Samba wrote:
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 would wonder if chelsea had 42,000 there prior to the takeover
Gold & Sullivan may claim to have saved the club, but given that they took us to an athletics stadium without consulting the fans, lied about the stadium and failed to invest to take us to 'the next level', I think that in hindsight almost any other scenario than Gold & Sullivan would have been better for West Ham.
yeah the year before, check out the attendance for the 1990s though, amazing what a difference buying a few big names made.
Ah I see, I was trying to work out what happened between 97 and 99 that made them gain almost 8,000. It looks like fa cup, league cup and uefa cup winners cup wins as well as buying big name players. Whoever thought winning cups would help a club grow in attendances and help them sign better players...
Getting ridiculous now.
We all know that the money coming in doesn't, in any way shape or form, represent the money going out.
Yet those who would defend the club's owners seem to treat it as a 'You can't say anything until the accounts are published!' scenario. (I'm thinking C&H here as I've been told my views are not welcome over there for commenting on our dear owners and on the confrontation in the car park and how they deserve some abuse for what they have done).
With the best will in the world, our costs have dropped massively. Our income has risen by a serious amount and our wage bill has not necessarily covered the difference. Though confirmation of Zabaletta, Hart etc will make this clearer.
I've been criticised for using terms like 'ripped off' and 'sold out' and 'promises made haven't been delivered upon'. I cannot formally prove the initial claim, though a negative net spend and a threadbare squad after statements that 'money is available' seem to back me there. Sold out? Well, again, we haven't exactly gone all guns blazing for this either. Promises made? No, they did not use the word 'promise' but they assured us the move would be bringing about 'world class players, in a world class stadium'. The stadium is largely in the hands of the LLDC but the lack of wifi, the meccano structure of the seating in the lower tier, the 'buy our stuff or bugger off' - including the somewhat dodgy pricing relationship between bottled and draught drinks - mean your at the mercy of the stadium prices in a similar way to being in Disneyland!
Then there's the promises about transport links. WTF? yes, TfL have hardly helped but where are any protests from the club when we're virtually severed from our heartland by rail closures?
In addition, the constant double talk about transfer money and targets being sourced for the future and then we spend bugger all and get in a 36 year old.
The double speak about loans/debts versus income and spend seems to be very much used to be at their advantage too.
Just fed up with seeing a club that did control its own destiny, owning its home and being content with the odd cup run seeming to have flipped to a resource free name, generically named,parasitically drawing blood from fans entity returning bugger all except double speak and good intentions which are invariably not delivered upon.
churchill @MF0077
10h10 hours ago
More
Replying to @MF0077 @realwesthamfans
which part am i wrong....no one was going to buy west ham thank god the davids did or we would be playing div 3 football in east london where no class players would come and play......we have to keep moving forward to try and keep up with the big clubs and that means new ground
Still in a relegation scrap, no matter our position belying this, given the number of clubs in the situation with us.
Still have an injury ravaged, aging squad which doesn't seem capable of beating relegation rivals - Brighton, Newcastle who have done the double on us, to name but two.
Still unable to compete with our rivals - similar level, not top six - on transfers, facilities for training etc.
For the benefit of those who said it was impossible...
Richard Conway, BBC @richard_conway
West Bromwich Albion sack chairman John Williams and chief executive Martin Goodman.
Statement: "These changes follow Albion's poor results this season which currently sees the Club at the bottom of the Premier League."
The upcoming accounts are not going to tell you anything about last summer's trading, other than a bit of powder puffism from her ladyship, in her review.