Don't know him @PragueAddick as I deal with law firms rather than barrister sets. Just watched his law in sport interview. Don't think I would ever want to be in his company. And he certainly didn't get that voice in Poplar!! One comment about representing di Canio does make me think he's an Iron though.
Don't know him @PragueAddick as I deal with law firms rather than barrister sets. Just watched his law in sport interview. Don't think I would ever want to be in his company. And he certainly didn't get that voice in Poplar!! One comment about representing di Canio does make me think he's an Iron though.
Could be a Wendy, when PDC pushed the ref over.
He's a Londoner all right, and if he was a Wendy, why hide it on the day?
He could of course just be a ****.
Simon Pentol's quite well known isn't he? Talksport and Sky roll him out when they need a football lawyer's opinion. He's probably too big news to be tied to one football club, but I could imagine a less obvious link might exist - he was certainly around at the time of the Tevez tpo controversy, but not sure he was involved.
Is this value for the tax payers? A season of laughing together as London FC fall into the championship in a rapidly emptying soulless bowl? Regular entertainment from the slagging on social media and BoxNation release a -best of -video of angry customers battling stewards and each other? Large scale mayhem when someone nasty and in big numbers visits the LondonFCbowl? Type Gold to vote value. Type Brass to vote waste of our cash.
Whilst there's a large helping of schadenfreude in seeing WHU's current situation at the taxpayer's stadium I can't help think that, given the ridiculous nature of the contract, this is going to end up costing us even more to sort out their segregation and stewarding issues.
They should send the bill for any required ground alterations and additional stewards to Boris.
Whilst there's a large helping of schadenfreude in seeing WHU's current situation at the taxpayer's stadium I can't help think that, given the ridiculous nature of the contract, this is going to end up costing us even more to sort out their segregation and stewarding issues.
They should send the bill for any required ground alterations and additional stewards to Boris.
We will definitely pay the increase in police and security costs associated with this shambles. The contract clearly states that. I don't know how West Ham can have any say in whether or not there are police in the ground, or how many. It's none of their business.
Yes, it's sickening that the ongoing problems at the Yours'n'Mine Arena will all have to be addressed at the public expense - as predicted it looks like WHU not only won the lottery but they'll be winning it every fortnight for the next century, or at least until E20 go bust.
As for the match-day experience, it's just tragic timing that CAFC cannot offer rival hospitality and an alternative of sorts because of the current fans' stand-off with the hapless Belgians, the club's overall incompetence and not least our untimely slide into L1. RD out - now, please.
Spoke to West Ham mate who was there yesterday and he said the stewards are the angry mob like we had against burnley and there was trouble near where he was loads of punters drinking in their seats pissed and swearing and getting aggy with each other once they started losing Said when Watford scored to go 2-3 up they all come running from the bars chucking beer everywhere and winding up the not so appy ammers
Ok I'm a season ticket holder there and there is no West Ham mate
I'm enjoying it. Never really had anything against West Ham but this is really coming back to bite them on the arse and it's enjoyable. I'm also liking all the "proper" West Ham people I know on social media who have never owned a season ticket before posting pictures in their retro shirts drinking at Westfield before the match. And it all seemed such a good deal a few months back.
Whilst there's a large helping of schadenfreude in seeing WHU's current situation at the taxpayer's stadium I can't help think that, given the ridiculous nature of the contract, this is going to end up costing us even more to sort out their segregation and stewarding issues.
They should send the bill for any required ground alterations and additional stewards to Boris.
We will definitely pay the increase in police and security costs associated with this shambles. The contract clearly states that. I don't know how West Ham can have any say in whether or not there are police in the ground, or how many. It's none of their business.
This is what's confusing me about the Twitter accounts of police telling fans they aren't allowed inside until an incident has occurred, surely that's not up to West Ham and is in fact a matter for the Met to decide?
The videos of stewards not knowing what to do certainly reinforces what @Super_horns says though - they appear quite clueless. In one of the videos from a few weeks ago it was quite clear they didn't know how to react when violence was kicking off - a bit concerning if the police aren't around to intervene quickly enough.
As for segregation - was that seriously not considered already? Perhaps Airman Brown can cast some light on this, but I seem to recall that segregation was a major issue with plans to extend the valley during the PL years? I can't really understand why segregation was not considered and acted upon, even their last match at The Boleyn was marred by trouble FFS.
The police were telling people that there was no funding for them inside the stadium, hence it taking - according to spectators - between 10 and 20 minutes between an altercation beginning, the stewards passing it on, police getting the message and finding their way to the correct location. You couldn't make it up.
So, does this suggest that already the financial burden of the deal is too much for the "stadium owners", and West Ham are refusing to supplement the safety budget? If so, is that not a clear breach of safety regulations? Let alone when you consider there's no segregation!
They have however issued a club statement on their OS, stating that LS185, WHUFC and The Met will be undertaking an urgent review of the situation. Interesting?
The police were telling people that there was no funding for them inside the stadium, hence it taking - according to spectators - between 10 and 20 minutes between an altercation beginning, the stewards passing it on, police getting the message and finding their way to the correct location. You couldn't make it up.
So, does this suggest that already the financial burden of the deal is too much for the "stadium owners", and West Ham are refusing to supplement the safety budget? If so, is that not a clear breach of safety regulations? Let alone when you consider there's no segregation!
They have however issued a club statement on their OS, stating that LS185, WHUFC and The Met will be undertaking an urgent review of the situation. Interesting?
The police were telling people that there was no funding for them inside the stadium, hence it taking - according to spectators - between 10 and 20 minutes between an altercation beginning, the stewards passing it on, police getting the message and finding their way to the correct location. You couldn't make it up.
So, does this suggest that already the financial burden of the deal is too much for the "stadium owners", and West Ham are refusing to supplement the safety budget? If so, is that not a clear breach of safety regulations? Let alone when you consider there's no segregation!
They have however issued a club statement on their OS, stating that LS185, WHUFC and The Met will be undertaking an urgent review of the situation. Interesting?
I would think the taxpayer has every right not to pay the cost, they maybe responsible to pay the costs IF they provide them, so don't.
Will the ground safety certificate not now be in danger of being withdrawn?
In a logical world, one would expect that failing to provide adequate safety and security for your fans would lead to your safety certificate being revoked.. but in a logical world, one wouldn't expect the taxpayer to be funding the stadium for a football club!
I think something will come out of the talks between WHUFC, MetPol and LS185 - and then everything will settle down as though nothing has happened. I can't help but ponder whether Sullivan's son is requesting details on different stewards (which he has been on Twitter), to give his father some ammunition in these negotiations with LS185.
I wonder if the lube is being broken out with the expectation of the taxpayer getting shafted again? I also wonder if we'll be able to find out what this discussion which actually result in; I doubt it somehow.
The police were telling people that there was no funding for them inside the stadium, hence it taking - according to spectators - between 10 and 20 minutes between an altercation beginning, the stewards passing it on, police getting the message and finding their way to the correct location. You couldn't make it up.
So, does this suggest that already the financial burden of the deal is too much for the "stadium owners", and West Ham are refusing to supplement the safety budget? If so, is that not a clear breach of safety regulations? Let alone when you consider there's no segregation!
They have however issued a club statement on their OS, stating that LS185, WHUFC and The Met will be undertaking an urgent review of the situation. Interesting?
The police were telling people that there was no funding for them inside the stadium, hence it taking - according to spectators - between 10 and 20 minutes between an altercation beginning, the stewards passing it on, police getting the message and finding their way to the correct location. You couldn't make it up.
So, does this suggest that already the financial burden of the deal is too much for the "stadium owners", and West Ham are refusing to supplement the safety budget? If so, is that not a clear breach of safety regulations? Let alone when you consider there's no segregation!
They have however issued a club statement on their OS, stating that LS185, WHUFC and The Met will be undertaking an urgent review of the situation. Interesting?
Unlike anything he has seen in modern times? Wasn't daddy at Birmingham when they rocked up at Millwall for a riot?
Yeah, someone reminded him of that on Twitter actually.
The overwhelming reaction from the responses is: (a) he's a tosser, (b) his father and the board are tossers, (c) the fans want the police inside the stadium, (d) the fans want the Boleyn stewards, (e) the Boleyn was better, and (f) the olympic stadium is a bit naff for football.
Safety issue aside.. Wow, who would've thought that using an athletics stadium for football would be a bit shit? And who would've thought negotiations done in secrecy and conducted very quickly would amount to a complete and utter shit shower?
The police were telling people that there was no funding for them inside the stadium, hence it taking - according to spectators - between 10 and 20 minutes between an altercation beginning, the stewards passing it on, police getting the message and finding their way to the correct location. You couldn't make it up.
So, does this suggest that already the financial burden of the deal is too much for the "stadium owners", and West Ham are refusing to supplement the safety budget? If so, is that not a clear breach of safety regulations? Let alone when you consider there's no segregation!
They have however issued a club statement on their OS, stating that LS185, WHUFC and The Met will be undertaking an urgent review of the situation. Interesting?
@PragueAddick I know that the follow up to the FOI has moved on to other parties but are you aware if they are highlighting this issue as an example of just how ridiculous that contract is?
Sullivan and Gold don't like paying to have police in the ground. Not sure how accurate the rumour was, but when the Junior Reds coach got stoned by Brum fans after we won 4-2, there apparently wasn't a copper within a mile of the ground.
@PragueAddick I know that the follow up to the FOI has moved on to other parties but are you aware if they are highlighting this issue as an example of just how ridiculous that contract is?
Definitely (and by the way I am still involved, just those goons need to be aware that it isn't just a Charlton thing any more, so its no good launching a cyber attack on CL :-)). Personally I think the Police clause was one they most wanted to keep secret, as it is an embarassing and unnecessary giveaway that will really piss off the other clubs. For example both Manchester clubs pay just shy of a million a year to GMP.
I've seen info that indicates E20 have budgetted something like £620,000 p.a. for 'security', but that seems to mean both stewards and police. We don't think that would be enough for stewarding alone. So if you get large and increasing police bills on top, that will wipe out their "profit" plan.
Comments
A season of laughing together as London FC fall into the championship in a rapidly emptying soulless bowl?
Regular entertainment from the slagging on social media and BoxNation release a -best of -video of angry customers battling stewards and each other?
Large scale mayhem when someone nasty and in big numbers visits the LondonFCbowl?
Type Gold to vote value.
Type Brass to vote waste of our cash.
They should send the bill for any required ground alterations and additional stewards to Boris.
Yes, it's sickening that the ongoing problems at the Yours'n'Mine Arena will all have to be addressed at the public expense - as predicted it looks like WHU not only won the lottery but they'll be winning it every fortnight for the next century, or at least until E20 go bust.
As for the match-day experience, it's just tragic timing that CAFC cannot offer rival hospitality and an alternative of sorts because of the current fans' stand-off with the hapless Belgians, the club's overall incompetence and not least our untimely slide into L1. RD out - now, please.
Said when Watford scored to go 2-3 up they all come running from the bars chucking beer everywhere and winding up the not so appy ammers
Ok I'm a season ticket holder there and there is no West Ham mate
It seems the West Ham fans didn't like being told what to do either but they just turned nasty (not helped by the on field action either!)
Never seen a ground empty so quickly/early though...at the end you could fully read "Hammers" on the seats in one of the stands for example..
Its not great when there is trouble against us, Bournemouth and some random Eastern European side though!
What is going to happen when the bigger London clubs arrive.
The videos of stewards not knowing what to do certainly reinforces what @Super_horns says though - they appear quite clueless. In one of the videos from a few weeks ago it was quite clear they didn't know how to react when violence was kicking off - a bit concerning if the police aren't around to intervene quickly enough.
As for segregation - was that seriously not considered already? Perhaps Airman Brown can cast some light on this, but I seem to recall that segregation was a major issue with plans to extend the valley during the PL years? I can't really understand why segregation was not considered and acted upon, even their last match at The Boleyn was marred by trouble FFS.
So, does this suggest that already the financial burden of the deal is too much for the "stadium owners", and West Ham are refusing to supplement the safety budget? If so, is that not a clear breach of safety regulations? Let alone when you consider there's no segregation!
They have however issued a club statement on their OS, stating that LS185, WHUFC and The Met will be undertaking an urgent review of the situation. Interesting?
Sullivan's kid has even got involved:
Think it would take a bit longer than 20 minutes to phone every tax payer in the country.
Will the ground safety certificate not now be in danger of being withdrawn?
I think something will come out of the talks between WHUFC, MetPol and LS185 - and then everything will settle down as though nothing has happened. I can't help but ponder whether Sullivan's son is requesting details on different stewards (which he has been on Twitter), to give his father some ammunition in these negotiations with LS185.
I wonder if the lube is being broken out with the expectation of the taxpayer getting shafted again? I also wonder if we'll be able to find out what this discussion which actually result in; I doubt it somehow.
I presume WHUFC want to attend just in case LS185 have forgotten their pen when it comes to signing the cheque for MetPol.
The overwhelming reaction from the responses is: (a) he's a tosser, (b) his father and the board are tossers, (c) the fans want the police inside the stadium, (d) the fans want the Boleyn stewards, (e) the Boleyn was better, and (f) the olympic stadium is a bit naff for football.
Safety issue aside.. Wow, who would've thought that using an athletics stadium for football would be a bit shit? And who would've thought negotiations done in secrecy and conducted very quickly would amount to a complete and utter shit shower?
I've seen info that indicates E20 have budgetted something like £620,000 p.a. for 'security', but that seems to mean both stewards and police.
We don't think that would be enough for stewarding alone. So if you get large and increasing police bills on top, that will wipe out their "profit" plan.