A new statement by stadium operators London Stadium 185 appears to blame infighting amongst West Ham fans.
The statement by London Stadium 185 read: “The safety of the Stadium is paramount and all safety plans are agreed in advance by the police and if there were any significant concerns the Stadium would not be licensed.
“Saturday’s match was a Category A, low risk game and the police were based at the (Olympic) Park Headquarters throughout to monitor events at the Stadium. They were deployed in the Stadium when required, however the main pressure on the stewarding during the game was from infighting among the West Ham United fans.
“A decision to install Airwave was reached in March 2016. The procurement and installation is the responsibility of the police we have fully co-operated and will facilitate any access they require to carry this out.”
It is latest in a number of statements which appear to shifting blame from one party to another.
Earlier today Met Police released a statement which appeared to criticise the stadium operators for not acting sooner on the procurement of a radio system saying:
“This issue was highlighted to the stadium operators in October 2014 and the MPS has been in negotiation with stadium operators regarding the provision of Airwave radio inside the stadium. During this time, the MPS had spoken to the stadium operators several times to highlight the consequences of not installing such a system.”
Yesterday the club make it clear that LS185 are responsible for security in the stadium although they said they would do everything within their jurisdiction. The club statement make it clear there were just 10 ejections, 7 complaints about standing, 20 complaints about anti social behaviour and no arrests.
The fact of the matter is that the stadium operators have no idea how to deal with a 60,000 football crowd and their security company are better suited to a childrens tea party than a football match.Both companies have had long enough to communicate with West Ham and their employees to know exactly whats needed.Now the **** hits the fan they are trying to shift the blame.Surely this radio system should have been installed 2 years ago when the police advised on it.What a mess!!!
Many people have commented disparagingly on the great deal the Hammers got in financial terms for the London Stadium. Perhaps the problems with the operator could be put down as a case of “you get what you pay for”.
The Stadium Operators LS185 were paid nearly £7m last yea despite their being no football. They could this sum for the 10 events that were staged. I don’t think it is about the money to be honest, it is about organisation and leadership
Clearly LS185 thought they could supervise Premier Leagur football on the cheap, didn’t want to pay for Police so made sure they wouldn’t have to by not installing the radio system. After all, if there is a criminal offence committed, the Police can be called in anyway. I’d suggest that maybe LS185 isn’t actually a ‘fit for purpose’ organisation and should be sacked.
I have no idea why they took so long but you ask me it probably wasn’t the stadium operators decision. LS185 is the managing agent and would have just have passed the costs and therefore the decision to the owners/landlord, namely E20 Stadium LLP owned by Newham and LLDC. This is probably where the real delay was, two government organisations and the politics involved in spending more tac payers money. Government procurement takes forever which is why the digital screen on the wrap is late.
The stadium operator would just pass this cost onto the landlords. As my police article said, police inside stadia is on the decline. West Ham paid just £12,000 for the police inside the Boleyn Ground last season and Palace had no police at Selhurst park and therefore paid nothing.
i think we need to forget about finger pointing and start taking action, after the place is secure they can blame each other to the high heavens, all parties have a collective responsibility to fix this asap. As for Airwave they can carry out a wireless survey and so long as they have the equipment available I can’t see why that cannot be installed and tested within a 1 week period, all of that would be dependant on whatever the terms of the contract are though so who knows…