Late David Gold, Sullivan and Brady

The Forum for all football-related discussion, including West Ham United FC. Our busiest Forum and the place to begin if you're new to KUMB.

Moderators: Gnome, last.caress, Wilko1304, Rio, bristolhammerfc, the pink palermo, chalks

Post Reply
User avatar
hammer1975
Posts: 16723
Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 10:16 pm
Has liked: 977 likes
Total likes: 1151 likes

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Post by hammer1975 »

How much extra revenue do people reckon the London Stadium will have generated this year?

20 thousand extra seats at average £300? More, less?
Crouchend_Hammer
Posts: 26527
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 9:31 am
Location: Forest Gate
Has liked: 144 likes
Total likes: 2399 likes

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Post by Crouchend_Hammer »

Peaches wrote:Our owners are so cheap, Chelsea pay more to their backup goalkeeper a year in wages than we pay in rent for our stadium, they pay more to players who are on loan then we pay to our entire squad. We need owners who are prepared to invest in the squad properly.
You do realise that Abramovic is one of the richest men in the whole world with unlimited funds. Sullivan and a Gold have a fair amount of dough but they are not in the same ball park. Blaming them for not spending enough cash is one thing, but maoning because they havent spent as much as Chelsea is just madness
User avatar
mywhufc
Posts: 3326
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 8:25 pm
Contact:

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Post by mywhufc »

hammer1975 wrote:How much extra revenue do people reckon the London Stadium will have generated this year?

20 thousand extra seats at average £300? More, less?
DS estimate was 12 - 15 million a year so ¾ of Ayew, without his wages
User avatar
hammer1975
Posts: 16723
Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 10:16 pm
Has liked: 977 likes
Total likes: 1151 likes

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Post by hammer1975 »

Just for the extra 20 thousand? If we've got 10 thousand odd £99 kids tickets and a load of £289 band 5 that seems high (would need an average £600-£750 per seat)

Reason I ask is that 20 thousand extra seats at £300 average earns about the same amount as 7% interest on debt that Everton will save (with the £80m majority shareholder interest-free loan)
User avatar
mywhufc
Posts: 3326
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 8:25 pm
Contact:

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Post by mywhufc »

DS figure was his estimate what they would gross over what they grossed at the Boleyn.
not just from tickets but corporate income etc etc
User avatar
the bubble hammer
Posts: 1618
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:29 am
Has liked: 1 like
Total likes: 5 likes

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Post by the bubble hammer »

They're not going though are they? I fear Jinxed has bowled us another googly. If we have to keep them, let's hope they right they're wrongs and really dig deep this summer. Although they have made their job twice as hard as we are now far less attractive to players.
User avatar
ToiletDuck
Posts: 3350
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2004 3:30 pm
Location: Worcestershire
Has liked: 4 likes
Total likes: 63 likes
Contact:

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Post by ToiletDuck »

In Jined i trust.
User avatar
brooking_1980
Posts: 1454
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2015 12:04 am
Has liked: 13 likes
Total likes: 61 likes

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Post by brooking_1980 »

Strikes me we're stuck with them for the next 6 years so they don't have to shell a cut to the LLDC for selling in the 1st 10 years. Now waiting for the "We're after Ibrahimovic/Substitute an expensive name here", before the 31st May and the season ticket money is banked, before a combination of "Lanzini etc wanted to go, we couldn't stop them", "We got MakeDo Freebieus" & "We don't need as big a squad as we don't have Europa League". A Squad fit for 17th.
User avatar
MD_HM
Posts: 7686
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 11:00 am
Location: London
Has liked: 35 likes
Total likes: 343 likes

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Post by MD_HM »

All this talk of having to wait six years to sell...

Do we know the % of the sale that they would have to pay LLDC if they sell before?

Also what they have personally invested into the club?

For example (although I could be well off)

They have to pay 30% of any sale to the LLDC before six years.

They have invested 100m of their own money into the club

They sell the club for 500m

That's 150m to LLDC

350m to G&S

That's a 250m profit

I'm not sure how the debts and interest they are due are factored into any sale?

If I am along the right lines then why on earth would they need to wait six years, they would still be raking it in
Hammer.CA
Posts: 3177
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2013 10:37 pm
Has liked: 2888 likes
Total likes: 616 likes

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Post by Hammer.CA »

The one thing people with plenty of money always want is more money, always.
User avatar
Puff Daddy
Gone for a Burton
Posts: 42435
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 2:08 pm
Location: Westham Way
Has liked: 256 likes
Total likes: 1158 likes

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Post by Puff Daddy »

Hammer.CA wrote:

The one thing people with plenty of money always want is more money, always.

......and the one thing any new new investor will want to know is, what is in it for them? Always
User avatar
sanchoz
Posts: 12445
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 3:41 am
Location: Founder of the Carlton Cole Fan Club - Rainham & Guildford Branch
Total likes: 11 likes

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Post by sanchoz »

Diogenes wrote:At the moment the last businesses we want taking us over are Japanese, particularly a consortium. And the £650m Sullivan apparently turned down previously is absolute rubbish. If someone were to offer £450m to £550m he would even carry his own boxes out of his office.
Why is that, in your opinion (about Japanese business)? Also you are correct about this £650m bid never happening, the person in charge of red bulls football division rubbished it in an interview earlier this season.
User avatar
MD_HM
Posts: 7686
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 11:00 am
Location: London
Has liked: 35 likes
Total likes: 343 likes

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Post by MD_HM »

But that's selling now...

A relegation along with a fan base that doesn't want to go anymore might change the value of the club.

There is also no guarantee the Sky money won't eventually dry up.

Getting out of an investment at the right time is also vital to making money

Last summer was probably the best time for them in terms of the club's appeal and stock

It's now taking a bashing and we have lost one of the most in form players in europe and the press that came with it...

Further poor investment won't improve the situation either

Nor will the fans wanting them out, singing, protesting etc... all bad press they won't want

I'm quite shocked they have got away with it all to date to be honest

More people (on here) seem angry about the manager that's being used as a scapegoat or the selling of popcorn than the scum of owners we have raping the club and treating the fans like ****
Fishdo
Posts: 2615
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 1:23 pm
Has liked: 105 likes
Total likes: 33 likes

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Post by Fishdo »

Browsing through a few football stats sites... they give our estimated club value at around £180 million...

Which even without a ground seems on the low side but I guess the TV money would sit on top of that depending at what time of year any deal was to be done ... i.e. If money is spent or lower or committed to loans...

Red Bull apparently didn't make any offer... they simply did some enquiries to a few English clubs trying to gauge whether they might sell and if so the likely value etc

Other articles suggested that the figure we were suggesting was around £350 million...

While reading around the above I found a very recent article that was talking about the recent Guardian article and the response from Sully dismissing it said the current interest in the club was coming from a Shanghai consortium.... rather than Japanese as suggested here...unless that's another possible investor...??
User avatar
CMNinja
Posts: 1303
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2014 10:29 am
Location: Parts unknown
Has liked: 8 likes
Total likes: 4 likes

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Post by CMNinja »

Peaches wrote:Our owners are so cheap, Chelsea pay more to their backup goalkeeper a year in wages than we pay in rent for our stadium, they pay more to players who are on loan then we pay to our entire squad. We need owners who are prepared to invest in the squad properly.
Paying more rent wouldn't really be a positive, Peaches.
User avatar
Mega Ron
Posts: 12447
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 2:35 pm
Location: -.-- --- ..- / -.-. ..- -. - ...
Has liked: 168 likes
Total likes: 171 likes

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Post by Mega Ron »

It would if it gave us more control over the place and what happens in it.
User avatar
Devs Hampton
Posts: 2744
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2007 12:33 pm
Location: Swanage in Dooooooorzet!
Total likes: 1 like

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Post by Devs Hampton »

MD_HM wrote:All this talk of having to wait six years to sell...

Do we know the % of the sale that they would have to pay LLDC if they sell before?

Also what they have personally invested into the club?

For example (although I could be well off)

They have to pay 30% of any sale to the LLDC before six years.

They have invested 100m of their own money into the club

They sell the club for 500m

That's 150m to LLDC

350m to G&S

That's a 250m profit

I'm not sure how the debts and interest they are due are factored into any sale?

If I am along the right lines then why on earth would they need to wait six years, they would still be raking it in
But GSB would see that as £150m lost not £250 made!
mushy
Posts: 18546
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 3:17 pm
Location: Kumb Poster of the year 2009
Has liked: 651 likes
Total likes: 871 likes

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Post by mushy »

mywhufc wrote: DS estimate was 12 - 15 million a year so ¾ of Ayew, without his wages
Downgraded by DS to 11 million in the Farewell Boleyn DVD.
SBB
Posts: 728
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 11:29 am

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Post by SBB »

Mega Ron wrote:It would if it gave us more control over the place and what happens in it.
How do you work that out?

You seem to be suggesting that by offering more rent in the negotiations would have convinced our landlords to tear up an existing contract with an operator whilst at the same time letting a tenant decide what their building is used for on the days you are not paying for.........
Sounds like you might have that one wrong.
User avatar
Mega Ron
Posts: 12447
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 2:35 pm
Location: -.-- --- ..- / -.-. ..- -. - ...
Has liked: 168 likes
Total likes: 171 likes

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Post by Mega Ron »

No I'm suggesting that we chose the cheapest option and that there were many other options open to us.

I believe we could have negotiated a deal where we paid say £5 million a year (or more), were responsible for stewarding, and the cost of the seats being retracted.

For that we might have been able to keep the revenue for sponsorship as well as for the food a drink concessions.
Post Reply