|All you need to know about West Ham United FC's potential move to Stratford.
Summary of our report, with result of poll, is as follows:
1.1 WHU’S VIEW? is a campaign which was set up in October 2011 by a group of West Ham United fans, with the sole aim that an independent poll of match attending supporters should be held prior to the club committing to any move to the Olympic Stadium [O.S.]
1.2 WHU’S VIEW? is not a campaign opposing the proposed move to the O.S., but holds a neutral position, with its Committee members having a range of views.
1.3 1,700 supporters registered their support for such a poll and discussions were had with the Club requesting that they commission one prior to making a decision to bid for the O.S. Ultimately, they have refused to do so and we feel there has been a distinct lack of consultation with supporters over the most important decision West Ham United will ever make.
1.4 In order that supporters have an opportunity to voice an opinion for or against the proposed move to the O.S., WHU’S VIEW? have carried out our own poll.
1.5 Polling was carried out by handing out leaflets to fans attending recent home games and online. Our intention was to gauge the opinion of regularly attending supporters.
1.6 WHU’s VIEW? has checked the names and patron numbers of those who voted to ensure there is no duplication and the voting is broken down later in this report.
1.7 Results of the poll question, ‘Based on all available information do you agree with West Ham United’s proposed move to the Olympic Stadium?’ were:
YES : 13.4%
NO : 86.6%
The total number of votes cast was 2431 (plus a few that were incomplete or stated 'don't know').
Why so few polled ?
Why no option of cannot reach a properly informed decision given the available information ?
Given 1. That so few were polled. 2. That antis being significantly more vocal than pros is an acknowledged polling distortion factor. 3. That polling those who currently attend games polls those for who that is convenient and doesn't necessarily poll those for who attending the Olympic Stadium is convenient. There appears to be problems with this polls method.
Which is acknowledged.
How would you have done it?
Just seen an e mail from one leading MP involved saying that he will ensure the result is taken seriously. I predict there will now be a real hullabaloo because not many people involved in the process are impressed at the Club's almost complete lack of consultation. Perhaps you should be asking them about their methodology?
It's a snapshot of our support. There was plenty of different methods of voting, i.e. not just at games.
Either way the poll is more productive than anything the club has offered.
Sorry folks but that poll gives every impression of being so flawed as to be ****ing useless...
I'll retract that should some stand on it's own two feet explanation of how it is of sound method be posted, but until then.....
OK, I'll try.
A group of s/t holders who had not met before were concerned that the Club had decided to move come what may. We felt they should widely consult their supporters about the move before making such a decision as indeed they had pledged to do.
We wrote to them with no reply. We then handed out leaflets asking those interested to register and 1,700 did in the next week.
We met with the club and asked them to poll before bidding. We asked them to use their database and phrase a question along the lines of 'West Ham undertake to provide...' They refused.
We decided to do our own poll. We handed out leaflets, mostly in the rain, to passing supporters and asked them to fill them in. There were 8-12 of us and it was hard to do more than 100 each at a game. Those registed with s/t or Member details online could also complete a leaflet. These were all then cross referrred and all duplicates removed.
There is a full report with a breakdown of the stas etc to follow which I hope UtJ may put up. This shows that 2,000 s/t holders and Members voted - far more than any survey before.
So, if this is methodically '****ing useless' then I apologise, but it was the best we could do. Lots of people thanked us for 'doing something' and a key General Assembly Member e mailed us earlier saying the report 'appears to be a large enough sample to be statistically significant with a commendably unloaded question'.
I accept the poll is flawed and inadequate. You should be asking whose fault that is. You should also ask why it is that the club quote and misquote far less methodically sound polls both in the media and, most probably, in their bid.
OK, thanks for that explanation, I accept that it's an as best as was possible poll - That aside there is an important structural consideration that needs highlighting with regard to any polls that may be conducted....
The information on which to base a decision isn't as complete as it might be, meaning that for those who consider there to be an evident now dealbreaking reason to decide no it is easy for them to decide no as further information doesn't come into affecting their decision.....
For those who see see no evident now dealbreaking reason to say no it is impossible for them to fully consideredly decide yes in the absence of their knowing the rest of the information......
Against that background it is impossible to hold any meaningful poll however well conducted as it's not really possible to decide yes given that unknown factors yet to be made known may affect that decision.
As mentioned... the poll i conducted.... http://www.kumb.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=135679
Same question as you....
Would you move to the Olympic Stadium if….It stayed exactly as it is now?
NO - 86% (131)
YES - 14% (21)
We have come up with the same % so shows consistancy.....
Which shows exactly what we all knew...
If you were so neutral, its a real shame you didnt ask more or fairer questions...
For example.... Would you move to the Olympic Stadium if.... It had new seating arrangement and was fully branded West Ham, new roof and new facilities added?
As in my poll it showed 75% of the voters were FOR that scenario...
All you have done is asked ONE very weighted and loaded question which was only ever going to get one outcome, and now trying whip up a storm when had you of ask neutral questions may have had a totallly different outcome.... but you all knew that
I fully accept that. The alternative, however, was having some sort of poll before a decision is made or not having one. What is the point in any ballot after a decision?
It was probably the Club putting false stories in the media about '100%' support and quoting old polls which tipped us over the edge.
Would that be your response if the results were the other way around?
As an aside, regardless of the result well done to everyone involved with WHUs View? Your efforts are appreciated.
MD_HM - We didn't ask would you move to the stadium as it is now, we asked based on all information available. This allowed people to take into account information from the club on what a good stadium they think it will be and what they've read in places like KUMB. Many said they voted no because they didn't trust the club to deliver a suitable stadium.
We discussed asking more questions but decided against for simplicity and because people will only stop for a short time before games.
We put it to the club that they could ask a poll that would get round the confidentiality issue by asking what you suggested - would you move to branded stadium, with roof etc etc. The club declined to do this.
Sorry if it's already been said by why wasn't there a "don't know" or "Not enough details known to answer" tick box?
I'm sorry but I'm with Ironworx. Until we hear the full details of what we are getting with this stadium any polls do not allow for that factor when answering. A simple question of "Olympic stadium, Yes or No" is ambiguous at best.
How on earth can the club hold a poll when they can't even tell us what's going on?
Below is a quote received this morning from a London Assembly member;
"It appears to be a large enough sample to be statistically significant with a commendably unloaded question "
Yes. As some posters to these forums know I was a scientist before I retired, as such I like to see information presented properly whatever it presents. I have accepted that this poll was none at all or this was the best possible and that's reason for why it is as it is - But that doesn't make it a good poll.
As the previous poster has described poll wording can distort outcome enormously, and in this particular instance it isn't possible to poll accurately however well it's done due to the information that isn't yet known.
To decide no it is necessary to conclude that whatever isn't known cannot override existing factors to conclude no - That is possible should it be considered that there is an absolute dealbreaker with no workaround possible.
But to decide yes it is necessary to conclude that there is nothing amongst the unknown that is an absolute dealbreaker - That isn't possible full stop.
It is not possible to conduct a meaningful poll however well conducted given those circumstances.
Then whoever that assembly member is they're a ****ing idiot who needs to be drummed out to be replaced by a competent, because from a scientists point of view the poll method is about as poor as could be imagined, whilst worse still it's not possible to hold a poll on the matter however well conducted given the unknown information...
It is genuinely worrying that an assembly member can be of such low calibre to conclude that.
OK, based on that answer and given the current circumstances and what we know (which is not a lot, I grant you), do you suggest we all just sit around quietly waiting for the inevitable metaphorical kick in the goolies? (and if we do all keep our gobs shut and conform like good boys and girls then it will be an astronomical kick in the goolies, I can assure you).
If not, then what do you suggest? (Serious question).
Firstly I commend anyone who steps up and takes the time to do something they believe in so well done on that front. Also I can understand the frustration that led to you doing this.
However, I think this poll is deeply flawed and potentially dangerous because of how it'll be interpreted. I would be surprised if we don't see Mr Hearn all over this. In the media, there'll be no "based on the information currently available" caveat, it'll simply be " 90% of West Ham fans against moving".
Also, a lot of people are waiting for plans. Most of the people who voted will be the more entrenched, meaning they're almost certainly anti.
Couple of question: Why do you think you poll showed 10% in favour and 80% against whereas Iain Dale's showed 40% in favour and 40% against? Also, why no 'don't know' option, especially online? Or an option to vote 'yes if retractable seating'? I think a lot of people won't have voted 'yes' simply because they don't know what 'yes' means at the moment
We're you for or against the bond scheme?