I thought I was feeling pissed off but the faces on the West Ham fans sitting opposite me on the train look like they had just suffered a worse game than us, and they drew.
This will only get worse as Christmas shoppers get thrown in the mix as well! Is it just me, or does the fact that the stadium bodies are called by numbers, makes them seem faceless and therefore easier to hide and avoid responsibility? 'Stadium Landlords E20' and 'Stadium Operators LS185'. Somebody is going to have to accept they are responsible for the poor stewarding and policing and act on it because it seems that Gullivan and Brady can just abrogate all responsibility because of the contract.
This will only get worse as Christmas shoppers get thrown in the mix as well! Is it just me, or does the fact that the stadium bodies are called by numbers, makes them seem faceless and therefore easier to hide and avoid responsibility? 'Stadium Landlords E20' and 'Stadium Operators LS185'. Somebody is going to have to accept they are responsible for the poor stewarding and policing and act on it because it seems that Gullivan and Brady can just abrogate all responsibility because of the contract.
It also calls into the question of the stadium's safety certificate.
That's 3(?) games in a row there's been trouble in and outside the ground now. Any chance the FA might step in and...oh I don't know...charge the club with failing to control their fans? You know like what they would do with any other club where this was happening.
I read today there was apparently a much heavier police presence outside the stadium yesterday, guess that's more money out of the public purse too.
There is a London supporters trust meeting with the Met on Tuesday evening. We the Trusts set the agenda. Questions will be asked. Of course, we who understand in detail the contract know that the Met themselves are not the guilty party, so we will be looking to establish a mutual understanding, between police and taxpayers.
It is understandable that there will be teething problems with managing crowds in transit between the stadium and any transport links. It is not as if the stadium hosted one of the world's largest events across 17 consecutive days, so you could understand the sheer logistical impossibility of getting a few thousand mockneys to and from the ground safely once a fortnight.
Might make things easier if West Ham didn't play on Saturday afternoons. Most of their new "customers" would probably prefer Sunday afternoon games anyway.
This will only get worse as Christmas shoppers get thrown in the mix as well! Is it just me, or does the fact that the stadium bodies are called by numbers, makes them seem faceless and therefore easier to hide and avoid responsibility? 'Stadium Landlords E20' and 'Stadium Operators LS185'. Somebody is going to have to accept they are responsible for the poor stewarding and policing and act on it because it seems that Gullivan and Brady can just abrogate all responsibility because of the contract.
LS 185 is especially interesting. The stadium operator is actually French company Vinci, who operate several other large stadia, including Stade de France as I recall. Yet this is the first operation where they go all shy and come up with a name like this. That is surprising for a private company. You expect them to proudly display their credentials and build up their brand awareness. Unfortunately being private, we cannot ask under FOI why they have done this.
They should have been forced to rename the club Stratford London FC. It would go well with their new badge that looks like it was designed by a 4 year old, then replace the hammers with big yellow 'marital aids' that Brady made her money from.
Seems all the lowlives and thugs have pounced on West Ham's desperation to fill their new ground and cheap prices to pile in and rekindle the violent spirit of the 1980s. I think the issue the police have outside the ground is that fans disperse across a wide area as soon as they leave the ground.
I think I read something to the effect that the police did enter the ground at some point yesterday. Presumably, they are willing to do so in response to a specific incident of violent behaviour that involves a threat or potential threat to public safety, but are not yet in the stadium throughout the build-up, game, etc?
So West Ham don't have to pay for their scum fans to be policed and again, the tax payers pick up the cost.
Their deal gets more and more disgusting as time goes on. How anyone can have the front to try and say this is anything other than a disgrace is beyond me.
@PragueAddick any chance you have other at some point you could knock up a quick bullet point summary list of all the things that are shit about the wet spam os contract. Basically all the things they're not paying for and taxpayers are. Trying to explain to a housemate that it's not a good deal.
@PragueAddick any chance you have other at some point you could knock up a quick bullet point summary list of all the things that are shit about the wet spam os contract. Basically all the things they're not paying for and taxpayers are. Trying to explain to a housemate that it's not a good deal.
This will only get worse as Christmas shoppers get thrown in the mix as well! Is it just me, or does the fact that the stadium bodies are called by numbers, makes them seem faceless and therefore easier to hide and avoid responsibility? 'Stadium Landlords E20' and 'Stadium Operators LS185'. Somebody is going to have to accept they are responsible for the poor stewarding and policing and act on it because it seems that Gullivan and Brady can just abrogate all responsibility because of the contract.
LS 185 is especially interesting. The stadium operator is actually French company Vinci, who operate several other large stadia, including Stade de France as I recall. Yet this is the first operation where they go all shy and come up with a name like this. That is surprising for a private company. You expect them to proudly display their credentials and build up their brand awareness. Unfortunately being private, we cannot ask under FOI why they have done this.
Anybody happen to know?
LS185 is simply London Stadium and the 185 refers to the number of GB Olympic & Paralympic medal winners in 2012.
@PragueAddick any chance you have other at some point you could knock up a quick bullet point summary list of all the things that are shit about the wet spam os contract. Basically all the things they're not paying for and taxpayers are. Trying to explain to a housemate that it's not a good deal.
This will only get worse as Christmas shoppers get thrown in the mix as well! Is it just me, or does the fact that the stadium bodies are called by numbers, makes them seem faceless and therefore easier to hide and avoid responsibility? 'Stadium Landlords E20' and 'Stadium Operators LS185'. Somebody is going to have to accept they are responsible for the poor stewarding and policing and act on it because it seems that Gullivan and Brady can just abrogate all responsibility because of the contract.
LS 185 is especially interesting. The stadium operator is actually French company Vinci, who operate several other large stadia, including Stade de France as I recall. Yet this is the first operation where they go all shy and come up with a name like this. That is surprising for a private company. You expect them to proudly display their credentials and build up their brand awareness. Unfortunately being private, we cannot ask under FOI why they have done this.
Anybody happen to know?
LS185 is simply London Stadium and the 185 refers to the number of GB Olympic & Paralympic medal winners in 2012.
I think the original query isn't about what the name stands for, it's why does Vinci feel the need to create a sub-brand specifically for this project.
There's been a fair bit on the news today about West Ham's treatment of their Women's football team. Specifically that the woman's team have been forced to train on the street, have no access to a physio or a bus, and are actually using kit from last year which literally has last years names crossed out.
I understand that, like Charlton Athletic WFC, West Ham Ladies are a different entity from the men's club and there's minimal affiliation other than name. Alas, West Ham had previously stated that they'd provide kit AND access to facilities. However they never did so, and that's why the Ladies' plight is so severe.
The chairman had openly called for the FA to fine WHUFC as he feels their conduct is in direct contravention of the FA's values of equality and encouraging women's sport.
I definitely feel as though Women's football needs some extra funding in general, and that clubs should take a bigger role in supporting their affiliated WFC teams. However, the fact that this looks like yet another example of WHUFC being greedy little shits is severely vexing.
Theirs no excuse for a Premier League team with Premier League funding to be shafting their Ladies team like this, let alone one who have mysteriously found themselves with the deal that WHUFC. They hardly need to penny pinch at the moment do they?!
Comments
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/angry-west-ham-fans-stranded-as-stratford-station-evacuated-a3358991.html
LOL!
Is it just me, or does the fact that the stadium bodies are called by numbers, makes them seem faceless and therefore easier to hide and avoid responsibility? 'Stadium Landlords E20' and 'Stadium Operators LS185'.
Somebody is going to have to accept they are responsible for the poor stewarding and policing and act on it because it seems that Gullivan and Brady can just abrogate all responsibility because of the contract.
I read today there was apparently a much heavier police presence outside the stadium yesterday, guess that's more money out of the public purse too.
Anybody happen to know?
Their deal gets more and more disgusting as time goes on. How anyone can have the front to try and say this is anything other than a disgrace is beyond me.
https://oscoalition.wordpress.com/about/
http://www.vinci-concessions.com/en/what-we-do/stadiums/
I understand that, like Charlton Athletic WFC, West Ham Ladies are a different entity from the men's club and there's minimal affiliation other than name. Alas, West Ham had previously stated that they'd provide kit AND access to facilities. However they never did so, and that's why the Ladies' plight is so severe.
The chairman had openly called for the FA to fine WHUFC as he feels their conduct is in direct contravention of the FA's values of equality and encouraging women's sport.
I definitely feel as though Women's football needs some extra funding in general, and that clubs should take a bigger role in supporting their affiliated WFC teams. However, the fact that this looks like yet another example of WHUFC being greedy little shits is severely vexing.
Theirs no excuse for a Premier League team with Premier League funding to be shafting their Ladies team like this, let alone one who have mysteriously found themselves with the deal that WHUFC. They hardly need to penny pinch at the moment do they?!