23/2/12 SAB Olympic consultation

All you need to know about West Ham United FC's potential move to Stratford.

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

Re: 23/2/12 SAB Olympic consultation

Postby paulhs1 on Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:25 am

The club have said....

"Most recent KUMB poll (on 23 February) shows that the stadium move has 57% in favour, 31% against and 10% undecided."

And yet some on here argue that the current KUMB poll is pointless!!
User avatar
paulhs1
 
Posts: 1789
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2011 3:32 pm
Location: Just north of the Thames

Re: 23/2/12 SAB Olympic consultation

Postby Pop Robson on Wed Mar 14, 2012 2:09 pm

A full and open discussion took place before Sean Whetstone was nominated as the SAB member tasked with collating supporter feedback from the wider supporter base within the constraints of the confidentiality agreement which all supporters had been obliged to sign ahead of attending the meeting as a strict condition imposed by the OPLC.

A final ‘straw poll’ showed an overwhelming majority in favour of the move by the close of the meeting. The club are due to receive feedback from the Supporter Advisory Board’s consultation ahead of the 23 March deadline. As the distribution of minutes were a week behind schedule due to the requirement to seek approval for the contents of the presentation etc. from the OPLC, the preliminary deadline for feedback has been requested by close of business on Friday 16 March, however additional feedback will still be considered if submitted by midday on Wednesday 21 March to enable supporters to consult their fellow supporters at the fixture V Middlesbrough if required.


Look forward to hearing from the SAB group :?
User avatar
Pop Robson
 
Posts: 16244
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2003 9:12 pm
Location: Looking for the 50,000

Re: 23/2/12 SAB Olympic consultation

Postby upton girlie on Wed Mar 14, 2012 4:26 pm

Pop Robson wrote:
Look forward to hearing from the SAB group :?


Hey Pop - let's not make it a 'them and us' situation. You have seen the minutes of the recent SAB meeting and there are representatives from the SAB on this forum.
Those members are talking with people both on this forum and with friends and family, as well as people in the pub etc. If there are points you would like to raise, questions you would like asked or absolutely anything you would like to mention then feel free to either post it on here, send a PM to me or any of the others, or most of us can meet up for a chat at a time jointly agreed, if preferred.
None of us bite!

We are here to represent your views. You may or may not have voted for us to be on the SAB but we are taking our time to represent you. None of us are being paid, expect any benefits from being on the board or expect any preferential treatment. We are on the SAB because we care about our club - just like you. Image
User avatar
upton girlie
Purveyor Of Half-Time Confectionery
 
Posts: 7565
Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 8:02 pm
Location: "Reality is an illusion created by a lack of alcohol."

Re: 23/2/12 SAB Olympic consultation

Postby paulhs1 on Wed Mar 14, 2012 4:47 pm

Upton girlie...all fair points but can I ask how you can discuss this with friends, family and people on the forum when your bot allowed to discuss anything?
User avatar
paulhs1
 
Posts: 1789
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2011 3:32 pm
Location: Just north of the Thames

Re: 23/2/12 SAB Olympic consultation

Postby upton girlie on Wed Mar 14, 2012 6:54 pm

Try this for starters Paul...

Karren Brady wrote:KB explained that supporter advisory board members could genuinely help and highlighted some key areas where the club was seeking feedback
• Supporter Advisory Board members to invite feedback from fellow supporters
• Suggestions as to what can be done to improve ambience?
• Asked what aspects are key to ensure a West Ham Stadium?
• What facilities supporters would like to see?
• What other considerations would you like to make the club aware of ahead of our decision making?


Plenty to talk about with just those points :thup:

People might keep harping on about 'those bits we can't talk about as we signed a confidentiality agreement' but I can assure you that it was only a teensy bit, out of a 3 hour meeting discussing all sorts of things regarding WHUFC's future, as seen in the minutes.

The OPLC laid down the rules regarding the confidentiality agreement and we have to abide by them. Please do not get hung up over something that took up very little of the discussion - there is a lot more to be discussed.
User avatar
upton girlie
Purveyor Of Half-Time Confectionery
 
Posts: 7565
Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 8:02 pm
Location: "Reality is an illusion created by a lack of alcohol."

Re: 23/2/12 SAB Olympic consultation

Postby Johnny Byrne's Boots on Wed Mar 14, 2012 7:10 pm

I realise that you may well be forbidden from going into detail, but was the difference in income (to West Ham) because of being tenants rather than leaseholders discussed? Would West Ham be worse off as tenants? How would the difference in income, if there will be a difference, be addressed?
User avatar
Johnny Byrne's Boots
 
Posts: 19743
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2006 5:19 pm
Location: Ah move over Rover, let Jimi take over

Re: 23/2/12 SAB Olympic consultation

Postby the pink palermo on Wed Mar 14, 2012 7:24 pm

edit .
Last edited by the pink palermo on Tue Mar 27, 2012 12:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
the pink palermo
Huge noggin
 
Posts: 39704
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: Sexy football not sexist football

Re: 23/2/12 SAB Olympic consultation

Postby gavind on Wed Mar 14, 2012 8:27 pm

Johnny Byrne's Boots wrote:I realise that you may well be forbidden from going into detail, but was the difference in income (to West Ham) because of being tenants rather than leaseholders discussed? Would West Ham be worse off as tenants? How would the difference in income, if there will be a difference, be addressed?


Karen stated quite clearly that the income could not be discussed, however the leaseholder opportunity has passed, and now we are left with the choice of being tenants, or staying at the Boleyn.

In my opinion, the choice of a max 38k upton park old style stadium with poor facilities, vs a 60k modern stadium that will be a major tourist attraction in the capital really doesn't take a great deal of thinking time. We have the opertunity to massively increase our fan base and allow people to easily attend our games that otherwise may have stayed at home. You go to Spain and want to go to see at Barcelona. Where do you think tourists want to come to right now? Emerites I guess. in the future we could hear ' I want to visit London and see west ham play at the Olypic stadium.....'

Do you really want to spend the rest our our time seeing this stadium, and we will all see it... Very regularly....and wonder what if....
This is a huge opportunity, allbeit not as good as before but still huge. It could shape our club for years to come.
User avatar
gavind
 
Posts: 2486
Joined: Sat May 29, 2004 8:02 pm

Re: 23/2/12 SAB Olympic consultation

Postby Johnny Byrne's Boots on Wed Mar 14, 2012 9:04 pm

Thanks :thup:

I never was any good at decoding minutes Image
User avatar
Johnny Byrne's Boots
 
Posts: 19743
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2006 5:19 pm
Location: Ah move over Rover, let Jimi take over

Re: 23/2/12 SAB Olympic consultation

Postby mywhufc on Wed Mar 14, 2012 9:48 pm

My own point of view on the SAB meeting is that many of those walking in that spoke to the WHUs view committee members handing out letters to these attending the meeting were against the move, after seeing the clubs presentation and listening to what KB said it seemed to me that during that vote I only saw 2 people not vote in favour of the move, 1 was me and the other was sitting next to me.
The reason for the big vote in favour was for me, down to the flawed presentation. Flawed in that it was out of date information, what it MIGHT have looked like IF West Ham had moved there, I likened it to buying a time share off plan only to find that when it's built, it ain't what they sold you.
Having then sat down at a table with KB and heard more I am perhaps even more anti move than before.
The move to Stratford will change the whole Football experience, in a way sanitise it, most will prob never walk down Green St again or the Barking rd. No bad thing some may think but it's the same walk our fathers, grand fathers and possibly even more have made.
West ham is the life blood of that part of Newham.
What will West Ham become in a new stadium,
top 4 club, not in our lifetime,
regular in the top 6,Very debatable, only finished in the top 3 once, 5th once, 6th I think on 1/2 a dozen times in nearly 110 years of history.
Is that what we want from our football experience, the ability to go shopping after or pick the misses up from there, stuck in the middle of a pre fabricated park far away from the real east London.
Look at the stadium itself, footballs a winter sport what type of cover does the outside of the stadium offer, either in the long walk from Stratford station through the outside of Westfield then across the road past the swimming pool onto the stadium. Off the train to the stadium at least a 15 minute walk depending on the crowd.
Around the stadium, the wrap will be removed after the Olympics, so a new one will be needed, yet that is only tarpaulin, if like the current wrap it will only be panels, not 1 compleat unit.
There will be no car parking what so ever for fans, about only 350 which will be for club officials and disabled and prob corporate.
Cliche time, square peg into a round hole, that what we're trying to do in fit a football ground into the Olympic stadium
Even if they fit tempary seating,which to be fair they do say is a minimum requirement, that will only be lower tier, the upper tier will still be the same distance from the pitch as it is now, just look at Sutts picture of the Boleyn inside the Olympic stadium, that gives a better idea of the size of the Stadium.
The club say that the police, newham council and health and safety all say no to a new east stand, but they don't say on what grounds they say no. Why have the police not objected to the emirates then, or spuds proposed stadium. Newham council, why would they object, perhaps because the Mayor is keen to shunt us out of Green st for his regeneration plans, why, perhaps because when he tried to demolish Queens market and replace it with a super market the locals managed to block him, stop him and then get it scrapped by the Mayor of London, but with West Ham gone he gets his way. What grounds there are for H&S blocking I can't see, again they havnt blocked the emirates or the new theatre of spuds.
Obviously there are pro's and cons to everything, but what type of West Ham do you expect in the future, the Raw real football type or the pre fabricated type, clean and tidy but lacking its soul.
Whatever you think tell the club, or here, or a SAB member. Make your voice heard because people are listening.
User avatar
mywhufc
 
Posts: 3299
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 8:25 pm

Re: 23/2/12 SAB Olympic consultation

Postby DD on Wed Mar 14, 2012 10:29 pm

Uptongirlie/mywhufc

You kindly offered to take points to the Club so here goes (not necessarily in the list offered by KB though)

- why do they continue to misrepresent polls
- why is there a reluctance to widen that straw poll to season ticket holders at least
- are they aware of how badly they have mis-judged mass opinion on this ie the only poll that was in favour was when the Spurs were (supposedly) interested
- what does KB see as the pros and cons of staying at Upton Park
- can the club provide more detail on how the Old Bill, council etc are opposed to developing Upton Park and why
DD
 
Posts: 230
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2003 8:05 pm

Re: 23/2/12 SAB Olympic consultation

Postby mywhufc on Wed Mar 14, 2012 10:43 pm

DD wrote:Uptongirlie/mywhufc

You kindly offered to take points to the Club so here goes (not necessarily in the list offered by KB though)

- why do they continue to misrepresent polls
- why is there a reluctance to widen that straw poll to season ticket holders at least
- are they aware of how badly they have mis-judged mass opinion on this ie the only poll that was in favour was when the Spurs were (supposedly) interested
- what does KB see as the pros and cons of staying at Upton Park
- can the club provide more detail on how the Old Bill, council etc are opposed to developing Upton Park and why

Consider it done
User avatar
mywhufc
 
Posts: 3299
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 8:25 pm

Re: 23/2/12 SAB Olympic consultation

Postby mywhufc on Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:01 pm

mywhufc wrote:My own point of view on the SAB meeting is that many of those walking in that spoke to the WHUs view committee members handing out letters to these attending the meeting were against the move, after seeing the clubs presentation and listening to what KB said it seemed to me that during that vote I only saw 2 people not vote in favour of the move, 1 was me and the other was sitting next to me. .

Edit: Apparently there was one other person that didn't vote in favour of the move, so 1 was me, 1 the bloke next to me, and 1 other who wasn't in my eyeline. Please note their may have been more that didn't vote in favour but just not in my eye line.
I hope that clears up any misrepresentation of other SAB members and there voting habits. :wink:
User avatar
mywhufc
 
Posts: 3299
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 8:25 pm

Re: 23/2/12 SAB Olympic consultation

Postby paulhs1 on Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:03 pm

Uptongirlie....I have signed the same confidentiality agreement as you but I still do not understand how you can consult fans about what was discussed! Everything that Brady has said in your post is what you could have found out from fans without going to the SAB meeting and being privvy to the information.
User avatar
paulhs1
 
Posts: 1789
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2011 3:32 pm
Location: Just north of the Thames

Re: 23/2/12 SAB Olympic consultation

Postby Pop Robson on Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:16 pm

upton girlie wrote:
Hey Pop - let's not make it a 'them and us' situation. You have seen the minutes of the recent SAB meeting and there are representatives from the SAB on this forum.
Those members are talking with people both on this forum and with friends and family, as well as people in the pub etc. If there are points you would like to raise, questions you would like asked or absolutely anything you would like to mention then feel free to either post it on here, send a PM to me or any of the others, or most of us can meet up for a chat at a time jointly agreed, if preferred.
None of us bite!

We are here to represent your views. You may or may not have voted for us to be on the SAB but we are taking our time to represent you. None of us are being paid, expect any benefits from being on the board or expect any preferential treatment. We are on the SAB because we care about our club - just like you. Image



Just not seen anything from anyone saying they were from SAB etc either here or elsewhere
User avatar
Pop Robson
 
Posts: 16244
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2003 9:12 pm
Location: Looking for the 50,000

Re: 23/2/12 SAB Olympic consultation

Postby Pop Robson on Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:20 pm

mywhufc wrote:My own point of view on the SAB meeting is that many of those walking in that spoke to the WHUs view committee members handing out letters to these attending the meeting were against the move, after seeing the clubs presentation and listening to what KB said it seemed to me that during that vote I only saw 2 people not vote in favour of the move, 1 was me and the other was sitting next to me.
The reason for the big vote in favour was for me, down to the flawed presentation. Flawed in that it was out of date information, what it MIGHT have looked like IF West Ham had moved there, I likened it to buying a time share off plan only to find that when it's built, it ain't what they sold you.
Having then sat down at a table with KB and heard more I am perhaps even more anti move than before.
The move to Stratford will change the whole Football experience, in a way sanitise it, most will prob never walk down Green St again or the Barking rd. No bad thing some may think but it's the same walk our fathers, grand fathers and possibly even more have made.
West ham is the life blood of that part of Newham.
What will West Ham become in a new stadium,
top 4 club, not in our lifetime,
regular in the top 6,Very debatable, only finished in the top 3 once, 5th once, 6th I think on 1/2 a dozen times in nearly 110 years of history.
Is that what we want from our football experience, the ability to go shopping after or pick the misses up from there, stuck in the middle of a pre fabricated park far away from the real east London.
Look at the stadium itself, footballs a winter sport what type of cover does the outside of the stadium offer, either in the long walk from Stratford station through the outside of Westfield then across the road past the swimming pool onto the stadium. Off the train to the stadium at least a 15 minute walk depending on the crowd.
Around the stadium, the wrap will be removed after the Olympics, so a new one will be needed, yet that is only tarpaulin, if like the current wrap it will only be panels, not 1 compleat unit.
There will be no car parking what so ever for fans, about only 350 which will be for club officials and disabled and prob corporate.
Cliche time, square peg into a round hole, that what we're trying to do in fit a football ground into the Olympic stadium
Even if they fit tempary seating,which to be fair they do say is a minimum requirement, that will only be lower tier, the upper tier will still be the same distance from the pitch as it is now, just look at Sutts picture of the Boleyn inside the Olympic stadium, that gives a better idea of the size of the Stadium.
The club say that the police, newham council and health and safety all say no to a new east stand, but they don't say on what grounds they say no. Why have the police not objected to the emirates then, or spuds proposed stadium. Newham council, why would they object, perhaps because the Mayor is keen to shunt us out of Green st for his regeneration plans, why, perhaps because when he tried to demolish Queens market and replace it with a super market the locals managed to block him, stop him and then get it scrapped by the Mayor of London, but with West Ham gone he gets his way. What grounds there are for H&S blocking I can't see, again they havnt blocked the emirates or the new theatre of spuds.
Obviously there are pro's and cons to everything, but what type of West Ham do you expect in the future, the Raw real football type or the pre fabricated type, clean and tidy but lacking its soul.
Whatever you think tell the club, or here, or a SAB member. Make your voice heard because people are listening.


Only 2 voted against :shock: Did they drug the drinks or was the presentation the best propaganda ever !!!

I'm in Row 13 of the OS on May 5th I'll let you know about the view

Alan Devonshire,Billy Jennings&Brian Dear the former players were all asked their thoughts on moving to Stratford or staying at the Boleyn.
All 3 were in favour of staying at the Boleyn Ground.
User avatar
Pop Robson
 
Posts: 16244
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2003 9:12 pm
Location: Looking for the 50,000

Re: 23/2/12 SAB Olympic consultation

Postby mywhufc on Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:28 pm

mywhufc wrote:My own point of view on the SAB meeting is that many of those walking in that spoke to the WHUs view committee members handing out letters to these attending the meeting were against the move, after seeing the clubs presentation and listening to what KB said it seemed to me that during that vote I only saw 2 people not vote in favour of the move, 1 was me and the other was sitting next to me.



Pop Robson wrote:Only 2 voted against :shock: Did they drug the drinks or was the presentation the best propaganda ever !!!

I'm in Row 13 of the OS on May 5th I'll let you know about the view

Can I just point out, again, that I only saw 2 from where I was sitting, apparently there was at LEAST 1 more that didn't vote, there may have been others as well. Not many though.
They did put on a good show, sadly I can't say what of,
User avatar
mywhufc
 
Posts: 3299
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 8:25 pm

Re: 23/2/12 SAB Olympic consultation

Postby Pop Robson on Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:44 pm

mywhufc wrote:They did put on a good show, sadly I can't say what of,


Did they mention the viewing distances and compare them to the back row at Wembley again !!
User avatar
Pop Robson
 
Posts: 16244
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2003 9:12 pm
Location: Looking for the 50,000

Re: 23/2/12 SAB Olympic consultation

Postby WHUTerry on Thu Mar 15, 2012 12:51 am

Pop Robson wrote:Just not seen anything from anyone saying they were from SAB etc either here or elsewhere


Not sure what you mean Pop. I think several of us have said on this thread that we're SAB members. I, like uptongirlie, am happy to receive questions either via PM or this thread, which I will gladly pass on to Sean Whetstone, who's collating the feedback

paulhs1 wrote:Uptongirlie....I have signed the same confidentiality agreement as you but I still do not understand how you can consult fans about what was discussed! Everything that Brady has said in your post is what you could have found out from fans without going to the SAB meeting and being privvy to the information.


Again Paul, as per my previous reply to you on page 2, I still feel you're not grasping how the SAB works. We're not consulting about what was discussed, although the minutes can inform further questioning. The aim of the SAB is solely to collect ideas, thoughts, opinions which will then be fed back to the club prior to next Friday's deadline.

mywhufc wrote:The reason for the big vote in favour was for me, down to the flawed presentation. Flawed in that it was out of date information, what it MIGHT have looked like IF West Ham had moved there, I likened it to buying a time share off plan only to find that when it's built, it ain't what they sold you.

Why was the presentation flawed? The question was simple. If they were able to offer an experience that delivered our wishes, would we be happy to move. I think the answer would be yes for most people.
User avatar
WHUTerry
 
Posts: 618
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2008 2:24 pm
Location: Epping

Re: 23/2/12 SAB Olympic consultation

Postby AJ on Thu Mar 15, 2012 1:08 am

• Supporter Advisory Board members to invite feedback from fellow supporters
• Suggestions as to what can be done to improve ambience?
• Asked what aspects are key to ensure a West Ham Stadium?
• What facilities supporters would like to see?
• What other considerations would you like to make the club aware of ahead of our decision making?


1. how can we give feedback when we dont know the final plans? its like someone in one room with the lego pieces and someone in another room with the instructions

2. a west ham stadium has west ham united in big eff off letters in bold on the outside, the seats are claret and blue, and the stadium is tight and intimidating for the opposition (something that has been drifting away from the Boleyn Ground, which could be rectified)

3. facilities would be adequate ventilated smoking areas (not the bogs), plenty of bars and refreshment outlets (properly staffed) bars open post match to stop everyone heading for the trains at the same time (with maybe a match being shown on big screens), car parking facilities for fans that drive (get a season ticket and get a free parking space or park n ride scheme from A13 location)

4. If the front row is more than 10ft away dont expect fans to like it (dont cover it up with sightlines bull****) get the front row a foot away from touchline and well be happy, and perhaps some concrete plans (even when we had it won last time everything was hush hush). Plus how will they entice people to go to a game (in Premiership) if views are better on screen in your local pub.
User avatar
AJ
 
Posts: 7626
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2005 9:20 pm
Location: Dreaming dreams, scheming schemes, building castles high

PreviousNext

Return to The Olympic Stadium

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron





Fatal error: ./cache/ is NOT writable. in /web/sites/kumb/kumb.com/forum/includes/acm/acm_file.php on line 103