Gold and Sullivan ???

Does exactly what it says on the tin - the forum for football-related discussion.

Moderators: bristolhammerfc, sicknote, -DL-, Rio, Gnome, chalks, the pink palermo

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Postby ironhammer58 on Mon Feb 12, 2018 9:10 pm

This ‘ We saved West Ham ‘ myth they keep spouting to anyone who’ll listen is just that, a myth.

There were two other parties in the bidding for us. Tony Fernandez and a consortium led by Tony Cottee.

If the muppets hadn’t won, the bank would have taken one of the other two bids even if it was less. The bank would have just kept a bigger percentage to sell off later.

Please feel free to correct me if i’m wrong on this, i’m not in banking or business, just in building trade.
User avatar
ironhammer58
 
Posts: 111
Joined: Sun May 15, 2011 8:22 pm

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Postby Samba on Mon Feb 12, 2018 9:15 pm

Gsbgsb wrote:The move to the Stadium was designed to be able to pay better wages and in theorey attract better players thus making the mess the team have got into in the last couple of years less likely. They saw us as the new Everton I am sure, occasional good season but rock steady in the Premier.

A sale will happen, we are far more attractive to the foreign investor (as opposed to the fan) at the Stadium than we ever would have been at UP, location, size etc.

The thing is G, it must have been possible to know before the move, just how much extra income the OS would generate. Didn't they know the capacity it was going to be? Has just the paltry £10m or £11m extra a year that the OS has delivered, really paid for much better wages? Has it been worth it for that relatively little amount of extra £?
And, are we far more attractive to foreign investors because we're at the OS rather than UP?
Roman Abram wasn't put off from buying 'little' Chelsea; ave attendances 42k.
User avatar
Samba
 
Posts: 3158
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2017 3:36 pm
Location: Wondering when Karren Brady's going to fuck something else up.

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Postby the pink palermo on Mon Feb 12, 2018 9:17 pm

brothernero wrote:and the others.


Thanks for that . :thup:
User avatar
the pink palermo
Huge noggin
 
Posts: 38888
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: Sexy football not sexist football

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Postby yonni on Mon Feb 12, 2018 9:19 pm

If this new transfer system involves Sullivan either identifying targets or negotiating deals (and I’d wager it will) that would be the last straw for me. He’s really taking the p1££ and must think we’re complete morons to fall for his crap anymore. I’ve said before, if this crap carries on until the start of next season I’m walking away. In fact, if there’s much more nonsense out of them before then I’ll probably jack it in early. Really fed up with this. :x
User avatar
yonni
 
Posts: 2471
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2003 11:11 am
Location: In Cockney Hammer's Claret & Blue Army

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Postby e-20 on Mon Feb 12, 2018 9:37 pm

Smonnie wrote:
Oh and unlike you, I don't believe he's really a supporter - I reckon he'd have bought any London team for a song.


Well as long as they had the opportunity to move into a shiny new stadium which they thought they could exploit to their own benefit. I doubt Charton or Millwall or even QPR would have appealed. Yes was a bit of a risk had it not come off, but Sulli likes a bit of a gamble especially when the upside is so very appealing both monetarily and to put his name up in lights. Of course until that actually came to fruition we were simply kept on minimal life support and he still would likely have got back at least what they paid out so not that big a risk. After all Fernandez made them an offer again before getting fed up and suddenly discovering he grew up supporting QPR through cracks in the fencing.

I guess in an alternate universe he is in charge of West Ham. Wonder how after the initial inevitable disaster how well that would have actually worked out and what investment and sponsorship et al he might have drummed up. We shall never know I guess unless having learned his lessons he actually makes a success at Rangers with a far lesser an opportunity.
User avatar
e-20
 
Posts: 1366
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2016 6:01 pm
Location: London ish

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Postby Gsbgsb on Mon Feb 12, 2018 9:43 pm

Samba wrote:The thing is G, it must have been possible to know before the move, just how much extra income the OS would generate. Didn't they know the capacity it was going to be? Has just the paltry £10m or £11m extra a year that the OS has delivered, really paid for much better wages? Has it been worth it for that relatively little amount of extra £?
And, are we far more attractive to foreign investors because we're at the OS rather than UP?
Roman Abram wasn't put off from buying 'little' Chelsea; ave attendances 42k.


I believe the increase in revenue is greater than £10m, probably closer to £15m at present if not more because not only has the match day income gone up but the club running costs likely to have gone down - Stadium maintenance and the like.

As for Roman I think the clue is in the name - Chelsea. I am sure to the average person outside the East End and Essex if offered a trip to the Kings Road or Green Street they would take the Kings Road 99% of the time let alone the offer to the corporate client. That corporate attraction is what makes Stratford more attractive.
Gsbgsb
 
Posts: 1052
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2016 11:43 am

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Postby e-20 on Mon Feb 12, 2018 9:51 pm

Samba wrote:
"Gsbgsb"]The move to the Stadium was designed to be able to pay better wages and in theorey attract better players thus making the mess the team have got into in the last couple of years less likely. They saw us as the new Everton I am sure, occasional good season but rock steady in the Premier.


A sale will happen, we are far more attractive to the foreign investor (as opposed to the fan) at the Stadium than we ever would have been at UP, location, size etc.

The thing is G, it must have been possible to know before the move, just how much extra income the OS would generate. Didn't they know the capacity it was going to be? Has just the paltry £10m or £11m extra a year that the OS has delivered, really paid for much better wages? Has it been worth it for that relatively little amount of extra £?
And, are we far more attractive to foreign investors because we're at the OS rather than UP?
Roman Abram wasn't put off from buying 'little' Chelsea; ave attendances 42k.


You both make good points, gsb is fundamentally correct in his assessment though they clearly underestimated the effort involved.

Equally Samba you make a good point because there were those over at Skyscraper who predicted the exact figures 18 mths to 2 years in advance of what they are now accepted to be. So again how did our illustrious overlords not know that or otherwise thought the increase would achieve all they boasted they could possibly achieve as one might expect of a shrewd businessman rather than a bullshitter. Based on what we know that circle cannot be squared in the present circumstances which suggest they were simply deluded by hope over reality.

However I have to say there is a difference to taking on little ol Chelsea (even just land values and image taken into consideration) than taking on little ol West Ham situated at the Boleyn. It's the development value of the land that Abramovich had his eye on of course, the then crippling borrowings of which he could pay off with pocket change and thus realise it's true earning potential thereafter.
User avatar
e-20
 
Posts: 1366
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2016 6:01 pm
Location: London ish

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Postby Gsbgsb on Mon Feb 12, 2018 10:05 pm

Even if the increase is only £10m that is still around 15% or so on the previous year so is hardly paltry. As I say I suspect it is closer to £15m possibly more so is at least 20% possibly more before the £7m TV revenue kicks in. The chance to up your wage bill by 25% plus should ensure a better product if spent wisely.
Gsbgsb
 
Posts: 1052
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2016 11:43 am

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Postby Samba on Mon Feb 12, 2018 10:18 pm

e-20 wrote:You both make good points, gsb is fundamentally correct in his assessment though they clearly underestimated the effort involved.
Equally Samba you make a good point because there were those over at Skyscraper who predicted the exact figures 18 mths to 2 years in advance of what they are now accepted to be. So again how did our illustrious overlords not know that or otherwise thought the increase would achieve all they boasted they could possibly achieve as one might expect of a shrewd businessman rather than a bullshitter. Based on what we know that circle cannot be squared in the present circumstances which suggest they were simply deluded by hope over reality.
However I have to say there is a difference to taking on little ol Chelsea (even just land values and image taken into consideration) than taking on little ol West Ham situated at the Boleyn. It's the development value of the land that Abramovich had his eye on of course, the then crippling borrowings of which he could pay off with pocket change and thus realise it's true earning potential thereafter.

T'is true that the Chelsea situation (luckily for them), had more potential. I'm not sure that we could have ever had, 'The West Ham Village', at Upton Park. And we still can't at the OS... :thdn:
But if Gold & Sullivan had bought Chelsea... :lol:
User avatar
Samba
 
Posts: 3158
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2017 3:36 pm
Location: Wondering when Karren Brady's going to fuck something else up.

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Postby hammer1975 on Mon Feb 12, 2018 10:21 pm

Gsbgsb wrote: if spent wisely.


To be fair to GSB - pre-LS we had a few decent spending windows in terms of net amounts. Problem was that it wasn’t spent wisely for a large part. The windows since the move have seen both not enough spent and what was spent continued to be badly spent. A sure recipe to regress as a club. Especially when it’s at a time when we needed to up our game for the reasons you mention.

There have been some common patterns that have contributed to that ‘unwise’ spending. Not spending enough on defensive players, looking at a shopping list based on payment plan as a key requirement rather than ‘type’ of player, leaving key business until late in order to try to attract bargain ‘names’, not having a strategy on style of play and formation that players are scouted to fit.

I would add that having one man, who over estimates his own capability, at the centre of it all - but that’s a given.
User avatar
hammer1975
 
Posts: 10099
Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 10:16 pm

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Postby Ifebbubbles on Mon Feb 12, 2018 10:29 pm

The windows prior to the London stadium were all part of the illusion that we were in good hands, that they had the ambition to push us on as a club. If that's how they were spending at Upton park imagine what they'd spend at the new 60thousand seater stadium. We had the famous talk from the captain saying they were putting their money where their mouths were. Therefore it helped the move go through with minimal fuss.
The fact we haven't had 1 single window that we couldn't have had at Upton park says it all.
Ifebbubbles
 
Posts: 1360
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2016 7:05 pm

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Postby Gsbgsb on Mon Feb 12, 2018 11:34 pm

“Spending wisely” was not a reference to buying players per se but spending the money we’d have on wages.

For me we needed a new keeper in the summer due to Bilic’s attitude to the two we had but it is questionable if we should have invested £100k a week in Hart. It is only since Moyes that Arnie has looked worth the wage we seem to have given him of some £90k and certainly now I would say that he justifies what we did in terms of fee and wage, if you like the best signing of recent windows. Under Bilic however he was another poor buy. Whilst there has been a real improvement in the last few weeks for me the jury is still out on whether Hernandez justifies £125k.

Also whilst I can understand increasing the wage for the likes of Antonio and Reid are they really worth what we pay them and certainly should Reid have got a 5 year deal?

For me the increase in “product” has not justified the increase in wages. Many blame Sullivan for not spending more on fees for players and I understand their frustration but for me the lack of a proper strategy to managing what we have and have introduced in terms of wage is at least equally as poor.

It also has to be remembered that the boost was pretty much a one off increase, without ticket price rises we will not increase commercial revenue as substantially again so will be back to the annual TV revenue increase, if you like the base has shot up but will now be static. Long term contracts to oldish players then limits you manoeuvre room in later years.
Gsbgsb
 
Posts: 1052
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2016 11:43 am

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Postby brothernero on Mon Feb 12, 2018 11:58 pm

Sorry about that Mr Pink P. :hush:

I had you down as more of a Rocker you see. :wink:
brothernero
 
Posts: 2328
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2017 3:03 pm
Location: Essex

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Postby Israeli_Hammer on Tue Feb 13, 2018 12:03 am

wobble wrote:Regarding the loans, have they not been taking their 7% each year or did they save it up and took one big lump sum last summer and that’s why we were skint.
I must admit I know nothing about accountancy but that’s how they like it, but I do know I’m being cheated.


Depends on the terms of the loans, I'm sure someone here will correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know they are not disclosed in the club's books.

Can't imagine a scenario in which the increased revenue from the stadium + the sale of Upton Park + the increased Sky money + the sales of Payet, Ayew etc did not favor the owners massively due to the mechanism of these loans.

West Ham has been a brilliant investment for them, and that's why I cannot see them walking.
User avatar
Israeli_Hammer
 
Posts: 1654
Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2002 8:11 pm

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Postby Johnny Byrne's Boots on Tue Feb 13, 2018 1:05 am

From David Gold on Twitter

David Gold

@davidgold
3m3 minutes ago
More David Gold Retweeted Real West Ham Fans Action Group
Ten years ago the stadium was (for all intents and purposes)owned by the banks and just before we arrived the banks were demanding the club sell Parker, Green and Cole to pay done some of the debt, as the club had broke its covenant and was on the brink of administration. dg


in reply to this

Real West Ham Fans Action Group‏
@realwesthamfans

More Real West Ham Fans Action Group Retweeted
Also, 10 years ago we owned our own stadium and everyone loved it... 10 years on our home has been knocked down and we now play in an athletic stadium what a lot of fans hate... progress at its finest
User avatar
Johnny Byrne's Boots
 
Posts: 18402
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2006 5:19 pm
Location: I am the one who knocks

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Postby Slacking student on Tue Feb 13, 2018 1:14 am

He really is a first class penis, he really is
User avatar
Slacking student
 
Posts: 1995
Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 5:00 pm

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Postby hornsey on Tue Feb 13, 2018 1:19 am

we sold 2 of them players though and we went down...knob.
User avatar
hornsey
 
Posts: 3836
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2005 8:37 pm
Location: crouch end.

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Postby Kialos on Tue Feb 13, 2018 1:27 am

Gosh, if we had gone into Administration we may have lost the ground and certainly been relegated with the points deduction. Thank goodness they saved us.... :thdn:
Kialos
 
Posts: 7389
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 7:11 pm

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Postby sgb1972 on Tue Feb 13, 2018 8:11 am

ironhammer58 wrote:This ‘ We saved West Ham ‘ myth they keep spouting to anyone who’ll listen is just that, a myth.

There were two other parties in the bidding for us. Tony Fernandez and a consortium led by Tony Cottee.

If the muppets hadn’t won, the bank would have taken one of the other two bids even if it was less. The bank would have just kept a bigger percentage to sell off later.

Please feel free to correct me if i’m wrong on this, i’m not in banking or business, just in building trade.


Agreed.

They make statements suggesting they saved the club, but they don’t complete the sentence by saying “so that now gives us a divine right to take the p!ss and do what’s financially best for us, be grateful”.
User avatar
sgb1972
 
Posts: 424
Joined: Thu May 19, 2011 1:02 pm

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Postby westham,eggyandchips on Tue Feb 13, 2018 8:46 am

Kialos wrote:Gosh, if we had gone into Administration we may have lost the ground and certainly been relegated with the points deduction. Thank goodness they saved us.... :thdn:

This is what the "Board defenders" seem to conveniently forget. We still went down, and we still sold our captain and best player in Parker.......and we're still in approx £100m debt!!

Add to that in a rented bowl.
User avatar
westham,eggyandchips
 
Posts: 13411
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 8:06 pm
Location: Taking a walk with Anita Fifa...

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], mattjp, SpongeBob's Pants and 26 guests