|
OccupyGreenStreet
4:54 Fri Feb 7
Re: David Gold : headline interview on BBC football homepage
|
I was right in the middle of the Burnley protest beneath the Directors box. I didn’t see any coins or anything else thrown. Junior was there with me, and we had footage of the chants and them getting up and leaving. No sign of coins, lighters, anything else. Anybody seen footage of coins, projectiles ever? Plenty of cameras at LS, mobile phones - if stuff was thrown, it would have been shown on the media or social media.
They cleared out because there was a good number chanting at them, the message got through big time.
|
geoffpikey
4:54 Fri Feb 7
Re: David Gold : headline interview on BBC football homepage
|
Which suggests the opposite of the media having it in for them. After the Sky business, the media are being very careful not to allow anything GSB can interpret as libellous.
|
geoffpikey
4:52 Fri Feb 7
Re: David Gold : headline interview on BBC football homepage
|
Oxsaw. There's no comments allowed on the article. The BBC aren't THAT stupid.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/51405905
Only one comment on the Daily Mail news of it. Which is VERY unusual and suggests censorship. The Guardian not even reporting it.
|
southbankbornnbred
4:44 Fri Feb 7
Re: David Gold : headline interview on BBC football homepage
|
MancIron,
I get where you're coming from, believe me. But even that approach is primarily a passive approach which relies on results (being bad).
That's effectivey saying - it'll really kick-off if we're relegated. I'm sure it will. I don't doubt that for one moment. This is West Ham, we're passionate and often fierce fans and we've seen that happen before.
But if the perceived problems at the club are structural or personnel, then surely an organised suporters' group ought to be trying to affect its change regardless/irrespective of results?
HU would need to be careful of an "ifs, buts and maybes" strategy. Very different thing, of course, but that's exactly what Labour tried to do with the election...
|
Any Old Iron
4:33 Fri Feb 7
Re: David Gold : headline interview on BBC football homepage
|
Look, this old cunt and his porn brother only understand one kind of language. And it ain’t the language of passive protest that HU have adopted.
These club killers don’t have any time for the views of fans, as they’ve always demonstrated. They think because they’re loaded that makes them right about everything.
We all want them out, along with their brass, and that means putting the wind up the fuckers.
To coin a phrase, we need to get medieval on
their arses.
|
simon.s
4:32 Fri Feb 7
Re: David Gold : headline interview on BBC football homepage
|
The whining to the media, backtracking and peace offerings shows how weak as owners they are. And so far there has only been one static protest!
If the fans had got to them like this when the LS move was first mooted by the owners, it may never have happened at all, or certainly under better terms for the fans than what they got. That’s the sad thing.
|
MancIron
4:30 Fri Feb 7
Re: David Gold : headline interview on BBC football homepage
|
Don't disagree with what you're saying in the long term south bank.
But at this moment in time, I think the softly softly approach is the way to go.
If we are relegated the Media are going to be all over GSB in a big, big way and the whole scenario will be completely changed.
And all of us as fans are going to have to react to that.
|
southbankbornnbred
4:13 Fri Feb 7
Re: David Gold : headline interview on BBC football homepage
|
So my only advice to HU is this...
Gold, Sullivan and Brady are - in all likelihood - going to walk away from West Ham after 2023 and intend to sell the club at a vast profit after the point when they have to pay the state its cash under the Stadium deal.
That is in three years time.
So what is HU, and any other supporters' group, seeking to achieve with that in mind? An earlier exit by GSB? Reforms to the club/stadium etc prior to their exit?
If they have a clear set of goals/targets in mind, then have the designed appropriate steps through which they wish to achieve those goals and targets - and within the timeframe they wish to achieve them?
My gut feeling about GSB is that they will fob-off any major supporters' movement for another three years and then run for the hills with their pockets stuffed with cash.
In those circumstances, softly-softly is progressive and admirable. But it has limited chance of success. Particularly as it is the declared MO of the group. So the board will know it is less of a threat etc.
These are dilemmas, because nobody should be advoctaing violent protests. But, to be blunt, IF HU aim to have an impact on GSB prior to sale - they need to get a move on. They probably have three years (which means the owners could start sale negotiations in two years or even 18 months) and the clock is ticking.
|
GreenStreetPlayer
4:12 Fri Feb 7
Re: David Gold : headline interview on BBC football homepage
|
Interesting reading the different views of how to behave and what level of protest.
We need a strategist in here who could suggest what route of action for the desired outcome which is to get rid of the owners, that's where everyone is united at least.
It's true, any violence (might make some people happy for a short while) is handing it to them.
They are also pretty thick skinned, though we are at least getting a reaction out of Gold. They hate bad PR.
Though a lot won't like it, the opportunity is when everyone is in the ground on matchdays. There is no where for them to hide and an atmosphere could be made to make them feel very uncomfortable and unwelcome, even total silence if orchestrated correctly.
It will feel toxic, but toxic is what we have in charge.
The 'ghosts' (the fans) of Upton Park will have their day. Haunt them out of the club.
They say the club is cursed, this time use it!
|
Northern Sold
4:08 Fri Feb 7
Re: David Gold : headline interview on BBC football homepage
|
Well one good thing… at least he never compared us to Bury Town … like ol’ thunder thighs Tits McGee does….
|
southbankbornnbred
4:06 Fri Feb 7
Re: David Gold : headline interview on BBC football homepage
|
I'm just calling it as I see it, as a member of the media.
I'm not against HU - I think they're great and they are trying to get something done: which is more than most of us. And on the whole I don't believe in criticising our long-suffering fans. We're all West Ham, that's the way I see it.
But it is always good to ask any organisation or movement key questions - like what is the aim of the movement, what are the pathways to achieving those aims, what is the timeframe and are the aims realistic?
|
Far Cough
4:03 Fri Feb 7
Re: David Gold : headline interview on BBC football homepage
|
Burnley
|
southbankbornnbred
4:03 Fri Feb 7
Re: David Gold : headline interview on BBC football homepage
|
Scorch,
I hear where you're coming from, of course. But, believe me, if 5,000 fans march then the vast majority of the media and public are not going to give a rat's ass.
I've been a news editor in major newsrooms - and edited mags and papers. I wouldn't give a monkeys about 5,000 marching about something, unless that march had particular resonance for other reasons (like it was visually symbolic etc). Then you might get a pic cap.
Some of us have been on walks through Palermo with almost as many West Ham fans. The unfortunate reality of that trip was that, until it kicked off (which I in no way advocate) then few people care.
The paradox of all of this is that everybody remembers the Burnley game (it was Burnely, not Barnsley). Nobody remembers much else.
|
Mike Oxsaw
4:01 Fri Feb 7
Re: David Gold : headline interview on BBC football homepage
|
I can't find the comments page associated with this article. Can somebody provide me with a direct link?
|
goose
3:52 Fri Feb 7
Re: David Gold : headline interview on BBC football homepage
|
what happened at the Barnsley game?
|
El Scorchio
3:49 Fri Feb 7
Re: David Gold : headline interview on BBC football homepage
|
Manciron is right in that we cannot have any repeat of what happened in/after the Barnsley, nor can we have any 'violent' or 'criminal' behaviour amongst the protestors. You're playing right into their hands as well then. It's all too easy to paint themselves as the victims of the piece if there are scenes of people abusing them or acting in certain ways. And they have a voice in the national media to air that narrative, whereas we do not.
Any sign of West Ham fans misbehaving sends the media into a meltdown anyway. We are always singled out for 'outrage'. Consider the coverage whenever we 'transgress' compared to the lack of it when Manc fans rip out seats and throw them at each other, We've always been painted as one of the more violent and hooligan fanbases and that will always stick. It's a good and easy story when West Ham go on 'the rampage'.
While they probably need to up the game and put more direct pressure on, they have to be very careful not to fall into a trap. They HAVE to be really clean in all of this. More direct action will get more coverage, but you can guarantee it'll be the wrong sort.
If 5000 people march and less than 0.5% cause any aggro, then that's what the story will be, that's what people will remember, and that's what the club will use to spin their own stories.
|
Northern Sold
3:29 Fri Feb 7
Re: David Gold : headline interview on BBC football homepage
|
GHB
OUT
|
southbankbornnbred
3:25 Fri Feb 7
Re: David Gold : headline interview on BBC football homepage
|
MancIron,
I couldn't disagree more.
I'm not for one moment advocating violence in the stadium, but I would support a large and co-ordinated escalation of protests against them.
I'd also tell Hammers United, in person, that their approach is wrong on some levels. This softly, softly, catchy monkey approach works on some levels. But it's long-termism is merely going to gift the co-owners and Brady EXACTLY what they want.
They want to be able to sell the club from 2023 without any payment being necessary to the state (LLDC). They are bang on course to do it - and there has not yet been a single thing that Hammers United have done to change that - well-meaning though that group clearly are and have been.
The owners are frontloading sale value onto the club in order to cash in the moment the contract on the stadium allows them to. Hammers United are sleep-walking into that.
No offence meant to the people behind HU, but are they honestly going to try to claim, after 2023, that they were responsible for getting rid of bad owners? The trio are goingt to walk at that point anyway - with their trousers full of cash.
The test of any protest movement will be whether it forces the clowns out before that date. And a light-touch, gentle approach is unlikely to do that.
Just some thoughts. But I'd be interested to hear what HU plans in that respect.
|
The_Phantom
3:20 Fri Feb 7
Re: David Gold : headline interview on BBC football homepage
|
no finer sight than that of a pound coin bouncing off a cossack hat
well...several thousand pound coins raining down maybe
|
Golden Oldie
3:16 Fri Feb 7
Re: David Gold : headline interview on BBC football homepage
|
Am I the only one eagerly awaiting Manuel's response to this thread?
|
MancIron
3:16 Fri Feb 7
Re: David Gold : headline interview on BBC football homepage
|
This load of carefully worded PR drivel completely vindicates Hammers United patient, non-confrontational approach.
The facts are plain, the evidence is there on social media and the internet for all to see.
Lies, broken promises and interest charges are all GSB have ever given us.
The board would love a pitch invasion or tear-up in the stadium so they can portray us all as old school thugs to their contacts in the media.
When they go low, we should aim high.
I suspect there are many dark days ahead and it may be a long, long struggle.
But we're in it for the long haul and eventually I'm certain we'll get our club back.
|
|
|
|
