Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
- 1.5K All Categories
- 1 Site Stuff
- 31 Admin (FAQs, rules, queries etc.)
- The Boleyn Arms
- 34 General Chatter
- 7 Member info & Family Album
- 3 Radio Llama (music videos)
- 400 Fun & Games
- 105 BA Predictor Threads
- 32 Word Games
- 4 Quizzes
- 2 Pun Threads
- 292 Magic Minutes
- 3 Other Fun & Games
- 113 Current West Ham
- 199 Men's First Team
- 3 Women's Team
- 11 PL2 & Academy
- 31 Management & Board
- 15 Stadium & Training Ground
- 26 West Ham Miscellaneous
- West Ham Matches
- 393 Match Threads
- 64 MOTM
- 8 West Ham Nostalgia
- 34 Former Players and Staff
- 4 Past Games & Glories
- 37 Transfers
- 46 Transfer Speculation
- 87 Completed Transfers
- 55 Internationals
- 48 Men's Internationals
- 5 Women's Internationals
- 2 Youth Internationals
- 117 Football Chatter
- 43 Football Chatter
- 267 Other Teams & Matches
- 25 Other Players & Staff
Comments
As BBB has pointed out we are in a different stadium where local rules are being more rigorously applied. The punishment is a reduction in capacity.
I don't understand why for the time being at least folks can just sit down.
The club sold too many plus 2s...
Think they need to get a much easier way to trade tickets with other fans set up quickly or these problems will continue ...
Someone on kumb is trying to create a website to do this , maybe this will help.
As I've said , I don't think any fan is more real than others
No matter how the club had done it differently, persistent standing would still not be allowed in the new ground. The requirement for the persistent standers to change their expectations and behaviour would be identical to what it is now even if they were more 'grouped'.
The only difference possibly that is that the (now) standing wouldn't have annoyed quite so many other fans.
imo
The fact that the club mostly ignored standing at Upton Park suggests that Sullivan, Gold and Brady don't really care whether we stand or not as long as they sell as many tickets as possible.
Not every fan, especially in bands 3 and 4 got the comparable seat in the new stadium.
Why?
Because the +2 scheme within bands 1 & 2 had already displaced some of them (unknown to them until they got to the RC) Either they had to pay more to go up a band, or move back, say with their mates, to stay together. The aggressive selling by the reps at the RC, telling fans "buy another couple, only kids prices initially, then if you don't bring the kids you can always upgrade later match by match if you want (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) didn't help either.
Another thing that in all this was the clubs decision to not have a family seating area, now there are plenty of parents/kids in area's that have "generally been known" to stand and will be obviously frustrated.
The fact of the matter for me, the club's number 1 priority in all this was selling 52K season tickets, then came your comparable seat, the families, the standing (well actually I'm not sure that even registered).
The club have helped cause this to some degree due to the method they chose for the seat selection process and the +2 scheme, this is turn was driven by the need to sell as many ST's as possible.
And nobody will ever change my mind.
;ok
The situation is as it is and has to be dealt with.
It is also my firm view (as I explained) that no matter what the club had done (eg, to have more tickets on general sale, or to have fans 'grouped' in like areas to the Boleyn areas) the issue would still have arisen because persistent standing will not be allowed.
YES THEY DID.
Every ST Holder got first dibs on their comparable seat in the new stadium BEFORE it was offered to a +2.
'My BML seat' now has another bottom on it but that bottom didn't get to buy it until after I said I didn't want it.
She's trying to rule with a heavy hand. They're now applying the pressure by suggesting that if "everyone" doesn't sit, or actually everyone doesn't sit when they've got objectionable (and quite right too) person or persons behind them, you'll be chucked out and this in turn won't help the club as they won't get the other 3,000 tickets, denying many other claret members for the foreseeable.
They are going to have their work cut out making thousands sit in the BML and STL if there are still people there who want/need/must sit.
If this was all that bad (and I'm not playing down the complaints from people sitting and getting frustrated - at all), then why did they increase it from 54,000 to 57,000?
I mean, if the standing problem is THAT bad at 54,000 then why increase it at all, cap it now and tell everyone to conform before it goes any higher, to even 57,000 let alone 60,000.
How do another 3,000 tickets get added on when you've admitted the standing problem has stopped it from having the full 6,000 added to the capacity?
I'd say at a guess, because they know they'd have a problem, 52,000 ST only leaves 2,000 tickets at 54K not even enough to allocate away fans, let alone the thousands that were promised a ballot by being Claret Members......
So they've conveniently added 3,000 phew that gets out of a tight corner doesn't it
;wink
the rules that apply now. It's like a road that had a speed limit of 40mph and now
it has changed to 30mph.
The first time you exceed the speed of 30mph you get a fine and 3 pts on your license.
The second time you exceed the speed limit of 30mph you get a bigger fine and another 3 pts on your license.
The third time you exceed the speed limit of 30mph you get an even bigger fine plus a ban for driving.
If the rules at the London stadium are that there will be no standing, then that is
the rules, and it is irrelevant what happened at Upton Park.
Ignore the rules and you should be evicted from the ground, shouldn't take long
before fans sit on there seats instead of standing and then all can see the game
without having to stand up.
Perhaps the club should've thought about all this when selling the +2's?
;whistle
Don't understood this forum sometimes because the only comments seem to be allowed are ones that are 'official' or is a 'rule from the club website" etc... It's like on the transfer speculation when someone posts something they've heard from an ITK and rather than debating that player, the poster is shot down with "no such thing as an ITK, etc etc "
Forums aren't about what is "fact " all the time it's about peoples emotions thoughts etc about the club, things to chat about , interesting issues etc... Not just about official statements from the Official site all the time.
Sure this comment will get shot down but I know some people will know what I'm taking About
All IMO , coyi
;ok
The club have helped cause this situation, due to numerous processes within the selling of ST's for the Olympic Stadium
Perhaps if it seems like the 'pro-standing' posters are in a minority, it's because (amongst this site's posters, anyway), they actually are? ;hmm
If Newham council won't raise the capacity to 60k then that's money lost, not just to the club but to the LLDC and VINCI.
As for facts some of us like to live in the real world, maybe it because we're old and cynical, or because with early onset of Alzheimer's we need to cling onto what little reality we still can!