en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/711122 Comments by silverstealth http://www.westhamtillidie.com/2010/11/27/match-preview-west-ham-v-wigan/#IDComment112247931 Spiteful and ridiculous.... really?!?!?! Now, I'm not saying that some of what Carlton Cole said is not accurate but part of that is down to the players as much as the manger AND it's neither here nor there. I think Grant's tactics against Pool were flawed but, as Ray Winstone said, the players were mainly to blame for the manner of that defeat (Cole high on that list, showing little enthusiasm for the task). IF Grant is to stay and retain the respect of the dressing room, assuming its not lost already, he almost certainly has to bench him or drop him from the team. My view is that CC is no longer interested in playing for us and is agitating for a move ahead of the window. Hoping for a 3-0 (easy on the nerves), but would settle for 3 points with a goal deflected in off Obinna's backside! As an aside, I'm hoping the DD's can persuade Paolo, whilst he's visiting, to get involved in some capacity. Sat, 27 Nov 2010 12:45:27 +0000 http://www.westhamtillidie.com/2010/11/27/match-preview-west-ham-v-wigan/#IDComment112247931 http://www.westhamtillidie.com/2010/02/22/the-vetos-that-will-scupper-an-olympic-move/#IDComment58238201 Parcelforce site could be used for a 10,000 seat athletics stadium. After all, UK Athletics cant afford the upkeep on a big stadium anyway. I believe that, if they get the OS, G&S will do exactly as they are doing now - lowering prices to get attendance up. Admittedly, we wont fill 80,000 and its a fine balancing act between lowering prices and raising income (but they will manage it). Mon, 22 Feb 2010 19:22:37 +0000 http://www.westhamtillidie.com/2010/02/22/the-vetos-that-will-scupper-an-olympic-move/#IDComment58238201 http://www.westhamtillidie.com/2010/02/22/the-vetos-that-will-scupper-an-olympic-move/#IDComment58237558 I don't doubt what Red Ken told you, Iain. But if the IOC and the WAF really had any kind of contractual power in the matter they would not be continually quizzing Lord Coe about the 'legacy'? After all, what have the stadium plans (other than being a pig to renovate for football purposes) got to do with it's long term use? I doubt very much that, given that the UK taxpayer/govt is paying for it to be built (NOT IOC nor WAF), we would have negotiated in a clause that effectively ensured a white elephant. If WE did, then someone is going to have to find out who the WE were that agreed to it, line them up against a wall, and shoot the lot of them. I expect that any 'clause' is vaguely worded along the lines of 'having an athletics legacy', but not stating categorically that this venue would be 'the legacy'. We will have to wait and see who else puts forward proposals for use/tenancy after the games, but I will be very surprised if any of them are more lucrative for the taxpayer than WHU. Make no mistake, this will be decided on money by the next govt (which Tessa Jowell will not be part of unless she switches sides!). The Tories will not want to step in an O2 sized t*rd! Mon, 22 Feb 2010 19:16:53 +0000 http://www.westhamtillidie.com/2010/02/22/the-vetos-that-will-scupper-an-olympic-move/#IDComment58237558 http://www.westhamtillidie.com/2010/02/12/sullivan-i-did-it-my-way/#IDComment56501935 He's just saying what he needs to say to make sure we keep the games. He has no real say over how it is used afterwards. I very much doubt he will be stumping up the several million per year that it costs to maintain such a facility after the games and neither will UK Athletics - they just don't have the money! The only people who can decide it are the OPLC and they will be led, nose first, by the government. No Govt, Labour or Conservative, can afford another white elephant like the O2 so it will be decided on the most commercially affordable grounds. Simply put, I can't see anyone bringing in more revenue than a PL club! Especially if we can rent out the stadium for concerts in the off-season. Fri, 12 Feb 2010 15:18:48 +0000 http://www.westhamtillidie.com/2010/02/12/sullivan-i-did-it-my-way/#IDComment56501935 http://www.westhamtillidie.com/2010/01/27/exclusive-dispelling-an-olympic-stadium-myth/#IDComment54171785 CH, some very good points - all of which I would like answered, but we may need to compromise on some to get the best result on others. I would hope that, if we paid for CP to be renovated AND the extra work required to adjust the olympic stadium (govts fault that they didnt think fwd enough for running costs etc to include conversion to footy stadium and dont now want to be stuck with a white elephant), we would be able to get some kind of stake in the ground. Maybe 25% and then rent the rest from them on an agreed schedule of costs. Whether that would be just for the footy season or year round would dictate whether we could get other income from the stadium. I would suggect that additional non-footy income could be a useful revenue stream. We may also be able to agree some schedule for taking over ownership gradually. I share yr concerns about filling a massive stadium, but feel that this could be mitigated by selling seats off in concentric circles going out/up and thereby ensuring fans are kept packed in and close to the pitch (worked fairly well at a Sao Paolo game I once attended - no lack of atmosphere there!). I guess we'll have to wait and see what D&D can negotiate with the OPLC. My view is that WE are in a strong position in that, it would help us to move but it would help the OPLC/Govt more if we took over the stadium. The existing plan calls for them to reduce the size of the stadium to 20-30,000 at a cost of £50-100m? They would then be liable for continued running costs ad nauseum ad infinitum..... ££££££££££££££££££££££ Whereas, if we moved in we COULD leave all the seats in place (just not use the outer ring) and cover (somehow) the athletics track with seats. Running costs would be more than UP (covered by us), but I can't see there being a massive differential between the two. OPLC could spend their re-dev money on fixing crystal palace and our 'investment' in making the ground work for us could be seen as a part-payment on ownership. FYI - the Dome cost over £20m in one year to keep empty!!! It cost, overall, £850m to build/run and was eventually 'sold' on a buy now pay later scheme for what COULD amount to £550m. So, based on that model, how much would we have to pay to get the OS??? Thu, 28 Jan 2010 07:24:49 +0000 http://www.westhamtillidie.com/2010/01/27/exclusive-dispelling-an-olympic-stadium-myth/#IDComment54171785 http://www.westhamtillidie.com/2010/01/27/parma-interested-in-jimenez/#IDComment54072591 I think that we should let him go. He has been largely ineffective and I have seen very little to make me believe that we should be looking to make the deal permanent in the summer, so what's the point in keeping him? Unless we suffer a midfield injury crisis I think we are better served playing some of the kids than Jimenez. As for 'borrowing' Jack Wilshere from Arsenal, I think he's dropped down their pecking order after the emergence of wotsit. If he's a hammer then why not take him on loan, if for no other reason than we can get to know him before he signs for us permanently. I would then pick from the youth (including him) as appropriate based on the needs of the sub bench and the quality they show in training. Agreed - we NEED a right back! Wed, 27 Jan 2010 13:30:14 +0000 http://www.westhamtillidie.com/2010/01/27/parma-interested-in-jimenez/#IDComment54072591 http://www.westhamtillidie.com/2010/01/21/sullivan-gives-fan-share-offer-the-green-light/#IDComment53316153 All very interesting people, but can we get back on topic and talk about how we are going to help Iain make this share thing fly? I'm waiting on my bro-in-law for a pointer on who to get advice from (for the whole project - legal/financial). Fri, 22 Jan 2010 08:55:19 +0000 http://www.westhamtillidie.com/2010/01/21/sullivan-gives-fan-share-offer-the-green-light/#IDComment53316153 http://www.westhamtillidie.com/2010/01/21/sullivan-gives-fan-share-offer-the-green-light/#IDComment53165654 That's great news, Iain. A guy on KUMB came up with a good idea for drumming up interest. He created a facebook group - mywhufc But we need a centralised point of contact - someone to really start rallying the various groups. I know KUMB have been running a seperate thread on the same subject. Thu, 21 Jan 2010 13:20:17 +0000 http://www.westhamtillidie.com/2010/01/21/sullivan-gives-fan-share-offer-the-green-light/#IDComment53165654 http://www.westhamtillidie.com/2010/01/20/could-we-buy-10-of-west-ham/#IDComment53142525 ... continued.... What makes you think that an elected member from a fans stakeholding would not be capable of voting sensibly in a boardroom? It would be difficult to meddle with only a 10% stake but we would at least know that we have some say over policy. Leave it to the people who have the money and the will to get on with it. We all love West Ham - lets agree on that and accept that partial ownership by the fans couldn't really be a bad thing. COYI Thu, 21 Jan 2010 09:00:57 +0000 http://www.westhamtillidie.com/2010/01/20/could-we-buy-10-of-west-ham/#IDComment53142525 http://www.westhamtillidie.com/2010/01/20/could-we-buy-10-of-west-ham/#IDComment53142464 Phippsy - what exactly do you think the club NEEDS? Other than a sheikh benefactor with a seemingly bottomless pit of cash instead of a wallet (soon to be banned from Euro comps when Blatter/Platini have their way). If by that you mean, pump in the equivalent again in cash then you are going to be sadly disappointed with how Messrs Gold & Sullivan run the club. There may be an injection of cash from them but I doubt that it will be more than 50% of their stake, ie £25m. As to what else we could need, I would expect that we all know the answer to that - sensible business management. Sadly, as we know, we haven't had this in years. The Football Project is a good start (work with the kids - traditional strength & encourages more to join us) and then blend in talent/experience with a few shrewd purchases. Thu, 21 Jan 2010 09:00:21 +0000 http://www.westhamtillidie.com/2010/01/20/could-we-buy-10-of-west-ham/#IDComment53142464 http://www.westhamtillidie.com/2010/01/20/could-we-buy-10-of-west-ham/#IDComment53016257 Another question that would need to be resolved before the deal was finalised. There are many ways that this could be done, but we need to get closer to a deal before agreeing fine details. Get your email off to Iain - it is only an indication in principle, after all. You can back out later if you don't like the solution proposed for this at the appropriate time. Wed, 20 Jan 2010 15:45:18 +0000 http://www.westhamtillidie.com/2010/01/20/could-we-buy-10-of-west-ham/#IDComment53016257 http://www.westhamtillidie.com/2010/01/20/could-we-buy-10-of-west-ham/#IDComment53007883 KUMB has a good thread going on this subject, with a built in way to protect the Board representative (subject to legal checks/confirmation). Has everyone emailed Iain - perhaps he can liaise with Pezza20 on KUMB and get this thing going? IAIN ???? Wed, 20 Jan 2010 15:14:30 +0000 http://www.westhamtillidie.com/2010/01/20/could-we-buy-10-of-west-ham/#IDComment53007883 http://www.westhamtillidie.com/2010/01/20/could-we-buy-10-of-west-ham/#IDComment52990258 Here we agree entirely..... ;-) Wed, 20 Jan 2010 14:09:54 +0000 http://www.westhamtillidie.com/2010/01/20/could-we-buy-10-of-west-ham/#IDComment52990258 http://www.westhamtillidie.com/2010/01/20/could-we-buy-10-of-west-ham/#IDComment52990093 Point taken on G&S's (and the banks) acceptance of fans taking a 10% stake without any responsibility for debt, but that's one of the kinks that would need to be ironed out (not a pun) and I agree that none of us would want to be personally responsible for any further payments. I wont say much on the directors or running up debt parts, simply this: being a shareholder does not automatically oblige you for any debts run up by people running the club unless you: a) Specifically agree to shoulder liability or b) Are an active participant in the process, ie Board level or Company director Lets just agree that we dont know what G&S's (or the banks) response/s would be until we ask the question and we can't do that until we have a group willing to participate. Assuming another partner comes along who wants 40% and IS WILLING to shoulder some liability then surely they would be happy to have the help? Maybe it won't fly, but lets try...... Bubbles, anyone???? Wed, 20 Jan 2010 14:09:00 +0000 http://www.westhamtillidie.com/2010/01/20/could-we-buy-10-of-west-ham/#IDComment52990093 http://www.westhamtillidie.com/2010/01/20/could-we-buy-10-of-west-ham/#IDComment52973021 celtichammer - where did you study law? What does ‘limited liability’ mean when used in relation to the shareholders of a UK limited liability company, as far as the liability of the shareholders to persons or organizations outside the company is concerned? Because the shareholders of a company limited by shares are distinct ‘legal persons’ quite separate from the limited company itself, the DIRECT liability of such shareholders to outsiders with whom the company has dealt (and with whom the shareholders have not directly dealt) is nil. So in that sense ‘limited liability’ means ‘zero liability’.). However, such shareholders may INDIRECTLY be liable (that is, via their potential liability to the limited company) up to a point (or ‘limit’), namely, the amount which they have agreed to pay the limited company for their shares and which remains unpaid. To say there is no liability is too simplistic, but to imply that they could be liable for the % of the companies debts is downright mis-leading. Sullivan and Gold would be liable for a number of complicated reasons that I wont go into. Wed, 20 Jan 2010 13:04:14 +0000 http://www.westhamtillidie.com/2010/01/20/could-we-buy-10-of-west-ham/#IDComment52973021 http://www.westhamtillidie.com/2010/01/20/could-we-buy-10-of-west-ham/#IDComment52969011 THANK GOD.... at last a positive response rather than the doom n gloom doubters. Just say that you're in by email to Iain and we'll see how far we get. Stop dousing the idea before we see what happens. Yes, there may not be much say in football matters but lets be fair - what do we know about running a football club? G/S have plenty of experience and, with backing, could make our team great again rather than the pony that the FA whip occasionally when they want to make an example of someone! Don't get bogged down in the detail - we can let the lawyers suggest answers to all of the possible sticky questions. GET ON BOARD and enjoy the ride..... Wed, 20 Jan 2010 12:53:55 +0000 http://www.westhamtillidie.com/2010/01/20/could-we-buy-10-of-west-ham/#IDComment52969011 http://www.westhamtillidie.com/2010/01/20/the-need-for-transparency-and-clarification/#IDComment52918856 Iain - any chance of running a vote on how many hammers fans would invest, how much and under what terms/conditions? I, for one, would dearly love to be involved. Yes, the previous bond-holder scheme was a disaster but we live in different times and share ownership (whether it be individual shares or as a block/en-masse) is a different thing. Wed, 20 Jan 2010 09:05:22 +0000 http://www.westhamtillidie.com/2010/01/20/the-need-for-transparency-and-clarification/#IDComment52918856 http://www.westhamtillidie.com/2010/01/20/the-need-for-transparency-and-clarification/#IDComment52918776 Parker Faubert Bellamy Ljungberg Dyer Behrami Nsereko That lot account for fees in the region of £45m. Now, I know people will say but what about the money received for Bellamy et al when they left. No doubt, that went to pay off debts and we have no idea what the bank balance was at the time. If G/S are to be believed, there is no incoming money due to us from other clubs. This may be deliberately a little disingenuous, but as SJ points out we haven't looked at the books. At the end of the day it's all about cashflows (in/out) and our usual stated turnover already includes the Sky money, so questioning that is potentially irrelevant. I believe the biggest single drain is still salaries, with a figure seen recently that they account for over 50% of our turnover. Whilst we may have got rid of a few big earners, we also recently improved the contracts of a large number of young players (collison, stanislas & many more). I'm sure Nouble wasn't cheap either as many clubs would have been chasing him and now we know why. Wed, 20 Jan 2010 09:04:20 +0000 http://www.westhamtillidie.com/2010/01/20/the-need-for-transparency-and-clarification/#IDComment52918776 http://www.westhamtillidie.com/2010/01/20/the-need-for-transparency-and-clarification/#IDComment52918756 Obviously, with the Blunts confidentiality clause, they are not at liberty to break down the "debts to other clubs" as that would make it extremely clear how much we ended up paying the lying/cheating/hypocritical (choose yr favourite or all 3) blunts. My guess is that the estimated £20m was off by approx £5m and the other £15m still relates to instalment payment hangover from: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 09:04:06 +0000 http://www.westhamtillidie.com/2010/01/20/the-need-for-transparency-and-clarification/#IDComment52918756 http://www.westhamtillidie.com/2010/01/13/fernandes-in-pole-position/#IDComment51869195 Unfortunately, thats not true: Team Pld Total Highest Average Capacity Pct 1 Arsenal (3) 10 598991 60103 59899 60432 99.1% ... 4 Tottenham Hotspur (5) 10 358033 36031 35803 36310 98.6% ... 10 West Ham United (17) 10 333354 34980 33335 35647 93.5% Admittedly, we are only just behind on total attendance but that does not tell the whole story. They are miles ahead in marketing anmd merchandise and earn significant sums from these - enabling them to spend £20m+ every summer whilst maintaining low debt levels. If we can get an astute businessman like TF to run us then in 5-10 years time we might be able to do the same! Wed, 13 Jan 2010 15:36:23 +0000 http://www.westhamtillidie.com/2010/01/13/fernandes-in-pole-position/#IDComment51869195