Petition against S.T. prices and upping of qualifying age for concession tickets.

[Northbank Bar]

Alf Git.

Thats right.we need to look at this positively.We need to shake the fanbase out of its apathy by leading with as much positivity as possible.Every single signature is a positive step,lets all focus on reaching 5000.

[Diogenes]

John Hunt.We have had members phone the club to be told they have indeed put the concessions qualification age up to be in line with change in pension age.

Of course this dosnt hold up since only West Ham and Villa have done so out of all the PL clubs.

Petition heading towards 4300 now.We felt we needed 5000 to help make the point and looks like we are on course.

Thanks to all who have signed.-If you havent yet signed please consider.

COYI.

As I said NB, this really winds me up. The club are being cynical and money grabbing. You can put a 'concession' anywhere and against any criteria you wish. Hiding behind the governments rise in Pension Age is a nonsense as it further penalises the older generation just as raising the pension age does. I am in the 1966 seats so don't even get it at all!

[Phil S]

If you search hard enough you'll find Sullivan on camera saying about affordable football and pensioners only paying a fiver

It's a snide move. Had they said that this was going to happen a year ago at least those 65 year olds could have planned / budgeted

And 8% is too high, I doubt there'd had been too much noise at 4% across the board

They'll hide behind the cheapest tickets in the prem despite the fact there's not that many and the view is most likely ****

[IABATAC]

If you search hard enough you'll find Sullivan on camera saying about affordable football and pensioners only paying a fiver

It's a snide move. Had they said that this was going to happen a year ago at least those 65 year olds could have planned / budgeted

And 8% is too high, I doubt there'd had been too much noise at 4% across the board

They'll hide behind the cheapest tickets in the prem despite the fact there's not that many and the view is most likely ****

Had the "critical friend" of the Club (AKA the ISC) been properly consulted as per the MOU, then it's possible none of this would have happened.

At the very least the roll out and messaging would have been far less ham-fisted which may have softened the blow dealt to all ST holders and 65 year olds.

Unfortunately the ISC (yet again) allowed itself to be ambushed by the Club and was either unwilling or unable to do its job and that, for me, is the biggest disappointment in this whole sorry affair.

Has there been, or will there be, an ISC post mortem to discover how and why this kind of thing happens again and again?

Does the ISC have any plans to push back on the Club, even at this late stage?

Will the ISC take steps to prevent this kind of thing from ever happening again?

At the time of writing this nearly 5000 fans have signed Hammers United's petition. That ought to be enough to make the ISC as an entity actually do something but thus far all I've seen is a half hearted tweet addressing just one aspect of the issue.

The ISC needs to realise that every failure to hold the Club to account (and to its obligations under the MOU) is a dereliction of duty and a betrayal of West Ham fans.

That's simply not good enough from an FSA sponsored organisation which is supposed to represent both its own individual members and the wider West Ham fan base.

[West Side]

I take your point Northbank Bar about being positive.

But others have a point.

Lets leave individuals out of this but I believe the Chair and Vice Chair of the ISC represent the Bondholders and West Ham Supporters Trust.What have these groups done to support the petition and/or challenge the club?

What about Any Old Irons,what have they done to challenge the club on the rise in in the qualifying age for concession tickets?

[Patsy Belgium]

This is how they get away with murder, hand picked board lackeys that lack any backbone.

[E13 Forever]

At the time of writing this nearly 5000 fans have signed Hammers United's petition. That ought to be enough to make the ISC as an entity actually do something

28 to go.
We shall see.

[Northbank Bar]

We have achieved our initial aim which was to get 5000 signatures.Thanks to everyone that has supported the petition.

Please keep signing,every single signature counts.

[IABATAC]

We have achieved our initial aim which was to get 5000 signatures.Thanks to everyone that has supported the petition.

Please keep signing,every single signature counts.

That's a great effort by all concerned, well done everyone.

5000+ signatures must include a good number of each of the ISC group's own members.

Will the ISC now be challenging the Club on both the senior concession age increase and the price increase?

[the pink palermo]

Chelsea FC have frozen ST prices for the 12th consecutive year.

TBF they would have to pay me to watch those c**** but you get the point.

[IABATAC]

Chelsea FC have frozen ST prices for the 12th consecutive year.

The Club often seems keen to compare itself to others, when it suits, so this is the kind of comparison that needs to be highlighted when it doesn't.

Hammers United's petition, which now has over 5k signatures and should be a reasonable indication of how the wider fan base feels, shines a light on the latest example of the Club taking advantage of its customers' loyal support.

Now the ISC has to unite behind Hammers United's groundwork, do its job and challenge the Club.

There can be no more excuses.

[DenziMart]

The upping of qualifying age for concession tickets does seem to be a very poor move by the club and a massive PR mess.
We have around 52k season ticket holders if I recall. Of those 52k, how many will be 65 this year and therefore impacted? Maybe 1% which means around 500 people. Let's assume the average cost increase for each of those is around £350. That's about £175k. A lot of money to most on here, but it's small change for the club. Why risk alienating your "customer" for such a small financial benefit, especially with the current cost of living crisis.

[GaryP]

ISC

Imbibes Sullivans Cock

[Northbank Bar]

We presented the results of our petition to the Independent Supporters Committee on Wednesday May 10th.

The Supporters Club and Bondholders reported results of surveying their members.

The ISC subsequently agreed the following statement and wrote to the club accordingly.

2023/24 Season Ticket Price Increases.

The ISC has surveyed our respective fan groups and unsurprisingly the feedback has been extremely negative. The 8% increase applied to the 1966 and Bands 1 through 4 is considered both excessive and unjustifiable, while the Club enjoys a second consecutive season of European success with fans attending more games and incurring the associated costs. Based on an estimated incremental revenue of £3M, the vast majority of season ticket holders will be faced with an 8% increase to generate an approximate 1.2% revenue increase for the Club’s bank account. The Club marketing department continues to focus on the lower pricing of Bands 5 and 6, however the issue of affordability extends to all season ticket holders, regardless of price band and also applies to Claret Members and non season ticket holders.

The Club announced an increase to the senior concession age qualification from 65 to 66 years of age. While the current government state pension age is 66, this was introduced October 2020 following legislation passed in 2011. There is no legislative requirement for the Club policy to reflect or track the government state pension age and it’s solely the prerogative of the Club to determine senior concession eligibility. But to inform hundreds of loyal 65 year old season ticket holders just 24 hours before the renewal window opened that they would not qualify for the anticipated senior concession season ticket is both insensitive and inexcusable.

The ISC asks the Club Board to revisit these decisions and respond back to their loyal Hammers supporters, specifically
Why is an 8% increase justified?
Why was it necessary to change the qualifying age for a senior concession?
Why implement the over 66 change with only 24 hours notice?

WHU ISC

[Phil S]

"The Supporters Club and Bondholders reported results of surveying their members"

What about the other groups, especially Any Old Irons?

All of the ISC groups should be surveying their members. That's representation.

[E13 Forever]

"The Supporters Club and Bondholders reported results of surveying their members"

What about the other groups, especially Any Old Irons?

All of the ISC groups should be surveying their members. That's representation.

Good for the supporters club and the bond holders and obviously hammers United who did the petition ans always listen to there members..
But what about the rest of the isc. Did they all survey there members.
The WHUST have only got handfull of members but I know some of them who did not get asked what there views are.
Are there other isc groups who did not at least ask there members what they think.
It might of been a good statement the isc put out but if the club uses that as there reason to tell the isc @@@@ off then there are going to be some questions being asked.

[West Side]

The Trust may indeed only have a handful of members but if what you say is true and they havnt surveyed them that is a really poor show.Likewise any other group that hasnt bothered.

As for the Any Old Irons.-Time and time again people come on here and criticise them.They are a closed shop social group and Im sure all very good people,but they clearly clearly shouldnt be on the ISC.

Lets hope the club listen.

[GaryP]

The Trust may indeed only have a handful of members but if what you say is true and they havnt surveyed them that is a really poor show.Likewise any other group that hasnt bothered.

As for the Any Old Irons.-Time and time again people come on here and criticise them.They are a closed shop social group and Im sure all very good people,but they clearly clearly shouldnt be on the ISC.

Lets hope the club listen.

Its OK though, the Trust is the voice of the fans, always making voice pops for the media on behalf of us all. Well they do have the mandate to do that.... oh wait..

More front than Southend.

As for the exclusive club 80-130 group.... well what more needs to be said, but still the increasingly self serving FSA group says its OK for them to be part of it.

I wonder if there is an alternative West Ham Supporters group to represent older fans that is fully democratic and truly and openly represents their members ? If only .... oh wait ...

Here's a simple solution.. EVERY group on the ISC or any FSA 'sanctioned' entity should have to show communications to their members, the votes tally and then vote on behalf of their members wishes on subjects like this. Even if its only a 1% turn out, if that's the vote of the group, follow it up. If the person in charge of that group can't be arsed with that .... there's the door, get somone else in the group to do it.

EARN your place on ISC.

[johnhunt1963]

We should be looking at the positives from this,not the negatives.The club read this site and will pick up on this weakness.

Forget about Any Old Irons and The WHUST,they are an irrelevance.

Get behind The Supporters Club and Hammers United.

[IABATAC]

That's quite a strong statement from the ISC.

However, I am concerned with this line:

"The ISC has surveyed our respective fan groups".

At first glance this seems to suggest that the ISC groups sought the views of their own members and brought their findings to the ISC (that is the entity) for discussion.

A second reading throws up another interpretation - that the ISC (that is the entity) "surveyed" its members (that would be the representatives of the "respective fans' groups" who make up the ISC), and that is something else entirely.

If the former is the case, then all is well.

If the latter is what actually happened, that would mean the groups on the ISC spoke among themselves, seeking the views of the individuals representing the fans' groups, not necessarily the views of the members those individuals represent.

Which begs the question, what exactly informed the views of the representatives of the fans' groups?

I know the Supporters Club and Hammers United reached out to their members, and someone previously posted that the Bondholders contacted theirs - so these would have had something of substance to bring to the table.

But what of the DSB, Inclusive Irons, Any Old Irons, Pride Of Irons, Claret Members, Away ST Holders and WHUST?

I don't know about you but I've heard nothing of what they did. Maybe they just haven't said anything yet and in time all will be revealed. But, as a member of more than 1 group on the ISC (no names, no pack drill), I can safely say that one of these did not seek my view on this matter.

If this is replicated among the other groups on the ISC it will mean they simply relied on the findings of the 3 which did seek the views of their members, coupled with the results of Hammers United's survey.

If that turns out to be the case, there is the possibility that the Club will claim the ISC has no mandate from its members and will refuse to meet, in any meaningful way, to discuss this matter. ST price increases and the senior concession age increase will remain and the fans will have been shafted.

So the ISC needs to clarify exactly how the individual groups sought the views of their members, brought these views to the ISC, reached a consensus that was representative of the fan base and then formulated the statement above.

And it needs to do this now!