West Ham

[Toby Gymshorts]

I'm well aware of the larger issue.

[EIM]

Prove it.

[Toby Gymshorts]

Nah, I'll front on nowt.

[Lang Spoon]

You pointing blame at the Gollivan Brady Moyes collective? I’d still say the pricks rioting are culpable as well.

This is a proper demonstration of fan power. Collective Positive Energy.

[EIM]

Rioting? Mate. Standards have slipped.

Direct action is the only action. Though thoughts and prayers go out to friends and family of the corner flag obv.

[Lang Spoon]

I would still quite like this to end Ceaușescu style mind you.

[Cesar Rodriguez]

Wonder how much of this protest is related to the ground move and how much relates to poor performance on the pitch? Seems like the fan groups are all splintered and in fighting.

West Ham always been a club that appears to be in perpetual crisis.

[diggedy derek]

Sky’s Johnny Phillips is the all-time leading goal scorer for my Sunday league team. As you were.

[Antepli Ejderha]

Wonder how much of this protest is related to the ground move and how much relates to poor performance on the pitch? Seems like the fan groups are all splintered and in fighting.

West Ham always been a club that appears to be in perpetual crisis.

Net spend of £28 million on transfers. Add to that they amount saved on the ground due to the deal and someone's making a lot of money here.

Were yesterday's protests organised by those that met Brady?

[E10 Rifle]

I'm wondering whether the shutting down of the more organised protest march - seemingly at the combined behest of the club and the 'ICF' mob – was part of a tactic to enable the latter to steal the show with their rather more direct (and, in places, violent) action yesterday. It's slightly reminiscent - albeit much nastier – of the dynamic at our place last year, when our organised protest march with Blackpool fans was treated with a certain amount of scorn by our Football Lads Alliance types, who then sought to claim the credit for the pitch-invasion protests at the end of the season (even though nearly all of us were involved in those).

Anyway, West Ham's owners have pretty much brought this on themselves. Shame it's had to get this far in before their fans have realised they've been conned.

[N est à?]

Yeah, I remember the opposition and mobilization against the proposed bond scheme in the early 90s, which has kind of been forgotten about but was massive at the time- it was a shock to see the fanbase basically accept the loss of the Boleyn with barely a murmur.

[The Awesome Berbaslug!!!]

I suppose that bumps up against the question of how many of the match going fans actually care all that much where the stadium actually is? I got the strong impression that most Match going spurs fans wouldn't be too upset if the new stadium was a couple of tube stops nearer Enfield, because that is where a lot of them have moved over time. (I think TG did precisely this at one point) How many West Ham fans were walking to the stadium from their house, and how many of them were getting on a train anyway. The Old stadium wasn't in great nick, and while you mightn't accept the Gollivans claims that the building had structural super Aids and ebola, it was pretty clear that they weren't going to spend much on it. You can see why it might have seemed like a reasonable enough idea at the time. Of course that only works until you bump up against the reality

Net spend of £28 million on transfers.

Can I point out that this is rather a lot of money, by any standards, least of all world standards. Most clubs around europe that are spending more than west Ham, are either superclubs, or are part of some dubious Mendes style player hoarding scheme.

[Squarewheelbike]

It's fair to say the FA will do FA about this!

[Amor de Cosmos]

I suppose that bumps up against the question of how many of the match going fans actually care all that much where the stadium actually is? I got the strong impression that most Match going spurs fans wouldn't be too upset if the new stadium was a couple of tube stops nearer Enfield, because that is where a lot of them have moved over time. (I think TG did precisely this at one point) How many West Ham fans were walking to the stadium from their house, and how many of them were getting on a train anyway. The Old stadium wasn't in great nick, and while you mightn't accept the Gollivans claims that the building had structural super Aids and ebola, it was pretty clear that they weren't going to spend much on it. You can see why it might have seemed like a reasonable enough idea at the time. Of course that only works until you bump up against the reality

Moving out of a ground that you own into one that you rent is very risky for most clubs. When things have been desperate for us, owning Loftus Road and the value of the land its on has kept us going, it's given us an asset to leverage against. If you don't own your ground or your training ground what have you got when times get hard?

Moving out of a ground that is perfectly adequate for your needs and can be extended also makes no sense. Highfield Road was fine for Coventry, they weren't filling it, it was their historic home, it was in the middle of the city and it could have been developed. Upton Park was perfectly big enough for West Ham and had room to be expanded on the Chicken Run side. They've moved out of it because they wanted to sell the land it was on for loads of dosh. They admitted this week that being in the Olympic Stadium is actually only making them £7m-£8m more per season than Upton Park did, which isn't exactly the "transformative" dream they were sold is it? Only move if you really have to eg: Colchester, Southampton, Hull.

The design of a stadium is everything. Make it unique, make it for football, make it like Brighton's or Huddersfield's or Hull's. The Olympic Stadium is not a football stadium.

[Cesar Rodriguez]

Moving out of a ground that you own into one that you rent is very risky for most clubs. When things have been desperate for us, owning Loftus Road and the value of the land its on has kept us going, it's given us an asset to leverage against. If you don't own your ground or your training ground what have you got when times get hard?

Moving out of a ground that is perfectly adequate for your needs and can be extended also makes no sense. Highfield Road was fine for Coventry, they weren't filling it, it was their historic home, it was in the middle of the city and it could have been developed. Upton Park was perfectly big enough for West Ham and had room to be expanded on the Chicken Run side. They've moved out of it because they wanted to sell the land it was on for loads of dosh. They admitted this week that being in the Olympic Stadium is actually only making them £7m-£8m more per season than Upton Park did, which isn't exactly the "transformative" dream they were sold is it? Only move if you really have to eg: Colchester, Southampton, Hull.

The design of a stadium is everything. Make it unique, make it for football, make it like Brighton's or Huddersfield's or Hull's. The Olympic Stadium is not a football stadium.

Great points, plus (of course) a clubs ground is a huge part of its identity. Leaving your historic home ground to become tenants in a cavernous, not-made-for-football stadium is the kind of thing that has the effect of transforming a football club into a soulless franchise.

[Antepli Ejderha]

Moving out of a ground that you own into one that you rent is very risky for most clubs. When things have been desperate for us, owning Loftus Road and the value of the land its on has kept us going, it's given us an asset to leverage against. If you don't own your ground or your training ground what have you got when times get hard?

Moving out of a ground that is perfectly adequate for your needs and can be extended also makes no sense. Highfield Road was fine for Coventry, they weren't filling it, it was their historic home, it was in the middle of the city and it could have been developed. Upton Park was perfectly big enough for West Ham and had room to be expanded on the Chicken Run side. They've moved out of it because they wanted to sell the land it was on for loads of dosh. They admitted this week that being in the Olympic Stadium is actually only making them £7m-£8m more per season than Upton Park did, which isn't exactly the "transformative" dream they were sold is it? Only move if you really have to eg: Colchester, Southampton, Hull.

The design of a stadium is everything. Make it unique, make it for football, make it like Brighton's or Huddersfield's or Hull's. The Olympic Stadium is not a football stadium.

Do we know why they are making only 7 or 8 million more? That doesn't sound right. They've got bigger crowds and more VIP boxes so surely they'll be making that per match.

[Amor de Cosmos]

That's what the club reported. Of course only their word for it at this point.

[RobM]

Maybe they were expecting the Real WHF to do the ground security.

Does seem to have a Stones at Altamont look about it.

[The Awesome Berbaslug!!!]

Moving out of a ground that you own into one that you rent is very risky for most clubs. When things have been desperate for us, owning Loftus Road and the value of the land its on has kept us going, it's given us an asset to leverage against. If you don't own your ground or your training ground what have you got when times get hard?

Moving out of a ground that is perfectly adequate for your needs and can be extended also makes no sense. Highfield Road was fine for Coventry, they weren't filling it, it was their historic home, it was in the middle of the city and it could have been developed. Upton Park was perfectly big enough for West Ham and had room to be expanded on the Chicken Run side. They've moved out of it because they wanted to sell the land it was on for loads of dosh. They admitted this week that being in the Olympic Stadium is actually only making them £7m-£8m more per season than Upton Park did, which isn't exactly the "transformative" dream they were sold is it? Only move if you really have to eg: Colchester, Southampton, Hull.

The design of a stadium is everything. Make it unique, make it for football, make it like Brighton's or Huddersfield's or Hull's. The Olympic Stadium is not a football stadium.

Yes, but you've thought about this in a joined up way. Most people don't think about football in this way. Most people follow football as a refuge from thinking and the relentless grind of life. I was just wondering how much has the moving of people from the centre to the suburbs weakened the sense of place around clubs.

[Ray de Galles]

Great points, plus (of course) a clubs ground is a huge part of its identity. Leaving your historic home ground to become tenants in a cavernous, not-made-for-football stadium is the kind of thing that has the effect of transforming a football club into a soulless franchise.

Well, that’s exactly it, isn’t it? It’s not so much that the ground has moved within East London (and it has been nowhere near “a move from the centre to the suburbs”) but that it is so patently an unsuitable stadium for a football club. Also, almost nobody thought it was “seemed like a reasonable idea at the time” - most people knew it would be a shambles as well as a massive grift of public money by the porn barons and Brady.

[Ray de Galles]

I’ve heard rumours that the situation at West Ham is actually far worse than this article states too.

It will come as no surprise now that one of those rumours was that sections of the ground had become a “no go area” for club officials & stewards on match days was under the control of the former ICF members who seem to compose those “Real West Ham Fans” group.

[ursus arctos]

It’s a very valid and interesting question, and the best that I can do for an answer is “It depends”.

US clubs have been facing this kind of thing since the late 50s with varying results. The Brooklyn Dodgers, for instance, found that their local white fanbase was moving out to Long Island with great haste, and used the drop in attendance to capitalise on the tremendous potential of the Los Angeles market. Fast forward five to ten years and the displaced former Dodgers fans had become Mets fans after they took over a stadium that was particularly convenient for Long Islanders.

The Yankees faced a similar shift in demographics in the Bronx, but stayed, and found that their traditional fanbase still came to the park from Westchester and New Jersey (at least as long as they were winning and the South Bronx wasn’t on fire). They also cultivated people of colour in the city, which neither the Dodgers, Giants or Mets ever took seriously.

I’d be hesitant to draw too many conclusions from West Ham simply because the stadium is so awful for football and the surrounding area so alien to their traditional match day experience.

[The Awesome Berbaslug!!!]

Well they're pretty sure they don't like it now. But it's all going to shit for them now. When the whole thing was being mooted, I wonder how many people just thought "big stadium like Arsenal, here comes the big time. " Obviously there's going to be plenty of people who thought about it for any length of time and weren't happy, but I think we've seen this story too many times in the UK where the disinterest of the unthinking, apathetic many is used by the shady few who will benefit, against those who might oppose them. It's not that far removed from the Monorail episode of the simpsons.

[Ray de Galles]

‘Marge vs. the Monorail’ was my constant reference point when Hammam was touting his new stadium/retail park to Cardiff supporters in the noughties, to the point that ‘Monorail’ became shorthand for it and all his other grand schemes on the forums I contributed to.

I was convinced it would be the start of the death of the club. Miraculously, Ridsdale actually got it finished but the massive debts built up prior to that led us in to the arms of Tan and I was, sort of, proved right.

[Glass Half Empty]

I blame Sebastian Coe.