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
johnnyb
Posts: 2335
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 3:20 pm
Has liked: 31 likes
Total likes: 65 likes

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Post by johnnyb »

The trouble is, although I might have missed it, is that prospective buyers of the club are hardly queuing up to take over and put things right.
User avatar
Rio
Ronnie Biggs was here
Posts: 25987
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 1:29 pm
Location: Reykjavik comma Iceland full stop
Has liked: 159 likes
Total likes: 1080 likes
Contact:

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Post by Rio »

johnnyb wrote:The trouble is, although I might have missed it, is that prospective buyers of the club are hardly queuing up to take over and put things right.
For a club in the top 20 richest in the world, I doubt there’s no one willing to take us on, but I think the current owners, plus the government clauses into selling us on, could be a factor from provoking genuine interest.

Albert Smith coming on to the board recently could however be sowing the first seeds of change
johnnyb
Posts: 2335
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 3:20 pm
Has liked: 31 likes
Total likes: 65 likes

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Post by johnnyb »

Rio, sorry to be ignorant in this but then are the current owners restricted in any way at the moment from selling the club?
User avatar
Rio
Ronnie Biggs was here
Posts: 25987
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 1:29 pm
Location: Reykjavik comma Iceland full stop
Has liked: 159 likes
Total likes: 1080 likes
Contact:

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Post by Rio »

johnnyb wrote:Sorry to be ignorant in this but then are the current owners restricted in any way at the moment from selling the club?
In essence no, they can sell now.

But if they sell within the first 5 years of tenure of the stadium they have to pay a percentage of any profit to the government. So you know they’ll wait til that expires.
User avatar
carnage
Posts: 22524
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 2:22 pm
Location: KFC
Has liked: 84 likes
Total likes: 707 likes

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Post by carnage »

They are always 2 seasons behind.

“£45 million” was a lot 2 seasons ago, now it isn’t. The same the season before that etc.
User avatar
Puff Daddy
Gone for a Burton
Posts: 42250
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 2:08 pm
Location: Westham Way
Has liked: 248 likes
Total likes: 1160 likes

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Post by Puff Daddy »

johnnyb wrote:The trouble is, although I might have missed it, is that prospective buyers of the club are hardly queuing up to take over and put things right.

That is because we are not a very attractive proposition to buy. Whoever buys the club will have to pay back their loans to the club and I'm struggling to think of what assets we hold. What is the total value of our squad ? Either way, we could sell the lot of them and still be short of what it would take to buy Cristiano Ronaldo. Investors will always look at potential and making a return on their money and of course, a killing, preferably in as short time as possible. However and I'm no expert on this sort of thing, if there is somebody out there who recognises our potential, our incredibly loyal fan base and is prepared to take a bit of gamble and see us grow and therefore, their money with it
User avatar
carnage
Posts: 22524
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 2:22 pm
Location: KFC
Has liked: 84 likes
Total likes: 707 likes

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Post by carnage »

We are very attractive, based in London, huge turnover with potential for growth and the potential to consistently fill a 60k plus stadium with the right backing for the manager.
User avatar
OFT
Posts: 21543
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 11:59 pm
Location: Sleepin’ in a bayou on a old rotten cot
Has liked: 2995 likes
Total likes: 1758 likes

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Post by OFT »

Rio wrote:
But if they sell within the first 5 years of tenure of the stadium they have to pay a percentage of any profit to the government. So you know they’ll wait til that expires.
Is the gamble with that, from their point of view, if the club continues its decline over that period they'll get less for it anyway?
User avatar
Rio
Ronnie Biggs was here
Posts: 25987
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 1:29 pm
Location: Reykjavik comma Iceland full stop
Has liked: 159 likes
Total likes: 1080 likes
Contact:

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Post by Rio »

OFT wrote:Is the gamble with that, from their point of view, if the club continues its decline over that period they'll get less for it anyway?
I said elsewhere I can’t understand their current memorandum. Surely there’s more potential for a bigger profit if you invest to make the club bigger & better. Instead it seems they’re penny pinching at an alarming rate to protect what they have and hoping the tv money, location and what’s left of the fan base is enough to attract buyers
User avatar
OFT
Posts: 21543
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 11:59 pm
Location: Sleepin’ in a bayou on a old rotten cot
Has liked: 2995 likes
Total likes: 1758 likes

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Post by OFT »

Rio wrote:
I said elsewhere I can’t understand their current memorandum. Surely there’s more potential for a bigger profit if you invest to make the club bigger & better. Instead it seems they’re penny pinching at an alarming rate to protect what they have and hoping the tv money, location and what’s left of the fan base is enough to attract buyers
It is beyond my comprehension.
User avatar
Puff Daddy
Gone for a Burton
Posts: 42250
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 2:08 pm
Location: Westham Way
Has liked: 248 likes
Total likes: 1160 likes

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Post by Puff Daddy »

Rio wrote:
I said elsewhere I can’t understand their current memorandum. Surely there’s more potential for a bigger profit if you invest to make the club bigger & better. Instead it seems they’re penny pinching at an alarming rate to protect what they have and hoping the tv money, location and what’s left of the fan base is enough to attract buyers
So it will take an investor with an incredibly astute business brain, an acute vision of what the club could look like and probably above all, a strong nerve. It will happen eventually
User avatar
Rio
Ronnie Biggs was here
Posts: 25987
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 1:29 pm
Location: Reykjavik comma Iceland full stop
Has liked: 159 likes
Total likes: 1080 likes
Contact:

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Post by Rio »

Puff Daddy wrote:So it will take an investor with an incredibly astute business brain, an acute vision of what the club could look like and probably above all, a strong nerve. It will happen eventually
That’s my hope. But this is West Ham. It’ll get sold to someone who’s come up trumps on the euromillions with a drink problem
User avatar
hammer1975
Posts: 16640
Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 10:16 pm
Has liked: 933 likes
Total likes: 1088 likes

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Post by hammer1975 »

I think it's quite simple Rio - they think the current squad is good enough to finish 8th-12th. That gets premier league income so maintains the value of the club as a saleable asset. Spending another £25m on transfers and wages would only increase a couple of places to a max 7th in their eyes and not repay in income/costs. They expect the fans who attend to turn up irrespective because of the 'waiting list'

Sadly the squad might not be as good as they thought and we could get relegated and the natives still restless about the stadium leaving us in a potential pickle. Bilic's start this season hasn't helped and we're already playing catch up.

£25m on transfers could well look good value in hindsight come the end of the season.
User avatar
brooking_1980
Posts: 1444
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2015 12:04 am
Has liked: 12 likes
Total likes: 58 likes

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Post by brooking_1980 »

hammer1975 wrote:they think the current squad is good enough to finish 8th-12th. That gets premier league income so maintains the value of the club as a saleable asset. Spending another £25m on transfers and wages would only increase a couple of places to a max 7th in their eyes and not repay in income/costs. They expect the fans who attend to turn up irrespective because of the 'waiting list'
Yup, they see it like that, there is no significant Added Value in finishing higher than 8th. Anywhere between 8th & 17th is cool for them.
User avatar
e-20
Posts: 2835
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2016 6:01 pm
Location: London ish
Has liked: 14 likes
Total likes: 4 likes
Contact:

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Post by e-20 »

johnnyb wrote:The trouble is, although I might have missed it, is that prospective buyers of the club are hardly queuing up to take over and put things right.
I'm not sure that we really know. If anything was close or if the owners signalled any desire to sell rumours would be out there, but truth is any interest looks like it barely gets beyond the first hurdle presently for reasons others have mentioned, the short term cost to our owners being the most obvious. But seeing the interest in other clubs of late tells me that there are interested parties but only as and when our owners change their attitude or stop trying to overplay their hand.

As said our new board member is not there for decoration, or the amusing idea put forward that he is a fan. But whatever it is isn't clear to us nor likely will it be any time soon, so little point in speculating other than to wonder whether there is a club supported plan formulating for an eventual smooth change of ownership down the line. Or alternatively does it pose a question about the future of Golds shareholding. For though a majority can't be gained without Sullis support a seriously stacked power broker with over 40% could make life extremely difficult for a wide boy to take on over time. Meanwhile Gold is sidelined with his daughters inheritance tied to Sulli's coat tails.
User avatar
sendô
Posts: 44309
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2005 12:41 pm
Location: rubbing my eyes in disbelief - we've won a European trophy!
Has liked: 2426 likes
Total likes: 2637 likes

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Post by sendô »

Rio wrote: I said elsewhere I can’t understand their current memorandum. Surely there’s more potential for a bigger profit if you invest to make the club bigger & better. Instead it seems they’re penny pinching at an alarming rate to protect what they have and hoping the tv money, location and what’s left of the fan base is enough to attract buyers
From a purely business point of view, it makes perfect sense, and were it not for our own loyalties, we'd probably agree.

According to the most recent football rich lists, by both Deloitte and Forbes, West Ham are the 7th richest club in England. In 2015/16 Deloitte put our turnover at £143.8m. The trouble is the next nearest club above us in that list - Spurs - were quoted as turning over £209.2m. A huge £65.4m more than us. Ahead of them are Liverpool at £302m. That's more than double our annual revenue.

https://www2.deloitte.com/uk/en/pages/s ... eague.html

Those numbers alone make it clear that in order to expect the club to push on and break into that "top 6" on a reguar basis, either something very special has got to happen - like we somehow get a brilliant manager, with a brilliant coaching set up and make shrewd signing after shrewd signing - or else we need massive investment on a regular basis.

Our owners could sink an extra £150m annually very year, and still not even see us get near the Champions League.
User avatar
hammer1975
Posts: 16640
Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 10:16 pm
Has liked: 933 likes
Total likes: 1088 likes

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Post by hammer1975 »

The gap between us and Spurs in terms of income and financial power is much bigger than between us and the bunch of clubs competing for 7th to 17th.

Spurs are much more likely to finish above us with their resources than we are to finish above the other premier league sides.

Spending money is no guarantee of success - but failure to spend often leads to one ultimate result

Complacency is your enemy. As we've discovered before.
User avatar
Puff Daddy
Gone for a Burton
Posts: 42250
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 2:08 pm
Location: Westham Way
Has liked: 248 likes
Total likes: 1160 likes

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Post by Puff Daddy »

I have sent the past few hours giving further thought to to Brady's comments in today's press and proof of how out of how out of touch with the reality of the modern game,is her remark ' We spent £45m on new players in the summer transfer window', like this was a lot of money, when in reality, 9 clubs spent more than us, including such mights of the Premiership, Watford, who outspent us by £10m and Leicester, by a whopping £33m !!.The reality is, many of the players we signed are entering their twilight years, so you cannot pretend to be an ambitious club, if you do not back it up with serious investment in the playing squad
User avatar
Beavis Danzig
Posts: 6968
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2014 9:12 pm
Location: 22 Acacia Avenue
Has liked: 3 likes
Total likes: 733 likes

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Post by Beavis Danzig »

i'd be content with tumbling up and down the leagues if we had an honest owner (even if they weren't the richest), a manager that connected with the support (even if he wasn't the greatest tactician) and a place that felt like home (even if it was creaking at the seams). the whole GSB/olympic stadium nightmare has given me a completely new perspective on what my priorities are in football.
Last edited by Beavis Danzig on Sat Nov 11, 2017 9:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
hammer1975
Posts: 16640
Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 10:16 pm
Has liked: 933 likes
Total likes: 1088 likes

Re: Gold and Sullivan ???

Post by hammer1975 »

Most of that £45m went on attacking players too Puff. Defensively we added a freebie and loan player.

We're tenth highest scorers in the premier league so you could argue that the problem isn't there.

Only three teams still in the Prem conceded more than us last season. How much spent on defensive players in the summer? Now conceded more than any team.
Post Reply