unitedsound 9:54 Wed Feb 7
Gold on twitter
|
|
"You have very short memories 100 million in debt and days away from administration."
|
|
|
Replies - Newest Posts First ( Show In Chronological Order)
arsene york-hunt
4:50 Thu Feb 8
Re: Gold on twitter
|
The original post is misleading. Gold did not write that on twitter it was a reply to a previous post by him by another poster called babyhippo.
|
JayeMPee
4:40 Thu Feb 8
Re: Gold on twitter
|
So Sullivan 'has worked his socks off' or even 24/7. Well he has to be one of the most incompetent people in the history of management, he has not only achieved virtually sod all but managed to destroy the aspirations and dreams of his customers!
I once had a brilliant CEO who behind his desk had a framed statement 'The Customer is King', in Sullivan's world the customer is insignificant.
|
Willtell
4:39 Thu Feb 8
Re: Gold on twitter
|
threesixty 3:58 Thu Feb 8
It's fairly common knowledge 360. Have a look at this from last year...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/manchester-united-debt-uefa-report-european-club-football-landscape-qpr-glazer-family-a7523761.html
|
13 Brentford Rd
4:16 Thu Feb 8
Re: Gold on twitter
|
......main issue here is they flogged our home and moved us into an unsuitable rented athletics on the basis of it moving the club on.
They lied about the stadium and the effects on the team.
They want it everyway, think they do as they please and we are just moaning for nothing.
|
13 Brentford Rd
4:12 Thu Feb 8
Re: Gold on twitter
|
Man U have spent hundreds of millions on players though and are relatively successful.
There's the difference.
|
threesixty
3:58 Thu Feb 8
Re: Gold on twitter
|
Willtell
" The thing is that Man Utd owe £500m"
Now that is interesting. It makes you think that if they allowed Fergie (and Moyes) to spend more would they owe that amount of money now trying to catch up?
I think it illustrates even more that G+S are going in the wrong direction with there "pimping" of West Ham. You cant skimp on investing on the pitch. It will cost us dear.
|
Bernie
3:21 Thu Feb 8
Re: Gold on twitter
|
Gold COMPLAINED to supporters that to finance the purchase of his share of WHU he had to cash in investments he had that was paying him 10% and was now ONLY taking 7% from WHU.
My heart bleeds for the true West Ham fan, born on 442 Green Strezzzzzzzzzz........
|
Willtell
3:17 Thu Feb 8
Re: Gold on twitter
|
From The Guardian on 8 December 2017
David Sullivan: ‘I feel I haven’t done well enough. Nobody’s done well enough’
“I feel like I haven’t done well enough,” David Sullivan says as he considers how swiftly and brutally West Ham United’s grand ambitions have unraveled after 18 troubled months in their huge new stadium. “Nobody’s done well enough. I work my socks off but sometimes it’s not good enough.”
-------------------------------------------------
No shit Sherlock! Glad to see you improved in January then....
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/dec/08/david-sullivan-west-ham-worked-my-socks-off-not-good-enough
|
w4hammer
3:12 Thu Feb 8
Re: Gold on twitter
|
The brighton owner build the Amex with an INTEREST FREE loan of £95 M and built a £30 Million training facility out of his own pocket
Now tell me those cunts are doing us a favour
|
Willtell
3:07 Thu Feb 8
Re: Gold on twitter
|
25%
|
Willtell
3:07 Thu Feb 8
Re: Gold on twitter
|
Yes I don't disagree with you 360. The thing is that Man Utd owe £500m or half a billion £s. They owe €200m more than any other club in Europe and increased their debt by 255 last financial year in trying to keep up with their "noisy neighbours".
The Glaziers have ripped the arse out of Man Utd and no-one says a thing against it.
There seems to me to have been a change in emphasis for G&S on making a profit and accepting that they are never going to the next level...
|
threesixty
1:40 Thu Feb 8
Re: Gold on twitter
|
Willtell
The difference with the Glazers is that they had Fergie keeping them successful and growing the brand.
Remortgaging a house to pay for improvements or a holiday only really works if the house appreciates in value.
I feel that West Ham as potential value because its in the PL and a London team with a free stadium. But the way the club is always a relegation candidate is really devaluing the whole thing. It's easy to drop out of the top flight and never get back.
I cant see why the club don't feel that footballing success to build the brand is actually the most important long term investment you can make. Its all very short term thinking it seems.
Also, Man U, in order to stop them becoming Ac Milan have been able to invest heavily. (even then it is still hard). So the Glazers may have not spent at the time but they have put their money up to keep the brand. I cant see G+S doing anything like that if West Ham drop down to the CL.
|
Willtell
1:15 Thu Feb 8
Re: Gold on twitter
|
Actually I take that back. G&S had £50m lent to WH at rates between 6-7% and earned £3m in year to 31 May 2016. There is unpaid Interest of almost £12.4m on the books.
|
Side of Ham
1:10 Thu Feb 8
Re: Gold on twitter
|
Key thing in all this they are the only owners to acclaim they are massive West Ham fans.
Yet other clubs owners charge less (if any interest on loans) and don't own shares in premium phone lines for the fellow West Ham fans to pay through the nose for tickets to games.
THIS IS AN IMPORTANT PART OF THE GRIPE.
|
Willtell
1:04 Thu Feb 8
Re: Gold on twitter
|
I don't think it was 7%. From memory some loans were 5% and some 6%. I also think that they didn't draw down the interest.
That wasn't them generously donating the money to the company. They allowed the debt to increase by adding the unpaid interest to the overall debt I believe. I'll take a look at the last accounts sometime today.
|
13 Brentford Rd
12:58 Thu Feb 8
Re: Gold on twitter
|
Is it joyo?
It's a lot more than other owners charge too.
|
joyo
12:56 Thu Feb 8
Re: Gold on twitter
|
The 7%(if that's the correct figure) is a lot less than what the banks would charge.
Let's wait for the accounts at end of month and make judgments then.
|
Willtell
12:56 Thu Feb 8
Re: Gold on twitter
|
The thing is that a serious long term investor in any business that wants to build up the company for the right reasons, would normally put as much money in as he needs to run the company efficiently.
By that I mean pay wages and suppliers on time as well as have enough to grow the business because growth costs money. No accountant I ever met would advocate running a business with a £100+m debt for 8 years without clearing that debt.
From what I can gather Gold & Sullivan bought the shares for face value and gradually put in loans of £50m or so to replace lenders (that could jeopardise the business by foreclosing on their debts) and taking on the debt themselves.
Had they put the £50m in as equity (made into shares) then the company would have been far healthier but they can never withdraw shares as easily as they could loans. It is also easier to offset tax on interest payments than salaries.
They have done nothing so far to clear the debt and are running WH like politicians run the country or entrepreneurs run small start up businesses.
If I remember correctly, WH has run at a loss more than made a profit in their 8 years but now suddenly, it seems, WH will make a profit in the year to 31 May 2017. Which means it is likely that 2018 (not reported until Feb 2019 will also have a big profit boosted by the increase in TV revenue and not spending on transfers.
For me G&S have acted like small time businessmen to protect themselves from financial exposure while retaining their other business interests to tide themselves over until WH starts making big money. That's where they are now. They should retain PL status and reduce debts but WH will be in a far better shape as long as they don't get too greedy and we stay in the PL...
Man Utd fans were up in arms about the Glazers paying off their leveraged buy-out with Man Utd profits but they are still there and teh debts are now forgotten. The Glazers are running Man Utd in similar fashion to G&S but with even more massive debts...
|
arsegrapes
12:35 Thu Feb 8
Re: Gold on twitter
|
I don't believe for one minute that the 2bobs will hand it down to their kids, they will sell up when free of the government payment, or if they buy the stadium and sell on in a few years or receive a very good offer. They are hanging on for 1 billion + and will probably get it in a few years.
Yes their heirs will inherit everything if they both croak it suddenly (crosses fingers and toes), but they have no business acumen (golds daughter has but can see her sticking to selling dildos). They won't need the hassle or money and will sell on.
The 2bobs just say this to make it sound like they all care so so much bleed claret and blue and want to look after the club for generations zzzzzzzzzzzz
|
Side of Ham
12:21 Thu Feb 8
Re: Gold on twitter
|
*are
*them
|
Side of Ham
12:20 Thu Feb 8
Re: Gold on twitter
|
Thing is if they unwilling to put in to even keep up and their 'customer' base is going mad about their product and are willing to limit their commitment to this inferior product their dreams will dwindle and their loans with interest will start to become a burden on the with very little reward.
Be interesting what percentage of fan base they would have to keep as 'hardcore' before it starts getting worthless and Sully loses his 'billionaire' status.
|
| 
