An Olympian view

This is a distraction, I know, and has little to do with the main aim of this blog. But it has something to do with the thoughts of at least some of the directors of West Ham. And even a tentative post might help to clarify one's ideas.

As I understand it, there might be some benefit to West Ham from playing football at the Olympic Stadium. This of course would be quite different from the benefit to the directors (aka the shareholders) of being able to dispose of the present ground. They may even have already mentioned the idea to some of their business contacts, in a general sort of way, naturally, and nothing specific at this stage.

But how do Olympic Park and Upton Park compare?

Location
Upton Park (the station) is quite isolated if the District line is not running. Some years ago at the end of the game, the 500 m walk from the ground to the station coincided with the complete collapse of the railway service. And so began the great trek by refugee Hammers to West Ham station, over 2 km away, where the Jubilee line was still functioning.

Olympic Park is served by so many railway lines that only an international outrage of the most appalling kind would stop them all, and we certainly wouldn't be thinking of football, and probably of not much else either.

Olympic Park 1  Upton Park 0

Local amenities
Upton Park has had plenty of time to provide for all the (fairly) respectable needs of football fans, from food and drink to a sheltered fence if the call of nature becomes too urgent. Most fans do not expect much, and that is what they get - not much.

From the artists' illustrations, Olympic Park looks a little too civilised. Never mind. It will soon change as the fans do what fans have to do.

But there may be one problem. The cost of constructing Olympic Park will probably be reflected in the prices charged by franchisees for food, drink and entertainment.

Olympic Park 1  Upton Park 1

The atmosphere and the view of the football match
At Upton Park, they are reasonable in most parts of the ground, but the old ones will tell you that it is now nothing like as good as it used to be. But then, it probably never was.

Olympic Park has a problem. It is big, even if some bits are lopped off after the Olympic Games. The problem is not new and the cause is, whisper it, the athletics track.

Olympic Park 1  Upton Park 2

The effect of the weather
And I am not thinking of its effect on the pitch, where grass technology (always excepting any problems at Wembley) is much improved and heavy pitches amd footballs are virtually unknown now.

No, the spectator has got used to being offered protection from the worst of the elements. Only the effect of the cold if you are seated (and prevented from standing, like penguins, packed tightly together), is seriously unpleasant.

But I have been told, by someone who should know, that in the Olympic Stadium, only spectators right at the back in the top few rows will be protected adequately from driving rain. Perhaps this is not important in our summers, but at other times

a long way from the action, and

soaking wet, and

freezing cold?

No thank you!

Olympic Park 1  Upton Park 3

The two sides in football

The private
In the West Ham programme for 9 May 2010, David Sullivan (Chairman) wrote:
'In a few months' time we are considering a general shareholding where supporters can buy shares in the football club.'

On the West Ham website (13 August 2010), we read that the club has raised £4m in new equity through a placing of shares, primarily with new investors. These include John Harris and Daniel Harris (father and son), and also Terence Brown (former Chairman of the club).

If necessary, readers will be able to find out a little of the background of Mr Brown by using their favourite search engine. The welcome given by West Ham fans to this news must have been fairly muted.

Daniel Harris has joined the board as a non-executive director while Terence Brown becomes an honorary life president.

In case you, and Mr Sullivan, have forgotten, 'in a few months' time we are considering a general shareholding where supporters can buy shares in the football club.'

But perhaps not ordinary supporters.

The public
This side was represented by Members of Parliament speaking on behalf of their constituents in the Adjournment Debate on 8 September 2010: (the) role of football supporters in the governance of professional football clubs.

The debate was well attended by MPs, both listening and speaking, and also by club supporters in the visitors' area.

It was opened by Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab) who has the distinction of having two premiership clubs (Everton and Liverpool) in his constituency. The debate showed that MPs are well aware of both the importance of football in the life of their constituents and the nature of the problems which need to be tackled, particularly in connection with premiership clubs.

One gained the impression that MPs would be quite prepared to support the introduction of a legal requirement that supporters, if they wished, should be able to gain control of their clubs.

The bridge?
West Ham is currently owned by WH Holding Limited, a private limited company This structure is not appropriate for a large number of small shareholders.

But the most obvious alternative, a public limited company, would probably be unacceptable to the present owners.

What is needed is an intermediate body in which supporters could invest, and from which they could withdraw if necessary, sums of the order of £500 to £1 000 in absolute safety, until the money could be used to buy shares in the main company.

Finally, these members would be able, if they wished, to exchange the value of their investment for benefits of equal value provided by the main company, now the members' body.

Between the idea
And the reality
Between the motion
And the act
Falls the Shadow.

T. S. Eliot