West Ham United have issued the following statement this morning following Saturday's events.




West Ham United are committed to taking decisive and positive action with the primary focus of ensuring London Stadium is a safe, comfortable and secure environment for supporters attending future matches.

Following the incidents which marred the second half of the Premier League fixture with Burnley on Saturday 10 March, the Club is conducting a full and thorough investigation, and has attended a series of emergency meetings with London Stadium stakeholders.

The Club is working in close conjunction with the Metropolitan Police to identify those individuals, who entered the pitch during the second half, and with stadium operator LS185, using London Stadium’s high-quality CCTV footage, to identify those who threw missiles, both of which are specific offences under the Football (Offences) Act 1991.

Any individual found guilty will be banned from attending any West Ham United fixture, home and away, for life and the Club will request the courts serve a banning order to prevent these individuals attending any football matches in the future.

West Ham United maintain a zero-tolerance policy towards any behaviour of this nature, with the safety of all supporters always the Club’s number one priority.

Senior Club representatives will take a full and leading role at an emergency meeting of the core Safety Advisory Group (SAG) at London Stadium on Thursday.

There, West Ham United will be joined by representatives from LS185, certifying authority Newham Council, the Sports Ground Safety Authority, the Metropolitan Police, E20 and the London Legacy Development Corporation (LLDC).

The Club will make clear that its primary concern is for the safety and comfort of its supporters on matchdays and, to that end, will lead discussions centred on the safety management plans put in place and the policing and stewarding for future fixtures at London Stadium, the first of which will be the Premier League visit of Southampton on Saturday 31 March.

West Ham United would like to thank all those fans who supported the team on Saturday and look forward to welcoming them back to a safe, comfortable and secure London Stadium.

With eight Premier League matches still to play, achieving the points we need has to be the focus. The best chance of reaching that goal is for everyone to be united behind the team when we play Southampton on 31 March and for the remainder of the season.

What is missing is an apology to Burnley FC, its players and fans.

upanatem wrote:What is missing is an apology to Burnley FC, its players and fans.

My exact first thoughts.

upanatem wrote:What is missing is an apology to Burnley FC, its players and fans.

Did you really expect one from that lot?

I'm taking the 3-0 win and the second half collapse as an apology and one that could mean a hell of a lot more to be honest

This has been the season that has put me against most of the London clubs, maybe with the exception of Palace. The rest I have no time for because of their cheating players, moaning fans and false sense of superiority. Big time charlies who deserve taking down a peg or two. Burnley FC and their fans have emerged with nothing but credit from the West Ham debacle. Went there, did the job and got the points! I wouldn't expect the type of people who run West Ham to give anyone else credit for anything.

"The Club is working in close conjunction with the Metropolitan Police to identify those individuals, who entered the pitch during the second half, and with stadium operator LS185, using London Stadium’s high-quality CCTV footage, to identify those who threw missiles, both of which are specific offences under the Football (Offences) Act 1991."

1) Are The FA/Premier League looking at the events? Will WHU be subject to any sanctions?

2) I understand the 61 year old man who picked up the corner flag and walked to the centre spot with it handed himself in the next day at Hatfield Police Station. If this is correct, it suggests he wasn't arrested/detained after invading the pitch, carrying what could have been used as an offensive weapon.

3) There is no truth in reports that LS185 will also be using the "high-quality CCTV footage" to identify their stewards who attended the game - and, those who didn't show up.

Paul Waine wrote:"Are The FA/Premier League looking at the events? Will WHU be subject to any sanctions?

I think the FA set a precedent after the Wigan match against Man City when the supporter went up to Aguero. If they didn't punish Wigan they couldn't really punish West Ham either.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sports ... n-fan.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I hope the cost of any police involvement isn't coming out the pockets of the tax payer. We've already been fleeced by that bunch of scroungers.

upanatem wrote:What is missing is an apology to Burnley FC, its players and fans.

They really don't need to apologise to me. Rolling over and playing dead whilst we banged in 3 goals and had it away on our toes with the 3 points was all I really needed tbh. I had a great time!!!

Spijed wrote:I think the FA set a precedent after the Wigan match against Man City when the supporter went up to Aguero. If they didn't punish Wigan they couldn't really punish West Ham either.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sports ... n-fan.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Isn't the Wigan situation different - pitch invasion after the final whistle?

How many fans "entered the field of play" at London Stadium while the game was still in progress? Was there a risk that the game would be abandoned, particularly with the lack of stewards (and police) to control the situation?

If they don't punish West Ham, where is the next pitch invasion?

Sutton-Claret wrote:I hope the cost of any police involvement isn't coming out the pockets of the tax payer. We've already been fleeced by that bunch of scroungers.

I've read somewhere that the "tax payer" picks up the tab for security at London Stadium. Of course, this needs looking at again. It may not be West Ham's fault that they aren't in charge (and paying the bill) for crowd security in the stadium that they use... (We know they don't own London Stadium. Do West Ham lease it or have a license to use it for their home games)?

If the pitch invaders are ST holders West Ham should punish them by automatically renewing them for next season..

Spijed wrote:I think the FA set a precedent after the Wigan match against Man City when the supporter went up to Aguero. If they didn't punish Wigan they couldn't really punish West Ham either.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sports ... n-fan.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The key word in your post is 'after'. This was 'during' and repeatedly 'during'. Different set of circumstances, could,ed with crowd disturbance and threats to others in the ground.

I'd be amazed if there wasn't a serious sanction for this. Hopefully points deduction.

Some right mard arses on here.

KeighleyClaret wrote:The key word in your post is 'after'. This was 'during' and repeatedly 'during'. Different set of circumstances, could,ed with crowd disturbance and threats to others in the ground.

I'd be amazed if there wasn't a serious sanction for this. Hopefully points deduction.

Rovers didn't get any sanction though.

cricketfieldclarets wrote:Some right mard arses on here.

Aye it was a massive massive invasion wasn't it not..

No apology needed for me.

3 points, good day out, lots of laughs, spectacular collapse of West Ham and home in one piece afterwards.

Dark Cloud wrote:They really don't need to apologise to me. Rolling over and playing dead whilst we banged in 3 goals and had it away on our toes with the 3 points was all I really needed tbh. I had a great time!!!

I think we are under-estimating the way Burnley played the 2nd half, we kept our heads,and took the game to them, hence 3pts.

Why should they be banned home and away for life? what's the difference between entering the pitch to celebrate a goal and entering like the West Ham fans did? Was the guy with the corner flag being aggressive or a risk to players? No. The players were never put in any danger by anyone entering the pitch. The owners looking to ban the ones unhappy will only end 1 way, those West Ham bunch will stick together and we'll soon see an awful lot of empty seats.

cricketfieldclarets wrote:Some right mard arses on here.

I was just thinking same...chip paper now.

blackburnturfite wrote:I think we are under-estimating the way Burnley played the 2nd half, we kept our heads,and took the game to them, hence 3pts.

Good point. West Ham didn't just collapse, Sean Dyche brought Wood on. He was the difference, not the fans, they just helped.

houseboy wrote:Good point. West Ham didn't just collapse, Sean Dyche brought Wood on. He was the difference, not the fans, they just helped.

I think there were several factors tbh. They pretty much dominated the first half and should have been leading, but didn't take advantage. Had they got in front it could have been very, very different and how much unrest would we have seen then I wonder?? Bringing Wood on was a tactical masterstroke and US getting that first (brilliantly set up and finished) goal was vital. After that we immediately got the first fan on the pitch and from then on their crowd and players alike fell apart and I definitely felt both lost all interest in the game itself and allowed us to take full advantage, which we did! It was obvious we were Burnley fans when we left for the station because we were the ones who couldn't stop laughing!

West Ham wouldn't pay for any increased police, the stadium owners, ultimately the taxpayers, would.

The Agreement is here if anyone is feeling particularly bored https://1drv.ms/b/s!Atnj-YxkG3VkhL1py6tAwhodD1KE6g" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The fact WHU want to take over the stewarding from the stadium owners suggests they think the stadium owners have been scrimping on the costs of stewarding properly.

Caernarfon_Claret wrote:The fact WHU want to take over the stewarding from the stadium owners suggests they think the stadium owners have been scrimping on the costs of stewarding properly.

But who's responsible for the food? To say it's an Olympic stadium covering all nationals a three foot sausage in a bun at £5.50 is a pretty poor effort their catering makes the turf look like the ritz.well done Burnley.

tim_noone wrote:But who's responsible for the food? To say it's an Olympic stadium covering all nationals a three foot sausage in a bun at £5.50 is a pretty poor effort their catering makes the turf look like the ritz.well done Burnley.

The Stadium owners I should think.

WHU are just tennants.

Caernarfon_Claret wrote:The fact WHU want to take over the stewarding from the stadium owners suggests they think the stadium owners have been scrimping on the costs of stewarding properly.

Or that a quiet word from the PL/FA has been muttered in the ears of Sullivan/Gold/Brady and they’ve been told that if they don’t take it over then they’ll be facing points deductions and other sanctions.....

Bearing in mind this is Sullivan and Gold we’re talking about I’d be more inclined to think the latter! They don’t want to kill the goose laying golden eggs....

I recall, when some previous trouble occurred at the ground (between home & away fans), WHU offered a deal whereby the stadium managing Co. gave WHU the money they spend on security, WHU would add some extra money of their own and manage it themselves. It seemed a reasonable compromise but came to nothing.
It does seem that security is scrimped on to save money (but that's somewhat due to the low rent WHU are paying I guess). It'd be better for the footy side of things if the above solution was agreed but then where would that leave security for any athletics events?
Thankfully not our problem anyway.

tim_noone wrote:But who's responsible for the food? To say it's an Olympic stadium covering all nationals a three foot sausage in a bun at £5.50 is a pretty poor effort their catering makes the turf look like the ritz.well done Burnley.

Haha! I almost got one but went for the chicken balti pie in the end. Was tasty although the pastry wasn’t the best. 7/10.

box_of_frogs wrote:Haha! I almost got one but went for the chicken balti pie in the end. Was tasty although the pastry wasn’t the best. 7/10.

The sausage in a bun was really good, none of the pies appealed to me