Minutes of the Fan Advisory Board Meeting - 26th February 2026

• The group welcomed Baroness Brady in her new role as NBLO, welcomed Georgia Whitney to the FAB and Kerry O’Shea as the co-Chair alongside Andy Payne.
• Supporter Representatives also shared positive feedback on the Foundation staff members and the tour of the facilities. The Club welcomed this and suggested that the next FAB meeting could be at Rush Green, which was positively received.

 

Governance and Leadership Structure

• The Club shared a recap of what was discussed at the previous FAB meeting and noted that it would today meet the action to provide the FAB with a written governance structure. It explained that it was currently operating without a Director of Football as part of the governance structure but was planning on a return to this model.
• The Club explained the structure of WH Holdings including other Directors who had been nominated by shareholders. The Club explained that the shareholding structure of the Club is as follows:
  • David Sullivan 38.8%
  • Daniel Křetínský 27%
  • Vanessa Gold 25.1%
  • Albert Smith 8%
  • Other shareholders 1.1%
• The Club explained how the Vice-Chair (Baroness Brady) and CFO (Andy Mollett) were accountable primarily to the shareholders for decision-making through shareholder meetings. The Vice-Chair headed up a large staff team of 400 full-time and 300 matchday and casual staff, noting that the Club had great, dedicated staff with significant longevity in tenure of the functional leaders underneath the Vice-Chair in the Club structure.
• The Club shared the recruitment structure for the men’s first team, noting that this was another department with experienced staff doing great work. The Club agreed that the department was broadly comparable in size to other clubs and that the Director of Football, once recruited, would sit above the recruitment structure. Supporter Representatives asked if the Club would still recruit a Director of Football in the case of relegation and the Club agreed that it would.
• The Club noted that on-pitch matters were beyond the FAB’s remit but that it was happy to take questions on this occasion. PC asked why the Club seemed to sell players at a loss when other clubs buy players at more affordable transfer fees and sell for increased value. The Club explained that it did not want to sell its best players, and its model was not to recruit players with the sole intention of selling to make a profit but to retain talent and buy players in line with what the team and manager need.
• The Club confirmed that the Vice-Chair was responsible for everything except the football side of the club (such as player recruitment), but that the shareholders had asked the Vice-Chair to manage the negotiation of transfers during the window in January 2026 and that she had worked on most of these, including the two new strikers.
• The Club shared the women’s team board and data and analytics team structures and it was noted that Baroness Karren Brady, Andy Mollett, Nicola Keye and Philippa Cartwright were on the Board.
• The men’s academy recruitment structure was shared and the Club explained that Mark Noble headed this up, and that his requests including for budget have not been declined to date.
• Supporter Representatives asked further questions about the budget following the Club’s accounts showing an £104m loss. The Club noted that the accounts that had been shared showed the P&L and only touched slightly on the cash flow. AP asked if the Club had therefore signed up to a budget projecting a loss north of £100m for last season. The Club explained that they had expected to make a loss, but the final league position had made this worse than expected and that the league position had then had a knock-on impact on retail income and sales.
• Supporter Representatives asked how the budget was looking for this season. The Club stated that they could not disclose this, but that the shareholders were willing and able to support the Club. There was further discussion about the role of shareholders and the Club said that shareholders cannot make interest-free loans under the new Premier League APT (associated party transactions) rules and that these had to be made at a commercial rate of interest.

 

Strategic Vision

• The Club shared a recap of what was discussed at the previous FAB meeting and noted that it had agreed to bring forward the action items to present the Club strategy and objectives to this meeting. It again shared the previous success to date which it had presented at the previous meeting, including reference to 14 consecutive Premier League seasons, a growing's women's team, a proud Academy history, being one of the fastest growing Premier League clubs, and having a world-renowned and passionate fan base.
• The Club then presented its strategy, with the headline purpose being to deliver competitive first team football, a proud East London community and to be a sustainable football club with values and purpose that supporters can be proud of. The pillars underpinning the strategy were: Winning on the pitch, Resilience and Pride in our Community. The Club also shared its values of United Together, Relentless Ambition and Pride in our Roots – including East London values and authenticity. The Club noted that being united was one of its strengths, with a strong connection between the players, the manager, staff, the supporters and the community, and that it hoped that visiting the Foundry had demonstrated the huge contribution and pride in the community, which was acknowledged by the FAB. The Club added that it intended to keep growing the women’s game and was setting up a women’s academy to help generate the female footballers of tomorrow.
• AP noted that when the Club promoted the move to the London Stadium, supporters had been given the impression by David Gold and David Sullivan that the move would help deliver Champions League qualification within a relatively short timeframe. AP asked whether the Club accepted that expectations communicated at the time of the move appeared to have changed. The Club agreed that David Gold had said this and AP stated that David Sullivan had done as well. The Club stated that European qualification was the aim as well as being in the top 10 of the Premier League table each season, which Supporter Representatives welcomed. The Club said it would also take its opportunities to win domestic and FA cups and pointed out that since being at London Stadium it had qualified for Europe in three consecutive seasons which included the semi-final, the quarter-final and then winning a trophy.
• The Club then shared measurable objectives for each strategic pillar, as had been requested by Supporter Representatives. While discussing the commercial elements of the strategy, the Club discussed balancing spend on players with Academy progression as well as growing other commercial revenues. The Club noted that the size of London Stadium helps with generating commercial revenues and that only two of the top 20 clubs in terms of value don’t play in Europe, with West Ham United being one of them.
• When discussing the footballing side of the strategy, the Club reiterated that it wanted consistent top 10 finishes in the Premier League; European qualification and FA Cup and domestic cup progression. Supporter Representatives welcomed the strategy, agreed that the goal to be a top 10 Premier League club was a good one and that the cup runs were very important to supporters and brought good feeling to the Club. The Club also shared that it had spent £630 million in the last six years on transfers.
• The Club noted that 10 Academy players have played in the Premier League in the past six seasons, that 15 Academy players received call ups to play for their country in the November window with over 30 Club players representing their countries recently which was a fantastic achievement. The Club also noted that the academy was ranked 5th in the country for productivity which was another great metric for the academy system at West Ham United. The Club felt that the academy was performing extremely well which Supporter Representatives agreed with.
• Another key objective was the final league position in the WSL. GW asked to clarify if the Club’s goal referred to WSL 1 or 2 and the Club agreed it was WSL 1. The Club shared some financials relating to the women’s team to note that it was still loss-making but that the Club believed in women’s football and would support it.
• Part of the Club objectives included compliance with Premier League governance standards, corporate governance standards and with the new Independent Football Regulator.
• The Club noted that revenue had grown 218% across the ownership period but that the average band 2-5 season ticket still cost £477 with the cheapest junior season ticket £109. The Club highlighted that West Ham United have the ninth highest revenue in the Premier League as well as West Ham being a top 8 most-attended stadium in Europe, with the second highest attendance in the Premier League behind Manchester United. AP challenged this as this attendance was measured as tickets sold rather than supporters in the stadium. The Club stated that this was standard practice of all clubs to declare tickets sold rather than attendance in the stadium and that West Ham United was consistent on this approach.
• AP raised criticism of London Stadium and said that the experience was not a good one. The Club stated that some concession prices were cheaper than 10 years ago at the Boleyn ground and that the move to London Stadium had meant that there were no Club debts passed on to supporters via ticket price increases. It noted that while the stadium might not be perfect, the Club had taken steps to improve the supporter experience by decorating internal areas, moving the seats closer, changing the surround and renovating the concourses, and that the Club was proud of the affordability and accessibility created by the Club. The Club also noted that the atmosphere at the stadium had been fantastic in recent matches which had been acknowledged by the manager and that the stadium had a huge number of benefits around accessibility and transport. It invited Supporter Representatives to share their ideas on what else could be done to improve it.
• PC said that a document had been shared with the Club from the matchday experience sub-group which contained helpful suggestions. The Club apologised that this document had not yet been shared with the Vice-Chair, but agreed that it was helpful and would be reviewed in full.
• The Club shared other objective areas which included celebrating the Club’s identity, history and values, strengthening the bond between the Club and the community, investing in fan experience, representing community on and off the pitch and growing status of the Club home and abroad.
• Supporter Representatives agreed that the Club presentation on the strategy and objectives had been good, and AP suggested that retention of fans should also be an objective and seeking to bring back the thousands of fans who had been lost. The Club said that on-pitch performance was one of the biggest drivers around supporters coming to matches and driving atmosphere, as was evidenced by recent matches and European nights in recent seasons. AP said that on-pitch performance was not the only driver of retention, which the Club agreed with.
• The Club said it was disappointing that its success seemed to have been quickly forgotten after a tough season. AP reminded the Club that they had not one but two poor seasons.
• MB asked if the Club would consider sharing the strategy and objectives more widely with the supporter base. The Club noted this suggestion but said this should be kept confidential for now and that sharing was intended to provide the FAB with Board-style information at FAB meetings to help them in their roles. The Club also invited Supporter Representatives to say that they have seen the strategy and share whether they like, agree or disagree with it. Supporter Representatives agreed with this approach.
• The Club stated that the primary focus of all staff at the moment was staying in the Premier League and this needed to be the sole and complete focus. Supporter Representatives welcomed this and PC suggested that once the Club had got through this period that a Club leader could communicate the Club ambition to supporters at the start of next season to help galvanise the fanbase, no matter the league status of the Club. The Club agreed with this suggestion and felt this would be positive.
• Supporter Representatives asked if the Club was considering a multi-club model. The Club said it was not and that all the focus was on West Ham United.

 

Ticketing

• AP noted that the consultation for Premier League ticket pricing had already started at the ticketing sub-group meeting on 11 February (minutes available here), where supporters had asked for a two-year price freeze, but that Supporter Representatives wanted the chance to let the Vice-Chair know where they stood on the matter in this forum.
• At the ticketing sub-group meeting Supporter Representatives had asked the Club to clarify why prices were increasing. The Club noted that it had frozen prices last season and said it wanted to continue delivering affordable ticketing, as it was doing for the upcoming FA Cup match against Brentford, but that it was facing rising operational and staffing costs like any business and needed to ensure that the Club was sustainable. It reiterated that it would therefore not offer a full price freeze this season but that it wanted to get feedback from the FAB about the detail of any increase.
• The Club explained that its lowest season ticket price was the lowest in the Premier League and that the average cheapest adult season ticket price in the Premier League was £554 but West Ham United’s was 38% cheaper at £345. The highest priced general sale season ticket price was the fourth highest in the Premier League, but the Club noted that this made up an extremely small number of tickets.
• Supporter Representatives raised concerns that clubs were trying to catch up with each other’s pricing. The Club confirmed this was not what it was looking to do and that it was proud to have affordable tickets but that it was seeking to continue to be financially sustainable and proactive, noting that West Ham United was the only Club to freeze all season ticket prices last season. AP challenged this and gave the example of Liverpool which had frozen season tickets and general admission tickets and had just increased prices in hospitality. The Club clarified that West Ham United had delivered a full price freeze.
• The Club stated that some of its tickets were significantly cheaper than other clubs, particularly compared to London clubs and that these were the bands which should be increased. It reiterated that it wanted to work with the FAB on the detail of any increase.
• AP asked what revenue increase the Club was trying to achieve from ticketing, which was a question that had been put to the Club at the FAB ticketing sub-group. The Club stated that it was not about achieving a specific number but about the overall commercial revenue and that there was never a good time to make an increase.
• AP raised the issue of the Club’s refusal to allow supporters to get a cash refund once a season from the Ticket Exchange instead of being refunded in Club Cash. He said that if this restriction was lifted it would help the fulfilment rate of tickets sold compared to supporters actually attending and that an evidence document to support this had been supplied to the Club. The Club said this issue had already been discussed extensively including at the ticketing sub-group on 11 February and that there would be no changes to Club Cash.
• The Club did note that some of the lowest prices might be too low and this could be the reason that some people weren’t using their tickets; a small increase could make a difference to bring more value to the ticket. CB pointed out that this would not bring in a large amount of revenue for the Club. While the suggested amount of increase was agreed to be commercially sensitive, the Club noted that this could be along the lines of a rise in price for the very lowest priced season tickets and then an annual inflationary increase.
• MB and AG flagged that West Ham United was a working-class club and raised concerns about even slight ticket price increases leading to supporters walking away. The Club recognised these concerns and said this was a constant thought process, and explained that it just wanted to move prices up a bit and was not looking to steeply increase these. It explained that the average cheapest junior season ticket in the Premier League was £309 and that West Ham United’s cheapest was £109.
• AP stated that supporters should not have to bear price increases because of the Club’s poor financial decisions over managerial appointments. The Club agreed and stated that it was not asking supporters to pay for this; the owners and the shareholders would be the ones to support the Club.
• AP reiterated that the FAB had asked for the additional revenue figure associated with the proposed price rise and noted that the figure was not now going to be disclosed. The Club confirmed this was because no decision on price rises had been agreed, but confirmed that it would now share outline pricing proposals with the FAB as the next stage of consultation as previously agreed. The FAB agreed the next steps would be to discuss this at the ticketing sub-group and that Supporter Representatives did not want any surprises.
• MB asked the Club to respond to a document that had been shared with feedback about issues for Away Scheme Members, particularly the new away scheme trial, and noted that feedback from members had suggested they wanted to return to the old process or a hybrid approach. The Club apologised for the delay in responding and agreed to expedite this and take actions accordingly. The Club also noted the changes to the away scheme process were linked to the new Premier League ticketing rules which had been discussed at previous meetings.

 

Stadium

• The Club noted that it had previously committed to running feasibility studies for the installation of railed seating in the lower tiers of the stadium and for the replacement of the wall between home and away supporters in block 113, and that these had both now been completed*.
• The Club explained that there was already some railed seating in the upper tier of London Stadium to protect against progressive crowd collapse and that this was not such a risk in the lower stands due to the low gradient of the stands. The Club said that it may look to install more railed seating in the upper tiers as there was a greater safety risk from any standing in this area, particularly in the away section for cup matches where there was an allocation above 3,000 tickets.
• AP asked whether supporters could expect to see railed seating in the lower tiers any time soon. The Club confirmed that there were no immediate plans to install railed seating in the lower tiers as this would be an extremely expensive project and that its current view was that this investment could be better made elsewhere. The Club explained some of the key points of the feasibility study and explained that it was continuing to work with colleagues at London Stadium and the Sports Ground Safety Authority on this as a long-term project. The Club stated that one option was to address the issue if the stands were rebuilt. AP asked how long that lifespan was and the Club said that they would be there longer than us!
• CB asked the Club for reassurance that the view of disabled fans would be considered as part of any railed seating project. The Club agreed and said sight lines were always a key part of any feasibility studies.
• The Club noted that if this was an essential project from supporters’ perspective that a consideration could be to increase ticket prices further to pay for the project, which Supporter Representatives strongly disagreed with. AP said the Club had sold Upton Park and could use this revenue; the Club stated that it had £15m from this sale. AP expressed surprise at that number and said that he thought it had been £40m. [The Club would like to clarify that it believed the question had been about what had been paid to the stadium at the point of the move. To clarify the numbers, the Club had invested £15m from the sale of Upton Park into London Stadium. The Club sold Upton Park for £37.2m for a profit of £8.7m, as can be seen in the 2016-17 statutory accounts.]
• Supporter Representatives noted that the gangways in the lower tiers were not being effectively stewarded which was a safety issue. The Club agreed to raise this with colleagues at London Stadium as a priority. Supporter Representatives also raised the fact that there had been slipping hazards at a recent match due to plastic material used for a tifo.
• The Club confirmed that the feasibility study into replacing the wall between home and away fans with a Perspex-style wall had been completed. The Club said that it accepted that supporters wanted the wall to come down, that the Club had listened and that it was willing to pay for the wall to be replaced with a Perspex-style wall to be installed during the close season. It noted that completion was subject to other stakeholders such as London Stadium and the SSAG agreeing to it, and that the Perspex-style wall may still need to be re-covered based on a risk assessment, for example if the number of missiles or other incidents in the area increased again. The Club reiterated that there was no excuse for supporters throwing missiles in this area.
• The Club confirmed that the new Perspex-style wall would be the same height as the existing wall.
• CB said that disabled fans should not be told to sit in specific sections of the stadium and that it was important for fans to have the choice, which the Club said it absolutely agreed with.
• AP asked if there was any plans to close parts of the stadium in the event of relegation. The Club confirmed this would not be the case. Supporter Representatives said that this was a good decision.
• AP asked if the Club would consider giving season ticket holders two loyalty points for Cup matches if they purchased a seat elsewhere, to help drive atmosphere. The Club noted that it had discussed a similar idea with Ironworks Alliance and was comfortable with this in principle, but felt that for fairness that it was important for this to be supporter-driven and decided by the FAB. Supporter Representatives agreed they were supportive of this as an approach. The Club also caveated that there may be technical constraints with implementing this as a process, so the points may have to be given on a goodwill basis, which Supporter Representatives noted.
• The Club noted again that it had received a constructive document from the Matchday Experience sub-group on 19 February with a range of suggestions. The Club agreed to respond to this document in full.
• Supporter Representatives asked if the Club would consider implementing a defined family stand as had been discussed at previous meetings. The Club said it had heard supporter requests on this and was happy to progress to start consulting supporters who have families to understand what they would want from this section. The Club committed to following up with the FAB to share a draft survey and consultation plan.
• The Club also noted that Supporter Representatives from the Matchday Experience sub-group had shared proposals for signposting ‘like-minded’ atmosphere sections of the Stadium at point of purchase. The Club agreed to implement this for the upcoming season and to revert with the communications plan. Supporter Representatives welcomed this.

 

Women’s team

• AP said that the expectation had been that there would be a women’s fixture at the London Stadium this season and asked the Club to clarify if this was not going to happen and whether the issues were financial or contractual. The Club stated that this was because E20 believed that a WSL match did not form part of the quota in the Concession Agreement with the stadium and therefore the Club would be subject to a significant hire fee which was out of step with the WSL ticket prices. The clubs felt this was unfair, especially when a WSL match had previously been held at the stadium on this basis. The club stated that whilst WSL matches were not detailed in the Concession Agreement that the womens’ and mens’ teams should be treated equally. The Club recognised the importance of hosting this match and was continuing efforts to negotiate on this point, but confirmed this would now not be possible during the 2025/26 season. The Club reiterated its disappointment with the situation and Supporter Representatives also expressed their frustration. The Club confirmed it would look to arbitration if negotiations continue to fail.
• KH noted that Supporter Representatives had not had a response to their letter to the Mayor of London on the subject but that the Mayor of Newham had replied.
• PC asked if the Club would consider a double-header with a men’s match, which the Club acknowledged and suggested that a pre-season friendly could be a good opportunity for this.

 

Supporter Conduct and Restorative Justice

• AP stated that the Club had removed information about disclosure of evidence from its latest Supporter Conduct Charter and that this change had been made without consulting the FAB. The Club disputed that a change had been made but agreed to review previous seasons’ documents.
• The Club agreed that someone who faces a ban should be entitled to see the evidence against them, but that there were complexities with this process such as data protection, particularly with video evidence. AP suggested that supporters facing sanction could visit the Stadium offices to view the evidence rather than it being shared electronically, which the Club agreed would need to be the process. AB stated that videos including the faces of others would need to be blurred, as was standard practice.
• The Club also noted that following discussion at the Supporter Conduct and Restorative Justice sub-group it was seeking to better explain the evidence the Club was relying on as part of its banning and sanctions letters, to give the supporter an idea of what was being referred to. It was also noted that the Club does share evidence on appeal with the relevant decision maker and that everybody has the right to appeal.
• AP noted that he had an example of somebody who had a challenge with the process. The Club asked him to share the details of this so it could be reviewed.
• AP added that a clear timeline was required for the process. The Club committed to working with the FSA and to undertake a review of the evidence sharing policy including all relevant stakeholders. The FAB thanked them for this and asked for this to be reviewed in the relevant sub-group. AP noted that without access to relevant evidence, that this would be the end of that FAB working group.

 

Youth Council

• The Club noted that it had been working with the Junior Supporters’ Board representative AG who had shared a new proposal for a Youth Council for young people. The Club was very supportive of this initiative but wanted to seek the approval of the wider FAB. Supporter Representatives and the Club agreed that this model would replace the JSB from the 2026/27 season with the goal to begin recruitment for the new season in May.
• There was also a discussion about how the JSB or Youth Council could better reach the Club’s 5,500 junior season ticket holders.

 

Attendance transparency

• AP explained that according to Newham Council figures, the attendance numbers were 10,000 less per match than what the Club reported. He said that this was not a good look for the Club and that it should be a priority to get the seat fulfilment rate up. The Club explained that it follows the exact same approach of all other Clubs in the league on this and publishes sold ticket figures rather than attendance through the turnstile.

Heritage and Culture

• Three Supporter Representatives noted that they had attended the Club’s pilot Hammers Heritage Roadshow and that this had been a positive event.
• AP asked the Club to run a ‘living history’ project to record stories from fans as a matter of urgency. The Club agreed and committed to do this, stating that it could continue to build on the bank of stories from the retirement of Upton Park. AB stated that he could put the Club in touch with another club which had done this well.

 

The Vice-Chair left the meeting at 8pm (the pre-agreed finish time).

 

AOB

• KH noted there was a SSAG meeting on 6 March and suggested a pre-meeting with the Club. This was welcomed.
• AP read out a statement which said: “The Sun ran a newspaper article last Friday. And I don’t know if you read it, but it was a case that was, they said, dropped. It’s actually discontinued, the legal term. We need to know, for the avoidance of any doubt whatsoever, that this Premier League executive referenced in this recent national media reporting, which is The Sun, about a discontinued historic legal case, there’s no current, past or present role formal or informal at West Ham United or its ownership structure and executive leadership”. The Club confirmed that there was no investigation involving West Ham United, that it cannot comment on unverified media speculation, and referred the Supporter Representative back to its previous statement on this matter.

 

AP and KO thanked the group for their time on the meeting.

Meeting ended 8:15pm.

 

Actions

• The Club to raise the issue of stewarding in the gangways with London Stadium (Due: March 2026)
• The Club to respond to the document about issues for Away Scheme Members and take actions accordingly (Due: March 2026)
• The Club to review and respond to the document shared by the Matchday Experience sub-group (Due: March 2026)
• The Club to regroup the ticketing sub-group for the next stage of pricing consultation (Due: March 2026)
• The Club to share a draft survey and consultation process for a family stand (Due: April 2026)
• The Club to share a communications plan to signpost the ‘like-minded’ areas of the Stadium (Due: March 2026)
• The Club to review the policy around evidence sharing (Due: May 2026)
• The Club to host the FAB Effectiveness Review at the training ground (Due: June 2026)
• The Club to replace the JSB with a Youth Council for the 2026/27 season (Due: May 2026)
• Club to begin a ‘living history’ project (Due: May 2026)

 

*Supporter Representatives had previously asked the Club to share a copy of this study, which the Club confirmed it was unable to share as it had been carried out by other stakeholders. The Club committed to instead providing a summary of the results at this meeting.