The Olympic Stadium: Poll IV

[Hammer110]

So, as we are not going to be given any information until after any potential bid has been made, do you feel it is right that the fans will effectively have had no input into such a crucial decision?

Any business/organisation/club, call it what you will, has to makes decisions that are in the best interests of the business/organisation/club and while you need to take your customers/clientèle/members feelings into account, it's not the be all and end all of things. All businesses etc know if they make changes to something familiar they will often lose some existing custom, what they have to gauge is whether any gains will outbalance the loses.

The question in the poll "Do you support the Board's plans to move WHUFC to the Olympic Stadium post-this summer's games?", is actually not that relevant, the club doesn't need our support for the move, what they will be asking though is 'If we build it, will they come?" so the real poll question should have been something like this:

"Will you boycott home games if we move to the Olympic Stadium post-this summer's games?"

1. Yes
2. If the issue of the distance from the stands to the pitch and making it home isn't addressed, no.
3. I will follow WH wherever we go.
4. Unsure

[The Moth]

Any business/organisation/club,call it what you will, has to makes decisions that are in the best interests of the business/organisation/club and while you need to take your customers/clientèle/members feelings into account, it's not the be all and end all of things. All businesses etc know if they make changes to something familiar they will often lose some existing custom, what they have to gauge is whether any gains will outbalance the loses.

But there's a difference between being a club of which you're a member and a customer of a company. I subscribe to the former when it comes to west ham and as such think engagement on matters like this is required. Our owners have created this situation where we seem to be left to trust their judgement on the matter, this being the blokes who gave us avram and relegation amongst others. It's far too important for them to get this one wrong.

[BSB1]

But there's a difference between being a club of which you're a member and a customer of a company. I subscribe to the former when it comes to west ham and as such think engagement on matters like this is required. Our owners have created this situation where we seem to be left to trust their judgement on the matter, this being the blokes who gave us avram and relegation amongst others. It's far too important for them to get this one wrong.

What you subscribe to is irrelevant. You are still a customer. None of us have any claim to have a say in the running of the club no matter how much blood, sweat, tears and money we've put in over the years. I would personally find it more insulting to be offered a simple ballot in an attempt to be placated knowing full well the results would be ignored.

[the pink palermo]

Edit .

[BSB1]

True , but paybacks a bitch as the administrator at Pompey would know as he is reduced to begging fans to come along to a game because he needs the cash ........or Rangers, Port Vale , etc and I can remember when one of our Directors was grumbling the fans were not buying enough merchandise.
Taken to it's logical conclusion were the owners to decide the club isn't worth bothering with, and after careful consideration - they have been here 2 years after all - made a decision to wind it up after 116 years, you'd go quietly into that night ?

Irrelevant as we're not talking about being wound up we're talking about moving grounds.

I can understand that , and it is an opinion I have heard expressed by more than a few .

Know our place, tug the forelock and doff the cap ?

Not me I'm afraid .

Not me either, but I've said it a hundred times I'm willing to take the risk and am prepared to give it all up if what's served up doesn't satisfy my needs.
I'm singing from the same hymn book as you Pinkers, I know we're not going to get the perfect stadium we all want. It's just how close the double D's can get to it is what I'm waiting for. I and everyone else won't know until we walk in for our first game.

[m-h]

If i recall correctly, the remaining outstanding shares have an option on them for Gold and Sullivan to purchase, at a reduced price, if we were relegated. Just wondering, why that option hasn't been taken up or offered to supporters (who are the greatest investors in the club for over 100 years).........18,000 season ticket holders at 2 grand each for a 35 percent stake in the club.

Extrapolate..........

http://www.kumb.com/story.php?id=125164" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;"

Its a massive, massive, massive decision, that may be undertaken by joint owners, that bought the club less than two years ago.
100 years is on the line.

[hadleighhammer]

I agree Pinky. There will be plenty of occasions where a woman says "I am going in to Next" and the bloke says "ok I am nipping over the road to watch football, meet you in Starbucks in 2 hours."
There will also be a large number of tourists, a huge number in fact.

This fact alone, let alone all the debate about "we're not sure of the details", is enough of a reason to vote against the OS.

[paulhs1]

I agree Pinky. There will be plenty of occasions where a woman says "I am going in to Next" and the bloke says "ok I am nipping over the road to watch football, meet you in Starbucks in 2 hours."
There will also be a large number of tourists, a huge number in fact.

This fact alone, let alone all the debate about "we're not sure of the details", is enough of a reason to vote against the OS.

I think the point that Pinky is trying to make is that this move will most definately change the club in many ways but mainly the type of people that go to watch, maybe not instantly but over time West Ham will not be the same!

[hammer]

c&p from al-beeb:

Chelsea FC: New Stamford Bridge stadium 'unfeasible'



Chelsea failed to buy Stamford bridge back from their fans

Chelsea Football Club says the £600m cost and three-year building time needed for a new stadium at Stamford Bridge make it unfeasible.

The Blues published a presentation made to Chelsea Pitch Owners (CPO) last week explaining the problems of the project.

The club hopes to convince the fan-owned company to sell it the stadium in order to trigger a possible move.

It said expanding the ground made no economic sense, while a new stadium faced major planning obstacles.

CPO acquired the freehold to the stadium in 1997 to protect Stamford Bridge from developers should the club run into financial difficulties.

The club attempted to buy back the stadium freehold last October, but not enough CPO shareholders voted to accept the bid.

The club had been accused by CPO of not fully exploring the possibility of staying put at Stamford Bridge.

Chelsea has now published details of its latest presentation to the company on its website.

Chelsea said in a statement: "We are not in any way stating the club has made a decision on the need to move."

But it continued: "It is clear to the board that a complete new build of a 60,000 seat stadium at Stamford Bridge has little chance of acceptability.

"A 60,000 new-build would cost over £600m and require the club to play away for at least three seasons.

"Even if the economics were acceptable, the planning risks would likely be insurmountable."

The statement went on: "Expanding Stamford Bridge to 55,000 also has a number of challenges.

"The cost-per-seat of expanding the stands is very high.

"The incremental revenues would not even cover the hypothetical financing costs."

'Persuasive case'

CPO said in a statement: "The presentations were very open, with regular input, questions and points made by the CPO board.

"We have hoped and felt that there might still be some way to expand the capacity of Stamford Bridge.

"Having seen the detailed analysis, we all felt that a persuasive case was put that this might no longer be feasible or viable."

Chelsea thinks Stamford Bridge's capacity of 42,000 puts it at a financial disadvantage to rivals such as Arsenal, whose stadium holds 60,000.

[Aceface]

Thought today's game was a bit of an eye opener - would have to check with someone who was actually there, but Cardiff's stadium looked half empty on the telly despite it apparently being their record attendance this season. That's got to be a cause for concern with us in a 60,000 seat stadium

[GeorgeParris'Pet]

Officially holds 26,828 so about 3,000 empty seats today. Of which approx 500 were in our end.

[Hammer110]

Thought today's game was a bit of an eye opener - would have to check with someone who was actually there, but Cardiff's stadium looked half empty on the telly despite it apparently being their record attendance this season. That's got to be a cause for concern with us in a 60,000 seat stadium

I think it's hard to make a comparison, Cardiff's potential market is pretty small compared to that of a London club, don't forget the entire population of Wales is only 3 million, Cardiff itself is only just over 300,000, for comparison Essex is 1.7 million and a typical London Borough around 230,000.

[prophet:marginal]

I think it's hard to make a comparison, Cardiff's potential market is pretty small compared to that of a London club, don't forget the entire population of Wales is only 3 million, Cardiff itself is only just over 300,000, for comparison Essex is 1.7 million and a typical London Borough around 230,000.

That's a curious way of looking at it.

They've challenged all season for the top 6 and just put in a decent showing in a televised final.

Additionally, Cardiff is the capital city of the 'country'.

I was personally surprised that there were such large gaps in their home stands, but the home fan I attended with made it clear that the reality is that rugby is much more popular throughout Wales and that the combination of the timing of the game and its broadcast on BBC would account for the 'missing' fans.

I thought they were better supported, tbh. Was our match yesterday better attended than the semi against Palace?

[GeorgeParris'Pet]

I thought they were better supported, tbh. Was our match yesterday better attended than the semi against Palace?

No.

But there was probably a similar amount of home fans in both matches as Palace took a couple of thousand away fans more than we did.

23,872 there yesterday. 25,652 for the Palace semi-final with 3,649 away fans.

[adie]

cheers UTJ for giving us fans a platform to vote and air our views on the possible move to the olympic stadium, let's hope the club take notice, 60% is a sizable majority, you could get elected and run the country with that percentage. Once again cheers UTJ, top man

[sendô]

I've been against it from the start and I've not changed my stance. This move would be the nail in the coffin for the club as we know it and we'd just be supporting a name that is completely detached from the club it represents. It'd be like the MK Dons getting a massive ground playing in the top league but still calling themselves Wimbledon.

I can see me becoming one of those unattached casual football fans who doesn't really follow a team in a few years the way football is going. I'm really miffed at the whole thing from top to bottom.

[the pink palermo]

Edit .

[Georgee Paris]

The total number of votes cast this time around currently sits around half the number cast in the previous poll .

The number of "no" votes in absolute terms is not disimilar to the last poll , 408 anti votes have increased to 414.So, even without Spurs , only 6 more fans have voted no .This is the key stat the club will consider when weighing the risks .

The number of "yes" votes has collapsed , down from 725 last time to 142 this time around .

I genuinely believe the vast majority of our fans have not yet thought about this whole topic, and the decision will be made before they grasp the enormity of it .

The vast majority of West Ham fans don't know what kumb.com is let alone know anything about this vote...in fact most of them probably don't even have a computer or use the internet or know much about the stadium in Stratford other than Spurs wanted it and when they couldn't have it teamed up with Orient to stop us from having it.

[Up the Junction]

The total number of votes cast this time around currently sits around half the number cast in the previous poll

Also, the current poll has only been open for 10 days compared to several weeks for the last.

[Hammer110]

That's a curious way of looking at it.

They've challenged all season for the top 6 and just put in a decent showing in a televised final.

Additionally, Cardiff is the capital city of the 'country'.

I was personally surprised that there were such large gaps in their home stands, but the home fan I attended with made it clear that the reality is that rugby is much more popular throughout Wales and that the combination of the timing of the game and its broadcast on BBC would account for the 'missing' fans.

I thought they were better supported, tbh. Was our match yesterday better attended than the semi against Palace?

Rugby is not more popular throughout Wales, the North are in the main football fans, mostly following the usual candidates the scousers and Manure plus token support for Wrexham, they become rugby fans when Wales are playing. Also there is very much a North/South divide in Wales, few North of the valleys would give Cardiff or it's football club the time of day, in fact many in North Wales feel more of an affinity with the North West of England than South Wales. Even the accents and Welsh language North and South differ.