Football Forum | Ticket Forum | Off-Topic Forum | All

J.Riddle 1:13 Tue Apr 17
Sullivan says reported net spend a myth

Says it's simply not the case that our net spend is close to nothing (don't recall anyone saying that?). So he thinks it's alright if we have spent a little more than nothing? Why doesn't he just come out and say the correct net spend if he doesn't agree with what's been reported? Must have the best Chartered Accountants to write it all down for him. If anyone knows the correct amount its him, yet he provides not one figure, I wonder why? Draw your own conclusions.

Got to love the last paragraph. "The recruitment staff are working diligently to identify the right sorts of players to improve a number of positions.” Roughly translated, " I am looking at potential loans and freebies on you tube.

Sick of this condescending midget and his repetitive spin.

C&H
Sullivan keen to “dispel a myth”

David Sullivan has addressed the ‘net spend’ controversy on Hammers transfers declaring he wants to dispel a myth on the issue.

He declares in tonight’s official programme notes: “I want to dispel a myth about our net spending on new players in recent years. There has been claims that our net spend has been next to nothing but that simply is not the case.

Since June 2016, we have spent club record transfer fees on Andre Ayew and Marko Arnautovic and also significant sums on other individuals including Chicharito.

We have recouped some of that money by selling more than 20 players, including Dimitri Payet. However, there has been some incorrect reporting on the amount of money we did or did not spend on some players, particularly those we brought in on Bosman transfers.

While no fee has changed hands for players aged 24 or older, significant agent and signing on fees and wages are needed to secure players who can literally choose their next move.

When you add in sell-on clauses and wrongly reported transfer fees our net spend has been higher than has been suggested by so-called experts. The club will be looking to strengthen again this summer with a view to enjoying a better 2018/19.”

He adds: “The recruitment staff are working diligently to identify the right sorts of players to improve a number of positions.”

David L 11:48 Thu Apr 19
Re: Sullivan says reported net spend a myth

Alex V thinks that Carlton Cole was appreciated and well liked by most supporters.

That one statement tells you that he knows fuck all about anything

Iron2010 11:47 Thu Apr 19
Re: Sullivan says reported net spend a myth

The profit that the club is making isn’t a myth.

SurfaceAgentX2Zero 11:36 Thu Apr 19
Re: Sullivan says reported net spend a myth

Sven Roeder 10:02 Thu Apr 19

I think you'll find that it's Gold who's the dildo salesman. Sullivan is a pornographer. It's important to get these things right.

Grumpster 10:53 Thu Apr 19
Re: Sullivan says reported net spend a myth

He always believes its a myth that he's a massive cunt.

Sir Alf 10:41 Thu Apr 19
Re: Sullivan says reported net spend a myth

Major league bullsh*t from David "Goebbels" Sullivan.

Sven Roeder 10:06 Thu Apr 19
Re: Sullivan says reported net spend a myth

If you’d sum up his performance you’d say-
No coherent strategy
Incompetent at closing deals
Penny wise pound FOOLISH
10 years out of date in regards the value of players
Prone to a guess and a hunch based on no credible evidence
Overblown opinion of his own ability
Appears to take advice from his own children rather than football experts

Sven Roeder 10:02 Thu Apr 19
Re: Sullivan says reported net spend a myth

If we’d had a DOF that had Sullivan’s performance he would have been sacked a year ago
Sullivan is a dildo salesman. Despite owning Football clubs for 20 years he knows nothing about football and is a deluded dabbler way over his head in the world of modern football
He and Goldy need to sell and take their profit

Willtell 9:54 Thu Apr 19
Re: Sullivan says reported net spend a myth

Alex V 1:28 Wed Apr 18
"I completely disagree because I don't think net spend has a correlation with achievement like that. Because the same comparison would also suggest that Spurs should be relegated based on their record."
------------------

Well well well! Funny that you disagree with me because in recent posts I said much the same - at least twice from memory.

The problem is Alex that you over-think the problem. It's simple really. Sullivan has too great an influence in player recruitment. Either he won't pay the asking price because he doesn't rate the player highly enough or he wastes £millions on trying to buy bargains.

For every Payet, Cresswell and Kouyate I could mention at least 2 wasted signings. Snodgrass, Fonte, Hugill, Arbeloa, Nordveitd, Calleri, Hart and many others. In signing on fees and wages there is probably £100m wasted right there in the last couple of years. I'm sure we could easily name many more with a bit of thought.

What other industry would keep employed a Chairman that wasted that kind of money?

I Willtell you. None that survives for long.

jack flash 9:34 Thu Apr 19
Re: Sullivan says reported net spend a myth

This bullshit is exactly the same bullshit that Terry Brown used to spout

We've heard it all before & far too often!

Mike Oxsaw 8:05 Wed Apr 18
Re: Sullivan says reported net spend a myth

You don't buy a dog and then bark yourself.

Our DoF will be, in every sense, Sullivan's dog.

Sir Alf 5:33 Wed Apr 18
Re: Sullivan says reported net spend a myth

Net spend is not necessarily important in the longer term but when you want to create a solid foundation or quality squad ( more than one good player for most position) it will absolutely start with several years of eye catching ( aka large) investment. That investment has to be sound / strategic and looking at the longer term aim of an affordable net spend.

West Ham have failed on both counts since time began. They have failed to come u with a large enough budget and to spend it well for the longer term. The latest owners have been no different to the previous ones except they have over hyped their achievements and set false expectations which is why they deserve the animosity that comes their way from fans.

It will take 5 - 10 years of investment on a sliding scale from 100million - < 10 million ( the current Spurs level) to get there.

Spurs started ahead of us but look back. They were spending a lot for over 6 years but because their foundations ( squad quality) from the start was mucg better and their investments were in younger or better players generally, they could balance the books far better in the early "investment" years than we would be able to.

But lets not kid ourselves. Our owners have ambitions but not the intelligence or financial appetite to fulfil them.

The one thing they could do that would help is apologise relentlessly at every turn and admit they set expectations they were unable to meet. In other words, politely apologies for lying.

Other than that they should shut the hell up and start seriously preparing to sell the club but to owners who are financially better equipped or simply more willing to invest on a level they could never reach.

Finally will Sullivan appoint a DoF and not be involvced? By definition he signs the cheque so he can say what he wants but he will never give a DoF the autonomy needed.

This latest C&H propaganda is just that. Net spend relative to other clubs and including the fees is very low for a club that purportedly has top half or even next level ambitions.

Swiss. 2:36 Wed Apr 18
Re: Sullivan says reported net spend a myth

I'm sure there are ways around FFP for an initial splash out. The dildo bros have used that as an excuse not to fork out. Look at future predicted revenues.

Takashi Miike 2:30 Wed Apr 18
Re: Sullivan says reported net spend a myth

muddled? no. £9m on Hugill is £9m down the khazi

Side of Ham 1:52 Wed Apr 18
Re: Sullivan says reported net spend a myth

The reason Spurs works for now is because they offer the ambition of playing in Europe on a pretty regular basis and Levy makes sure the club conveys their historical ambition to be at the top end of English football.....this appeals massively to young potential AND very good players from abroad.

Our owners (including in some parts.... previous owners bar the Icelandics) offer everything then don't back up the players ambitions to be in a squad that can challenge for things, add in our LONG historical reputation for NOT investing in getting very good potential OR very good players throughout the squad will ensure we get no where near Spurs.

We have the odd talisman backed up by mediocre footballers (See Arnie & Manny) whereas Spurs fill their squad with a very talented spine and introduce young players as and when they can be brought through.

So you can fuck Alex V with yet more of your bollocks and the best we could do is a 'Crazy Gang' spirit where shit players play way beyond their actual skill level, which West Ham supporters will not want to watch as it will involve tactics that avoid exposure to the true lack of actual technique.

We cannot look at Spurs and think we'd get anywhere near emulating it as they are already establid=shed as a top English club and THIS gets them their breaks when it comes to signings barring the top 4 out bidding them.

JustAFatKevinDavies 1:32 Wed Apr 18
Re: Sullivan says reported net spend a myth

Step away from your computer and have a day off Alex, maybe go speak to another human being in real life or something.

Alex V 1:28 Wed Apr 18
Re: Sullivan says reported net spend a myth

>>> ...comparisons suggest we should be around the upper places of the PL.

I think Sullivan would agree with you there. I completely disagree because I don't think net spend has a correlation with achievement like that. Because the same comparison would also suggest that Spurs should be relegated based on their record.

This is partly where I think Sullivan and some of his critics have a lot more in common than they think. They both massively overrate net spend, and they both think success is bought and not built. My guess is that Sullivan thinks (or thought for a long time) that because we've spent so much on players and wages the only problem is that the other part of the formula (ie on the pitch) is letting down the rest. And similarly many fans think that as we have 'name' players the problem must only be Sullivan. Both critics and Sullivan seem to have massively overrated the quality of the squad.

I think the answer is almost certainly more complex than that. Sullivan has always tinkered too much but he bought Payet and Cresswell and Kouyate and many more. He has a lot of experience of transfers and negotiations so I doubt he is as bad at it as his critics think. For most of his time the manager has either had a guiding hand or a veto on all signings. As noted, he has helped those managers spend on behalf of the club a lot more than his critics like to admit, yet retains the public image of being a cheapskate.

A lot of the criticism of Sulllivan is muddled and not based on anything much other than PR errors and his image. There is plenty to criticise and it could be done in a more healthy way that actually improves the club, rather than a bunch of fans getting angry over what are mainly misconceptions. That's my opinion.

Rusta 1:20 Wed Apr 18
Re: Sullivan says reported net spend a myth

Stop buying & loaning shit players and sticking them on stupid wages then.
To be paying Joe Hart a hundred grand a week is fuckin ridiculous for a club like us. That didn't really need a genius to work out did it

Willtell 1:03 Wed Apr 18
Re: Sullivan says reported net spend a myth

Alex V 12:09
"But what the PL class it as is entirely irrelevant imo."

Of course it isn't "entirely irrelevant"! It is using one method for COMPARING clubs expenditure. As it happens, WH figure in a high position - 6th place - as net spenders with €30.8m average over the last 5 seasons.
https://www.totalsportek.com/money/premier-league-clubs-transfers-net-spend-last-5-years/

WH are fighting relegation with a mediocre, failed manager because of decisions made by a terrible Chairman that controls far too much on the football side because he knows best...

Sullivan feeds these stupid points about spends being more than they appear but someone else collects the comparative data and our comparisons suggest we should be around the upper places of the PL. Sullivan is the reason why we are struggling yet again and teh fact that a free transfer costs more than zero is neither here nor there.

It's the same as the "I've been working 24/7 to complete transfers..." We need the cunt to work 8/4 and leave it to professionals so that we can do better than Sullivan's woeful micro-management of player recruitment!

Alex V 12:15 Wed Apr 18
Re: Sullivan says reported net spend a myth

Swiss. 12:10 Wed Apr 18

Not to sound like a broken record, but you understand that West Ham cannot use that strategy as they will obliterate FFP limits?

It would also be a terrible strategy now. It bought Chelsea titles when they did it, what would it buy a team doing it a decade too late? 6th?

Swiss. 12:10 Wed Apr 18
Re: Sullivan says reported net spend a myth

Was arguing with a Chelsea mate the other day. He was saying that the net spend of Chelsea was not much higher that West Ham's over the last 5 years. The thing is as I pointed out the 10 years before Chelsea has already spent something like 500m + on players so a large initial investment. The Daves haven't done that


It not the same transferring Costa for Morata.

If they spent 300m net this year on big signings with future transferable value then I couldn't care if they make very little net spend in the next 5 years as you can get away wit this be competative and keep things turning over.

That therein is the problem.

Alex V 12:09 Wed Apr 18
Re: Sullivan says reported net spend a myth

>>> There is good reason for you being considered contrary Alex.

These are points I have consistently made over years. Too many years in fact.

>>> Of course Sullivan has a point that a free transfer costs the club more than 'no fees' involved. But if the PL class it as a free transfer which we agree they do, then Sullivan rattling on about the costs involved in a free, is being disingenuous with fans yet again.

But what the PL class it as is entirely irrelevant imo. What relevance does it have to this? Sullivan is saying that bosman deals have hidden costs - he's not disputing they are reported as free transfers, in fact that's his whole point!

>>> What is relevant is not that a free costs more than it sounds but that smaller clubs than WH spend more.

But as you just said, it isn't relevant to success.

If you look over any reasonable time period, WH have spent more than most other clubs. As endlessly discussed on here, they were 5th or 6th in spending over five years before this season, ahead of both Spurs and Liverpool at times. And not including any 'hidden fees'! We have overspent and underdelivered.

>>> The likes of you defending the absolute cunt of a man running WH very badly really takes some swallowing.

I am highly critical of him and I have been since 2010. I was critical of him for long stretches where he was broadly treated as a messiah-like figure on this forum, and I took a lot of shit for it. But I try to deal with facts where I can. What he says here is not wrong imo. I don't think it matters what he actually says anymore, as so many supporters have fixed a narrative in their heads and will simply defer to that whatever he says.

Page 1 - Next