23/2/12 SAB Olympic consultation

[Doc H Ball]

In terms of 'chairs' I assume you mean the nominated person for each group who's collating feedback to be sent to the club? That's not a chair.

I meant a Chair as in an elected representative. The SAB members between them could vote for someone.

As for (open) meetings and email chains can you clarify what exactly you're referring to?

There seems to be no or little contact between members outside of meetings arranged by the Club. An e mail chain of members separate from the Club to discuss issues between you all as they arise might be a sound idea. To be truly representative, why not arrange an open meeting? Fairly straightforward I would have thought and makes you all accountable to the wider supporter base

The document you referred to was meant to provide qualitative feedback from the supporter base to the
club to inform them as to what supporters would deem acceptable. I'm doing this from memory but was it ever meant to be forwarded to the LLDC?

This is the document that was requested by the Club merely hours before they submitted their informed bid. What was submitted to the LLDC were statements that the move had 100% supporter backing, a press campaign repeating WHTID poll and a complete disregard for what was in fact an excellent SAB document. Given it didn't inform the bid and has been shelved, what was it's use?

Do it anyway.

A Supporters' Trust cannot be established at law without the agreement of the Club.
Anyone can set up an independent group but not a Trust as it has a legal status. It's worth asking yourself why the Club won't recognise an independent group with teeth

[WHUTerry]

I meant a Chair as in an elected representative. The SAB members between them could vote for someone.

Before I answer that, what role would you see a Chair playing? What do you think would be the benefits?

There seems to be no or little contact between members outside of meetings arranged by the Club. An e mail chain of members separate from the Club to discuss issues between you all as they arise might be a sound idea.

Well that may develop over time. Previously, the focus (certainly on the OS group I was on) has been to solely to gather feedback from our nominees, wider WH-supporting friends and family and anyone else and to then pass it onto the club. With over 100 members setting that up additional meetings would be problematic and I'm not sure it would offer (my opinion) anything majorly beneficial at this stage. The club has offered to make rooms available though if that was an option we wanted to explore. In terms of the email chain, again with other 100 members that wouldn't work. We do have the online discussion groups being set up though which will hopefully help us to discuss with each other, one of which is being setting up on KUMB.

To be truly representative, why're not arrange an open meeting? Fairly straightforward I would have thought and makes you all accountable to the wider supporter base.

As long as the SAB (as a channel of information into the club) is ensuring all comments and feedback are passed on, it's fulfilling its role. I can't see the purpose of an open meeting. If people have strong feelings then contact an SAB member and we'll make sure comments are forwarded on. They were the terms under which we were set up and I believe we're doing a good job in getting feedback into the club.

This is the document that was requested by the Club merely hours before they submitted their informed bid. What was submitted to the LLDC were statements that the move had 100% supporter backing, a press campaign repeating WHTID poll and a complete disregard for what was in fact an excellent SAB document. Given it didn't inform the bid and has been shelved, what was it's use?

I don't remember exact dates but I think it was a couple of days between the club getting the document and submitting the bid. Obviously if you have ITK information to the contrary, I'm not going to argue with you over it. The process of pulling together and providing it to the club was done in good faith. How do you know it didn't inform the bid though and how do you know it's been shelved, especially when a lot of what was fed in seems to be central positions in the club's negotiation stance.

A Supporters' Trust cannot be established at law without the agreement of the Club.
Anyone can set up an independent group but not a Trust as it has a legal status. It's worth asking yourself why the Club won't recognise an independent group with teeth

Because with no disrespect to any groups, there isn't one for them to recognise. As I said if there was an independent group set with a decent membership and media coverage, the club would very quickly sit up and take notice.

[Doc H Ball]

WHU Terry:

'Before I answer that, what role would you see a Chair playing? What do you think would be the benefits?'

Someone who can speak to the 99% of supporters who have no idea whatsoever what is going on and have no voice unless they happen to know one of you lot. You could elect a chair who could then make statements for the SAB keeping supporters advised. That person would be accountable to the members and give you an identity. Despite the title you're not advising us very much at all.

'Well that may develop over time.'

Well, that's good. The biggest decision the Club ever takes in a couple of weeks and the SAB might set up a chain or (closed) forum over time. I rest my case.

'As long as the SAB (as a channel of information into the club) is ensuring all comments and feedback are passed on, it's fulfilling its role. I can't see the purpose of an open meeting.'

You're not. Also, what's your problem for being a channel of communication for everyone and not 5 likeminded mates? To the rest of us it's looking like a closed shop. A great man once said 'democracy starts from the bottom up not from the top down'.

'I don't remember exact dates but I think it was a couple of days between the club getting the document and submitting the bid.'

You're right, it was 2 days. They asked you for a report at very short notice, it was put together as best possible and then 'informed' their decision to bid in those 48 hours. The opinions gathered were predominantly against the move and wanted to see full plans before a decision.

'How do you know it didn't inform the bid though and how do you know it's been shelved, especially when a lot of what was fed in seems to be central positions in the club's negotiation stance.'

Because, without breaching too many confidences, when the report was given by someone to a prominent decision maker more recently they said they'd never seen it before, were taken aback by the contents and assumed that all the fans were for the move. Make no mistake the Club have been telling the LLDC and anyone in the media that there's nearly total backing for this completely contrary to your single report.

With regards the Club's negotiating stance, bear in mind that the original 'plans' shown to you a long while ago were in fact cock. The bid was for temporary seats behind the goals which couldn't be adapted to allow athletics use for 9 months and that was unacceptable to the LLDC and not the other way around.

'Because with no disrespect to any groups, there isn't one for them to recognise. As I said if there was an independent group set with a decent membership and media coverage, the club would very quickly sit up and take notice.'

Fair point, but if you look into it you will see that only a Trust has proper recognition and it must be recognised by a Club to have Trust status. You didn't answer why you think the board refused to recognise a Trust and help set one up when asked. Fairly obvious answer isn't it?

With regards an independent group, having helped found a single issue group, having stood in the rain for many hours talking to fans and having helped collect 2,000 season ticket holder requests for a say before a decision was made, I'm reasonably well placed to comment on this. It's a waste of ****ing time. Posters ask you about your 'voting criteria' and call you '2 Bob', the board call you a 'splinter group' and the 2,000 go unheeded. We had a meeting with Brady and when she suggested we were in it or money, I knew this was all pointless.

We've debated this before Terry. I know the SAB members are well intentioned (as I was) but we've been used as a part of the process and are mere window dressing to a decision made 3 years ago.

My only comfort now is Brady's dislike of lawyers. She mentions us again in her Sun gossip page today. I think she knows she's sidestepped the supporters and the real opposition comes after this is decided in the form of a roll of papers with a white ribbon around it.

[hamagram]

. I think she knows she's sidestepped the supporters and the real opposition comes after this is decided in the form of a roll of papers with a white ribbon around it.

Doc, without giving too much away, do you think there is a chance of a legal challenge, based upon the boards treatment of the supporters?, is it a binding part of the bid agreement,?
Successful or not, I could see it gaining considerable coverage. Could you imagine the effect if a supporters trust backed it. Such a shame the club doesn't feel it's in it's interests to associate itself with one.

[Doc H Ball]

Doc, without giving too much away, do you think there is a chance of a legal challenge, based upon the boards treatment of the supporters?, is it a binding part of the bid agreement,?
Successful or not, I could see it gaining considerable coverage. Could you imagine the effect if a supporters trust backed it. Such a shame the club doesn't feel it's in it's interests to associate itself with one.

There maybe a point.

The Govt 'guidance on football governance' says that fans should be consulted before the sale and relocation of a ground. However it's just guidance and what is 'consultation'? The SAB have, in my opinion, just been used as a sop to allow the club to say in their bid that they've consulted and had fans' support.

However, the LLDC is a Govt body. There may not be a legal obligation on the Club but a Govt body not implementing Govt policy is another matter. When it all goes through it is something o think about.

In my opinion, it's the State Aid question that is vexing the decision makers and Karren. That's more or less been admitted despite some posters on here calling it a red herring. The key question is what is the market rate. NOT a fair rent, but a rate that does not give a private business an advantage over a competitor.

Rest assured there is an unholy alliance of Levy, Hearn and some pissed off individuals who will bring legal action. If there's no proper poll they can add a supporters' funded legal action as well.

[Doc H Ball]

Double post.

[HamburgHammer]

So you can see West Ham supporters taking West Ham to court a la Sheffield United ? That'd be classy.
I wonder if those fans would be sharing lawyers with Levy and Hearn as well...

[Denbighammer]

So you can see West Ham supporters taking West Ham to court a la Sheffield United ? That'd be classy.

So, people who believe that this move is totally wrong are not allowed to take a course of action that would obviously be a last resort?

[HamburgHammer]

Of course people are allowed to do whatever they feel necessary as long as it's not against the law.
The question ultimately is if West Ham fans should sue their own club when other parties outside the club will be just as happy to do that anyway...

[EvilC]

Of course people are allowed to do whatever they feel necessary as long as it's not against the law.
The question ultimately is if West Ham fans should sue their own club when other parties outside the club will be just as happy to do that anyway...

I don't think that's the question at all. I think the question should be about what exactly the club/board have done to push their own fans that far that they would consider taking them to court.

I don't see what the Sheffield United situation has to do with anything, it is a terrible comparison.

[HamburgHammer]

It'd just appear wrong to sue your own club as if people were saying: "The club have decided to move to the OS anyway, I don't like that, and in reaction to that I'll try to make the move as awkward and difficult for the club as possible, even if I have to sue."

It's obviously not a good sign if fans are even contemplating such a legal action against their own club.
Yes, there may be some sort of consultation, but after all those years, after all the time, effort and money spent the decision has been taken to move. Do you think that for a decision of this magnitude the owners would risk a fans' poll that would instantly put any plans of moving to an end ?
It's gone too far already for that to happen.

If people then are so pissed off with the club that they feel it's wise to sue the club anyway it may be understandable from a personal standpoint. Still it looks just plain wrong...

[EvilC]

No I don't. That doesn't make it okay though.

Plain wrong is how I would describe the handling of this whole fudge from day one.

[hamagram]

Thanks Doc
Hamburg, I see your point, but why is it that you think the board won't hold an independent poll?, possibly because those against the move may prove to be a majority?
If then the majority can't have it's say, what other alternative would you suggest? .
I don't see it as suing the club, a term I use reluctantly, but it would be an avenue to make the board accountable for its actions against what was is our club.
I've said before that if all season ticket holders were independently polled, I'd be happy with that decision.

The board has done its best to hide any sign of discontent. Surely if boris had even a doubt that the supporters were against the OS, it would make a difference, with regards the govt and its policy regarding supporters over a move?

[WHUTerry]

Someone who can speak to the 99% of supporters………Despite the title you're not advising us very much at all.

You clearly know that the advisory refers to the SAB advising the club. It’s a one-way channel with the sole purpose of collating wider supporter feedback which, as you’ve acknowledged yourself, was demonstrated in the Olympic consultation document which provided all opinions be they pro and anti. Knowing one of us lot isn't the only criteria for feeding back. Anyone can feed back via the thread on this forum and is, as previously stated, welcome to message me or any of the SAB members. As I have done previously I will pass on any feedback to the club verbatim. I’m not sure about elected Chairs as it’s not that kind of group. That’s something that sits within an independent group where a Chair would be elected by elected representatives.

Well, that's good. The biggest decision the Club ever takes in a couple of weeks and the SAB might set up a chain or (closed) forum over time. I rest my case.

Allow me to reopen it. My last post clearly stated that the SAB covers a range of areas, not just the OS, although obviously that's the big issue. The SAB serves to collate feedback and forward it on. It does that well in my opinion. We may set up a forum but that's probably only to allow us to debate issues in an environment where, in light of confidentiality clauses, we can speak more openly. Also, I would imagine we’d use it to discuss logistical issues relating to collating feedback. As I stated previously I wasn’t at the last meeting so don’t know the exact details but that would be my guess. The most important thing is that it wouldn’t detract members from their duty of collating feedback.

You're not. Also, what's your problem for being a channel of communication for everyone and not 5 likeminded mates? To the rest of us it's looking like a closed shop. A great man once said 'democracy starts from the bottom up not from the top down'.

A grand and admirable statement but one that applies to independent supporter bodies. Bottom up democracy would come from that type of organisation. The club set up the SAB to get supporters feedback, to get an idea of the general mood via anecdotal feedback and that's exactly what we do. To you, it looks like a closed shop. I believe most supporters see the SAB as a consultation panel, not a pressure group (although the club are left in no doubt as to the key issues and concerns of the supporter base). Certainly isn't a closed shop as membership is open to all.

You're right, it was 2 days. They asked you for a report at very short notice, it was put together as best possible and then 'informed' their decision to bid in those 48 hours. The opinions gathered were predominantly against the move and wanted to see full plans before a decision.

I agree that the decision to bid was clearly already made. The real strength of the document I believe is that it's enabled the club to provide the LLDC with proof that the OS has to be reconfigured i.e. we can't accept the OS as is, because the fans don't want it. If the club don't care about what the fans think, why not just sign the contracts and move in?

Because, without breaching too many confidences, when the report was given by someone to a prominent …… this completely contrary to your single report..

And yet all I've read in the media is that the supporter base is still undecided. I'm sure the LLDC will see that the club are obviously going to put a positive spin on it. They'll read the reports, Barry Hearn quotes and I'm sure are aware of activities of groups such as your own. The LLDC decision-makers live in the same world as us rather than a cave and will see that the proposed move is highly contentious.

With regards the Club's negotiating stance, bear in mind that the original 'plans' shown to you a long while ago were in fact cock. The bid was for temporary seats behind the goals which couldn't be adapted to allow athletics use for 9 months and that was unacceptable to the LLDC and not the other way around.

Fair enough. I don’t have the information you say you have. The club are in no doubt though that a workable form of retractable seating will be a deal-breaker for a large proportion of the fan base. That’s clear.

Fair point, but if you look into it you will see that only a Trust has proper recognition and it must be recognised by a Club to have Trust status. You didn't answer why you think the board refused to recognise a Trust and help set one up when asked. Fairly obvious answer isn't it?

I don’t know. You’d have to ask them. I can’t comment on what I wasn’t party to. It’s not down to me to defend their decisions. As I said previously though, it wouldn’t have to be a trust. I’m sure an independent body would have clout if it was getting media coverage and, most importantly of all, there was the will amongst the supporter base.

With regards an independent group, having helped found a single issue group, having stood in the rain for many hours talking ……. in it or money, I knew this was all pointless.

Well I never felt you were two bob. You stood up for what you believed in and that deserves respect. Can’t apologise though for questioning your voting criteria as I did previously because whilst gaining respect, you have to deal with these kind of questions when you set this kind of thing up. It’s interesting that you got 2,000 signatures and I think that’s enough to ensure the issue stays on the table and perhaps your efforts may have helped to do that.

We've debated this before Terry. I know the SAB members are well intentioned (as I was) but we've been used as a part of the process and are mere window dressing to a decision made 3 years ago. .

That’s an understandable viewpoint but if it is a done deal, let’s at least ensure the club receive full feedback and at least know what the supporters want. For fear of repeating myself, in the absence of an independent body, the SAB is possibly the best option at the moment, so I’d encourage everyone to use it. We’re collecting feedback on the OS poll at the moment (to be fed back in the next few days) and I’d encourage everyone to contact any of the SAB members on this forum with their comments or post them in the thread dedicated to feedback.

[Doc H Ball]

HH - if you read my post more carefully you'll see I mentioned possible legal action against the LLDC.

As for the Sheffield United comparison, you may wish to recall that the reason we ended up in the **** was because of a previous lying CEO. I blame him more than Sean Bean & Co.

WHU Terry - good debate. I've sent my response to the SAB member I nominated

[Hampshire Hammer]

in the absence of an independent body, the SAB is possibly the best option at the moment, so I’d encourage everyone to use it.

I think this is the key point, the SAB was set up by the club as a means for supporters to provide feedback, though some people may be suspicious - especially given the misuse Brady has already made of it with statements about support for the OS move. Therefore all supporters should make use of it to feedback opinion and information.

[1mcavennie]

A mate on the SAB has forwarded an email from the club headed "SAB feedback deadline today". It seems to be an attempt to clarify what feedback the SAB is seeking and why - however to me it fails to do that and seems to add to the confusion about what is going on.

Point 5 of the message says:

The report (what report?) is not a vote on the stadium move - it is a simple feedback collation in response to the club's request for thoughts and views in terms of how we should proceed to consult with supporters were we to reach agreement with the LLDC and have a proposal that the club would be happy to put to our supporters if that were the case.

So after the club reach any agreement with the LLDC (which must be soon?) the club might put a proposal to the supporters...

Is that consultation about the move?

What is going on?

[sicknote]

whats going on?

we are all being shafted into an unsuitable stadium from a suitable one, yet so many on here still back the whole thing

[RichieRiv]

It'd just appear wrong to sue your own club .

In the same way it would be wrong for a club to sue a supporter? Obviously no one ever told WHUFC that.

[Denbighammer]

whats going on?

we are all being shafted into an unsuitable stadium from a suitable one, yet so many on here still back the whole thing

I think we can only assume 'blind hope'?