• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Canning Town Bingo Club

Iain Dale - political publisher, TV commentator & reviewer writes:-

http://www.iaindale.com/posts/2018/...ds-the-fans-who-embarrass-the-real-supporters

Interesting that a ST holder didn't go to the match, and didn't even listen to the 2nd half commentary. There's a message there on how even their sane supporters have been ground down - no pun intended but quite apposite.

Reading on KUMB, they're rather disappointed about the way most of the media portray it. The result might have triggered it, but that's not the issue. Many would happily take relegation as long as it brings attention to the real issues.

This guy doesn't quite get it either. Who are the real supporters anyway? Those that simply bend over and accept whatever is served up?

The guy with the corner flag is most likely inspired by their protests against a ridiculous bond scheme in 1991.

26850643_314330785723042_4056859342004769769_o.jpg
 
Iain Dale - political publisher, TV commentator & reviewer writes:-

http://www.iaindale.com/posts/2018/...ds-the-fans-who-embarrass-the-real-supporters

Interesting that a ST holder didn't go to the match, and didn't even listen to the 2nd half commentary. There's a message there on how even their sane supporters have been ground down - no pun intended but quite apposite.
What sort of fan is he? Firstly he can’t be bothered to go to the game despite it not even being on TV. Then he chooses to watch something that I assume he can watch anytime instead of continuing to listen to the second half on the radio.

I agree with some of his points, but he sounds like the second worst type of fan (after the hooligans).
 
The impression I get that after adopting the stadium despite it not being fit for purpose, the promise was there would be more money for players, which would guarantee success. I think that Payet season has distorted the expectations and I guess when you rehouse a wild animal it can be impossible to housetrain then if you don't have enough restraints.

Like most things if you are winning, style of football, gamesmanship and atmosphere are less of an issue than when you are losing.
Owners clearly didn’t care that much about the style of football when they put Moyes in charge.
 
this whole situation is hilarious, lets recap, Club partially owned by porn magnate moves to sh!tty non atmospheric soulless stadium, lets only half decent player Payet move on, appoints sh!tty has-been manager Moyes, doesn't invest in new players bar stoke reject Arnautovich, "supporters" groups fight internally, over to you Trevor "west ham are a bigger club than tottenham " Brooking
 
Anyone think that this is just them dressing it up? I suspect they've been told they have to be in charge of their own stewarding.
I agree they should take responsibility as it's a massive cop out blaming the security for their fans behaviour. Whatever the actual current expenditure on it by the stadium can be given to them towards it and then it's up to them how much more they spend without the stadium losing income.
 
A couple of posts on Skyscrapercity by a West Ham fan, who is a good poster there.

This is entirely thanks to the owners. They failed in the summer of 2016 to strengthen the squad and once Payet left, results worsened considerably. They failed again last summer to strengthen the squad, leading to the inevitable departure of Bilic, who most liked. They then signally failed to support Moyes in January, at which point most fans were becoming irate, especially after they'd promised the 'next level' with the move.

Fan groups gathered together to organise a protest march which everyone was on board with, and then the owners asked for a meeting. This was attended by a number of groups, although it became increasingly clear that the club only wanted to talk with one group, headed by ex ICF members. A letter to the fans group following that meeting by Brady mentioned a private meeting held between David Sullivan and 'lead representatives' before the meeting with wider groups, which turned out the be the same. The ex-ICF group then unilaterally declared that the march was off, and followed it up by declaring that anyone who did march would be met with violence. It was around this point that another ex ICF (the most respected of all of them) said that he had been offered £20,000 but he refused it and still wanted to march. He then announced that he was walking away from the club, hinting that others may have taken a bung.

There is a strong suspicion that the owners of the club co-opted a fan group to make them their attack dog against other fans. Whatever anger there was previously intensified by multiples. I cant recall it ever being this bad, and believe me we've seen this sort of thing plenty over the years.

And when question on the bung statement :

I'll say no more after this but yes, payments are suspected and yes I believe it is true that someone said they were offered money and declined it.
 
Back