The entire Olympic Stadium fiasco, from the initial bidding process in 2012 to the future that lies ahead, has undoubtedly resulted in mixed opinions amongst us Hammers, and will continue to do so. From the outset, vast sections of loyal supporters vented their concerns about a move away from our traditional home in E13, and questioned the board’s motives in securing a 99-year lease of London 2012’s Olympic Stadium.
Questions were asked by fans about how the club were planning on making the new stadium our ‘home’ rather than just a place where we play home games, questions that were not answered convincingly enough for many, with it recently being reported that the seats at the Olympic Stadium will remain their existing colour and not be made claret and blue for our arrival and commencement of the 2016/2017 season.
More recently, however, it is not issues with the stadium that have raised concerns amongst supporters, but proposed changes to the clubs badge and, supposedly, name, also. Thankfully, Jack Sullivan took to Twitter this past week to confirm that all rumours of incorporating ‘London’ into our name are completely false, and that we will remain, and always be ‘West Ham United’. Despite this, however, plans into evolving the club’s badge, as 2016 gets ever closer, are undoubtedly underway, with two meetings having already been held with the Supporter Advisory Board during which discussions took place into potential changes to reflect the club’s future aswell as history.
Potential plans to somehow incorporate London into the club’s badge will certainly raise eyebrows amongst supporters, with a statement on the club’s website stating that many felt “it was an appropriate reflection of the Club’s direction, while others felt that 1895 should be added to better demonstrate West Ham’s standing and history. Others said they favoured a return to a more traditional, retro crest only.” The club however were quick to put worried supporters minds at ease however, insisting that no decision would be made without full support of the clubs’ fans and a subsequent ballot.
Personally, I am particularly pleased that the club have quickly have put rumours of a potential name change to bed, as I feel that would certainly be a step too far in terms of evolving for our upcoming move. I, for one, am not a fan of replacing the word ‘United’ with ‘London’ in Bubbles on matchdays, and I feel as if much of the soul and passion would be taken out of the club if this change were to be implemented. In terms of evolving the crest however, we would not be the first club to do so in recent years, with the likes of Everton, Arsenal, Tottenham Hotspur, Cardiff City and Crystal Palace having already done so.
Despite not being a wholehearted supporter of a badge change, I certainly would not be too displeased with some minor changes being made to highlight our hopefully, bright future alongside our history and traditions that fans have fallen in love with over the years. I certainly feel ‘Est. 1895’ should be placed somewhere on a new crest, should plans go ahead, and I would not be against some sort of image of the Olympic stadium being incorporated around the traditional crossed hammers.
As our move to the Olympic Stadium draws ever closer and plans continue to emerge, those in favour of remaining at the Boleyn Ground will, I am sure, come around and look towards the future. My love for Upton Park cannot be denied – it is the place I’ve visited week in week out since I was 8-years-old and has given me some great memories in my short time, but if we are to progress and grow as a club then this move and evolution is one we simply must go ahead with.
Members of the SAB represent all Loyal WEST HAM UNITED FANS, they should have never been expected to sign confidentiality agreements, to withhold information.
We were told that the owners would listen to Fans, then why did they completely ignore the wide ranging vote against Sam being retained. Does that mean we can’t trust them again over Our Club’s badge.
The Castle is real history and heritage of our club, as much as the crossed Hammers, and East London,we must never forget the Boleyn Ground even we move to the new stadium. There was talk about the use of London and the year of out formation, I’m uncertain that would be an incorrect statement, even if it’s ideal for marketing team.
We await the consultation on the Club Badge, will we be ignored again, Everton tried to the same, but loyal fans stood firm!
All in favor for the move but really conserned about the conditions that we have to comply with. Upton park is a special place with lots of history and atmosphere tradition and family value!
Surely moving into a stadium that ain’t even got our own colour seats and god knows what else that hasn’t been published rules and condition wise ain’t gonna feel like home. With the bagde and name change how will that elvolve us as a club? Will it make Carroll score more goals? Will it help us sign bale,messi?,Will it attract more supporters?Don’t think it will but if had to choose I’d go for the retro hammers rather than the name change. But it all seems to me that it’s all heading in the direction of the sale of the club just making it look better for a future buyer.
a couple of points about the article & jaybs reply 1. Any reports confirming that seats in the OS will remain in their existing colour are not true. That decision has not been made yet. However the club were told in no uncertain terms by the SAB that leaving the seats as they are was unacceptable as it would undermine any efforts to make the stadium the home of west ham . The club acknowledged this and were looking into the costings for seat changes. 2. The club statement regarding the badge evolution clearly says…. “There were also discussions at the meeting about potentially adding a representation of the Club’s new home (the Olympic Stadium) to the crest, during which the Club explained its preference for no graphical representation of any Hammers stadium, either past or present, to allow the strong symbol of the crossed hammers to shine through. That view appears to have been generally supported by the SAB”….There is no intention by the club to have any representation of the Olympic Stadium, yes they would prefer to lose the castle have the a more retro simpler design of just the two crossed hammers, yes they would like to have ‘London’ on the bottom of the crest but they know there is potentially large opposition to these changes and if they keep their word the fans will have a vote on it as did the Everton fans. 3. As much as I more than anyone want Allardyce out of my club, the ‘vote’ jaybs refers to was a fansite poll. Its a bit churlish to expect them to act on that, its not like it was an official vote (much the pity). Lets see what comes out friday before we all start jumping up and down.
You can’t run a football club as a democracy and the fans have no right to insist on changes like sacking the manager certainly unless they cough up the cost of so doing. All nice on paper but recipe for disaster in reality.
As for the badge glad to hear that they do not want an image of the stadium which would in a way be a logical replacement for the castle as that element reflects the place (as opposed to the hammers which represent the history) I don’t believe that the stadium will be a distinct enough image particularly without the lights (happy to be proved wrong). The simple hammer design is in fact more truly representative of the team over the years so is the logical solution the terms London and/or est 1895 are acceptable to me as long as it is not integral to the design and can be removed as and when desired.
Finally I don’t remember any opposition to the badge re design in the 90s and that gave us the top notch version we have now. I personally would like to see some designs and judge accordingly knowing there is no real pressure to change it if we are not happy.