WHO Poll
Q: Manuel Pellegrini
a. A great signing for the Club and maybe the change of direction we all need
33%
  
b. It will only be a great signing if the Board back him with decent funds
50%
  
c. This is West Ham so it will only end in farce
15%
  
d. I'm not sure about this one, I'll wait until SKY is back to hear what Gary Neville thinks, then I'll voice my opinion
3%
  



poisonrain 3:54 Wed Jul 11
owners
We seem to somehow have a decent manager and some good player signings, with more likely. Has this off-season changed anyone's views of the owners since the scenes last season?

Genuine question.

Replies - Newest Posts First (Show In Chronological Order)

lab 5:57 Thu Jul 12
Re: owners
So was pellegrini in the frame months ago or did the burnley game make the change?

LeroysBoots 3:54 Thu Jul 12
Re: owners
Trevor B 3:43 Thu Jul 12

LOL

jimbo2. 3:54 Thu Jul 12
Re: owners
I'm sure that we all have reasonable gripes with the owners, with some just looking for anything & everything to complain about. We were promised "the next level" with the move to the new stadium and so far that definitely hasn't materialised. However, this season is shaping up very nicely so far. The appointment of Pellegrini and his team was a massive step in the right direction, as have been the signings and spend so far. Let's be honest, how many of us saw that one coming at the end of last season?
So at this stage, you have to give some credit where it is due. I think that poisonrain's post was genuine and we must be in for a much better season than the previous two! Maybe, just maybe the owners promise of "the next level" is starting to materialise!

Trevor B 3:43 Thu Jul 12
Re: owners
poisonrain/Karren can you shed any light?

lab 3:42 Thu Jul 12
Re: owners
It'll make for a good book one day ,any suggestions for author?

Nurse Ratched 3:37 Thu Jul 12
Re: owners
Aha.

Trevor B 3:36 Thu Jul 12
Re: owners
Nurse I actually think a time frame was mentioned too, something like "in x months time you'll all understand why" or words to that effect. I think a few people at the time speculated that the club was being fattened up for sale.

Nurse Ratched 3:34 Thu Jul 12
Re: owners
Hmm.

Remember the Andy Swallow/cancelled protest march debacle? Something was reported which went almost completely overlooked at the time, though posters on here dissected every other aspect: AS (or one of his sidekicks) said something like "someday very soon you'll be glad the march was cancelled". The way it was worded suggested AS knew something was in the pipeline (following his chat with the owners at their house).

I wonder if this investment was what he alluded to. As in, 'don't scare off the investors with a load of noise'.

Just a theory. Please don't shout at me.

Capitol Man 3:26 Thu Jul 12
Re: owners
I’d missed the bit about this Blackstone guy coming in. We are clearly going to be pumping in millions one way or another to prepare the thing for sale. That will likely be done with leveraged debt, though there will have to be some sort of variety on the tradition PE model.

He’s put his money in because he thinks it will be multiplied in relatively short order. He’s unlikely to have put the cash in because he loves West Ham

Trevor B 3:06 Thu Jul 12
Re: owners
"I'd be amazed if the cheapskates are digging into their pockets that much."

Why would they need to dig into their pockets when there is enough money in the club? It's becoming very difficult for owners to put their own money directly into transfers anyway, it's something that Wenger complained about for years and called it financial doping. Abramovic, for instance, hasn't ploughed a penny into Chelsea for quite a few years now, certainly not in the same manner as he used to, he even has to pay something ridiculous like 5m per season for his own box to get some of his dosh into the club.

goose 1:27 Thu Jul 12
Re: owners
Damn right Eggy.

Mr Smith is not on the board in any capacity other than having an interest in football and a view of what might happen in 5 years.

Until the agreement with LDDC (?) elapses there will be no sale.

Eggbert Nobacon 1:22 Thu Jul 12
Re: owners
we made a pre tax 60m profut the seaon before last, likely similar last season on top of 30m profit in layerssales fro january. The club should comfortably be fnding this without any help from any of the owners

dicksie3 1:18 Thu Jul 12
Re: owners
I also suspect it's Tripp bankrolling these transfers for us.

Fair fucks to him.

I'd be amazed if the cheapskates are digging into their pockets that much.

I still maintain that in a couple of years; we'll have MULTI-BILLIONAIRE new owners and a football team to be proud of.

Willtell 1:05 Thu Jul 12
Re: owners
Yes me too with that Loafer.

LeroysBoots 12:46 Thu Jul 12
Re: owners
Loafer 12:41 Thu Jul 12

Spot on

Loafer 12:41 Thu Jul 12
Re: owners
Someone like Albert Smith doesn't buy 10% of a company and loan around 10m to sit silently while it all falls apart because of a couple of wide boys and their moll. No, he buys into it because he wants to make it bigger and better. The wheels are now in motion and Bill and Ben and Little Weed will be out in a few years time....maybe sooner. Hopefully.

Eggbert Nobacon 12:40 Thu Jul 12
Re: owners
MrSnoogans 11:19 Thu Jul 12
Re: owners
5+ years of poor transfer and squad building cannot be wiped away in one transfer window.

Now they actually need to organise the club properly, starting with a state of the art premiership quality training ground, a proper scouting team, data analyst team and an actual long term squad building policy that doesn't involve spending loads of money on players willie nillie but spending the right money on the right players at the right time and selling players for the right money at the right time.

the youth academy also need t be looked at, I hope they have had a meeting to discuss why Burke was sold, what went wrong and why didn't he make it. Especially after looking promising in his premier league appearances under Big Sam


the middle bit would all come under the Director of dfootball they apoointed

Why wold they need a meeting re Burke, sadly he wasn't quite good enough so was moved on what's to have a meeting about?

goose 12:34 Thu Jul 12
Re: owners
i admire your optimism - but nothing has changed.

Willtell 12:25 Thu Jul 12
Re: owners
Yes I know goose - I have a copy of the accounts. They made £43m profit and it reduced the balance sheet losses from -£52m down to -£9.25m.

WH still have debts and a negative balance sheet mate.

goose 12:00 Thu Jul 12
Re: owners
they made a profit of £40m last year - that money has to go somewhere.

this transfer window is a one-off.

and we have yet to sell a few bodies which will recoup about £20m. and we lost some high earners this summer.

Willtell 11:56 Thu Jul 12
Re: owners
goose 11:39 Thu Jul 12
"nothing is happening. they've got their usual circa £40m net spend plus the £35m they didnt spend last year."

I understand why you're saying that but that isn't how a business works goose. Just because the owners didn't spend an arbitrary £35m doesn't mean it is available to spend this year.

Either Sullivan has sold some of his other investments to finance the player purchases or someone else has. The initial payments are probably around 25% of the headline transfer plus up front fees to agents.

Fabianski £7m; Yarmalenko £20m; Diopp £20m; plus two "frees" for Wilshere and Fredericks with several £m up front signing fees and £40+m for Anderson is over £100m with potentially more to come and some sales to offset but the reality is that someone is pumping at least £35-£40m by my estimation into WH to cover the cash flow alone...

Page 1 - Next




Copyright 2006 WHO.NET | Powered by: