Amazon Search and Bookmark
AFFILIATE SEARCH | Shop Amazon.co.uk using this search bar and support WHO!

Telegraph doom mongering

West Ham Online's Football Forum
Post Reply
Any Old Iron
Posts: 689
Old WHO Number: 10365
Has liked: 378 times
Been liked: 178 times

Telegraph doom mongering

Post Any Old Iron »

Every West Ham home game costs taxpayer £100,000 – and relegation will make it worse
London club, whose tenancy of former Olympic stadium is propped up by public money, face catastrophic losses if they go down

23 January 2026 6:00am GMT
Since the Coronavirus pandemic passed, they have been released almost like clockwork. Each year, no later than the middle of January, the group of companies’ accounts for Company Registration Number 5993863 have been filed with Companies House. Yet, as of Friday morning, there was no sign of WH Holding Limited having lodged its annual report and financial statements for the year ending May 31, 2025.

WH Holding Limited – it does not take much guessing – is the ultimate parent company of West Ham United Football Club Limited, which has been later than usual filing its full accounts for the same period. In fact, Telegraph Sport has been told not to expect either submission to be made until at least next month, at the end of which they must be published by law.

It would not be the first time a football club have left it late before fulfilling their legal obligations, particularly if the figures make for grim reading, and there has been speculation that West Ham may have posted a loss last season in the region of £100m.

The club did not respond to requests for comment on those rumours but, one thing is for certain, their financial outlook will become even bleaker if they fail to save themselves from Premier League relegation after their latest set of accounts are due.

Baroness Brady will be back on The Apprentice next week and, according to the show’s profile of the West Ham vice-chair, the club are currently worth £1bn and are the 14th-most valuable team in the world.

  
Image 
It is a claim US president and original Apprentice star Donald Trump might brand another example of “fake news” after Telegraph Sport found no evidence to support a figure higher than the £800m at which Baroness Brady’s own website has valued West Ham since 2020.

That figure remained unaltered after Daniel Kretinsky bought a 27 per cent stake for about £180m (valuing them at £666m) the following year, shortly after Forbes said West Ham were worth £459m.

In fairness to karrenbrady.com, that number had almost doubled by May last year to £840m. Only the Premier League’s so-called “big six” were deemed worthy of a higher valuation in a list on which the club’s inclusion owed everything to their membership of the world’s richest league.

No team worth more than $1bn (£740m) have ever been relegated to the Championship, meaning West Ham are facing hundreds of millions of pounds being wiped off their value overnight, the biggest such fall in the history of the game.

That is primarily down to losing what is a guaranteed £100m-plus in prize money merely for being in the Premier League, with Southampton earning £109.2m last season despite finishing bottom with just 12 points and winning only two matches.

Most of that prize money came from the league’s £1.7bn-a-year domestic television deals with Sky Sports and TNT Sports and total overseas broadcast contracts thought to be at least as valuable.

West Ham will not lose all of that thanks to the league’s much-debated parachute payments to relegated clubs, particularly in the following season. Last term, Luton Town, Burnley and Sheffield United received an estimated £49m in such payments after they went down, on top of whatever they got from playing in the Championship.

Leeds United’s accounts for the year ending June 30, 2024, are arguably the best barometer of what West Ham could face after they went down themselves at the end of 2022-23. What Leeds’s accounts describe as “central distributions” almost halved from £94.1m to £51m during their first season in the Championship, with their TV and broadcasting income dropping from £17.4m to just £2.6m. Their overall turnover slumped by almost a third from £189.7m to £127.6m.

West Ham are in danger of suffering an even further fall, with the latest Deloitte Football Money League this week estimating they turned over £240m last season. That would be down significantly on the £269.7m from the previous campaign, when they made a £52.7m profit after qualifying for the Europa League courtesy of their historic 2023 Conference League triumph.

Leeds managed to increase their gate receipts while in the Championship but the fan mutiny to engulf Brady and largest shareholder David Sullivan would appear to make doing the same almost impossible if West Ham end up hosting the likes of Lincoln City next season rather than Manchester United.

According to Deloitte, West Ham’s match-day revenue last season was £41m, less than a third of Liverpool’s despite the London club boasting a bigger home ground. That is largely down to them not owning their own stadium, which has also cost them millions in non-football revenue from events such as summer concerts, as well as the chance to negotiate a multi-million-pound naming-rights deal. 
Image 
That said, their rent at the former Olympic Stadium will infamously halve from around £4.4m in the event of relegation at the expense of taxpayers who have lost millions of pounds propping up the venue since the 2012 Games.

The most recent annual report of operator E20 Stadium LLP for the year ending March 31, 2024, stated the London Stadium had lost almost £1m a week (£51.3m). The report also forecast future losses of £206.7m, a figure that could rise further if West Ham are relegated. Each of the club’s home matches costs the taxpayer more than £100,000 and they would play four more home league games in the Championship than the Premier League.

West Ham’s accounts for the year ending May 31, 2024 openly acknowledge the profit they made that season was largely the result of selling captain Declan Rice to Arsenal for a club-record £105m. But the accounts also show they owed more than £190m in transfer fees in that same period, £100m of which was payable by June 30 last year. 
Image 
The Rice money has been squandered in the last two seasons, which have seen £125m and £170m spent respectively, including on big-money flops like Niclas Füllkrug and Maximilian Kilman. Luckily, those fees can be spread over the length of the signings’ contracts, unlike the £130m West Ham have brought in over the same period. But they still face having to pay off those transfers in the coming seasons.

All this will make keeping the likes of captain Jarrod Bowen at the club much more difficult if they are relegated this year. They would be in danger of losing any player who could attract a Premier League suitor and the club may not stand in the way of someone who could command a big transfer fee or enable them to cut their wage bill.

Transfer business since July 2023

It is telling that they are already trying to maximise the transfer value of one of their biggest assets, Lucas Paquetá, being willing to sell him to Flamengo before the January window closes provided he is loaned straight back for the remainder of the season.

They are not thought to be at any immediate risk of failing Premier League or English Football League cost-control rules but a season in the Championship would not make complying any easier. There are also examples aplenty of the vicious spiral into which a big club can be drawn if they spend more than one season outside the top flight.

The true scale of West Ham’s long-term transfer deficit will become clearer when they finally publish their accounts from last season, presumably before the February 28 deadline. Then again, the confirmation statement (formerly known as an annual return) for Company Registration Number 5993863 was due on January 12. And that was filed eight days late on Tuesday.
eusebiovic
Posts: 671
Old WHO Number: 15391
Has liked: 1185 times
Been liked: 233 times

Re: Telegraph doom mongering

Post eusebiovic »

For those who STILL don't get it...no amount of money is turning it into a decent football stadium because the structure wasn't designed in 4 separate sections where the stands join together. 

The concrete was cast to create a continuous oval which means there isn't a workable way to lop off the ends behind the goals and moving closer to the pitch without compromising the structural integrity of the longer sections on either side which are left behind.

You can't patch it up and make good because it won't get a safety certificate. It will always be a money pit - a constant exercise in polishing a massive turd.
 
User avatar
Massive Attack
Posts: 7763
Old WHO Number: 321955
Has liked: 4516 times
Been liked: 2391 times

Re: Telegraph doom mongering

Post Massive Attack »

smartypants wrote: 31 Jan 2026, 11:30 Even if they could change the structure of the stadium, why would they go and spend half a billion pounds doing that when they are already getting close to sell out crowds. Commercially it would make absolutely no sense. 

That's changing..
smartypants
Posts: 118
Old WHO Number: 292451
Has liked: 57 times
Been liked: 45 times

Re: Telegraph doom mongering

Post smartypants »

Even if they could change the structure of the stadium, why would they go and spend half a billion pounds doing that when they are already getting close to sell out crowds. Commercially it would make absolutely no sense. 
XKhammer
Posts: 1394
Has liked: 796 times
Been liked: 222 times

Re: Telegraph doom mongering

Post XKhammer »

Mike Oxsaw" wrote: 31 Jan 2026, 07:21 Could a proper football stadium be built inside the shell of the Olympic Stadium?

That way, politicians & civil servants can beat their Olympic-sized patriotic breast as they whizz past on the train/A12 and we get to play football on a proper pitch surrounded by fans situated in stands built in the style of proper football terraces.

Be just like Rock Ridge in Blazing Saddles from the outside. What's not to like?
Zźzzźzzźźzzz 
User avatar
Mike Oxsaw
Posts: 5294
Location: Flip between Belvedere & Buri Ram and anywhere else I fancy, just because I can.
Old WHO Number: 14021
Has liked: 71 times
Been liked: 723 times

Re: Telegraph doom mongering

Post Mike Oxsaw »

Could a proper football stadium be built inside the shell of the Olympic Stadium?

That way, politicians & civil servants can beat their Olympic-sized patriotic breast as they whizz past on the train/A12 and we get to play football on a proper pitch surrounded by fans situated in stands built in the style of proper football terraces.

Be just like Rock Ridge in Blazing Saddles from the outside. What's not to like?
THUNDERCLINT
Posts: 1514
Been liked: 366 times

Re: Telegraph doom mongering

Post THUNDERCLINT »

Any Old Iron" wrote: 31 Jan 2026, 00:04
twoleftfeet wrote: 30 Jan 2026, 08:09 The solution is simple, give us the stadium.

Then we take out the athletics track, bring the seats closer to the pitch, remove the fucking awful “ pub gardens “ and introduce standing areas for those that choose to do so.

At least try and turn it into a football stadium.
I’d like to hear you  explain exactly how you propose to move a massive steel and concrete structure ‘closer to the pitch’.
With these 🎣
Any Old Iron
Posts: 689
Old WHO Number: 10365
Has liked: 378 times
Been liked: 178 times

Re: Telegraph doom mongering

Post Any Old Iron »

twoleftfeet wrote: 30 Jan 2026, 08:09 The solution is simple, give us the stadium.

Then we take out the athletics track, bring the seats closer to the pitch, remove the fucking awful “ pub gardens “ and introduce standing areas for those that choose to do so.

At least try and turn it into a football stadium.
As usual you’re talking utter bollocks. As explained on here at some length more than ten years ago the stadium cannot be economically remodelled into a proper football stadium. 
I’d like to hear you  explain exactly how you propose to move a massive steel and concrete structure ‘closer to the pitch’.
User avatar
Tomshardware
Posts: 1166
Old WHO Number: 266280
Has liked: 559 times
Been liked: 264 times

Re: Telegraph doom mongering

Post Tomshardware »

eusebiovic wrote: 30 Jan 2026, 12:36
Tomshardware wrote: 30 Jan 2026, 06:59 Use West Ham as a scapegoat for a complete lack of strategic planning by Seb Coe and his Olympic cronies when it comes to the 'legacy' of the OS.

Only other interested parties wanted to bulldoze it. 
When all is said and done that was the biggest mistake right from the very beginning.

To be so pig-headed to insist that an athletics stadium of that size is sustainable after the circus has departed was ignorant beyond belief. To double down and give architects the brief that the prime consideration wasn't to make it easily convertible to football or even rugby - even worse.

No other city in the world has ever made an Olympic Stadium pay for itself.

It's always a vanity project to bring investment and tourism to a city as well as the construction industry. The actual athletics itself is a loss leader.

There was enough space in the Lea Valley to build a state of the art 30,000 capacity athletics facility and get back most of the money for building the original stadium if it had been designed properly - ie: flexible and future proofed in a worse case scenario.

The people who sign off the contracts for the decisions that these fuckers make are supposed to know this shit. 😩

Bunch of fucking arse
Brown envelopes suited all parties involved.    
User avatar
Massive Attack
Posts: 7763
Old WHO Number: 321955
Has liked: 4516 times
Been liked: 2391 times

Re: Telegraph doom mongering

Post Massive Attack »

It was put to us recently from someone on here (Rossal?) that Sullivan wants relegation because of the way he has managed the Club in recent times. More implied in the sense of him skimming money through sales I think. However could it be a calculation of Sullivan for us to go down so to put serious pressure on the LLDC and the like to agree to effectively handing the Stadium over to us permanently for a knock down price so it means it doesn't cost them a lot more by being in the lower division for x amount of time? It's got me wondering.. 🤔
eusebiovic
Posts: 671
Old WHO Number: 15391
Has liked: 1185 times
Been liked: 233 times

Re: Telegraph doom mongering

Post eusebiovic »

Tomshardware wrote: 30 Jan 2026, 06:59 Use West Ham as a scapegoat for a complete lack of strategic planning by Seb Coe and his Olympic cronies when it comes to the 'legacy' of the OS.

Only other interested parties wanted to bulldoze it. 
When all is said and done that was the biggest mistake right from the very beginning.

To be so pig-headed to insist that an athletics stadium of that size is sustainable after the circus has departed was ignorant beyond belief. To double down and give architects the brief that the prime consideration wasn't to make it easily convertible to football or even rugby - even worse.

No other city in the world has ever made an Olympic Stadium pay for itself.

It's always a vanity project to bring investment and tourism to a city as well as the construction industry. The actual athletics itself is a loss leader.

There was enough space in the Lea Valley to build a state of the art 30,000 capacity athletics facility and get back most of the money for building the original stadium if it had been designed properly - ie: flexible and future proofed in a worse case scenario.

The people who sign off the contracts for the decisions that these fuckers make are supposed to know this shit. 😩

Bunch of fucking arse
GBHammer63
Posts: 453
Old WHO Number: 220787
Has liked: 209 times
Been liked: 128 times

Re: Telegraph doom mongering

Post GBHammer63 »

John Drake" wrote: 30 Jan 2026, 08:45 We don't need to own the stadium but need to have operational control. Pay a more realistic rent, remodel the stadium and keep all the revenues arising from naming rights, food and beverage and non-footballing events.

Brady's alleged 'deal of the century' is a millstone around the neck when it comes to matchday and commercial revenues. And revenues (not saving costs) are what drives the quality of your squad.
Absolutely, the business model never looked any further than getting rid of UP and relocating, no thought given to anything else by the self proclaimed business strategy genius, no thought given that there would need to be negotiation with the stadium owners to get a better deal for the club, just to get a cheaper deal for them personally.
Sir Alf
Posts: 3169
Old WHO Number: 10229
Has liked: 50 times
Been liked: 613 times

Re: Telegraph doom mongering

Post Sir Alf »

Spot on Drakey 👍
John Drake
Posts: 174
Has liked: 5 times
Been liked: 97 times

Re: Telegraph doom mongering

Post John Drake »

We don't need to own the stadium but need to have operational control. Pay a more realistic rent, remodel the stadium and keep all the revenues arising from naming rights, food and beverage and non-footballing events.

Brady's alleged 'deal of the century' is a millstone around the neck when it comes to matchday and commercial revenues. And revenues (not saving costs) are what drives the quality of your squad.
twoleftfeet
Posts: 2866
Old WHO Number: 214368
Has liked: 121 times
Been liked: 632 times

Re: Telegraph doom mongering

Post twoleftfeet »

The solution is simple, give us the stadium.

Then we take out the athletics track, bring the seats closer to the pitch, remove the fucking awful “ pub gardens “ and introduce standing areas for those that choose to do so.

At least try and turn it into a football stadium.
User avatar
Tomshardware
Posts: 1166
Old WHO Number: 266280
Has liked: 559 times
Been liked: 264 times

Re: Telegraph doom mongering

Post Tomshardware »

Use West Ham as a scapegoat for a complete lack of strategic planning by Seb Coe and his Olympic cronies when it comes to the 'legacy' of the OS.

Only other interested parties wanted to bulldoze it. 
User avatar
Mex Martillo
Posts: 1921
Location: Catalonia
Old WHO Number: 11796
Has liked: 332 times
Been liked: 292 times

Re: Telegraph doom mongering

Post Mex Martillo »

Doom and gloom, indeed.
Looks like the perfect way to hurt BS, but unfortunately also rather painful for us.
Post Reply