@DevC I respect your point of view that the owners (in your opinion) are not doing anything dishonest and (you believe) that the West Ham fans are annoyed at their wealth and also the fact that they are not the number 1 team in Europe 2 seasons after the move.
What you have to understand is that the fans were sold a dream on the basis that the future would be better, much better. Instead they have a ground that is horrid for football (and visiting) and a team that is in the same state of disarray that West Ham has had pretty much for the last decade or so. In other words, the sacrifice they made leaving the Boleyn Ground was for nothing.
all the evidence I can find suggests the owners are doing nothing wrong or "fleecing the club". If you have any evidence to suggest the contrary (more substantial than the fact that the owner who made billions in previous businesses owns a helicopter), I would genuinely be interested in seeing it. Feels like social media inspired confirmation bias to me.
I respect your point of view that the "sacrifice" the supporters made to leave Upton park was for nothing - but again the facts do not really back that up as far as I can see. approximately 20000 more people get to watch the game every week (and choose to) that wouldn't fit into Upton park. All 56000 or so get to pay very substantially less than they were paying at Upton Park - indeed I believe that despite being a London club they have the cheapest season tickets in the division.
West ham have spent the majority of the last ten years lower middle in the premiership but have only managed to sustain even that by incurring substantial losses funded by loans secured on the old stadium and from the owners. It appears the new stadium gives them financial sustainability rather than relying on subsidy from their owners and offers the prospect of a sustainable premiership future. I thought we were supposed to regard that financial self-sustainability as a good thing.
You are right though, the team has been weak for the last two seasons as they have made some player choices that have turned out badly (although on signing many looked OK). And I suspect (although I have not been) that a combined athletics/football ground results in the crowd being too far from the pitch (as Wembley used to be for example).
see also the young Oyston who threatens Blackpool season ticket holders who criticise on social media that he knows where they sit even though he's not supposed to have anything to do with the running of the club at all.
interest rates of 6% on unsecured debt for a loss making company with significant higher ranking debt and risk of a significant drop in income if they got relegated - trust me that isn't close to being excessive.
The shares may have gone up in value in part as TV revenue increases and in part as they now have a larger stadium on a cheap deal. That's hardly fleecing the club though - value only goes up if they have created a business capable of performing better than when they bought it.
Those West ham supporters that are unhappy are entitled to feel as they do. Its hard objectively to conclude that their feelings are justified IMHO.
Director loans to football clubs are not "football" creditors and are certainly anything but certain to be paid. As I remember hayes wrote off several million pounds when he left.
@DevC said:
Director loans to football clubs are not "football" creditors and are certainly anything but certain to be paid. As I remember hayes wrote off several million pounds when he left.
Your beloved hero may have written off some of his loans, but it was in his interest to do so. If he had pushed for more, the club would have gone out of business and he would have got very little back. This was not down to his generosity to the club, but more a calculated financial assessment of the position at the time.
Also the pests were a contributory factor to the level of debt.
My crystal ball isn't quite as strong as yours evidently, Strongest. I don't know if they will break even, gain or lose on the money they have put into West Ham or frankly much care.
To be fair to hayes, he lived up to his word in his "don't worry about it, its my money phase". it turned out to be exactly that.
@DevC said:
Hayes got back less money than he put in though. Isn't that just fact?
No I don't overly care whether West ham directors get their loans back or indeed sell their shares at a profit. Do you? If so why?
Sharky took a gamble and lost, mainly because of his bad business plan. Perfectly reasonable that he should suffer financially, but unfortunately he left us in the shit as well.
And if he'd got his shiny stadium and the hotel complex that went with it and made a fortune, Nd we'd disappeared into the abyss that would have been our problem yeah?
Why should the West ham fans care whether the owners of the club make a loss or a profit, Wendover? Given they will only make a profit if they leave the club in better condition than they got it, presumably that is what the West ham fans should desire?
@DevC said
Hayes got back less money than he put in though. Isn't that just fact?
Well yes because, it's alleged, Hayes chose to squander the money that he put it in an attempt to put the club into such a poor financial position that he could then force the club into a move which would ultimately benefit him substantially.
If you don't understand that then you don't understand anything about what happened.
One of the all time most memorable Wycombe related quotes.
What is quite disturbing with the whole mess, is that there are fans who still genuinely believe that us being marooned in a massive white elephant stadium, that we would have to pay rent for, and got no profit from the surroundings, would somehow have springboarded us to greatness.
@Twizz said:
DevC said
Hayes got back less money than he put in though. Isn't that just fact?
Well yes because, it's alleged, Hayes chose to squander the money that he put it in an attempt to put the club into such a poor financial position that he could then force the club into a move which would ultimately benefit him substantially.
If you don't understand that then you don't understand anything about what happened.
@Twizz - People like Dev and Ivor the builder think the sun shines out of Hayes arse, so they will never properly understand the situation.
“............. What is quite disturbing with the whole mess, is that there are fans who still genuinely believe that us being marooned in a massive white elephant stadium, that we would have to pay rent for, and got no profit from the surroundings, would somehow have springboarded us to greatness.”
I’d love to know who these fans are @Malone. Or maybe not. I’ve certainly not encountered any. Most people of my acquaintance give the impression, by default, that the mess, as you describe it, is mercifully now irrelevant. That is not to say that there won’t come a time (possibly in the not too distant future) when ownership will once more become an issue.
I'd imagine they very much keep their views to themselves @micra.
But you only have to look back to how many people voted in the change to the constitution, and the amount of people who would still be in favour of a new owner, despite the way the last one turned out, as clues.
Well at least Lady Brady has taken time to apologise to all West Ham fans about the various failing the board recognise and to re-assure fans that things will get better.
Where did she make this apology? The club website? No. The match programme? Nope. The Sun. So even when she makes a PR recovery attempt she uses her hateful mouth-piece of a crapsheet newspaper. One could almost accuse her of putting her own self-seeking publicity hungry agenda of the fans couldn't one.
Comments
@DevC I respect your point of view that the owners (in your opinion) are not doing anything dishonest and (you believe) that the West Ham fans are annoyed at their wealth and also the fact that they are not the number 1 team in Europe 2 seasons after the move.
What you have to understand is that the fans were sold a dream on the basis that the future would be better, much better. Instead they have a ground that is horrid for football (and visiting) and a team that is in the same state of disarray that West Ham has had pretty much for the last decade or so. In other words, the sacrifice they made leaving the Boleyn Ground was for nothing.
@Onlooker was referring to the match at Adams Park. I fear I’ve been the victim of stoney ground again.
It was boulder him to show up at Adams Park.
Well to give it balance Andy.
all the evidence I can find suggests the owners are doing nothing wrong or "fleecing the club". If you have any evidence to suggest the contrary (more substantial than the fact that the owner who made billions in previous businesses owns a helicopter), I would genuinely be interested in seeing it. Feels like social media inspired confirmation bias to me.
I respect your point of view that the "sacrifice" the supporters made to leave Upton park was for nothing - but again the facts do not really back that up as far as I can see. approximately 20000 more people get to watch the game every week (and choose to) that wouldn't fit into Upton park. All 56000 or so get to pay very substantially less than they were paying at Upton Park - indeed I believe that despite being a London club they have the cheapest season tickets in the division.
West ham have spent the majority of the last ten years lower middle in the premiership but have only managed to sustain even that by incurring substantial losses funded by loans secured on the old stadium and from the owners. It appears the new stadium gives them financial sustainability rather than relying on subsidy from their owners and offers the prospect of a sustainable premiership future. I thought we were supposed to regard that financial self-sustainability as a good thing.
You are right though, the team has been weak for the last two seasons as they have made some player choices that have turned out badly (although on signing many looked OK). And I suspect (although I have not been) that a combined athletics/football ground results in the crowd being too far from the pitch (as Wembley used to be for example).
Upsides and downsides it appears from outside.
Loved Upton Park. Even the pitch was narrow. Only First Division ground where you almost felt part of the action.
see also the young Oyston who threatens Blackpool season ticket holders who criticise on social media that he knows where they sit even though he's not supposed to have anything to do with the running of the club at all.
interest rates of 6% on unsecured debt for a loss making company with significant higher ranking debt and risk of a significant drop in income if they got relegated - trust me that isn't close to being excessive.
The shares may have gone up in value in part as TV revenue increases and in part as they now have a larger stadium on a cheap deal. That's hardly fleecing the club though - value only goes up if they have created a business capable of performing better than when they bought it.
Those West ham supporters that are unhappy are entitled to feel as they do. Its hard objectively to conclude that their feelings are justified IMHO.
Director loans to football clubs are not "football" creditors and are certainly anything but certain to be paid. As I remember hayes wrote off several million pounds when he left.
Your beloved hero may have written off some of his loans, but it was in his interest to do so. If he had pushed for more, the club would have gone out of business and he would have got very little back. This was not down to his generosity to the club, but more a calculated financial assessment of the position at the time.
Also the pests were a contributory factor to the level of debt.
No hero of mine, just pointing out reality. There is no certainty that directors loans will be paid back.
My crystal ball isn't quite as strong as yours evidently, Strongest. I don't know if they will break even, gain or lose on the money they have put into West Ham or frankly much care.
To be fair to hayes, he lived up to his word in his "don't worry about it, its my money phase". it turned out to be exactly that.
Hayes got back less money than he put in though. Isn't that just fact?
No I don't overly care whether West ham directors get their loans back or indeed sell their shares at a profit. Do you? If so why?
Sharky took a gamble and lost, mainly because of his bad business plan. Perfectly reasonable that he should suffer financially, but unfortunately he left us in the shit as well.
Are you his PR man in your spare time?
Just stating the facts, Mr mooney. he incurred a significant loss. He's a big boy, that's his problem.
Who knows whether West hams owners will make a profit or a loss. They are big boys. Its their problem.
And if he'd got his shiny stadium and the hotel complex that went with it and made a fortune, Nd we'd disappeared into the abyss that would have been our problem yeah?
No worries, we're "big boys"
I'm sorry he got one penny back
But the West Ham fans might care @DevC hence their ungrateful behaviour.
Still waiting for that apology for your bare faced lies Eric.
Why should the West ham fans care whether the owners of the club make a loss or a profit, Wendover? Given they will only make a profit if they leave the club in better condition than they got it, presumably that is what the West ham fans should desire?
Has anybody mentioned nazis or pencil production yet?
It is estimated that 82,000 trees are chopped down each year in America to make pencils.
But at 170,000 pencils per tree what an incredible resource. Oh that my time on this sphere(oid) was that productive
@DevC said
Hayes got back less money than he put in though. Isn't that just fact?
Well yes because, it's alleged, Hayes chose to squander the money that he put it in an attempt to put the club into such a poor financial position that he could then force the club into a move which would ultimately benefit him substantially.
If you don't understand that then you don't understand anything about what happened.
"Don't worry about the money"
One of the all time most memorable Wycombe related quotes.
What is quite disturbing with the whole mess, is that there are fans who still genuinely believe that us being marooned in a massive white elephant stadium, that we would have to pay rent for, and got no profit from the surroundings, would somehow have springboarded us to greatness.
@Twizz - People like Dev and Ivor the builder think the sun shines out of Hayes arse, so they will never properly understand the situation.
“............. What is quite disturbing with the whole mess, is that there are fans who still genuinely believe that us being marooned in a massive white elephant stadium, that we would have to pay rent for, and got no profit from the surroundings, would somehow have springboarded us to greatness.”
I’d love to know who these fans are @Malone. Or maybe not. I’ve certainly not encountered any. Most people of my acquaintance give the impression, by default, that the mess, as you describe it, is mercifully now irrelevant. That is not to say that there won’t come a time (possibly in the not too distant future) when ownership will once more become an issue.
I'd imagine they very much keep their views to themselves @micra.
But you only have to look back to how many people voted in the change to the constitution, and the amount of people who would still be in favour of a new owner, despite the way the last one turned out, as clues.
I think the past five or six years have well and truly shown us the error of our ways. Hindsight is wonderful.
It’s pretty similar to the stick people got for opposing the Gulf War from people who now angrily denounce ‘Tony Blair’s illegal war’.
Or the stories of woe from the 10s of thousands of regular Wycombe supporters who can’t get tickets for certain big games.
People are very good at forgetting the past - especially when it’s embarrassing to them.
Well at least Lady Brady has taken time to apologise to all West Ham fans about the various failing the board recognise and to re-assure fans that things will get better.
Where did she make this apology? The club website? No. The match programme? Nope. The Sun. So even when she makes a PR recovery attempt she uses her hateful mouth-piece of a crapsheet newspaper. One could almost accuse her of putting her own self-seeking publicity hungry agenda of the fans couldn't one.
Sorry @TheAndyGrahamFanClub but that last sentence makes no sense.