23/2/12 SAB Olympic consultation

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

Moderators: Romford, Rio, Gnome, Northern Paulo, Lost Hammer, bonehead, chalks, goes2eleven, Alf Garnett's (Ex) Missus, bristolhammerfc, Wheels, sicknote

Re: 23/2/12 SAB Olympic consultation

Postby mushy on Tue Mar 27, 2012 9:24 am

the pink palermo wrote:Mushy

You may not realise it but by asking for people who voted yes to explain why , you are, by definition asking how they voted .

Given the fact on another thread you yourself used the phrase "who are these people ?" , don't be suprised if the people who voted yes decline to answer .
Sorry Pinky, that really isnt on, you really think that there would be reprisals? I hardly think my phrase 'who are these people?' is in anyway threatening, besides this is an internet forum and nobody actually uses their real names.
I very much doubt there was anything said in that meeting that would have persuaded them though .I repeat, again, there was nothing of any real note said or shown in the meeting imo .
See Mywhufc answer, he thinks different
The problem is the day will come when fans are all pointing the finger at other fans, accusing them of having sold out , and blaming them for the move to Stratford , all because of a brief show of hands that will have had no influence whatsoever on whether the club decided to bid or not .
It may have no influence but the club may well still use it in a propaganda drive.Surely the blame thing works both ways as well? how come the no voters can express an opinion but not the yes people?
As I told you 10 days or so ago , things will get bitter before they get better .


maybe the bitterness will be eased if the whole process is a little more open and you lot had not been asked to sign the secrets act?. Its the fear of the unknown.
mushy
 
Posts: 7509
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 4:17 pm
Location: Kumb Poster of the year 2009

Re: 23/2/12 SAB Olympic consultation

Postby Doc H Ball on Tue Mar 27, 2012 9:32 am

the pink palermo wrote:
.Consultation is not a ballot ....

....They have consulted , and they know many fans are not in agreement .From their persepctive , so what ? They don't need permission to do what they want to do.


No, you are right, 'consultation' might not be a ballot. What it certainly isn't, however, is talking to a handful of people in private and getting a report from them just before submitting the bid they were always going to make.

I have sat down with the WHU's View? committee and racked my brains about how the Club could properly consult. We have read numerous e mails from supporters and various posts (including your idea for a ballot at the turnstiles) and concluded that the only fair and extensive form of consultation would be by way of a ballot/questionnaire of all s/t holders and members. Chelsea and Everton concluded the same.

In the terms of this process, 'consultation' also has a legal meaning. The Club are REQUIRED to consult - they may be challenged on whether or not they have met that requirement. The OPLC are REQUIRED to follow Govt guidance on football governance - they may be challenged on whether or not they have met that requirement.

You are also right, of course, about the owners being able to do what they want. This was accepted by us in our Open Letter. What they cannot do, however, is disregard the rules they are under or their moral obligations. If they do, the ghost of Vic Watson will rise from the empty trophy cabinet and strike down a plague of locus and pestilence. Or I might write a letter...
User avatar
Doc H Ball
 
Posts: 5263
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 6:29 pm
Location: in nick

Re: 23/2/12 SAB Olympic consultation

Postby the pink palermo on Tue Mar 27, 2012 10:01 am

Edit .
Last edited by the pink palermo on Tue Mar 27, 2012 12:47 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
the pink palermo
Huge noggin
 
Posts: 27081
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: don't let it burn, don't let it fade

Re: 23/2/12 SAB Olympic consultation

Postby the pink palermo on Tue Mar 27, 2012 10:16 am

Edit .
Last edited by the pink palermo on Tue Mar 27, 2012 12:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
the pink palermo
Huge noggin
 
Posts: 27081
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: don't let it burn, don't let it fade

Re: 23/2/12 SAB Olympic consultation

Postby upton girlie on Tue Mar 27, 2012 10:46 am

mushy wrote:Mrs Girlie,
An excellent reply and was just what I was looking for, it answers a lot of my questions, I hope you dont feel like you will be 'blamed' (as Pinky put it) by either myself or anyone else for that matter, not just on this forum but elsewhere.
It should not be like that.


I feel nothing of the sort. As individuals we are all entitled to our opinions rather than join bandwagons for the sake of it.
I do, however, think that some people join the anti brigade without looking at the whole situation and emotions become involved without even thinking about the practicalities.

mushy wrote:The problem is as I see it is that because there has been a signing of what appears to be the equivelent of the official secrets act signed by members of the SAB, and the fear of reprisals from 'no' voters it all looks a bit sort of clandestine to those of us not at the meetings. This I think you will agree makes people naturally suspicious, us supporters believe we have a right to know whats going on and the reasons why, this is all I am asking.
Can you tell me (if you know) what is the reason the club asked you to sign the non-disclosure forms and their purpose? It cant be that it will give our competitors in the bidding process a heads-up as we as far as I can tell are the only football club going for it.
It maybe that because you have signed that form you are even unable to answer, did the club ever explain why you were asked to sign it, and was it a condition of joining SAB?


For goodness sake, this has been previously explained.
It was a confidentiality document - please leave out the drama!
The OPLC requested this action and in order to submit a bid, WHUFC had to agree. We were told beforehand and I am sure that if anyone had a problem with this then they would have been able to speak to Tara, Esha or anyone else involved in this matter.
What we were told, that we are unable to pass on, was such a miniscule amount of information, albeit important, compared to the rest of the (OS) SAB meeting.
Please, to all concerned, hold back any scanty feelings of paranoia - all will be revealed and I am sure that, afterwards, you will understand why. It is for the benefit of our club and on that matter, you will have to try and trust us as a group, fellow ST holders and supporters of our club. Thank you.

mushy wrote:As for your reasons for the move, I cant and wont argue with any of that, to me its just a matter of wait and see though, see what the plans are and what we are going to get, this sort of makes a yes or no vote at this stage not quite right.


I agree. I think the most crucial and more dynamic vote will be the one after the plans of the bid are revealed. Of course, the anti brigade will say that we shouldn't have submitted a bid without the fans being consulted in the first place. I agree with this too but due to the OPLC laying down certain restrictions, I think that the feedback from any consultation would be flawed without all the details of the bid being available to all. Would you think of moving to a new house if you didn't know all the details?

mushy wrote:Its like those who vote labour or Tory at a general election, not because of the party policies and what they have said they will do but because they always vote that way.
Anyway I digress.
My fear (its the only word I can think of) is this word 'progress' that you use, will we progress or will we fade and die?
I just have not seen enough yet to convince me that we will actually progress,if the fans leave this club in their droves then where does it leave us all?
Anyway please continue to keep us updated, and please all of you 'yes' voters, feel free to express your views without fear of lynching, I rather feel that all of this has become a little too melodramatic.


Maybe I used the word 'progress' too much. I mean movement towards something that will move us, as a club, forward. There seems to be a lot of negativity towards the move on here and it is not completely something that I have heard away from this forum. Of course I understand the reasons and I am good friends with a lot of people who are completely against the move to the OS but I do feel that there are people who are positive towards the move but feel disloyal to our club. I understand that but in order to progress we need to leave some of the old emotions behind.

I have a child of 13 who has been a ST holder since the age of four. We all (well, a lot of us) have kids, grandkids, nieces and nephews who want to follow West Ham into the future. Do you really think, that in 30 years time, when he is a middle aged man, he will be enjoying the delights of sitting in the Boleyn? How much longer do you think it will last? How much longer, for example, can we have a stadium that does not even have any hot water?

People have said they will leave, won't renew their ST's, never attend a match again, if we move to the OS. How many other clubs supporters have said this when their move has been necessary? How can we promote West Ham as a club, to the next generation, if we keep up this ongoing negative attitude?
I want to see the future generation watch a match in a stadium where they will enjoy the surroundings, facilities, make an atmosphere themselves and understand what watching West Ham is all about. I would like to think, as an older generation, we can help and promote the 'West Ham Soul' and move it on.

It's up to us, the current attendees at the Boleyn to help our club move on into the future and provide an atmosphere that keeps them, our future generations, continue it on. :raver:
User avatar
upton girlie
Purveyor Of Half-Time Confectionery
 
Posts: 7334
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 Pop Robson on Tue Mar 27, 2012 10:59 am

So now the bid is in, does anyone know if we'll see any 'plans' before the decision is made in May ?

Then everyone can join the brigade of their preference !


Since the club will be renting are they willing to pay towards the necessary changes needed to the OS or is that down to the OPLC ?

As a tenant I believe if the landlord agrees then they can make changes, but shirley then the costs would be too much, unless Newham and UEL have the funds !
User avatar
Pop Robson
 
Posts: 13231
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2003 9:12 pm

Re: 23/2/12 SAB Olympic consultation

Postby upton girlie on Tue Mar 27, 2012 11:03 am

Pop Robson wrote:So now the bid is in, does anyone know if we'll see any 'plans' before the decision is made in May ?


I'm not sure Pop - tell you what, I'll see what I can find out and hopefully get back to you with a response ASAP :thup:
User avatar
upton girlie
Purveyor Of Half-Time Confectionery
 
Posts: 7334
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 Doc H Ball on Tue Mar 27, 2012 11:12 am

Pop Robson wrote:So now the bid is in, does anyone know if we'll see any 'plans' before the decision is made in May ?

Then everyone can join the brigade of their preference !


Good question Pop.

WHUs View? put in a Freedom of Information Request to the OPLC on that very point. Guess what - it hasn't been answered! A FIR should now go to the Dept for Sport Media and Culture asking them why their body hasn't complied. It's like pulling teeth mate.

The Club told us that they understood plans couldn't be released until after 21 May. This is after the outcome is decided and after the season has finished. Convenient eh?

Maybe one day somebody can explain to me why the 4 bids submitted supposedly cannot be made public now all bids are in.
User avatar
Doc H Ball
 
Posts: 5263
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 6:29 pm
Location: in nick

Re: 23/2/12 SAB Olympic consultation

Postby the pink palermo on Tue Mar 27, 2012 1:03 pm

Leave you all to it . :thup:
User avatar
the pink palermo
Huge noggin
 
Posts: 27081
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: don't let it burn, don't let it fade

Re: 23/2/12 SAB Olympic consultation

Postby mushy on Wed Mar 28, 2012 11:36 am

the pink palermo wrote:Leave you all to it . :thup:

Pinky,
How come?
Both yourself and UG have some excellent points and arguments for and against the move.
I was myself going to announce that I was quite happy to step back and let the likes of you both get on with it as I felt we were in safe hands.
I have not replied to your posts from yesterday as I was on the road to Peterboro, but I now see they have been removed, not sure why as there was nothing contentious in any of them.I sincerely hope its not a reaction to anything I have said or done.
Dont give up, we need some balanced views on both sides.
keep the faith, keep fighting.
mushy
 
Posts: 7509
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 4:17 pm
Location: Kumb Poster of the year 2009

Re: 23/2/12 SAB Olympic consultation

Postby Pop Robson on Mon Apr 02, 2012 8:54 pm

upton girlie wrote:
I'm not sure Pop - tell you what, I'll see what I can find out and hopefully get back to you with a response ASAP :thup:


Any luck on this one UG ?
User avatar
Pop Robson
 
Posts: 13231
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2003 9:12 pm

Re: 23/2/12 SAB Olympic consultation

Postby mywhufc on Mon Apr 02, 2012 9:20 pm

upton girlie wrote:
I'm not sure Pop - tell you what, I'll see what I can find out and hopefully get back to you with a response ASAP :thup:


Pop Robson wrote:Any luck on this one UG ?

The answer pop is No, plans won't be revealed until after the decision is made.
User avatar
mywhufc
 
Posts: 2668
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 8:25 pm

Re: 23/2/12 SAB Olympic consultation

Postby Pop Robson on Mon Apr 02, 2012 10:09 pm

They can't have been that good anyway.
User avatar
Pop Robson
 
Posts: 13231
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2003 9:12 pm

Re: 23/2/12 SAB Olympic consultation

Postby the pink palermo on Mon Apr 02, 2012 11:17 pm

Pop , as I've posted several times mate , there are no plans .

The plans that everyone wants to see do not exist as yet .They do not exist because there is no budget to design something to .

That is because the OPLC have not awarded the stadium to anyone yet .The process will be

1. Get awarded the stadium in principle
2. Argue the toss and try and squeeze the last penny from the deal by Brady - they will use the negative comments provided by the SAB to squeeze the OPLC on every aspect of the deal .
3. Lop a chunk off of whatever could be available to spend on a conversion - thus making sure it doesn't run over budget .
4. Get a couple of contractors / architects to give some proposals - seriously , at this stage there will have been nothing more detailed than a couple of sketeches and "outline" ideas .
5. Skimp and save a few quid , compromise on everything except the Corporate facillities - undoubtedly this will be a priority area .
6. Award the contract to build - probably on a fixed price basis .
7. Show the fans the designs - I reckon thats not going to happen this side of Christmas .
8.Given that sort of a timetable I would not expect too major a change in the structure .An extended roof , an increase in the rake of the seating on the sides , and a few hot dog stands .Oh and a **** load of Corporate boxes .

There are no plans .

There never were any plans .

There will be no detailed design work undertaken until they have a realistic view on what budget could be available .Brady will use all the negative comments provided by the SAB to try and increase the cash that is given to West Ham to convert the sradium , for example :

1."Our fans say there must be a roof over their heads, and our advisors say it could be £40m for that alone"
2."As you can read in their report , our fans say they must be nearer the pitch , and demountable seating will cost £30m"
3. "As you can read in their report , our fans say there must be this , that and the other , all of which costs £50m"

"So, as a minimum that's £120m , and as you know we are £90m in debt and have no money , so if you want us to move in there you need to give us that money to undertake the conversion or ascribe to us the income from naming rights and venue operating to allow us to make enough money to pay for it ourselves ......"

Now, one reason why there are no detailed plans is that if they existed they would form the basis of negotiation from a factual basis , when it is clearly in the owners favour to negotiate from a theorectical basis - if something is simply an idea / concept it's harder for anyone to say "that wouldn't cost that much" ...........

Deatiled plans can be costed out and assessed , concepts allow for considerable room to negotiate .Brady can talk about "what might be available" .....it's called keeping your options open .

Hence why there are no plans . A few sketches, ideas maybe , but definately no plans .
User avatar
the pink palermo
Huge noggin
 
Posts: 27081
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: don't let it burn, don't let it fade

Re: 23/2/12 SAB Olympic consultation

Postby IronMaiden123 on Tue Apr 03, 2012 8:43 am

There are no plans of retractable/demountable seating because it is impractical. The constraints of the stadium construction, sightlines and time slots for other sports and events which would require demountable seating to be removed mean it was never a runner.
IronMaiden123
 
Posts: 63
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2011 10:49 am

Re: 23/2/12 SAB Olympic consultation

Postby Pop Robson on Tue Apr 03, 2012 1:36 pm

the pink palermo wrote:Pop , as I've posted several times mate , there are no plans .
.


Cheers PP, pretty much what I suspected

Brady mentioned £180M once, sounds like it will stay as it is, way too expensive on top of £500M already spent.

P.S The beer in the Sun has gone up again !!
User avatar
Pop Robson
 
Posts: 13231
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2003 9:12 pm

Re: 23/2/12 SAB Olympic consultation

Postby the pink palermo on Tue Apr 03, 2012 2:02 pm

Pop Robson wrote:Cheers PP, pretty much what I suspected

Brady mentioned £180M once, sounds like it will stay as it is, way too expensive on top of £500M already spent.

P.S The beer in the Sun has gone up again !!


Yes, I'd heard they have rammed the price up in there .

The Swan is the cheapest adult pub to drink in now - 50p a pint less for the same brands compared with the Moon arms .

And Sandy looks better in a dress than Dawn :lol:

As for the OS - there's a lot of jaw jaw to go on yet .
User avatar
the pink palermo
Huge noggin
 
Posts: 27081
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: don't let it burn, don't let it fade

Re: 23/2/12 SAB Olympic consultation

Postby NorthBankAlliance on Tue Apr 03, 2012 9:59 pm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/west-ham/9184404/West-Ham-supporters-back-move-to-Olympic-Stadium-insists-club-vice-chairman-Karren-Brady.html


West Ham vice-chairman Karren Brady claimed that the supporters who had seen the detailed proposals to move from Upton Park to the Olympic Stadium were “100 per cent” behind the switch if their 99-year lease tender to become the anchor tenant succeeds.

Brady said she had shown scores of supporters on an advisory board, representing a cross-section of the club membership, the detailed plans for the move, the finances underpinning the optimism for a switch from the 35,000-seat Upton Park and the opportunities to grow the club and the area.

She said having West Ham at the 60,000-seat Olympic Stadium would attract an extra million visitors a year to the Olympic Park and bring a global profile to the stadium. Importantly for the supporters, such a move would bring about reduced ticket prices, even though the club’s owners were injecting around £30 million a year to underpin the club’s finances.

“They are persons of substantial wealth,” said Brady of David Sullivan and David Gold, noting that they were personally committed to the club having taken on £100 million of debt – an amount since whittled down to £70 million – and were fully behind the proposed move.

Brady said all of the supporters have had to sign a strict confidentiality clause before hearing the plans but claimed “all of them have agreed with what I have presented, there hasn’t been a single dissenting voice”.

She was slightly frustrated that the plans could not be divulged to the wider fan base until a decision had been taken.

Brady said the club’s Olympic Stadium proposals would work with football in winter and athletics in summer and that the football sight lines would not be an issue.

“We believe this is the best move for our fans and supporters and makes attending matches more affordable. There is a chance to grow revenue and increase financial stability and is the only way for us to move to the next level,” she said.

She said the stadium offered twice the spectator capacity and much greater corporate hospitality options.

West Ham are one of four main bidders for the Olympic Stadium with a decision expected on successful “anchor concessionaires” due at the end of May.

US sports operators and concert promoters could also be involved in the bidding process. It is understood the Mayor of London, whether that be Boris Johnson or Ken Livingstone, will sign off on the successful applicants.

West Ham have permission for any future move from the Premier League but the club had not yet sought permission from the football league.
NorthBankAlliance
 
Posts: 1309
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2011 11:21 am

Re: 23/2/12 SAB Olympic consultation

Postby NorthBankAlliance on Tue Apr 03, 2012 10:04 pm

Looks like hadleigh was right
NorthBankAlliance
 
Posts: 1309
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2011 11:21 am

Re: 23/2/12 SAB Olympic consultation

Postby Doc H Ball on Wed Apr 04, 2012 12:28 am

the pink palermo wrote:There are no plans .



Don't understand that Pinky - seems you have been shown 'detailed plans'
User avatar
Doc H Ball
 
Posts: 5263
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 6:29 pm
Location: in nick

PreviousNext

Return to The Olympic Stadium

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 4 guests