Georgee Paris »

Malcolm you must be the only Stoke supporter in the world to not know Dave.
User avatar
eastsider
Posts: 1654
Joined: Fri May 21, 2010 7:30 pm
Location: London E4
Has liked: 54 likes
Total likes: 6 likes

Re: The FSF are non biased...

Post by eastsider »

Malcolm

Hi

Thank you for the input but the main point is that we are only moving .9 of a mile nearer, within Newham to the O's than we are now.
How can a small amount of distance make any difference to them??
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 »

Malcolm Clarke wrote:I will respond to the points raised above.

Romford asks what I can do to change his very low opinion of us being a biased Federation with very few scruples. I think the answer to that is probably not much, because your mind appears to be fairly firmly made up, but I will make two points, one specific to this issue, and one a personal response.

On this specific issue I have both responded to the criticisms on here, and, more importantly, offered a discussion at our National Council in London on 10 April. I think that is the best way forward and the Orient Trust have accepted the invitation. I hope that the moderators of this board can sort out a couple of people to come. AMC says it's pointless to engage in dialogue with the FSF on this. If that's the view, there's no point in me spending any more time on it, but I've offered it and it's all I can do.

More personally, I have spent the whole of my life involved in a range of political, campaigning and community groups. If I had resigned or tried to discredit those groups every time I had a disagreement about a particular policy line or issue taken by one, I would have spent a lot of time on negative activity which ignored the bigger picture of what those organisations were trying to achieve. I would also have terminated any influence I had on changing the decision. When I have been in the minority on issues within FSF I have tried to persuade colleagues, and if unsuccessful accepted the decision, not condemned the organisation.

Romford asks if it is any wonder that the FSF has not got an affiliate at WHU. I don't know why the engagement of Hammers fans with the FSF has been less than at some other clubs, but I do know that this and the lack of an affiliate existed well before the Olympic stadium issue arose and cannot be attributed to that.

Romford, I don't recall a conversation with you at the Emirates, but that doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't me :?

AMC - I'm not sure that events in 1937 long before any of us, or Hearn, was around is very relevant to the current issue. You ask about the Hockey Stadium proposal/idea. I don't know any details of that but I can respond in general terms about FSF policy on Stadium moves, which is that the club involved should undertake a full and impartial consultation with its supporters, who should be behind the move. That is a necessary but not sufficient condition in our view. Even if such support is obtained, the effect on other clubs and possibly other factors might come into play.

I am asked by AMC and Persil how far away would be acceptable. I don't think that such a hypothetical question advances the debate at all. I might say x miles, the FSF Council might say y miles, the Orient fans might say z miles, and it would get us nowhere. All you can do is to assess a particular proposal which is on the table, in this case the Olympic Stadium. There are no other proposals on the table, so hypothetical speculation about other distances is pointless.

George asks if I know Dave. Forgive me, but who's Dave ? If its David Sullivan , the answer is No. If it's David Gold, the answer is Yes. If it's someone else, you'll have to tell me who.

Just to repeat - the FSF has most definitely not supported Mr. Hearn and his actions and motivations on this. We have supported the Os fans, not their Chairman. And as I said in my earlier post, we did - and do - oppose the Sp*rs proposed move to the OS. AMC, your repeating the statement on here that we did nothing doesn't alter the reality that we did.

Thanks for your reply Malcolm.

My mind is not firmly made up...but i have been asked by more than a few people to join your organisation and sadly i feel you do very very little if anything for my club. That was before this particular issue !?

On this very emotive issue...can you see why so many Hammers fans are upset with your (and the FSFs) stance ?
AMC1964
Posts: 1079
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 8:19 am

Re: The FSF are non biased...

Post by AMC1964 »

Malcolm, again, thanks for taking the time to respond. My point about a pointless dialogue is very much centred on the fact that Leyton Orient, and their supporters/management have done an extremely good job of alienating themselves from the vast majority of previously rational West Ham supporters. We are, according to them, a parody of a panto villain, all ready to exterminate poor little O's. Which is completely untrue. West Ham have have been reducing tickets for various games for a number of years now. Has the average Attendance at Orient gone down? I doubt it..In fact, it's almost certainly gone up based on the attendance of numerous Tottenham Youth who are banned but yet the O's seem to be turning a blind eye to that. We know they're there. So do you, but will you do anything..?
So what would be the point of West Ham and O's (spurs) fans sitting around a table with the FSF purpoting to mediate? None of us make the decisions about who plays at what ground do we. Those decisions are taken by the boards, the League, the FA, the OPLC and the Government.

But the thing that is clear, is that Hearn is after a bung. The O's fans think they can do a sheff Utd and sue West Ham. The Hockey stadium issue was raisied by the O's and by Hearn. Give us the Hockey Stadium and we'll be quiet they say.. So a free stadium for them. About 800 yards from West Ham. Hence a lot of questions about how far is too close.
Lastly, you feel that previous encroachments by Clapton Orient causing the closure of two fine Amateur clubs (read your history books if you're such a football fan) is irrelevant to the current issue. Well you may think so, but the fact that their club has set the precedent for moving grounds within East London needs to be considered when sifting through all the O's rhetoric about Nasty West Ham moving near to us.

Regards
User avatar
Lennie Hammer
Posts: 433
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2006 6:06 pm
Location: Wokingham

Re: The FSF are non biased...

Post by Lennie Hammer »

AMC1964 Great post :thup:
Malcolm Clarke
Posts: 14
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2011 10:24 am

Re: The FSF are non biased...

Post by Malcolm Clarke »

I think we are close to the point where we are just going over the same ground, but I will just make a couple of points.

Romford - It's a vicious circle, isn't it ? You won't join the FSF because you say we do little for your club even before this issue, but don't specify on what issue(s) you think we should have done something but haven't. But if you and other WHU fans don't join and participate, there is of course less likelihood that we will be aware of and act upon those issues, whatever they are. At the end of the day, we are a members organisation.

AMC - You are wrong to say that we have knowledge of banned Tottenham youth turning up at Orient games. We don't. Even if it's true and we did know about it, I don't think we would have any role in doing anything about it - we don't run the stewarding and policing operation at Orient or anywhere else. And it's not clear why you are so concerned about something which is allegedly happening at another club's ground.

I still don't think that what the people who were running Leyton Orient did 74 years ago is helpful or relevant to the current debate.

It's been a helpful and informative exchange, for which I am grateful, but I'm not sure that I can usefully take this discussion any further on here. It remains the case that the majority of hammers fans who contacted us when we first ran the story were opposed to the move, and that we don't have an affiliate at WHU, only individual members.

The offer to attend our National Council to discuss it on April 10th remains on the table if the moderators of this Board want to sort out a couple of people who are unhappy with what we have done to come along. I don't think I can say fairer than that and the Os Trust are very much up for it.
User avatar
the pink palermo
Huge noggin
Posts: 45056
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: The Notorious Gate B @LS
Has liked: 759 likes
Total likes: 2939 likes

Re: The FSF are non biased...

Post by the pink palermo »

Malcolm Clarke wrote: It remains the case that the majority of hammers fans who contacted us when we first ran the story were opposed to the move .
I don't doubt that .

What , however , does that have to do with Barry Hearn trying to blame us for the predicted future demise of the club of which he is Chairman , but from whom he has seperated the ownership of their current ground from ?

We all know Hearn is after a freebie .Personally I don't care if he wants the Hockey stadium - (I hope they get it but that Hearn never profits from the sale of Brisbane road ) , but to blame our clubs actions for his clubs predicted ( by him ) demise is dishonest .

I have sympathy with the O's fans, not because of what we will or will not do , but because of what Hearn is obviously going to do .

Why will the FSF not focus on his motives rather than our actions ? His arguments against West Ham being given the Olympic stadium do not hold water - the number of big and small clubs that have coexisted in close proximity for many years are too numerous to be ignored - and they have very different ticket prices .

Were Hearn to be honest he may get a few backers on here , but telling lies does him no credit whatsoever .

And, if you hadn't realised it, I am dead set against West Ham moving to Stratford, but won't see us getting labelled as Dr Evil by Barry Hearn .
Locked