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, Once again many thanks for the discussion, however you still have not recognised that we are only moving 0.9 miles closer, when on your first post on this site you used the words much closer. It is on this point alone that I think your organisation needs to realise every football club needs the right to grow, our owners deem that is best served by the use of the Olympic stadium in our borough. Daniel Levy seems to agree with them on growing his football club by use of the same venue (albeit a demolished one). Barry Hearn also agrees as he is trying to get the hockey stadium.

The FSF petition mentions the immediate vicinity, well by the terms of that definition then we are already in the immediate vicinity (2.97 miles to be precise).

What will you do if Liverpool eventually get their act together and move to a ground closer to Goddison Park?????
bejeezus
Posts: 59
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:07 pm

Re: The FSF are non biased...

Post by bejeezus »

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
It also remains the case that when contacting the OPLC the FSF chose to quote an outdated KUMB poll because it suited their argument whereas the current (reworded poll removing mention of the track) quite clearly showed a majority in favour of the move. When I asked your Director of Policy - Stephen Powell why this more recent poll was not included he replied "I think significant (sic) that this poll moved in favour when it became clear that the Spurs bid for the Olympic Stadium site was serious."

This is why I claim that the FSF have misrepresented the majority of West Ham fans and is also why I emailed the FSF asking them to terminate my membership as far back as February - BTW I am still waiting for a reply!
User avatar
Heysel76
Posts: 6289
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2007 12:11 pm
Location: 父 父 Lincolnshire Wolds, (formerly Hornchurch) 父 父
Has liked: 213 likes
Total likes: 105 likes

Re: The FSF are non biased...

Post by Heysel76 »

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
Surely if we are 2.97 miles from them now & we will be 1.49 miles from them after the move............ 2.97 - 1.49= 1.48 miles
We will be 1.48 miles closer, not that it makes a whole lot of difference
User avatar
Heysel76
Posts: 6289
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2007 12:11 pm
Location: 父 父 Lincolnshire Wolds, (formerly Hornchurch) 父 父
Has liked: 213 likes
Total likes: 105 likes

Re: The FSF are non biased...

Post by Heysel76 »

Malcolm Clarke wrote:

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.
REALLY?
Is it not a fact that the Premier League rule about ground relocation, is directly related to the original FA rule that was created when Spuds complained about Arsenal moving from Woolwich in 1913
Ironic eh?
User avatar
loopyludo
Posts: 501
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2007 12:08 pm

Re: The FSF are non biased...

Post by loopyludo »

Heysel, yes I guess so, my bad maths there, subtracted the wrong one, agreed though not that it is a great deal of difference.
FSF
Posts: 62
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 4:29 pm

Re: The FSF are non biased...

Post by FSF »

Romford wrote: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 !?
Not answering for Malcolm, but presumably that doesn't refer to getting refunds on behalf of your under 18s fans at WBA away in 2008, or your under 20s fans at Fulham away around the same time, or indeed Aston Villa who similarly weren't passing on concessionary rates to Hammers fans in 2009? Just in the interests of fairness and pointing out that while a lot of our work is done on behalf of all football fans, there are occasionally club-specific issues, and West Ham fans have benefitted from them in the past.

http://www.fsf.org.uk/news/Fanswinticke ... attles.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.fsf.org.uk/news/Hammers-happ ... rvenes.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
MEM
Posts: 593
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 12:41 pm

Re: The FSF are non biased...

Post by MEM »

loopyludo wrote:Heysel, yes I guess so, my bad maths there, subtracted the wrong one, agreed though not that it is a great deal of difference.

I see the stadium is on Google Earth now 148 yards across form front row to front row at the centre and 209 yards end-2-end!
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 »

FSF wrote:
Not answering for Malcolm, but presumably that doesn't refer to getting refunds on behalf of your under 18s fans at WBA away in 2008, or your under 20s fans at Fulham away around the same time, or indeed Aston Villa who similarly weren't passing on concessionary rates to Hammers fans in 2009? Just in the interests of fairness and pointing out that while a lot of our work is done on behalf of all football fans, there are occasionally club-specific issues, and West Ham fans have benefitted from them in the past.

http://www.fsf.org.uk/news/Fanswinticke ... attles.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.fsf.org.uk/news/Hammers-happ ... rvenes.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Well I went to all those games...but as im 43 i didn't get any benefit 8-)

Any chance you can get various Forces around the country to respect us as human beings like the law supposedly covers ?

Also it would be nice to get allocations the same as other clubs....and of course it would be nice for the FSF to be non biased in this particular argument with LOFC.

Cheers !

Rom
User avatar
brownout
Posts: 10299
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2004 8:26 pm
Has liked: 92 likes
Total likes: 174 likes

Re: The FSF are non biased...

Post by brownout »

I have kept out of the argument regarding Orient but -

With regard to asking if the FSF can help with the way we are treated by various police forces, on several occasions there have been requests on KUMB for people to send details of their experiences to the FSF, but very few have bothered. Hence it is much harder for the FSF to get police forces to understand that fans are unhappy about our treatment.

For example, the Birmingham semi final. Our treatment by West Midlands police was deplorable, with many fans deliberately delayed and missing the kick off, a farcical 'kettling' behind vans & escort after the match, and fans missing the last train home.

After posting on kumb the FSF received about four emails only one of whom (as far as I am aware - it was me) decided to take things further and make a formal complaint to WMP - after the response from the FSF letter to WMP was a senior officer asking fans to complain (which was posted on kumb). I had a response to my letter in a few days saying it has been passed to the match commander who will respond. Following the FSF letter they have been invited to meet WMP to discuss this and other games in Birmingham.

The FSF have a regular dialogue with the police and the Independent Police Complaint Commission. They are doing what they can but need the support of fans to come forward. I find it hard to understand why anyone who missed part of a cup semi final or the last train to London, would not bother to complain. For some reason (and not only since the Orient petition) West Ham fans seem to be one of the most reluctant to do more than moan on a forum - that won't improve the way we are policed.

So yes, the FSF is not perfect, but they are working hard to try to influence the way we are policed.
User avatar
AJ
Posts: 7626
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2005 8:20 pm
Location: Dreaming dreams, scheming schemes, building castles high

Re: The FSF are non biased...

Post by AJ »

Some bullet points I would like answered from the FSF

- Hearn encouraged Spurs to take the Olympic Stadium, how can he now argue West Ham cant have it (its not beyond the realms of possibility that Spurs have a poor couple of years, and then offer heavily discounted tickets to encourage fans to their ground)

- London is full of many football clubs often with many being close to each other, Chelsea and QPR are known to be looking at new grounds, and space is limited, so should they also be stopped from moving to a possible ground at Earls Court or White City as it will bring either club closer to the other

- Wimbledon couldnt find a home in London and were forced to move to Milton Keynes, is that what you want to happen to football clubs in London if you enforce a rule saying that they cant move to say within 2 miles of another club even though the space is available? And end up with clubs being displaced somewhere where there isnt a league club within 60 miles of the new area?

- Why are West Ham portrayed as the villains? The Premier league have ratified the move and its their rule.

- Do the FSF propose any alternative way of West Ham expanding? We are limited to 42,500 seats at Upton Park, where else in the borough of Newham could we build a 60k stadium? Proposals were looked at by West Ham station but were cancelled due to listed Gas Tanks.
User avatar
mywhufc
Posts: 3326
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 8:25 pm
Contact:

Re: The FSF are non biased...

Post by mywhufc »

fairplay to the fsf people for coming on here and putting their side across, in my opinion too little to late over the stadium decision, if they wanted to get involved they should have done so as soon as west hams bid was announced and they back tracked over the track. i dont think they are portraying west ham as villians here thats barry hearns domain, and i think that they are right in saying fans(season holders,members) should have been polled over the move, as for the use of kumb poll we all know the last polls result was more about us v spurs than do we want to move to the athletic stadium.
just for the record i am registered with the fsf, never been to a meeting or met anyone from there only dealing ive had with them is when they were holding their last meeting in S/E region the main topic was due to be about our move to the olym stad, but this was at the same time as our game v liverpool. i pointed this out and was told that west ham fans dont get involved anyway at meetings to which i replied why bother talking about it then. also i believe some one high up in the fsf or supporters direct is an orient fan and this may be the reason why they are still pushing the agenda
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 »

brownout wrote:I have kept out of the argument regarding Orient but -

With regard to asking if the FSF can help with the way we are treated by various police forces, on several occasions there have been requests on KUMB for people to send details of their experiences to the FSF, but very few have bothered. Hence it is much harder for the FSF to get police forces to understand that fans are unhappy about our treatment.

For example, the Birmingham semi final. Our treatment by West Midlands police was deplorable, with many fans deliberately delayed and missing the kick off, a farcical 'kettling' behind vans & escort after the match, and fans missing the last train home.

After posting on kumb the FSF received about four emails only one of whom (as far as I am aware - it was me) decided to take things further and make a formal complaint to WMP - after the response from the FSF letter to WMP was a senior officer asking fans to complain (which was posted on kumb). I had a response to my letter in a few days saying it has been passed to the match commander who will respond. Following the FSF letter they have been invited to meet WMP to discuss this and other games in Birmingham.

The FSF have a regular dialogue with the police and the Independent Police Complaint Commission. They are doing what they can but need the support of fans to come forward. I find it hard to understand why anyone who missed part of a cup semi final or the last train to London, would not bother to complain. For some reason (and not only since the Orient petition) West Ham fans seem to be one of the most reluctant to do more than moan on a forum - that won't improve the way we are policed.

So yes, the FSF is not perfect, but they are working hard to try to influence the way we are policed.
So why are you keeping Mum about Orient mate ?

Do you not agree that its a poor decsion of the FSF to be involved in something like this...

If Liverpool moved into Stanley Park (like was planned), they would have been nearer Everton BUT it does not make any difference to their ticket sales. Everton would never have behaved like the Os

Everyone knows exactly what LOFCs plan is....and its nothing to do with ticket sales.
bejeezus
Posts: 59
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:07 pm

Re: The FSF are non biased...

Post by bejeezus »

mywhufc wrote:as for the use of kumb poll we all know the last polls result was more about us v Sp*rs than do we want to move to the athletic stadium.
The point I would make is that the later poll doesn't mention Spurs, the previous poll that the FSF did decide to use does mention the running track!

As the FSF are finding out from the comments on this thread their own concept of participation is also... way too little, way too late!
Persil Tickets
Posts: 428
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2010 2:05 pm
Has liked: 19 likes
Total likes: 2 likes

Re: The FSF are non biased...

Post by Persil Tickets »

To Malcolm Clarke
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.
Once again thanks for coming on here but you still have not answered my question re how close we can move to Orient without it impacting upon them. You state that it is pointless debate - why? The whole basis of Orients argument is that we are in your words "moving much closer to them" Well in that case what is the maximum distance that is permissible? We both know that it is impossible to answer because West Ham are already in the local vicinity and therefore their argument falls apart. Just to remind you we are talking about moving 1.5 miles closer to them. Do you think this is excessive?
By the way I am another one who was against the move but cannot stand the hypocrisy that is being spouted.
User avatar
The Old Mile End
Posts: 1559
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2003 2:40 pm
Location: Malcontented keyboard warrior
Has liked: 8 likes
Total likes: 91 likes

Re: The FSF are non biased...

Post by The Old Mile End »

Malcolm

Fair play to you for coming onto this forum and presenting your view. You stated you think you canot add to it further, so you might not even be reading additional posts.

But in case you are....you state that you have got involved with this issue at the request of O's supporters.

When I read your statement, you mention two O's fans have requested this - albiet affiliate members. Are you saying that the FSF have decided to argue the O's case on the basis of what just 2 of their supporters have requested?

How do you know what other O's supporters feel? How much do the affiliate members represent the views of other O fans? If you were to get some pressure of say 4 O's fans requesting you to withdraw and take a differing view, would you then do a turnaround?

The point I'm labouring here to you is that surely to God the FSF must know that you should do some homework before you take some action. After being prompted by the 2 O's fans, did you then set about trying to guage a majority view of the O's fans. If so, how did you do this, and what was the result?

If you are happy to represent minority views, would you please help out all the "No" voters on here and try to raise awareness to stop West Ham moving to the OS. You will find there are a few more than 2.
Malcolm Clarke
Posts: 14
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2011 10:24 am

Re: The FSF are non biased...

Post by Malcolm Clarke »

I have returned !

Old Mile End - sorry, I should have made this clear. We have two types of membership. Individual members and affiliates, i.e affiliated Supporters Clubs or Trusts. We have two affiliates at LO but none at WHU. However, not surprisingly given the size of the clubs, we have far more individual members who support West Ham than support the Os. So, it wasn't two individuals at LO - it was two organisations.

We have had emails and calls from WHU supporters both supporting and opposing the stance we have taken. I think part of the problem here is that of knowing what the majority of our members who are hammers fans think. The football club have not undertaken an objective survey so there is no reliable way of knowing the views of the Club season ticket holders or members. The fact that there is another bidder for the OS, which wishes to move well outside its natural territory may also be complicating supporters responses. In that respect, it is a different situation to that which normally applies when a club wants to build a new ground.

But of course the debate about the possible effect on another club would still apply whatever the majority of WHU fans think.

On the 5 points

1. You'll have to ask Hearn. I think his position is illogical and inconsistent. We do not support what he has done and said on this.
2. It is a complex issue in connurbations. I think each proposal has to be looked at on its merits.
3. Wimbledon was very different. The behaviour of their owners was quite wrong, as was the FA decision to allow the move to MK. But I don't think you should allow a wrong move within a connurbation because of a threat or risk that the Club might try to go elsewhere.
4. True, the PL have ratified it, but they could hardly do otherwise given that the potentially aggrieved party - LO FC - had put itself on record as supporting Spurs move which has far less merit than WHU's. They couldn't ratify Spurs but not WHU, which would have been absurd, and they couldn't turn Spurs down on the grounds of the effect on LO FC, when that club has put its support of the Spurs move in writing. An appalling own goal by Hearn.
5. No - I don't think that's our role.

Persil - I won't repeat what I said. I think you have to look at specific proposals not hypothetical debates about acceptable distances. We'll just have to agree to differ.
User avatar
Dan1326
Posts: 7956
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 3:31 pm
Has liked: 5 likes
Total likes: 32 likes

Re: The FSF are non biased...

Post by Dan1326 »

Malcolm you still haven't answered the question put to you, ye are moving around 1 mile which isn't MUCH closer to Orient and in fact it's nearer to West Ham's original home.
User avatar
Coops
Posts: 8340
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 12:23 am
Location: Rayleigh, Essex
Has liked: 442 likes
Total likes: 573 likes

Re: The FSF are non biased...

Post by Coops »

Dan1326 wrote:Malcolm you still haven't answered the question put to you, ye are moving around 1 mile which isn't MUCH closer to Orient and in fact it's nearer to West Ham's original home.
I bet they didn't look at the actual distances before starting their poll and now instead of being man enough to admit his mistake he is skirting the issue.
User avatar
Hammer110
Posts: 2537
Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2006 11:56 pm
Location: Dreaming 父 父

Re: The FSF are non biased...

Post by Hammer110 »

We the undersigned urge the government and Mayor of London’s office to help Save Leyton Orient Football Club by reconsidering their endorsement of West Ham’s move to the Olympic Stadium.
Irrespective of any rules the PL or that may have, does the FSF or the Orient fans really believe the government and the Lord Mayors Office should restrict free trade by preventing businesses from opening up close to a smaller rival or from having a business model that results in them selling their product cheaper. Indeed I doubt they have the right to, otherwise hundreds of small business wiped out by the march of the supermarkets, DIY stores etc could have been saved, so had we been turned down on the grounds we would have harmed LO then I would imagine a big payday in court for us.
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) »

None of the committee members of either the Leyton Orient supporters club or Leyton Orient Fans Trust whose details are on their respective websites were either born in or live in Leyton, which suggests that, like many clubs, their support is diverse and comes from far and wide. There's over four million people within 45 minutes drive of Stratford (and Leyton). With the right business model, there's no reason why Leyton Orient can't attract their usual 4,000+ or more even for each home game.
Locked