Doc H Ball wrote:You assume that if the bid is accepted there can then be a vote before contracts are signed. When we met Brady she said the same and we agreed to hold off any poll. Then, following the meeting, the Club sent us an e mail specifically retracting that and saying that 'the outcome will be decided' when the preferred bidder was chosen. Any ballot after the decision has been made is irrelevant and any definition of 'consultation' is that it precedes rather than follows the decision making process.
What you're saying seems to be contrary to what a club spokesman said in a report yesterday,
"It remains the club’s belief that a poll of any description at this time would not be beneficial as we are unable to share all of the necessary information about our bid with supporters due to the constraints of the process.
West Ham United remains committed to extensive supporter consultation, including an official poll representative of all supporters, once we are permitted to share our vision for the Stadium."
The LLDC and its predecessor the OPLC have continually said that the club cannot release any details of the bid. As we know via a recent WHUFC press release, the club have tried to get permission to release information but have been continually pushed back.
Doc H Ball wrote:Fair enough. WHTID's vote was about 40% for, 40% against and 20% unsure as I recall which is hardly a ringing endorsement. The same logic applies to the OLAS, KUMB and Newham Recorder polls all of which show heavy votes against the move.
The point is though that it demonstrates the volatility of these types of polls.
Doc H Ball wrote:I didn't know you couldn't comment on line, I thought you could. That accounted for about 20% of the vote out of interest. There was some debate about a range of questions that could be put and we took the feedback from those who had registered on that as we felt we should. The majority, for right or wrong, wanted a straight Yes/No/Comments in the end. I repeat, we asked the Club to send out a full questionnaire and were never equipped to do a proper survey ourselves.
I guess though that a majority of registrants aren't keen on the move. Fair comment? If I was if that opinion, the only answer I'd want on there is no, counterbalanced with a yes option. This is where it gets tricky, because I think that a lot of no's are voting that way because they simply don't want to move, which is fair enough. People will think the way the question is phrased means a yes vote essentially means voting for an athletics stadium. I think a lot of people are in the 'yes if' category. Yes if we can get retractable seating; yes if we can a decent slice of the naming rights; yes if the stadium can be made to feel like our home, etc. I think this is where a additional options would have given a clearer picture of people's thoughts (doesn't need to be anymore than that and certainly not a detailed survey. I didn't vote because there wasn't an option for me, not even a don't know.
Doc H Ball wrote:Loaded question? 'Based on all available information do you believe that W.H. should move to the O.S.?' Really?
See answer above. How can you vote yes when you don't know what you're voting for. Yes to what?
Doc H Ball wrote:Would you describe sitting 40 people down in confidence, showing them a mock up, having a vote of hands based on 'if it looked like that would you want it?' and then reporting it as 100% of fans being in favour of a move counts as being 'loaded' or not?
It was a bit more than that. The discussion was really positive and everyone got to ask relevant questions. To simply say we were shown a mock-up and everyone said yes please frankly isn't true. The yes vote was based on a wide range of things that came out of the debate. At the end of that debate the vote was then made and it was almost unanimous.
Doc H Ball wrote:I have yet to hear an explanation from the SAB as a body as to how they feel about their meeting being used by the Club. You know you are quoted in the bid as being proof of 'consultation' and of fan support for the move don't you?
We don't speak as a body. We individually collected feedback. We're not an elected body and don't have an elected leader. The SAB is essentially a market research tool. I think this does underline though the sad lack of a HISA type group that could fill the void you're talking about. Reading reports it does seem that Karren Brady has qualified her statements by saying that the SAB offered overwhelming support once she had explained the vision for the OS.
Doc H Ball wrote:Also what happened to your 'Report'? At least we've published ours..
It was a feedback tool given to the club which hopefully they've taken on board in terms of what they seek to negotiate with the LLDC. Only time will tell. I don't think, because of some of its contents it could have been released to the public, especially as it was born out of a confidential-based process.