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 Rocketron on Thu Jan 24, 2013 8:12 pm

So, the club say LLDC supplied the plans.
The LLDC say they have not received any plans from the club.
You understand my confusion.
User avatar
Rocketron
 
Posts: 8442
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2004 7:45 pm
Location: Play it again, Sam

Re: 23/2/12 SAB Olympic consultation

Postby 1mcavennie on Thu Jan 24, 2013 8:33 pm

Is this really all the progress the club has made since the SAB meeting in December? If so this looks like an exercise in time wasting. The questions suggested by the club have simple answers as suggested by brown out above.

As I understand it any deal with the LLDC is to be done in March. What time is there going to be for proper consultation?

Why can't the club publish some proper plans and give us a decent opportunity for consultation?
1mcavennie
 
Posts: 148
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 9:39 pm

Re: 23/2/12 SAB Olympic consultation

Postby the pink palermo on Fri Jan 25, 2013 12:38 am

It's very simple .The club are not going to hold a proper consultation nor will there be a sensible, simple poll .

As some of us have been saying for a while - the fans are going to get shafted .

It's a crap stadium that will never be suitable for watching football in .
User avatar
the pink palermo
Huge noggin
 
Posts: 27331
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 Hampshire Hammer on Fri Jan 25, 2013 3:05 pm

the pink palermo wrote:It's very simple .The club are not going to hold a proper consultation nor will there be a sensible, simple poll .

The club are not going to stage any poll that won't give an answer that enables them to do what they wanted to anyway, except maybe around minor things. Which is sensible for the business. You can not have a multi-million pound business making major decisions based on irrational public debate.

So there will be a poll but expect it to be in terms of "If the things you want done are done would you be happy to move?", then there may be a section for "What are those things?"

<Puts crystal ball away>
User avatar
Hampshire Hammer
 
Posts: 6855
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2003 3:18 pm
Location: Somewhere south of sanity

Re: 23/2/12 SAB Olympic consultation

Postby Diogenes on Fri Jan 25, 2013 10:23 pm

the pink palermo wrote:It's very simple .The club are not going to hold a proper consultation nor will there be a sensible, simple poll .

As some of us have been saying for a while - the fans are going to get shafted .

It's a crap stadium that will never be suitable for watching football in .


As to your first point, I agree (although I think it far from simple), although would a straight yes or no poll from a business perspective be sensible? Hampshire Hammer makes a good point in that ‘would you have a multi million pound business making major decisions based on an irrational public debate’ (whatever the outcome).

I can also understand how some of the fans will feel ‘shafted’, but many won’t. I tend to be a pragmatist and endeavour to change the things I can rather than waste energy on things I can’t. As I have said previously, I am 60/40 in favour but I reserve the right to change my mind once I know more details (either more pro or less). But that will only influence how often I go not whether I will.

Your last point may be true, I haven’t seen the plans (as neither have 99% of WHUFC supporters I believe), but I do doubt that any resultant Stadium would be designed and built not to attract sufficient paying customers. I agree it won’t be the BG and that I think is the OS biggest problem for most supporters who are currently negative, but not a Stadium suitable for watching football in? Perhaps, but unlikely. However, will it be good enough to attract 54,000 paying customers? That, I agree, remains to be seen.
User avatar
Diogenes
 
Posts: 334
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 6:07 pm

Re: 23/2/12 SAB Olympic consultation

Postby Doc H Ball on Sat Jan 26, 2013 12:22 am

Hampshire Hammer wrote: You can not have a multi-million pound business making major decisions based on irrational public debate.


So a football Club asking it's regular supporters if they want to make a highly controversial move or not is an 'irrational public debate'? How supine have we become?

You cannot have a multi million pound business saying one thing in the national press and in statements to it's customers and then doing something else.

Trust has been repeatedly spoken of in this debate. It's really no surprise that a very sizable portion of our support doesn't trust them one inch.
User avatar
Doc H Ball
 
Posts: 5352
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 6:29 pm
Location: in nick

Re: 23/2/12 SAB Olympic consultation

Postby Diogenes on Sat Jan 26, 2013 3:24 pm

But Doc, where has anyone said there will be a consultation process or poll about if we should move or not? I don't believe anyone has. That is very different from feeling that they should but I would not distrust them for reneging on a promise never given. However, I believe they should now be clearer on what the consultation process will cover, which is what I think the SAB notice is about.
User avatar
Diogenes
 
Posts: 334
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 6:07 pm

Re: 23/2/12 SAB Olympic consultation

Postby Doc H Ball on Sat Jan 26, 2013 3:55 pm

Diogenes wrote:But Doc, where has anyone said there will be a consultation process or poll about if we should move or not? I don't believe anyone has.


This is from the Official Site:

10.12.2012

'The club stand by its commitment to conduct full supporter consultation regarding the proposed move, including the polling of supporters. West Ham fans can be confident that wherever there is an opportunity for West Ham to input in the decisions going forward, supporters will be at the forefront'.

Couldn't be clearer.
User avatar
Doc H Ball
 
Posts: 5352
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 6:29 pm
Location: in nick

Re: 23/2/12 SAB Olympic consultation

Postby Diogenes on Sat Jan 26, 2013 10:17 pm

I beg to differ Doc. Where in that notice does it spell out the specifics of what we will be consulted or polled on? 'Should we have statues at the OS' - is being consulted, 'who/how many think we should have new mascots' is being polled. Look at the SAB questions, is there anything remotely for/against a move there?

Its easy to assume what is meant when specifics are not stated. 'All supporters will be polled on whether we move to the OS or not before any decision is taken' is specific and unambiguous and is a simple enough statement to make if intended. I haven't seen that one.

Do you remember Sir Humphrey's waffling monologues in Yes Minister? That's what the WHU statement above reminds me of. It can mean anything and everything to anyone but doesn't actually commit to anything of tangible importance in particular.
User avatar
Diogenes
 
Posts: 334
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 6:07 pm

Re: 23/2/12 SAB Olympic consultation

Postby Francoisvander or else on Sun Jan 27, 2013 12:01 am

As Pinky has said 'get ready to be well and truly shafted', from what I can see people in SAB (with a few exceptions) are already bent over with their trousers down getting ready to take it :D
User avatar
Francoisvander or else
 
Posts: 2606
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 9:33 pm
Location: Certainly not in a JJB store

Re: 23/2/12 SAB Olympic consultation

Postby mywhufc on Sun Jan 27, 2013 12:47 am

Diogenes wrote:I beg to differ Doc. Where in that notice does it spell out the specifics of what we will be consulted or polled on? 'Should we have statues at the OS' - is being consulted, 'who/how many think we should have new mascots' is being polled. Look at the SAB questions, is there anything remotely for/against a move there?

Its easy to assume what is meant when specifics are not stated. 'All supporters will be polled on whether we move to the OS or not before any decision is taken' is specific and unambiguous and is a simple enough statement to make if intended. I haven't seen that one.

Do you remember Sir Humphrey's waffling monologues in Yes Minister? That's what the WHU statement above reminds me of. It can mean anything and everything to anyone but doesn't actually commit to anything of tangible importance in particular.

Every one present at the SAB meeting was left in no doubt that Brady accepted that fans should be polled on whether to move or not. Went as far as discussing what percentage would suffice for the club to have a mandate.
The club for me are taking the piss with the wording of the email but I still urge every fan whether pro anti or on the fence to reply with answers to the Questions. All will be sent to the CLUB APPOINTED leader of the SAB Olympic committee and he will add all to the report.
User avatar
mywhufc
 
Posts: 2696
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 8:25 pm

Re: 23/2/12 SAB Olympic consultation

Postby paulhs1 on Sun Jan 27, 2013 9:04 am

Francoisvander or else wrote:As Pinky has said 'get ready to be well and truly shafted', from what I can see people in SAB (with a few exceptions) are already bent over with their trousers down getting ready to take it :D


Sad thing frankie is that some of them still haven't realised what's going on and how there being used!!
User avatar
paulhs1
 
Posts: 1501
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2011 3:32 pm
Location: Just north of the Thames

Re: 23/2/12 SAB Olympic consultation

Postby Denbighammer on Sun Jan 27, 2013 12:17 pm

Francoisvander or else wrote:As Pinky has said 'get ready to be well and truly shafted', from what I can see people in SAB (with a few exceptions) are already bent over with their trousers down getting ready to take it :D


Yeah but imagine how important they feel....
User avatar
Denbighammer
 
Posts: 8399
Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2007 7:53 pm
Location: Dodging, Dipping, Diving, Ducking and Dodging.

Re: 23/2/12 SAB Olympic consultation

Postby Diogenes on Sun Jan 27, 2013 2:13 pm

You could be right mywhufc, I was not at the meeting, but I still see no sign of commitment in her words or published confirmation.

All I am saying is that this is business and politics where there are 'different' rules and plain speaking is a rarity. I am not saying its right, just trying to manage mine, and others, expectations.

Personally, I am supportive of consultation as at least it gives people a chance to more fully understand the details and feel engaged. However, if I was a board member I may only be tempted to have such a yes/no poll if a) I was finding it difficult to negotiate a suitable deal with the LLDC - as leverage and to elicit concessions or b) if I looked likely to lose the deal with the LLDC and shift responsibility to the supporters. If I was 90-100% certain of a deal, would I risk it? Probably not. So it will be interesting to see whether they have this poll or not and may tell us more on the state of negotiations. I still think it possible that the LLDC and WHUFC fail to agree a deal anyway. That would not surprise me at all, whereas a straight yes or no vote now would. IMVHO of course.
User avatar
Diogenes
 
Posts: 334
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 6:07 pm

Re: 23/2/12 SAB Olympic consultation

Postby brownout on Sun Jan 27, 2013 3:15 pm

I was at the SAB meeting and Brady made no suggestion that we needed to consult as to whether there would be a poll, only how it should be run. They now seem to be using the SAB as a possible way out fo having to hold one.
We should not allow the SAB (who I don't believe are a representive selection of fans on this or other issues) to be used by the club to prevent wider consultation.
KUMB is in a position to allow all fans to indicate whether they think there should be a yes / no poll. I hope that KUMB will be willing to run a poll to allow fans to tell the club if they think we should be polled.
User avatar
brownout
 
Posts: 6629
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2004 9:26 pm

Re: 23/2/12 SAB Olympic consultation

Postby sicknote on Sun Jan 27, 2013 3:27 pm

brownout wrote:I was at the SAB meeting and Brady made no suggestion that we needed to consult as to whether there would be a poll, only how it should be run. They now seem to be using the SAB as a possible way out fo having to hold one.
We should not allow the SAB (who I don't believe are a representive selection of fans on this or other issues) to be used by the club to prevent wider consultation.
KUMB is in a position to allow all fans to indicate whether they think there should be a yes / no poll. I hope that KUMB will be willing to run a poll to allow fans to tell the club if they think we should be polled.


pm utj or send an email to editor@kumb.com and he'll either give it the go ahead or explain why, i'm not sure where he stands on any more polls as they have been misinterpreted and twisted unfairly on this website and used wrongly by the club and press
User avatar
sicknote
Plumbing the depths
 
Posts: 25127
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 10:34 pm
Location: looking out of my secret nuclear bunker

Re: 23/2/12 SAB Olympic consultation

Postby Diogenes on Sun Jan 27, 2013 4:02 pm

brownout wrote:I was at the SAB meeting and Brady made no suggestion that we needed to consult as to whether there would be a poll, only how it should be run. They now seem to be using the SAB as a possible way out fo having to hold one.
We should not allow the SAB (who I don't believe are a representive selection of fans on this or other issues) to be used by the club to prevent wider consultation.
KUMB is in a position to allow all fans to indicate whether they think there should be a yes / no poll. I hope that KUMB will be willing to run a poll to allow fans to tell the club if they think we should be polled.


My first instinct is to say that looks a little disingenuous to your fellow SAB members. However, I may be doing you a disservice as I admit I know nothing on how the SAB were selected. I thought they had to be proposed and backed by other WHUFC supporters and therefore reflect a broad view? Perhaps you could enlighten me on a) how many SAB members there are and b) how they were elected/selected. Thanks
User avatar
Diogenes
 
Posts: 334
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 6:07 pm

Re: 23/2/12 SAB Olympic consultation

Postby brownout on Sun Jan 27, 2013 4:34 pm

SAB members were not elected. Any season ticket holder could put their name forward provided they had the names of five other season ticket holders to 'nominate' them. So they were essentially self selecting as season ticket holders who wanted to be on the SAB (all they needed was five 'friends').

I believe that everyone who put themsleves forward was 'selected'.

I don't know how many there are but would guess at around 150.

The age profile of the SAB does not reflect that of the club's match attending support - there are very few younger members.
User avatar
brownout
 
Posts: 6629
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2004 9:26 pm

Re: 23/2/12 SAB Olympic consultation

Postby Diogenes on Sun Jan 27, 2013 6:54 pm

brownout wrote:SAB members were not elected. Any season ticket holder could put their name forward provided they had the names of five other season ticket holders to 'nominate' them. So they were essentially self selecting as season ticket holders who wanted to be on the SAB (all they needed was five 'friends').

I believe that everyone who put themsleves forward was 'selected'.

I don't know how many there are but would guess at around 150.

The age profile of the SAB does not reflect that of the club's match attending support - there are very few younger members.


OK, thanks brownout, that's very helpful. So they are at least STH selected by other STH which is reasonably democratic. I would imagine also that most would be long term WHUFC supporters and STH, given that they felt confident enough to represent and present a view, which also seems fair. I take your point regarding age, which may be a very good one, and perhaps is a specific you should raise and something that they may address to ensure balance (its certainly a reasonable request).

Other than the last point, the process to date seems pretty standard and 'democratic' for consultative engagement. Most of the SAB will be representing more than 5 'friends' but even if we keep it to 5 + 1 that's 6 x 150 = 900 which is 4-5% representation of STH. That's much more than market research and official pollsters base their predictions on. As I have also said previously, my circle of supporters (approx 20) about 50% are currently in favour with 25% undecided and 25% no. I have no idea if that is usual or unusual but seems to be similar to the SAB view from what you are saying. Anyhow, as I say you have a good point re age and I would support you on that.
User avatar
Diogenes
 
Posts: 334
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 6:07 pm

Re: 23/2/12 SAB Olympic consultation

Postby Rocketron on Sun Jan 27, 2013 8:10 pm

brownout wrote:SAB members were not elected. Any season ticket holder could put their name forward provided they had the names of five other season ticket holders to 'nominate' them. So they were essentially self selecting as season ticket holders who wanted to be on the SAB (all they needed was five 'friends').

I believe that everyone who put themsleves forward was 'selected'.

I don't know how many there are but would guess at around 150.

The age profile of the SAB does not reflect that of the club's match attending support - there are very few younger members.

There have been many posts on this site bemoaning the lack of young adult supporters in the ground.(Hi pinky :wink: )
What age profile does the SAB have that is so different to the average home game?
User avatar
Rocketron
 
Posts: 8442
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2004 7:45 pm
Location: Play it again, Sam

PreviousNext

Return to The Olympic Stadium

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: light n bitter and 13 guests

cron