Alan 3:31 Mon Feb 5
West Ham owners "Are not fit for purpose"
|
|
|
|
|
Replies - In Chronological Order ( Show Newest Messages First)
Mr. Burns
3:45 Mon Feb 5
Re: West Ham owners "Are not fit for purpose"
|
Absolutely sport on Al that.
You've only got to look at this latest bollocks about bidding £25m for Joe ALLEN.
I honestly think they put stuff out now just to wind us up. They are laughing at us.
Horrible, horrible cunts.
|
Keep dreaming
3:55 Mon Feb 5
Re: West Ham owners "Are not fit for purpose"
|
Intellectual stupidity
Fans angry at everything owners are doing at the moment
Bad atmosphere
Deep relegation battle
Misatake after mistake
Stadium move the biggest mistake
Fans dont like the move
Transfer policy not effective
WHU the worst run club in the PL (after sunderland hahaha)
Fucking spot on that discussion. Keep em coming
|
Roeder-nowhere
4:08 Mon Feb 5
Re: West Ham owners "Are not fit for purpose"
|
Really should be keeping quiet about bidding 25 million for Joe Allen.
Anyway it´s irrelevant, they expected a NO and even if Stoke had said yes they could just say they changed their mind and went in for somebody else....spin another lie
|
13 Brentford Rd
4:21 Mon Feb 5
Re: West Ham owners "Are not fit for purpose"
|
They are on the run, let's HOUND the hire bless cunts OUT!
AAAAAAWOOOOO
|
Pervy McBeer
4:28 Mon Feb 5
Re: West Ham owners "Are not fit for purpose"
|
No idea what they think releasing the Joe Allen story was going to achieve. Did they really think we'd go 'oh well...looks like they tried I guess, never mind, better luck next window'.
Instead, it has infuriated everyone more. If you wanted him, why didn't you get him? you wouldn't pay what was being asked? you left it too late? either way it just cements your incompetence even further.
Hopefully Stoke release a story saying that we never made any approach and they can prove it. Which will sound them out even further. If you're gonna make up a story to appease the fans then choose someone better than Joe Allen.
I don't think I can ever read another prospective transfer story and take it seriously again.
|
Infidel
4:31 Mon Feb 5
Re: West Ham owners "Are not fit for purpose"
|
Intellectual stupidity AGREED
Fans angry at everything owners are doing at the moment NOTHING UNUSUAL ABOUT THAT IN FOOTBALL
Bad atmosphere NOT WHEN WE ARE PLAYING WELL
Deep relegation battle WE ARE 12TH FFS
Misatake after mistake MIXED WITH SOME SUCCESSES
Stadium move the biggest mistake NO IT WASN'T. IF WE HAD STAYED TOTTENHAM WOULD HAVE TAKEN IT
Fans dont like the move I DO. SO DO MANY OTHERS.
Transfer policy not effective ARNAUTOVIC?
WHU the worst run club in the PL (after sunderland hahaha) THERE ARE VERY FEW WELL RUN CLUBS.
|
Johnson
4:34 Mon Feb 5
Re: West Ham owners "Are not fit for purpose"
|
Tottenham has no interest in the OS.
HTH
|
Dr Moose
4:36 Mon Feb 5
Re: West Ham owners "Are not fit for purpose"
|
Infidel,
Agree with most of what you are saying but would have been happy if Spurs had been lumbered with the hotpoint. Its not like all of a sudden we'd abandon West Ham to support Spurs because they are in a shiny new stadium. We could also now be laughing at their woes instead of them having more ammo to laugh at us.
|
VirginiaHam
4:37 Mon Feb 5
Re: West Ham owners "Are not fit for purpose"
|
If the owners had any intention of buying someone they'd buy them. It's been achingly obvious we needed a class DM for at least 2 windows, yet all we've done is fuck about with under bids or payment offers that will only wind up the selling club. The back up plan to all that is to make a full offer so late that it is unacceptable.
Its amazing how dishonest these owners are, and how gullible they think the supporters are.
|
Takashi Miike
4:42 Mon Feb 5
Re: West Ham owners "Are not fit for purpose"
|
thanks Alan for the link. good to see some journalists seeing through their bollocks and not part of their spin machine like that fraud, Jim White
|
Far Cough
4:46 Mon Feb 5
Re: West Ham owners "Are not fit for purpose"
|
Totenham would never have moved in, them bidding was all about leaning on Haringey council
|
Gavros
4:47 Mon Feb 5
Re: West Ham owners "Are not fit for purpose"
|
if they had got the land for free and a demolition budget they would have done.
|
Far Cough
4:47 Mon Feb 5
Re: West Ham owners "Are not fit for purpose"
|
No they wouldn't
|
El Scorchio
4:53 Mon Feb 5
Re: West Ham owners "Are not fit for purpose"
|
Damning bit of television.
It's good that things like this are appearing in the media and other people are recognising the situation and what a shit show it is, and commenting candidly on it.
I think it's an important step when it get past 'just the fans whining' and outsiders also see what's going on. The Henry thing although incredibly embarrassing may have been a bit of a blessing in disguise really.
|
Lily Hammer
5:14 Mon Feb 5
Re: West Ham owners "Are not fit for purpose"
|
The most damning thing is how this move only gives us about £10 million extra a year through gate receipts, and Sullivan admits this.
It begs the question "Why did we leave our beloved home, then?"
Sullivan's opinion was that, even though we don't get much more in income, we look much more the part now in the shiny new stadium. He said we looked a "tinpot" club in the Boleyn Ground.
It was not the most luxurious stadium in the world, and we were never the best team in the world (for more than 90 minutes at a time, that is), but by God we were never tinpot, and it was the home ground of some of the biggest legends in the game.
The irony of that little welsh gobshite calling West Ham United FC "tinpot" won't be lost on anyone.
|
Johnson
5:16 Mon Feb 5
Re: West Ham owners "Are not fit for purpose"
|
The cunt has made us tinpot
|
zico
5:20 Mon Feb 5
Re: West Ham owners "Are not fit for purpose"
|
Watched the link and then watched this. Quite incredible when you see Brady and Sullivan just bulshitting about the Stadium and Signings with a straight face.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZiPHwmxEPo&t=3s
|
Lily Hammer
5:21 Mon Feb 5
Re: West Ham owners "Are not fit for purpose"
|
Exactly, Johnson.
|
Rossal
5:21 Mon Feb 5
Re: West Ham owners "Are not fit for purpose"
|
If all of a sudden there was £25M for Allen then why was no fee agreed for Dendonker?
We could of had him for £20M
Lies lies lies.....
|
dicksie3
5:29 Mon Feb 5
Re: West Ham owners "Are not fit for purpose"
|
I can't wait for Stoke to confirm that no bid was ever lodged by us for Allen.
Will that lying cheapskate wanker Sullivan then try and sue them as well?
|
| 
