villa4europe Posted October 27, 2016 Share Posted October 27, 2016 2 minutes ago, BOF said: Regarding security. Are we blaming West Ham because we hate West Ham? Do we know the terms of their deal? They don't own the stadium, so it's entirely possible that this despicable club are NOT in charge of security for the OS or for modernising its infrastructure regarding things like telecommunications - the thing currently keeping plod from agreeing to police it. It's possible that the owner/management company are also refusing to spend money, but the difference being that they are obliged to spend it. As much as I hate West Ham, and in a footballing sense I hate West Ham, that doesn't mean they're automatically* to blame for the current security malaise. Regardless of what we think they should or should not be doing. It'll be in a contract somewhere. * Although they may be. the problem is that west ham's owners are going to be making an obscene amount of money from the deal, im under no illusion that contractually they are probably right, its the stadiums fault, they look like they're providing the bare minimum that they can get away with both in terms of numbers and training* however morally if west ham know its failing should they be willing to make commercial decisions such as reduced capacity or increased policing / stewarding until its resolved? IMO yes they should i still hope the answer is someone at the government turns round and says ok then its our responsibility, lets take a proper look at exactly what we've signed up to...because that investigation should have happened anyway and will make west ham squirm *take last night for example, i obviously dont know how stewarding is written in to their contract but i also dont see how they could identify chelsea in the cup as a high risk game and demand increased numbers of stewards, id assume the contract is worded along the lines of providing enough staff to make the stadium deemed safe, that'll be safe in the eyes of the HSE, it wont take all day drinking, away numbers, local rivalry etc in to account 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted October 27, 2016 Moderator Share Posted October 27, 2016 11 minutes ago, villa4europe said: the problem is that west ham's owners are going to be making an obscene amount of money from the deal, im under no illusion that contractually they are probably right, its the stadiums fault, they look like they're providing the bare minimum that they can get away with both in terms of numbers and training* however morally if west ham know its failing should they be willing to make commercial decisions such as reduced capacity or increased policing / stewarding until its resolved? IMO yes they should It's nothing to do with morals. This is football. EVERYTHING will be in a contract. If the stadium's owners are getting away on the bare minimum and it is they in charge of security then it is they who should answer. Anything other than that is just us letting our opinion of WHUFC get in the way. We need to completely separate who they are from all of this. Everything I've read is about how much money they saved and what we think they should do. Whether we find it hard to swallow or not, all of that is completely irrelevant. Ugh, it sounds like I'm sticking up for them here. I'm not. I'm just being objective. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demitri_C Posted October 27, 2016 Share Posted October 27, 2016 1 hour ago, BOF said: Regarding security. Are we blaming West Ham because we hate West Ham? Do we know the terms of their deal? They don't own the stadium, so it's entirely possible that this despicable club are NOT in charge of security for the OS or for modernising its infrastructure regarding things like telecommunications - the thing currently keeping plod from agreeing to police it. It's possible that the owner/management company are also refusing to spend money, but the difference being that they are obliged to spend it. As much as I hate West Ham, and in a footballing sense I hate West Ham, that doesn't mean they're automatically* to blame for the current security malaise. Regardless of what we think they should or should not be doing. It'll be in a contract somewhere. * Although they may be. Are you trying to tell me west ham despite making huge profits for a stadium that isn't theirs are not covering the costs of security? Outrageous if true and thats the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted October 27, 2016 Moderator Share Posted October 27, 2016 Just now, Demitri_C said: Are you trying to tell me west ham despite making huge profits for a stadium that isn't theirs are not covering the costs of security? Outrageous if true and thats the case. Their profits don't change the terms of their deal is what I'm saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PieFacE Posted October 27, 2016 VT Supporter Share Posted October 27, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, BOF said: Regarding security. Are we blaming West Ham because we hate West Ham? Do we know the terms of their deal? They don't own the stadium, so it's entirely possible that this despicable club are NOT in charge of security for the OS or for modernising its infrastructure regarding things like telecommunications - the thing currently keeping plod from agreeing to police it. It's possible that the owner/management company are also refusing to spend money, but the difference being that they are obliged to spend it. As much as I hate West Ham, and in a footballing sense I hate West Ham, that doesn't mean they're automatically* to blame for the current security malaise. Regardless of what we think they should or should not be doing. It'll be in a contract somewhere. * Although they may be. Didn't West Ham refuse to put the necessary communication network which the police use in their ground 'cos it cost money? Pretty sure the Met have said that they will not put extra police in that ground til they sort it out. To which they obviously haven't done yet. Can't remember where I read that. EDIT: It's actually E20's responsibility, not West Ham's. I take it back. Edited October 27, 2016 by PieFacE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted October 27, 2016 Share Posted October 27, 2016 1 hour ago, BOF said: It's nothing to do with morals. This is football. EVERYTHING will be in a contract. If the stadium's owners are getting away on the bare minimum and it is they in charge of security then it is they who should answer. Anything other than that is just us letting our opinion of WHUFC get in the way. We need to completely separate who they are from all of this. Everything I've read is about how much money they saved and what we think they should do. Whether we find it hard to swallow or not, all of that is completely irrelevant. Ugh, it sounds like I'm sticking up for them here. I'm not. I'm just being objective. i dont see how they can word it in to the contract though, the number of stewards will be something like 5 per 1k fans or something along the lines of meeting the criteria set out by whoever governs football stadiums the contract will say they have to provide say 500 stewards per sell out, i dont see how the contract can possibly detail the standard of stewarding the fact that they'll be providing minimum wage inexperienced stewards or that they'll be providing 500 of them regardless of whos playing or what time the kick off and therefore you could make an argument that the security provided isn't fit for purpose is where IMO west ham should be stepping in, what happened to all the old upton park experienced stewards? west ham let them all go... my other issue is that knowing full well that the stewards arent much cop and that the full policing system isnt in place west ham could take the decision to reduce the capacity for games like last night, like blues have for this sundays game, but they arent interested in that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted October 27, 2016 Share Posted October 27, 2016 Regardless of whose responsibility it is, their fans don't need to act like total animals. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coda Posted October 27, 2016 Share Posted October 27, 2016 1 hour ago, BOF said: Are we blaming West Ham because we hate West Ham?. I am. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted October 27, 2016 Share Posted October 27, 2016 8 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said: Regardless of whose responsibility it is, their fans don't need to act like total animals. It's kind of a sad indictment of football fans in general that it's considered a defence that fans weren't segregated properly. I sometimes wonder if the segregation actually makes things worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted October 27, 2016 Moderator Share Posted October 27, 2016 Just now, Davkaus said: I sometimes wonder if the segregation actually makes things worse. I'm going to say no Chicken and egg. There's a reason there's segregation. It wasn't born out of nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted October 27, 2016 Moderator Share Posted October 27, 2016 1 hour ago, BOF said: It's nothing to do with morals. This is football. EVERYTHING will be in a contract. If the stadium's owners are getting away on the bare minimum and it is they in charge of security then it is they who should answer. Anything other than that is just us letting our opinion of WHUFC get in the way. We need to completely separate who they are from all of this. Everything I've read is about how much money they saved and what we think they should do. Whether we find it hard to swallow or not, all of that is completely irrelevant. Ugh, it sounds like I'm sticking up for them here. I'm not. I'm just being objective. I resent having to put my pitch folk down in order to reply BOF, just so you know I completely agree with the premise of your post(s), you are right re contracts and about the lack of clarity on responsibility. But.... Knowing their owns as we do, I think it is reasonable to assume that if contractually West Ham were covered and this was the responsibility of others, then I think they would be pointing a great big shit covered stick firmly in their direction. They aren't doing that though, in fact they've been rather low profile other than the Chemical Ali moment when pornodwarf tried to claim nothing was happening as the windows were going through on the Man Utd coach. Now I might have missed it, its possible, but I've not seen anyone from West Ham claiming those who own the stadium are responsible or in breach of contract. I guess contractually they might not be allowed to comment but there are ways and means around that and I'd expect them to find them and take them. So for me the blame for this currently sits with West Ham unless their is reason to think otherwise. Yes I don't like the club, their fans or their owners but I think my view would be the same on this irrespective on which club it was. A further point on this, they know they've got issues irrespective of who is responsible for them. Last night was a cup game, ticket sales weren't impacted by ST holder complications, they could easily have reduced the capacity for the game and introduced a larger segregation between the two sets of fans for what was always going to be a heated meeting. They seemingly didn't do that, that is surely on them? Right, where is my pitch fork and flaming torch there is a lynching to be done... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
choffer Posted October 27, 2016 VT Supporter Share Posted October 27, 2016 (edited) I know exactly who was to blame for the trouble last night. It was on 5Live this morning: Chelsea fan (and daughter) got pelted with coins - "It was that West 'Am lot wot started it" West Ham fan who got pelted with coins - "It was that Chelsea lot wot started it". Well that sure cleared things up. Edited October 27, 2016 by choffer 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzy Posted October 27, 2016 Share Posted October 27, 2016 5 hours ago, TrentVilla said: The lack of action from the FA/Premier League is both a disgrace and entirely predictable. What happened to us and Blues in 2010, out of interest? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinker Posted October 27, 2016 VT Supporter Share Posted October 27, 2016 Fine both clubs and use CCTV to ban the trouble makers , blaming the stadium management for the actions of these mostly ageing thugs is ridiculous . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted October 27, 2016 Moderator Share Posted October 27, 2016 11 minutes ago, tinker said: blaming the stadium management for the actions of these mostly ageing thugs is ridiculous . As is blaming the clubs if neither are responsible for stadium security. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Czechlad Posted October 27, 2016 Share Posted October 27, 2016 6 hours ago, VillaChris said: Apparently listening to TS there's only one real route back to the tubes and trains at Stratford station so pretty much all the fans have to shuffle back on way whereas In pretty much every other ground there are numerous routes for fans to disperse e.g. back to Aston....through Aston Park or up towards Witton and Perry Barr. Olympic stadium stands alone and don't think there's anything to its left. Or fans can just not be dickheads and not attack each other over a football match. Yea your team won or lost? Don't take your frustration or joy out on other people. That isn't the match making you do it. You're just a terrible human being who is looking for trouble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted October 27, 2016 Moderator Share Posted October 27, 2016 7 minutes ago, Czechlad said: Or fans can just not be dickheads and not attack each other over a football match. Yea your team won or lost? Don't take your frustration or joy out on other people. That isn't the match making you do it. You're just a terrible human being who is looking for trouble. He wasn't justifying it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Czechlad Posted October 27, 2016 Share Posted October 27, 2016 (edited) 7 minutes ago, TrentVilla said: He wasn't justifying it. I am aware. I am just saying even poor transportation shouldn't cause violence to break out. Edited October 27, 2016 by Czechlad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted October 27, 2016 Moderator Share Posted October 27, 2016 5 minutes ago, Czechlad said: I am aware. I am just saying even poor transportation shouldn't cause violence to break out. No obviously but it makes it more likely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted October 27, 2016 Share Posted October 27, 2016 2 hours ago, BOF said: As is blaming the clubs if neither are responsible for stadium security. If Premier League had balls and gave them a stadium ban I bet they be quick to sort it out 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts