Stranded 2:20 Sat Aug 20
The West Ham debt
|
|
Can it really still be 100m? Over the last few years that figure's gone up and down like a yo-yo.
Someone from WHO chipping in.
https://twitter.com/bradwr1/status/766763623767216128
@jsullivanwhu 43m43 minutes ago
@bradwr1 lies! The club is still 100m in debt!!! Both Daivds haven't taken a penny out of the club and have but in 30 million each.
|
|
|
Replies - Newest Posts First ( Show In Chronological Order)
Takashi Miike
12:42 Sun Aug 21
Re: The West Ham debt
|
I don't want them to walk away, just stop all the spinning and twitter shit. stop telling the fucking world who we're shortlisting via that cunt exwhu employee, and stop using the sons as his mouthpiece. brady knocking the sun column on the head would be another good move
|
Mike Oxsaw
12:37 Sun Aug 21
Re: The West Ham debt
|
OK, OK.
Hands up everybody who wants the two Daves to walk away RIGHT NOW and take ALL THEIR spunk-splatterd cash with them.
No negotiations, just fuck off out the door and never set foot in the area again.
Bet you voted Remain, too.
|
AKA ERNIE
12:28 Sun Aug 21
Re: The West Ham debt
|
Well we had a 40m bid accepted for lacazetti so probably yes wilt
|
penners28
12:13 Sun Aug 21
Re: The West Ham debt
|
I dont know whats worse. Them thinking they can pull the wool over the fans eyes, talking of "debt" when in reality its monu owed to themselves! Or the fact some fans dont even realise they have LENT us the money...
|
,
12:01 Sun Aug 21
Re: The West Ham debt
|
Having supported the club through the Pratt/Cearns and Terry Brown eras I think that the club is much better off nowadays. I still think that the club is on a gradual improvement of overall standard and realise that this is the best way to do it. I can also understand why our owners are not risking all and doing a Leeds United thus risking the clubs longer term financial health.
|
Full Claret Jacket
12:01 Sun Aug 21
Re: The West Ham debt
|
How are Palace more ambitious? They are selling players to buy other players including selling one of their better ones in Bolasie.
|
Willtell
11:59 Sat Aug 20
Re: The West Ham debt
|
So all the chattter about a £20 goals a season striker, £38m for Bacca, £40m for Batshuayi etc was kosher was it ERNIE?
|
Full Claret Jacket
11:58 Sat Aug 20
Re: The West Ham debt
|
It says we made a 'contribution' to get the seats changed not that the seats cost 3m. I'd imagine this would be a contract job which would include procurement, installation and ongoing maintenance costs covered within this to replace any broken or faulty seats in the future.
Getting the seat colours changed seemed to be a big deal for some of you. Not sure why it was but it looks great now it's been done.
How much did the training ground work cost at Rush Green? That isn't even mentioned.
Of course there is some smoke and mirrors around the finances. Brady is particular seems a bit of a snake but perhaps that works in our favour at times. There is no doubt the setup in now more professional and managed better. West Ham needs to project a strong image to attract players, sponsors and more fans at home and also abroad.
Without significantly improving our revenue and profit we will never be able to financially compete with many of the other clubs who just dip into huge financial reserves, inflate the transfer market and care little for whether they are getting value or not.
|
AKA ERNIE
11:49 Sat Aug 20
Re: The West Ham debt
|
We all knew that's what they were doing they even said it themselves
|
RBshorty
11:46 Sat Aug 20
Re: The West Ham debt
|
Sid. The debt not the problem. It's the spouting of the bollocks which is. The fun will be next season. Getting 60000 bums on seats this year was never going to be a problem. Might be a tad harder when they can't even buy a striker. And the likes of Crystal Palace are showing more ambition in the transfer window.?
|
Hermit Road
11:38 Sat Aug 20
Re: The West Ham debt
|
Johnson you massive div, you say that everything they do is wrong, so obviously you're gonna be right sometimes. You're like a mug punter betting on every horse int the race then bragging down the bookies when he wins on the massive favourite.
|
Spandex Sidney
11:37 Sat Aug 20
Re: The West Ham debt
|
To be honest I'd rather have our owners in charge of the debt than the banks.
|
Hermit Road
11:37 Sat Aug 20
Re: The West Ham debt
|
That's at $20
|
Hermit Road
11:36 Sat Aug 20
Re: The West Ham debt
|
Nowhere near. You can get them on Alibaba for $10-20 each. 1.2 million for 60000.
|
RBshorty
11:36 Sat Aug 20
Re: The West Ham debt
|
So the club is forever more in debt to the Dave's. Until that mythical buyer appears over the horizon.
So we all better use to freebies and bargain bins. And a shit load of bollocks. Spouted by Diddy Dave, JR and Tits McGee.
|
Johnson
11:36 Sat Aug 20
Re: The West Ham debt
|
So exactly what I said and what I've been saying whilst you lot have been sucking their cocks for supposedly "reducing" the debt down to £25m and then nothing for the OS for the last 18 months.
WE ARE NOT RICHER UNDER THEM, THEY ARE RICHER UNDER US.
|
Crassus
11:33 Sat Aug 20
Re: The West Ham debt
|
Hermit
Thats a bullseye for each of the 60k seats and we have not changed them all
|
Hermit Road
11:20 Sat Aug 20
Re: The West Ham debt
|
I can't believe it cost £3 million quid to change the colour of a few seats. I bet every seat in the place wouldn't cost half that.
|
Bullet
11:16 Sat Aug 20
Re: The West Ham debt
|
Claret and hugh
West Ham debt situation updated and explained
Posted by Sean Whetstone on August 20, 2016 in News, Whispers
The subject of West Ham’s finances and question debt has been raised again after the chairman’s son Jack Sullivan claimed the club was still £100m in debt. Speaking on twitter Jack posted “The club is still 100m in debt!!! Both Daivd’s haven’t taken a penny out of the club and have but in 30 million each.”
David Gold then followed up a question about the debt today responding to fan who accused him of lying “We never said we would be free of debt, we said we would be free of BANK debt which we now are. dg”
West Ham earned £85.7m in Premier League TV money last season and is thought to have pocketed another £38m from the sale of the Boleyn Ground to property developers this summer.
David-Sullivan-and-David--001West Ham were required to pay out £15m to stadium owners E20 Stadium LLP as part of their agreement before they moved to the former Olympic Stadium and have forked out another £8m in WestHamification costs and the club’s new store fit-out of which a £3m contribution was made to the change some of the seats to Claret and Blue.
West Hamare understood to have used the £15m surplus of the Boleyn Ground sale to pay off some their bank debts which totalled in £32.3m when the 2015 financial accounts were published. As the bank loans were mortgaged against the Boleyn Ground the club needed to find an additional £17m to pay off all the bank loans before they handed over the keys to their former stadium in July.
Both Chairman have loaned the club £49.2m in share holder loans which have accrued approximately £12.3m in interest calculated at rates between 6-7% totalling £61.5m owed to the primary shareholders if they ever decided to cash in.
Claret and Hugh understand West Ham have third party debts of an additional £40m which lower than previous years but much of this debt to owed to other clubs in transfer fees paid over several years. For example we are still paying installments for Andy Carroll. It quite normal for a club of our size to owe this amount of third party debt and good business to spread transfer fees over a number of years if the selling club will agree to it.
If you add the shareholder loans with interest together with the third party debt you do reach £101.5m of debts but it is not the same as the £110m in debts Sullivan and Gold inherited when they took over in 2010 with £50m owed to the banks, £40m owed to other clubs and £20m owed to Sheffield United over the Carlos Tevez affair.
In reality West Ham could only really clear £110m in debts if it made £110m in profits over the past six years.
West Ham lost a combined of £48m in 2011, 2012 and 2013 and a made combined profit approaching £1om in 2014 and 2015 which leaves a net loss £38m over that period. Turnover has increased from £71m in 2010 to £120m in 2015 which has helped counteract those losses but costs such as players wages and other outgoings have also increased during that time period.
So basically we have transferred our debt from the banks to the club’s two principle shareholders while our third party debt remains broadly inline of what it was and should be for a club our size.
|
Johnson
11:09 Sat Aug 20
Re: The West Ham debt
|
the exile 10:13 Sat Aug 20
Re: The West Ham debt
I presume you mean Gold and Sullivan as they're the ones taking everyone on here
|
Crassus
10:31 Sat Aug 20
Re: The West Ham debt
|
I have had a fair old pop about this window's strategy and most of the buys, also, the club's PR but by the centre there are some steadfast revisionists on here
The club was up shit creek and is no longer, the player pool is massively ahead of where it was and the club's profile has grown
We are in the new stadium (not sure that I am happy about that) and the general view is that on balance it had to be
What ever way you look at it the Daves have vastly improved the club, even if that means that your dream of oligarch type ownership is closer than ever
|
| 
