Hammers United and WHUISA have both rejected invitations to join an Official Supporters’ Board meeting at Rush Green on 25th February.
The meeting is due to be attended by Karren Brady, David Sullivan and David Gold but both groups have released statements why they have turned down the invitation ahead of a protest scheduled for 29th February outside the London Stadium.
Hammers United statement reads: “Hammers United can confirm that we have received a written invite to attend the meeting with ‘West Ham United Chairmen’.
Our position is clear.
The club chose to decline our invitations to meet. They have demonstrated a continued reluctance to engage outside of their unpopular and undemocratic OSB construct, despite advice to the contrary from the Football Supporter Association.
There appears to be little coincidence that this latest unacceptable and conditional offer from the club has been publicised and that the proposed meeting is set to take place a few days before our protest on Saturday 29 February.
The message from Hammers United has always been, and will continue to be, clear and well publicised. We asked that the club come and talk to us; the group that now represents over 10,000 of their fans, in a room, with the FSA. This offer has been refused time and time again.
Our current position is very clearly explained in a statement on our website and we will not be attending the proposed meeting on 25 February.
WHUISA’s Statement reads: “WHUISA notes the article on WHUFC.com from earlier this evening, inviting both WHUISA and Hammers United to a meeting of the Official Supporters Board on Tuesday 25th February. Our Chair has also received personal invitations to the meeting from Jake Heath, West Ham Supporter Liaison Officer and David Baker, the Chair of the Official Supporters’ Board.
>We decline this invitation, again. Our position has not changed since the last invitation and the reasons for declining on that occasion. We simply do not accept the legitimacy of the OSB as a representative body for West Ham fans, and we have heard nothing from the club that causes us to revise that position. In the first instance, the club has repeated its claim that each of the representatives and supporters’ groups have equal access to having their voices heard at the highest level of the Club. WHUISA believes that if it were to join the OSB, it would still be in a minority amongst groups hand-picked by the club. We doubt the intentions of the Club when it is more than a passing coincidence that the Official Supporters’ Club were selected for a place on the OSB while being part of the very selection panel that chose the representatives.
In the second instance, the club is pushing its plans to ‘evolve’ the election model for the OSB. We are concerned as to whether the OSB actually wants to change the voting process at the OSB at all, given the minutes of the meeting held in October last year suggested that a majority of reps voted against a proposal to change the election process. Furthermore, when the Chair of the OSB, David Baker, said that fans will be brought closer together if the selection process is more democratic, the club Vice-Chair replied that she would not be willing to allow individuals on the Board who might not behave in a ‘constructive’ manner. This word is filled with subjectivity and anyone could decide that one person being ‘destructive’ was simply asking a pertinent question.
It is our doubts about the willingness of the Board to listen to criticism that have further informed our decision to decline this invitation. The Club have said that supporters’ meetings provide the opportunity to share and voice the suggestions, views and concerns of members. However, would questions be allowed at all that are free from vetting before the meeting? Are they really saying that they would be willing for questions to be asked about – for example – the fact that the Club Vice-Chair is a part-time member of staff who we feel does not have the time to fulfil her job as the Club’s Chief Executive? Could we ask detailed questions about the Club’s accounts, the business activities of the joint chairmen, why does the club insist on persevering with Socios.com and the Vice-Chair’s damaging newspaper columns?
We further doubt the good faith of the club when it attributes credit to the OSB for initiatives in which it had no involvement, such as the free sanitary products in all women’s and accessible toilets and the extra murals around the stadium.
However, the one issue that has damaged good faith in the Club is when it told a blatant lie in claiming that neither WHUISA nor HU responded to the first set of invitations from the Supporter Liaison Officer and David Sullivan. WHUISA responded to both invitations, and we can prove we responded. Claiming otherwise is a distortion of fact.
For these reasons, we fully support any lawful protest action planned for 24th February at Liverpool away and on 29th February before Southampton at home. “
Great post Sean. This highlights the complete lack of professionalism in the Board, or at least GSB. This is further reflected in the lack of ‘football business’s structure ie: strategy, transfer policy, scouting network, succession (managers), style of football. GSB did a great job in bailing us out after the Icelandic fiasco but after that initial 6-12 month period have failed miserably in living up to the expectations THEY set.
The move to the OS has fallen flat on its face. The significant increase in revenues outside of tv revenue has not been sufficient to change our buying power, performances have failed to deliver, quality of squad has not moved forward since our last season at UP, 10 yrs on from their takeover we are still fighting relegation. All change, no change. GSB are out of their depth in the size and brand of the ‘business’. They are unable to delegate in any real depth, dont trust or respect any views contrary to their own and are now helpless in what happens between now and the end of the season. Ironically, their skill set is probably good for dealing with relegation but is proven in not being strong enough for growing a club and brand at the pace and level that they wish.
This is why I’ve got no time for the people’s popular front of whisa hammer United or whatever they’re called. A couple of hundred moaners that will never be happy with anything. Half of them don’t even go into the stadium to watch the games. Thanks for the cleverly doctored picture by the way. There was only a couple of hundred or so on the grassy mound near the aquatic centre. This picture has been taken to show the crowd attending the game on the pathway next to the aquatic centre to make it look as if there were more people there than three were. Meanwhile 59, 800 other supporters were just attending the game as normal. How do I know. Because I was passing by on the path and the protesters were all standing on the grass.
Well said Ken, and I agree with your tally of protesters, bang on. The very fact they refuse the boards offer of a meeting speaks volumes for their agenda i.e they have little constructive to say .Why would the board go and meet them in a “room somewhere ” probably above a pub , having witnessed their behaviour at the Burnley match ?
Social media can do wonderful things but can also be used to make a small group of protesters seem like an army as their are plenty of keyboard warriors willing to identify with a cause as as they don’t have to get up off the backside. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, IF YOU ARE REAL SUPPORTERS GET BEHIND THE TEAM .
Totally agree with Ken!
All this noise from a minority of fans will affect the team as it’s all over the media and at Liverpool it will be in the stadium with daft balloons.
If we go down it will be these sort of fans who have caused it. Perhaps that’s what they want. We could be like Leicester , Wolves and Sheffield Utd who spent years in the wilderness of Championship and league 1
Not for me or all the fans I speak to !!