23/2/12 SAB Olympic consultation

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

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

Locked
User avatar
AJ
Posts: 7626
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2005 8:20 pm
Location: Dreaming dreams, scheming schemes, building castles high

Re: 23/2/12 SAB Olympic consultation

Post by AJ » Thu Mar 15, 2012 12:22 am

Also IF there are any plans to convert the OS to a football standard what about this news piece about radioactive waste:
But while officials insist there is no risk from the waste to athletes or spectators during the event, further development of the site could expose the waste, which some experts claim should have been moved to a safe site.

John Large, an independent nuclear analyst, said: "The Olympic site's hurried and unplanned development may have resulted in a great deal of public harm to the local communities remaining around the site. Overall, there is some doubt about the applicability and validity of the radiological risk analysis undertaken for the future legacy use. ."

His sentiment is shared by Andrew Boff, a member of the London Assembly and Conservative spokesman on the Olympics. "I thought the £9.3bn cost would provide a remediation level sufficient for future development. But what we are left with is remediation which is just enough for us to hold the Games. The ODA is very proud that it came in under budget on remediation. I wish it had spent the whole amount and made the site fit for the future."

adie
Posts: 385
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2012 1:30 pm

Re: 23/2/12 SAB Olympic consultation

Post by adie » Thu Mar 15, 2012 7:29 am

fitting undersoil heating will be a big problem because of the radium and thorum that is only about two foot under the stadium. At the Stade de France they have the same problem as that stadium was also built on a toxic waste ground, they haven't been able to fit undersoil heating, hence the rugby being cancelled last February because of a frozen pitch. I'm sure some people will accuse me of throwing my toys out of my pram but if we have a really cold winter the FA might make us play our home matches at an alternative ground, should we move to the OS.

adie
Posts: 385
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2012 1:30 pm

Re: 23/2/12 SAB Olympic consultation

Post by adie » Thu Mar 15, 2012 7:34 am

fitting undersoil heating will be a big problem because of the radium and thorum that is only about two foot under the stadium. At the Stade de France they have the same problem as that stadium was also built on a toxic waste ground, they haven't been able to fit undersoil heating, hence the rugby being cancelled last February because of a frozen pitch. I'm sure some people will accuse me of throwing my toys out of my pram but if we have a really cold winter the FA might make us play our home matches at an alternative ground, should we move to the OS.

User avatar
Pop Robson
Posts: 16316
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2003 9:12 pm
Location: Looking for the 50,000

Re: 23/2/12 SAB Olympic consultation

Post by Pop Robson » Thu Mar 15, 2012 11:19 am

WHUTerry wrote:
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
Sorry mate got things round the wrong way, other than on this thread on KUMB, I've not seen or heard anything about the consultation. I guess I was expecting it to be out in the open. Most of STH's that sit around me hadn't heard about it.

One question on behalf of old Hammer that is not registered disabled (as they won't) but can't walk far, will there be mini buses to and from Stratford station, so they can continue to go to games.

User avatar
taffhammer
Posts: 2635
Joined: Mon Oct 30, 2006 6:37 pm
Location: from the wick of hackney to the seaside

Re: 23/2/12 SAB Olympic consultation

Post by taffhammer » Thu Mar 15, 2012 11:59 am

So we can ask questions to the members of the SAB who will pass them on as they are not allowed to talk about what they saw at the meeting. So how will we get any answers apart from what we know already until it's too late ? and i'm pro the move in principle till i see a plan for the stadium that won't work.

adie
Posts: 385
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2012 1:30 pm

Re: 23/2/12 SAB Olympic consultation

Post by adie » Thu Mar 15, 2012 12:30 pm

if they showed everyone the old plans from the first bid when we were gonna be the sole tenants, too many people would kick up a stink and say it was misleading. They can't show the new plans because there is none, as co-tenants we won't be doing the re-design and will have to settle with whatever the OPLC serves up. It's easier to get 50 people to sign secrecy agreements than thousands, and the club has done a great job in dividing the fans, the club can also say they have consulted fans and keep the OPLC happy as consultation is a requirement of law, although quite what consultation means is another matter, they might listen to us but they won't take heed. Once they have ticked the consultation box they will do as they like and we'll have to like it or lump it.

User avatar
taffhammer
Posts: 2635
Joined: Mon Oct 30, 2006 6:37 pm
Location: from the wick of hackney to the seaside

Re: 23/2/12 SAB Olympic consultation

Post by taffhammer » Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:34 pm

adie wrote: They can't show the new plans because there is none, as co-tenants we won't be doing the re-design and will have to settle with whatever the OPLC serves up.
That cannot possibly be true. A football club would move to an athletics stadium with no plans or ideas of how it would look when made more customer friendly for football ????? How could the OPLC expect anyone to bid if they didn't show them what it could look like ?

adie
Posts: 385
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2012 1:30 pm

Re: 23/2/12 SAB Olympic consultation

Post by adie » Thu Mar 15, 2012 8:40 pm

the plans shown to the SAB were the plans the club had drawn up for the first bid when we were gonna be sole tenants in partnership with Newham council. The only people who have seen the OPLC's designs are the club's board when they registered an interest, letting them into the data room. These details won't be shown till after the decision is made in May. When Karren Brady was asked if the plans were not suitable for football would the club compromise she said she didn't know. Well do they really think we believe that ? Gold, Sullivan and Brady are top business people, they would of discussed every eventuality, including what if the OPLC won't make it how WHUFC want it. So when she says "she doesn't know" she means course she will compromise but she doesn't want to tell us that, not after she has said they will do what's best for West Ham United.

User avatar
taffhammer
Posts: 2635
Joined: Mon Oct 30, 2006 6:37 pm
Location: from the wick of hackney to the seaside

Re: 23/2/12 SAB Olympic consultation

Post by taffhammer » Thu Mar 15, 2012 8:57 pm

OK so now you say they have been shown plans made by the OPLC so there are plans.I can't believe they would move in without big changes to the stadium therefore they must have seen plans that impressed before bidding.

User avatar
the bubble hammer
Posts: 1578
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:29 am

Re: 23/2/12 SAB Olympic consultation

Post by the bubble hammer » Thu Mar 15, 2012 8:58 pm

will we be told if they are going to bid for it or will it be a case of on march 24th they put out a statement to say we have bid/have not bid.

adie
Posts: 385
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2012 1:30 pm

Re: 23/2/12 SAB Olympic consultation

Post by adie » Thu Mar 15, 2012 10:23 pm

the club's meetings with the SAB and WHU's view was so the club could fulfil their consultation requirement. The board aren't allowed to show anyone else what they have seen in the data room, to which they have access since they registered an interest to bid. They will bid on the 24th March, I know it's been said they might not bid but come on, you don't spend £1 million on the first and second bid and then walk away. In May we will be told whether West Ham have been successful in their bid and then we will be let in on all the secrets. What impresses the board the board isn't necessary what would impress the fans, afterall the view from the directors box is the same with or without retractable seating. The club may say they want retractable seating but the OPLC has the final say. The stadium has been built on toxic waste and it may be the case that undersoil heating and retractable seating would be too dangerous to install. I can just hear the 2 Daves saying we'd love to fit retractable seating but Health & Safety won't let us, pretty much like what they are saying about redeveloping the East Stand even though H&S have ok'd it before.

stratford
Posts: 161
Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2008 9:56 pm

Re: 23/2/12 SAB Olympic consultation

Post by stratford » Thu Mar 15, 2012 11:59 pm

Why can't we move the East stand over towards the pitch and make it a 2 tier stand that will give us a capacity of over 40000. We could build it across the road and let traffic pass underneath in a tunnel effect. The stand does not have to be higher than the present one so no objections would seem to be valid. Job done !!

User avatar
taffhammer
Posts: 2635
Joined: Mon Oct 30, 2006 6:37 pm
Location: from the wick of hackney to the seaside

Re: 23/2/12 SAB Olympic consultation

Post by taffhammer » Fri Mar 16, 2012 1:26 am

adie wrote: In May we will be told whether West Ham have been successful in their bid and then we will be let in on all the secrets. What impresses the board the board isn't necessary what would impress the fans, afterall the view from the directors box is the same with or without retractable seating. The club may say they want retractable seating but the OPLC has the final say. The stadium has been built on toxic waste and it may be the case that undersoil heating and retractable seating would be too dangerous to install.
They are not going for a stadium just because the view from the directors box will be ok and everyone else will have to lump it. they are not that stupid that they would risk the fact fans won't go after a while because the view is terrible, it's a risk that would lose them a lot of money. Also they have to have undersoil heating if i am correct in thinking as it is in the premier league rules.

User avatar
WHUTerry
Posts: 618
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2008 1:24 pm
Location: Epping

Re: 23/2/12 SAB Olympic consultation

Post by WHUTerry » Thu Mar 22, 2012 10:23 am

Pop Robson wrote:
Sorry mate got things round the wrong way, other than on this thread on KUMB, I've not seen or heard anything about the consultation. I guess I was expecting it to be out in the open. Most of STH's that sit around me hadn't heard about it.

One question on behalf of old Hammer that is not registered disabled (as they won't) but can't walk far, will there be mini buses to and from Stratford station, so they can continue to go to games.
No problem. I've forwarded your question on.

User avatar
mywhufc
Posts: 3309
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 8:25 pm
Contact:

Re: 23/2/12 SAB Olympic consultation

Post by mywhufc » Fri Mar 23, 2012 6:33 pm

As a SAB member today's bid came as no surprise, except that the club have not listened to the fans, I myselfs received and forwarded nearly 50 emails to the SAB member who's was charged with conducting the poll. Every person that emailed me said they did not want the OS, some it seems put along time in writing those emails all to be ignored. The report was sent in to the club Wednesday at 12pm yet 48hrs later it seems the club still put a bid in, ignoring the majority and before any othe SAB members try and say otherwise, it was a definate majority, of fans and submit a bid. And if to rub salt in the wounds they thank those they ignored.
I'd like to apologise to those that emailed me for it seems waisting their time. The club wernt bothered in what they think or said, they will do as they please.

User avatar
MD_HM
Posts: 6785
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 11:00 am
Location: London

Re: 23/2/12 SAB Olympic consultation

Post by MD_HM » Fri Mar 23, 2012 6:44 pm

mywhufc wrote:As a SAB member today's bid came as no surprise, except that the club have not listened to the fans, I myselfs received and forwarded nearly 50 emails to the SAB member who's was charged with conducting the poll. Every person that emailed me said they did not want the OS, some it seems put along time in writing those emails all to be ignored. The report was sent in to the club Wednesday at 12pm yet 48hrs later it seems the club still put a bid in, ignoring the majority and before any othe SAB members try and say otherwise, it was a definate majority, of fans and submit a bid. And if to rub salt in the wounds they thank those they ignored.
I'd like to apologise to those that emailed me for it seems waisting their time. The club wernt bothered in what they think or said, they will do as they please.
:asleep:

Orient are looking for new fans...

User avatar
hadleighhammer
Gentrified
Posts: 9731
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 6:18 pm
Location: On my computer trying to keep up with the Sky fixture changes

Re: 23/2/12 SAB Olympic consultation

Post by hadleighhammer » Fri Mar 23, 2012 7:03 pm

So, if I'm reading this right, have the majority on here voted against the stadium consistently in all bar one poll, yet the SAB had an overwhelming majority for the move when meeting with the club? :?

User avatar
dapablo
Sourpuss, grumpy face
Posts: 4464
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2007 11:12 pm

Re: 23/2/12 SAB Olympic consultation

Post by dapablo » Fri Mar 23, 2012 7:31 pm

hadleighhammer wrote:So, if I'm reading this right, have the majority on here voted against the stadium consistently in all bar one poll, yet the SAB had an overwhelming majority for the move when meeting with the club? :?
No the majority have not voted consistently against the move.

User avatar
hadleighhammer
Gentrified
Posts: 9731
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 6:18 pm
Location: On my computer trying to keep up with the Sky fixture changes

Re: 23/2/12 SAB Olympic consultation

Post by hadleighhammer » Fri Mar 23, 2012 7:40 pm

I remember all but 1 poll (the Sp*rs fear factor one shall we call it) having 50%+ voting against the move?

If you want to piss about then let's just use the last poll and the benchmark for current supporter opinion then.

User avatar
WHUTerry
Posts: 618
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2008 1:24 pm
Location: Epping

Re: 23/2/12 SAB Olympic consultation

Post by WHUTerry » Fri Mar 23, 2012 10:41 pm

hadleighhammer wrote:So, if I'm reading this right, have the majority on here voted against the stadium consistently in all bar one poll, yet the SAB had an overwhelming majority for the move when meeting with the club? :?
Technically you're right but that yes vote from the SAB wasn't a blind yes or a yes regardless of the conditions. It was heavily dependent on the stadium and other factors being in line with what the supporters want.

Also, I think the polls on here have been flawed, especially the last one which crucially didn't include an option to vote yes if the supporter's wishes around sightlines, the feel of the stadium, income, etc were met.

Locked