WHO Poll
Q: 2017/18 The RealWestHamFans March on March 10th
a. I'll be there, it's time for action now enough is enough
53%
  
b. Not for me, I'll see you all at the Stadium
15%
  
c. A bit difficult for me as I'll be on my stream with a cup of rosie
25%
  
d. What march
8%
  



Alan 3:31 Mon Feb 5
West Ham owners "Are not fit for purpose"
West Ham Sunday Supplement

The owners getting flak from journos

spacer

Replies - Newest Posts First (Show In Chronological Order)

Balto 8:46 Wed Feb 7
Re: West Ham owners "Are not fit for purpose"

I just found this in the comments section of an article in the Guardian about Patrice Era. Makes A very poignant financial observation.


Heliosuk1
"Worked in M&A for my sins and what is happening at WHU is a classic attempt to inflate the value of a business whilst investing as little as possible into it.

When companies are for sale on most businesses you apply a multiple on the balance sheet value.

These and other signings of players on high wages with no/or minimal transfer fee help to keep money in the bank. Chuck in other things like the free stadium, Prem. money, sponsorships, money from the sale of the old ground etc and you have classic balance sheet pumping .

It's known that the West Ham owners and Brady want to sell and they will be very wealthy if someone is suckered into buying the club.

They are pump and dump merchants with history (look at Birmingham City)."

afan 11:25 Tue Feb 6
Re: West Ham owners "Are not fit for purpose"
Whats the deal with claret and Hugh they serious love in with the owners. They on wag3s

Far Cough 8:55 Tue Feb 6
Re: West Ham owners "Are not fit for purpose"
Sullivan is a Toulouse Lautrec cunt

chim chim cha boo 8:50 Tue Feb 6
Re: West Ham owners "Are not fit for purpose"
VirginiaHam 8:40 Tue Feb 6

You can bet your life he signed one.

He'd be straight to the press saying 'I was only acting under Sullivan's instructions' otherwise.

VirginiaHam 8:40 Tue Feb 6
Re: West Ham owners "Are not fit for purpose"
I wonder if Henry signed an NDA before he was officially fired?

13 Brentford Rd 8:10 Tue Feb 6
Re: West Ham owners "Are not fit for purpose"
The cunts are worried for sure.
All this shit that's leaked out lately is proof.

Lertie Button 7:50 Tue Feb 6
Re: West Ham owners "Are not fit for purpose"
As I've said before it's a very dangerous game the three twats are playing. Effectively they are ensuring we have another lame duck manager for the remainder of the season, for the sole purpose of covering their ineptitude in the window.
Combine that with the lack of signings, the fact we pissed our large African contingent off and the injury list, it's all gonna end it tears.

chim chim cha boo 6:58 Tue Feb 6
Re: West Ham owners "Are not fit for purpose"
...and here we go.

This article has just appeared on Claret and Hugh. I wonder who leaked it? It must have been someone who's screaming 'IT WASN'T ME IT WAS TONY HENRY AND DAVID MOYES WHO FUCKED UP THE WINDOW- I WANTED TO SPEND MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF POUNDS - HONEST'.

No idea who though...


'David Moyes and the disgraced Tony Henry are reported to have had totally different ideas over the club’s transfer policy in the final days of the January transfer window.

French newspaper L’Equipe, claim that Lille attempted to sell Ibrahim Amadou to the Hammers for €20m in January, even asking Willie McKay, an agent with connections to the London club, to broker the deal.

However, that deal never went ahead, and the conspiracy theorists are sure to have a field day with the fact that Amadou is Cameroonian.

Of course, transfer chief Henry was sacked over an email he sent claiming the club did not want to sign any more African players – a claim the board has strenuously denied.

Amadou emerged as a target in the final days of the window, with Henry sending the explosive email on January 27.

It was reported in the Mirror as reading: “We don’t want any more Africans and he’s not good enough. I sent Thomas to watch him and the other lad last week and he said no. If Palace take them good luck.”

Belgian newspaper HLN report that only David Moyes had doubts over the transfer and dithered, causing the transfer to collapse. Henry meanwhile was said to be particularly keen on Leander Dendoncker at Anderlecht;

West Ham ended the window signing Joao Mario from Inter Milan on loan.

Thecynic 6:47 Tue Feb 6
Re: West Ham owners "Are not fit for purpose"
They haven’t said in which direction they consider what the next level is yet. How much would be spent from a parachute payment?

rumford 6:00 Tue Feb 6
Re: West Ham owners "Are not fit for purpose"
It easy for the owners to dismiss the fans troublemakers but they must be feeling the heat when journalist are saying its the worst run club in the premiership,they, the owners, are not fit for purpose,and questioning the viability of the move.
With another journalist today expressing doubts over their dealings in January window.

El Scorchio 2:25 Tue Feb 6
Re: West Ham owners "Are not fit for purpose"
'Despite their prevalent theme so far being the crippling debt, while also offering an impression that there is scant finance for Gianfranco Zola (or insert other manager name here) to invest in the squad, Sullivan made that promise to "spend lots of money" to chase entry into Europe's premier club competition.'

Not a fucking thing has changed there then.

Northern Sold 2:17 Tue Feb 6
Re: West Ham owners "Are not fit for purpose"
Tinpot ???

What a scumbag....

ironsofcanada 1:20 Tue Feb 6
Re: West Ham owners "Are not fit for purpose"
Willtell 1:18 Tue Feb 6

I am sure they at least partially believed that at the time. Which is arguably a bigger problem.

Willtell 1:18 Tue Feb 6
Re: West Ham owners "Are not fit for purpose"
From The Guardian 8 years ago....

How Sullivan and Gold can make their seven-year pitch work at West Ham
West Ham's new owners have talked of the club's troubles, but Champions League talk shows they have plenty of ambition

@JamieJackson___
Wed 20 Jan 2010 14.18 GMT
Bar-room chat for West Ham supporters revelling in David Gold's and David Sullivan's arrival as co-owners will centre on the latter's bullish assertion that playing in the Champions League is now the ultimate ambition.

"We have a seven-year plan to get them into the Champions League and turn them into a big club and over the seven-year period we do plan to spend a lot of money," Sullivan said yesterday, although details of this masterplan were not forthcoming. And Hammers aficionados may recall this was also a promise of Eggert Magnusson and Bjorgolfur Gudmundsson, when the Icelandic duo took control of the club in the autumn of 2006.

Yesterday Sullivan and Gold were scathing about the pair, blaming much of the club's current malaise – they claim there are debts of £110m and rising – on the over-priced, overpaid footballers signed during that regime.

They have a point, of course. "Egghead", as Sullivan delighted in calling the former biscuit tycoon, was frighteningly out of his depth – it seems faintly ridiculous he was allowed to wreak such havoc by Gudmundsson, who had been a successful enough businessman to feature strongly in the Forbes Rich List before Iceland went bust.

But while the great dream lasted they did at least back the stated ambition with Champions League wages (even Lucas Neill was signed on £60,000 a week) and performers including Craig Bellamy, Kieron Dyer and Freddie Ljungberg, who brought actual experience of the competition to east London.

Yet throwing a skip-full of money at the European dream ultimately proved unworkable. And now Sullivan and Gold have strode in to Upton Park to inform fans they can make it happen, by 2017.

How? Despite their prevalent theme so far being the crippling debt, while also offering an impression that there is scant finance for Gianfranco Zola to invest in the squad, Sullivan made that promise to "spend lots of money" to chase entry into Europe's premier club competition.

Sullivan and Gold's main strategy for raising the funds required to sign their own Champions League performers appears to be to corral Air Asia and Lotus F1 boss Tony Fernandes – and other rich fans – to come on board, plus a move to the Olympic Stadium once the 2012 games are over, so increasing gate revenue from the Boleyn Ground's 31,892 capacity to 50,000.

While it is not clear who would pick up the £100m tab for converting the stadium (if West Ham were to be given the green light to move three miles across Newham) beyond this is the more pressing, short-term issue: can Zola keep the team clear of the relegation trap-door while Sullivan and Gold stem the club's financial incontinence?

The pair said yesterday that they plan to be at West Ham until they die. If they take their beloved club into the Champions League for the first time they are sure to join Bobby Moore, Geoff Hurst and Martin Peters as bubble-blowing immortals.

El Scorchio 1:08 Tue Feb 6
Re: West Ham owners "Are not fit for purpose"
'There have been tensions behind the scenes regarding West Ham’s transfer policy with Moyes failing to land a number of targets in January.'

I read that as Moyes being annoyed with the fact they've not got him any decent players (or the ones he said he wanted) rather than it being a fault of Moyes that we've been left short.

Obviously Sullivan is going to try and shove all the blame from anything we don't like on to Moyes, just like he did with Bilic, and if it comes down to Moyes' word against Sullivan then I know who I believe 100%. (Clue- not Sullivan)

ironsofcanada 1:06 Tue Feb 6
Re: West Ham owners "Are not fit for purpose"
My biggest concern would be how do we ensure an exit/extensive reduction in their influence/control that results in a better board and stronger West Ham.

Looking long term beyond Sullivan and Gold.

Razzle 12:46 Tue Feb 6
Re: West Ham owners "Are not fit for purpose"
Once the media get their hooks in they'll be fishing for all the filfth....But i fear that the DBs are too stubborn or stupid to see the writing on the wall.

zico 12:43 Tue Feb 6
Re: West Ham owners "Are not fit for purpose"
My biggest problem with the owners is the fact that they aren't honest enough or at the very least they build things up and look like a bunch of liars when their plans don't bear fruit. If someone says to you "I am going to buy you a Ferrari for your birthday" and they end up buying you a Skoda you are going to end up pissed off. However if they say "We are going to TRY and buy you a Ferrari for your birthday and we will do our very best but it might not work out so you may end up with a Skoda" you would be a little disappointed but probably just pleased that you have got a car at all.

The grandiose statements of Top 4, world class players and a world class stadium were stupid statements to make where in reality they didn't have to make promises and weren't in the position to make promises,.

Apologies to Skoda owners was just an analogy!!

Willtell 12:20 Tue Feb 6
Re: West Ham owners "Are not fit for purpose"
The fact that the owner's mouthpiece at C&H are putting out stuff like this shows that they are not fit for purpose...

"The fact Marco Silva is now out of work and would not cost anything in compensation to appoint would be interesting to the Hammers. There have been tensions behind the scenes regarding West Ham’s transfer policy with Moyes failing to land a number of targets in January."

It makes it clear the cheap option is attractive and that a manager fired for losing his Mojo so is more pliable is not the "NEXT LEVEL"

Lily Hammer 10:31 Tue Feb 6
Re: West Ham owners "Are not fit for purpose"
SurfaceAgentX2Zero 7:42 Mon Feb 5

Even if he only says we looked tinpot in Upton Park, he's is still bang out of order and has no self awareness as to how tinpot we look now in our rental ground on its sterile plot, well and truly up the creek.

Willtell 9:53 Tue Feb 6
Re: West Ham owners "Are not fit for purpose"
One paragraph says it all really -
"There have been tensions behind the scenes regarding West Ham’s transfer policy with Moyes failing to land a number of targets in January. "

Page 1 - Next




Copyright 2006 WHO.NET | Powered by: