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. "
|
Willtell
9:52 Tue Feb 6
Re: West Ham owners "Are not fit for purpose"
|
Simple Darby_.
Read this article where it explains it wasn't the directors' fault. It implies that it was Moyes dithering...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2018/02/05/david-moyes-unlikely-remain-west-ham-beyond-end-season-even/
|
WHU(Exeter)
9:50 Tue Feb 6
Re: West Ham owners "Are not fit for purpose"
|
Calling the Boleyn 'tin pot'
The only thing tin pot is their running of football clubs, born out by a record of relegations from top flight football in a time scale that will never be broken, should the Premiership exist for another 300 years.
As for calls for unity!....this from a bloke that has spent his whole time in football consistently undermining his own managers and/or players right up to the present day.
finally FINALLY the rest of the footballing world through the media is calling this lot up for what they are.
|
Darby_
9:25 Tue Feb 6
Re: West Ham owners "Are not fit for purpose"
|
I’m not sure how being greedy and incompetent are mutually exclusive.
Obviously they don’t want to be relegated, but if they are people will ask why they decided to make a profit in the window before relegation.
|
Infidel
9:19 Tue Feb 6
Re: West Ham owners "Are not fit for purpose"
|
There is a lot of talk of the owners being greedy, unwilling to spend and only in it for the money.
That is nonsense.
The financial interests of S&G are served by selling the club at the highest possible price. The better the club performs the higher the price they will get.
Equally if the club gets relegated they will lose a very large amount of money.
The problem with S&G (and Brady) is not that they are greedy or stingy but that they are incompetent. They make very poor decisions - like firing Zola and appointing Avram Grant, who took us straight down.
They lack managerial ability at any level. They are not financially astute. They provide no leadership or ambition for the club.
They look, sound and dress like dinosaurs, left behind by the modern world. A couple of East End barrow boys well suited to selling knocked off transistor radios off their cart but nowhere near qualified to run a premier league football club.
We are not alone. Many English football clubs have been plagued with shockingly poor owners. Bates bankrupted Chelsea. Ridsdale bankrupted Leeds Utd (from which they have never recovered). We have had Terry Brown and the Icelandics, so we've suffered more than most already, but S&G are in a league of their own for crowing about their own brilliance whilst manifestly failing in almost everything they do.
Luckily they are old, which means we don't have that long to wait. The club will be bought, probably by an overseas owner with ambition to create a super club - which West Ham is probably the best candidate for today among the clubs not already in and around the Champions League.
|
RBshorty
1:15 Tue Feb 6
Re: West Ham owners "Are not fit for purpose"
|
Our SPIVY owners are like Mike Ashley at Newcastle. “They can shout and moan as loud as they want. They are still lining my pocket.”
The only thing these people care about is money. The only way you get rid of them is hitting them where it hurts. In the wallet.!
|
Eerie Descent
12:05 Tue Feb 6
Re: West Ham owners "Are not fit for purpose"
|
Mike Oxsaw 9:33 Mon Feb 5
Fucking hell. You're nearly as fucked as Infidel.
|
ironsofcanada
9:53 Mon Feb 5
Re: West Ham owners "Are not fit for purpose"
|
Be interested to see the actual statement by Sullivan but anything close to saying chants will achieve nothing is throwing gas on the fire.
|
Sven Roeder
9:44 Mon Feb 5
Re: West Ham owners "Are not fit for purpose"
|
From my recollection watching yesterday one of the journos says we are the worst run club in the league now Sunderland have gone .
No one said Sunderland we’re still about
The discussion was a fair summary
We’ve moved for nothing and our owners are incompetent cunts is the gist of it
And we were done like a kipper by Spurs
|
Mike Oxsaw
9:33 Mon Feb 5
Re: West Ham owners "Are not fit for purpose"
|
Eerie Descent 7:45 Mon Feb 5
Arsenal (originally a SOUTH London club) have done it.
Wimbledon (Originallh a LONDON club) have done it (in spades).
Millwall (a TRUE East End club) have done it.
"Not in your lifetime" is not synonymous with "Never".
If it was financially viable, spurs would have been serious. They're in the game only for spurs, not to protect some rose-tinted history of West Ham.
|
Jaan Kenbrovin
8:27 Mon Feb 5
Re: West Ham owners "Are not fit for purpose"
|
LOL
|
bruuuno
8:03 Mon Feb 5
Re: West Ham owners "Are not fit for purpose"
|
Macca you mean threads with posts like this:
coagulantwolf coagulantwolf is offline
Members
Join Date
Jun 2012
Posts
704
I've been to a few West Ham matches since the move (live in Leytonstone and get free tickets through a friend), including last year when they beat Spurs 1-0 on a Friday night game - that atmosphere was up there with one of the best I've been too of any team!
Just shows you how much the performance on the pitch, occasion etc, can heavily influence the perception of a football stadium.
|
Far Cough
7:48 Mon Feb 5
Re: West Ham owners "Are not fit for purpose"
|
Eerie Descent 7:45 Mon Feb 5
|
Eerie Descent
7:45 Mon Feb 5
Re: West Ham owners "Are not fit for purpose"
|
As if they were going to uproot from North London to East London ffs
Some proper gullible wally's about.
|
SurfaceAgentX2Zero
7:42 Mon Feb 5
Re: West Ham owners "Are not fit for purpose"
|
Today I've learnt that Sunderland are in the PL.
And Lily, 'look like' a tin pot club is NOT the same as 'are' or 'were' a tin pot club. To suggest they are is to deliberately misunderstand Sullivan's meaning - in this case changing its meaning 180 degrees. There's enough to criticise him for without making stuff up.
|
Infidel
7:22 Mon Feb 5
Re: West Ham owners "Are not fit for purpose"
|
One Mc
You are wrong about Tottenham.
The Tottenham board had despaired of ever getting WHL redeveloped and decided the LS would solve the problem.
They made a serious offer for the stadium and were ready to move had it been accepted. But they also drew a line in the sand over the running track, which we did not. That was the reason we got the stadium.
Tottenham were perhaps unrealistic about the chances of persuading the LLDC to give up on Seb Coe's stupid promise to the IOC but that doesn't mean they weren't serious.
|
rumford
7:07 Mon Feb 5
Re: West Ham owners "Are not fit for purpose"
|
One Mac 6:36 Mon Feb 5
I don't give two fucks what other fans think.
|
Mart O
6:47 Mon Feb 5
Re: West Ham owners "Are not fit for purpose"
|
Cheers, Alan. Well worth a watch and despite the fact that it grates to see our club being dragged through the mud, it's good to see these scum being recognised for what they are.
|
Johnson
6:45 Mon Feb 5
Re: West Ham owners "Are not fit for purpose"
|
We can’t do anything as we don’t own it.
Quite why the landlord would want to either is beyond me.
|
rumford
6:45 Mon Feb 5
Re: West Ham owners "Are not fit for purpose"
|
What happened was public uproar and protest from athletics bodies that the stadium could possible be demolished and that's why we then got it.
|
Swiss.
6:44 Mon Feb 5
Re: West Ham owners "Are not fit for purpose"
|
It's frustrating as the 17th richest club in the world with tin pot owners. It's all in place for a proper rich owner to take us to the next level.
I thought there was talk of a brand new all purpose athletics stadium being built in Brum so we could get rid of the running track and make it into a proper football stadium
|
| 
