Stubbornness — on all sides

[WhereDoesThisEnd]

For as long as many of us can remember, West Ham have bounced between relegation fights and promotion pushes. In plenty of those seasons we got through because we stuck together and the place was loud when it mattered.This feels like one of those seasons where we could end up on the wrong side of the line. And if we’re honest, something around the club feels off.Since the move from Upton Park, I can’t help feeling that a section of the fanbase almost sees relegation as a punishment for Sullivan. But if that happens, the only people who really pay for it are the team and the supporters. A flat, divided crowd doesn’t help anyone. We’ve all seen on European nights that the London Stadium can be a great atmosphere when everyone’s at it.At the same time, it’s hard to know what Sullivan actually wants. He could probably have sold up for a big profit when we were pushing top six and doing well in Europe, but he didn’t. From the outside, it just looks like stubbornness on both sides.My kids don’t have the same attachment to Upton Park — they were too young. They just love West Ham as it is. Maybe that says something. Maybe those of us still hung up on the move need to accept it’s not changing, and maybe Sullivan needs to see that the relationship with a lot of the fanbase is worn out.Let the next generation just support the club without carrying all this baggage. Right now it feels like all of us — Sullivan and some of us older fans — are getting in the way.West Ham should be about what comes next, not just what’s gone.
 

 

[southbankbornnbred]

Owning the stadium is about owning an asset that depreciates but that you control. We have the deal of the century on the rent. I understand that many people dont like it. I'm more than happy where I am. The club WOULD sell better to property developers if we owned the stadium.

We didn’t get the “deal of the century” on the rent. Maybe some people thought that in 2016.

Then they had the worst match day experience anywhere in top flight football. And surely the experience of fans inside the stadium is more important?

And then, with beautiful irony, the financial rules meant that owning your stadium became a no-brainer if you want to grow as a club.

Now we have the worst of both worlds.

I’d burn the place down tomorrow. Which is not really something you want to say about your club’s home ground.

[BRANDED]

Owning the stadium is about owning an asset that depreciates but that you control. We have the deal of the century on the rent. I understand that many people dont like it. I'm more than happy where I am. The club WOULD sell better to property developers if we owned the stadium.

[WhereDoesThisEnd]

I’m really not a board lackey and I’m happy to be clear about my view.

Personally I think it may be time for Sullivan to move on if that helps reset and unite the club. He is clearly in a position where he can wait for the right purchase price while the club remains a stable Premier League side. The recent profit and cashflow position means there is no urgency on his side.

It’s also fair to speculate that stadium ownership could improve a future sale value, whether or not that ever materialises.

I’m not claiming to be the ultimate authority on football finance, but I do have some first hand exposure to how clubs operate. My only aim is to add a balanced and slightly informed perspective, because opinions often get shaped by the loudest voices rather than the full picture.

People are free to disagree, but I’m not pushing propaganda for anyone.

[WhereDoesThisEnd]

I’m not ignoring ownership revenues at all. I’m pointing out the size of the gap those revenues have to bridge compared to our rent.

[Far Cough UKunt]

Where did this board lackey suddenly come from?

[southbankbornnbred]

People talk about stadium ownership vs renting as if one is automatically better, but they’re just different financial models. 

Spurs are often estimated to be paying £35–50m a year when you combine stadium financing and running/maintenance costs. Over 30 years that can easily run past £1bn in total cash outflow tied to the stadium. That model only makes sense if the venue drives major extra commercial income.

 West Ham’s rent is commonly quoted around £3m a year. Over 30 years that’s roughly £90m. No build debt, no lifecycle risk, and far more cash preserved for football. 

So on pure cost, renting is vastly cheaper. Ownership only comes out ahead if the extra revenues outweigh those hundreds of millions in additional costs. 

A couple of years ago when we were top 6 and winning in Europe, our model looked very sensible and it still is. It’s just lower-risk and lower-ceiling. 

Neither model is inherently better. It depends on how well the club performs on the pitch at a given moment in time as to how people view the models.

Do fuck off, you bellend.

You're purposefully ignoring everything you’ve been told about retained revenues. Just take your board propaganda elsewhere.

[WhereDoesThisEnd]

People talk about stadium ownership vs renting as if one is automatically better, but they’re just different financial models. 

Spurs are often estimated to be paying £35–50m a year when you combine stadium financing and running/maintenance costs. Over 30 years that can easily run past £1bn in total cash outflow tied to the stadium. That model only makes sense if the venue drives major extra commercial income.

 West Ham’s rent is commonly quoted around £3m a year. Over 30 years that’s roughly £90m. No build debt, no lifecycle risk, and far more cash preserved for football. 

So on pure cost, renting is vastly cheaper. Ownership only comes out ahead if the extra revenues outweigh those hundreds of millions in additional costs. 

A couple of years ago when we were top 6 and winning in Europe, our model looked very sensible and it still is. It’s just lower-risk and lower-ceiling. 

Neither model is inherently better. It depends on how well the club performs on the pitch at a given moment in time as to how people view the models.

[Massive Attack]

threesixty​07 Feb 2026, 17:04

Exactly right.

The big problem with the “own the stadium” argument's.

what money are you using?



 

Ohh I dunno, maybe they could have used £40M from the sale they made out of blowing-up selling The Boleyn Ground. Or better still, not sold it in the 1st place.

[southbankbornnbred]

threesixty​07 Feb 2026, 17:04

Exactly right.

The big problem with the “own the stadium” argument's.

what money are you using?

If you are borrowing the interest costs wipe out any benefits

 

The way you carp on is as though renting a stadium is the norm and that it’s bonkers to own your own stadium.

When quite the opposite is true.

[southbankbornnbred]

threesixty​07 Feb 2026, 17:04

Exactly right.

The big problem with the “own the stadium” argument's.

what money are you using?

If you are borrowing the interest costs wipe out any benefits

 

No, they don’t. They only do that if - like your mates on the current board - they’re not very good at creating and maintaining new revenue streams.

Spurs, Everton, and many other sides around Europe who are not part of their domestic “big five” type clubs  have shown that you can do it.

Frankly, if Everton can build and finance a new stadium like theirs, there is no reason why we can’t.

[WhereDoesThisEnd]

threesixty​07 Feb 2026, 17:04

Exactly right.

The big problem with the “own the stadium” argument's.

what money are you using?

If you are borrowing the interest costs wipe out any benefits
 

[Sir Alf]

Its all “pipe dreams” currently. We have never been a well run or even competently run club especially in the last 16 years. 

We are a failing business and have been for some while. Its only the fact that every PL club gets 150 million a year in TV revenue each season that we have been able to limp along. But its at the cost of getting deeper and deeper into debt as everything including the furniture was sold or mortgaged off and financed by future revenues.  A giant ponzi scheme really that is catching up. A modern club needs great leadership and planning. We have neither and our infrastructure is weak at best ( organisation with no DOF or modern scoutimg and recruitmeng, stadium, training faclities etc).  All leads to disjointed, reactive decisions and disasterous recruitment which in turn has led to wssting 100s of millions and accruing huge debts and losses. Sullivan really is not fit to run the club

[southbankbornnbred]

 

 

But we would be paying 50m+ a year in repayment costs for borrowing to build the stadium in the first place! It's not that it wouldn't be a great thing to own the stadium to deal those types of deals, but at what cost? 

You could argue that redeveloping Upton Park in the same way that spurs did was the correct answer and I'd be with you there. We already owned the land and with interest rates at the time being pretty low it might have worked. But now? 

It feels like financial madness tbh (as a fan I'd love them to rebuild the thing etc, but thats fan talk).

Yep, agree: you’d be looking at £50m repayment costs annually. But our revenues are broadly £300m at the moment, and that’s with the restrictions of the stadium contract.

If you could get revenues to £330m to £350m, the stadium repayments would be affordable. And that’s why teams want full control of stadium and match day sponsorship, concessions, retail, hotels, housing, tours, events etc.

Once stadium loans are paid off, or greatly reduced, your spending power then rises.

 

My only caveat is that if the footballing side does not improve do we get the same gate receipts / hospitality /naming rights etc that would make the extra revenue to pay off the loan each year. I feel like spurs manage this because of their profile, European runs over the last decade and of course, being in the top flight consistently. If we were to go down again, and not get any European competition (which we only ever had under Moyes for a few years) I'd worry the debt would swallow us whole.

There’s always a risk with any debt, of course. But it’s manageable IF you’re a well-run club (insert your own jokes here). It’s exactly what other clubs are doing.

It would also be a much better matchday experience for fans. Build a proper ground, with a real atmosphere, people close to the pitch, and a sense of community, and our fans will turn up even in hard times. Make the ground/atmosphere part of that selling point, like Upton Park used to be.

[threesixty]

We would keep £3.33m under the stadium deal. That would wipe out any benefit we get from paying “just” £4m in rent. On one issue (stadium sponsorship) alone.
 

 

 

But we would be paying 50m+ a year in repayment costs for borrowing to build the stadium in the first place! It's not that it wouldn't be a great thing to own the stadium to deal those types of deals, but at what cost? 

You could argue that redeveloping Upton Park in the same way that spurs did was the correct answer and I'd be with you there. We already owned the land and with interest rates at the time being pretty low it might have worked. But now? 

It feels like financial madness tbh (as a fan I'd love them to rebuild the thing etc, but thats fan talk).

Yep, agree: you’d be looking at £50m repayment costs annually. But our revenues are broadly £300m at the moment, and that’s with the restrictions of the stadium contract.

If you could get revenues to £330m to £350m, the stadium repayments would be affordable. And that’s why teams want full control of stadium and match day sponsorship, concessions, retail, hotels, housing, tours, events etc.

Once stadium loans are paid off, or greatly reduced, your spending power then rises.

 

 

My only caveat is that if the footballing side does not improve do we get the same gate receipts / hospitality /naming rights etc that would make the extra revenue to pay off the loan each year. I feel like spurs manage this because of their profile, European runs over the last decade and of course, being in the top flight consistently. If we were to go down again, and not get any European competition (which we only ever had under Moyes for a few years) I'd worry the debt would swallow us whole.

[southbankbornnbred]

We would keep £3.33m under the stadium deal. That would wipe out any benefit we get from paying “just” £4m in rent. On one issue (stadium sponsorship) alone.
 

 

 

But we would be paying 50m+ a year in repayment costs for borrowing to build the stadium in the first place! It's not that it wouldn't be a great thing to own the stadium to deal those types of deals, but at what cost? 

You could argue that redeveloping Upton Park in the same way that spurs did was the correct answer and I'd be with you there. We already owned the land and with interest rates at the time being pretty low it might have worked. But now? 

It feels like financial madness tbh (as a fan I'd love them to rebuild the thing etc, but thats fan talk).

Yep, agree: you’d be looking at £50m repayment costs annually. But our revenues are broadly £300m at the moment, and that’s with the restrictions of the stadium contract.

If you could get revenues to £330m to £350m, the stadium repayments would be affordable. And that’s why teams want full control of stadium and match day sponsorship, concessions, retail, hotels, housing, tours, events etc.

Once stadium loans are paid off, or greatly reduced, your spending power then rises.

[southbankbornnbred]

To my mind, we’ve got the worst of all worlds with the London Stadium. It’s the worst football ground in the top divisions, by a mile. A truly atrocious experience for such a visceral fan base.

And, with the exception of ticket prices, we have to profit-share on most of the financial benefits that could make the difference between us and, say, Villa, Newcastle, Everton etc.

All for “cheap” rent.

[threesixty]

We would keep £3.33m under the stadium deal. That would wipe out any benefit we get from paying “just” £4m in rent. On one issue (stadium sponsorship) alone.
 

 

 

 

 

But we would be paying 50m+ a year in repayment costs for borrowing to build the stadium in the first place! It's not that it wouldn't be a great thing to own the stadium to deal those types of deals, but at what cost? 

You could argue that redeveloping Upton Park in the same way that spurs did was the correct answer and I'd be with you there. We already owned the land and with interest rates at the time being pretty low it might have worked. But now? 

It feels like financial madness tbh (as a fan I'd love them to rebuild the thing etc, but thats fan talk).

[southbankbornnbred]

Been through this many times on WHO, and the OP on this thread was pure rage bait.

But the argument about whether it’s beneficial to own your stadium or not…that debate is over in the current climate. Under the PSR rules, and even more under the SCR rules that will replace them this summer, it’s a no brainer.

Owning your stadium is a MASSIVE financial boost that renters simply can’t replicate.

Leveraging your stadium’s asset is a huge part of the unfortunate financial game everybody now has to play (if they want to increase revenues and stay within rules). And our owners didn’t see it coming (I don’t like them, but predicting the impact of PSR etc would have been difficult).

Leveraging your asset isn’t just about having an asset to borrow against. It’s also about keeping the huge additional revenues from hosting other events, food concessions, bars and cafes on the grounds, even crap like hotels snd casinos etc that other clubs are planning. And loads more.

We can’t do any of that under the stadium deal - without the state etc taking a big share of the revenues. So we’re at a big disadvantage compared to the likes of Spurs, Villa, Newcastle etc. Let alone the big five. We rent cheaply, sure. But we’d make a lot more from controlling stadium sponsorships etc. We now lose more than we gain - and for a soul-less athletics bowl.

 

I dunno, they pay 4m a year for the stadium. I think if you cant make a club profitable from such a small outlay then thats mental. We'd have to borrow around 1b at today's interest rates (4%?) to buy the stadium/land and then redevelop. I think Spurs did it because they didnt really have a choice (and they borrowed in low rate times), but we have a 60k+ stadium already. Unless the stadium cost is dirt cheap I think it's a bit mental to own the stadium right now (even then its a questionable investment). I dont think Man City own their stadium either so not sure how that affects the new rules?

One of the reasons Spurs was so upset with us getting the stadium is precisely because they thought it was unfair we would get such an asset for peanuts whereas they would have to mortgage their club for the next 25yrs and put them under considerbale risk. There is no free lunch.

The real problem with West Ham is Sullivan thinks he knows more about football than the football experts he hires. It's badly run in footballing terms and it exacerbates the money issues, because what makes a financially successful club is ultimately sustained success on the pitch. 

Sorry, fella, but the picture has changed since we took on the stadium. Profitability is not the issue. We can - and have - been profitable since (although the most recent set of accounts aren’t yet known). The Premier League is awash with cash - profitability isn’t hard to achieve.

But that’s a potential problem now. The top five, plus Spurs, Newcastle, Villa, Everton, Forest and others are all also potentially very profitable.

But because we can’t maximise our revenues in the way they clubs who own their ground can (more readily), we’re structured in such a way that we always have one hand tied behind our back.

If, say, Villa get a £10m stadium sponsorship deal, they keep £10m of it before tax.

We would keep £3.33m under the stadium deal. That would wipe out any benefit we get from paying “just” £4m in rent. On one issue (stadium sponsorship) alone. Throw in food concessions, cafes, bars, hotels, casinos, housing and all the stuff that other clubs are planning around their stadiums - all drawing additional income - and we have less capacity by comparison.

Plus, the stadium is a soul-less hole.

[threesixty]

Been through this many times on WHO, and the OP on this thread was pure rage bait.

But the argument about whether it’s beneficial to own your stadium or not…that debate is over in the current climate. Under the PSR rules, and even more under the SCR rules that will replace them this summer, it’s a no brainer.

Owning your stadium is a MASSIVE financial boost that renters simply can’t replicate.

Leveraging your stadium’s asset is a huge part of the unfortunate financial game everybody now has to play (if they want to increase revenues and stay within rules). And our owners didn’t see it coming (I don’t like them, but predicting the impact of PSR etc would have been difficult).

Leveraging your asset isn’t just about having an asset to borrow against. It’s also about keeping the huge additional revenues from hosting other events, food concessions, bars and cafes on the grounds, even crap like hotels snd casinos etc that other clubs are planning. And loads more.

We can’t do any of that under the stadium deal - without the state etc taking a big share of the revenues. So we’re at a big disadvantage compared to the likes of Spurs, Villa, Newcastle etc. Let alone the big five. We rent cheaply, sure. But we’d make a lot more from controlling stadium sponsorships etc. We now lose more than we gain - and for a soul-less athletics bowl.

 

 

I dunno, they pay 4m a year for the stadium. I think if you cant make a club profitable from such a small outlay then thats mental. We'd have to borrow around 1b at today's interest rates (4%?) to buy the stadium/land and then redevelop. I think Spurs did it because they didnt really have a choice (and they borrowed in low rate times), but we have a 60k+ stadium already. Unless the stadium cost is dirt cheap I think it's a bit mental to own the stadium right now (even then its a questionable investment). I dont think Man City own their stadium either so not sure how that affects the new rules?

One of the reasons Spurs was so upset with us getting the stadium is precisely because they thought it was unfair we would get such an asset for peanuts whereas they would have to mortgage their club for the next 25yrs and put them under considerbale risk. There is no free lunch.

The real problem with West Ham is Sullivan thinks he knows more about football than the football experts he hires. It's badly run in footballing terms and it exacerbates the money issues, because what makes a financially successful club is ultimately sustained success on the pitch. 

[southbankbornnbred]

Investors know this, btw. Which might explain why nobody is biting at Sullivan’s inflated valuation of the club.

Unless you’re a proper West Ham fan, why would you pay over the odds for a club that has “that” stadium and little ability to leverage it to create additional revenues beyond ticket sales?

[southbankbornnbred]

Been through this many times on WHO, and the OP on this thread was pure rage bait.

But the argument about whether it’s beneficial to own your stadium or not…that debate is over in the current climate. Under the PSR rules, and even more under the SCR rules that will replace them this summer, it’s a no brainer.

Owning your stadium is a MASSIVE financial boost that renters simply can’t replicate.

Leveraging your stadium’s asset is a huge part of the unfortunate financial game everybody now has to play (if they want to increase revenues and stay within rules). And our owners didn’t see it coming (I don’t like them, but predicting the impact of PSR etc would have been difficult).

Leveraging your asset isn’t just about having an asset to borrow against. It’s also about keeping the huge additional revenues from hosting other events, food concessions, bars and cafes on the grounds, even crap like hotels snd casinos etc that other clubs are planning. And loads more.

We can’t do any of that under the stadium deal - without the state etc taking a big share of the revenues. So we’re at a big disadvantage compared to the likes of Spurs, Villa, Newcastle etc. Let alone the big five. We rent cheaply, sure. But we’d make a lot more from controlling stadium sponsorships etc. We now lose more than we gain - and for a soul-less athletics bowl.

[El Scorchio]

 

I’m not sure why anyone would believe the words of a pornographer?
they said whatever they needed to say to make money on the Upton Park site. The reality is they were never ambitious in any true sense and Sullivan at least is no bill kenwright. Look how they treated Birmingham city. 
Any ambition Sullivan has is tied to his own vanity. 

Are you that fella with the two heads from The Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy that is constantly contradicting himself at every turn? 

Zaphod Beeblebrox wasn't it? 

You might think about making that one your future username...

 

I don’t think I’m contradicting myself. I’m just stating what their motivation is and why they lied. My opinion in general on clubs needing to own a stadium is where I disagree. No PL club needs to own their stadium for them to have a significant valuation because of the tv money and international brand value of PL football. 

in this specific case, yes GSB would love to own a big piece of land in London for cheap, because who wouldn’t want to get cheap land? Business is business. However, I don’t think the type of people who would want to buy West Ham from them actually care that we would own the stadium because I think they are more interested in the brand value and soft power owning a PL club brings then developing apartments. Only another dodgy wheeler dealer type buyer would care about us owning the land.

The outlay and risk in redeveloping the land to do a spurs thing is huge. I don’t think anyone would want to do it rather than just lease the ground for peanuts. They’ve pretty much got a 700m pound stadium for nothing. If they can’t make substantial money out of that arrangement by itself then they are clowns. 

maybe the stipulation of any sale means they have to play football there forever.  but I bet they don’t buy it if they’re forced to do that. 

It’s owning your house rather than renting it. If it’s yours you are substantially better off financially from having a big value asset. If the club owns it the owners can add it to what the asking price is. So it makes the club worth hundreds of million pounds more than without one. 

[threesixty]

"stadium hate (although I understand it) is probably more of a proxy for hating the owners really. If we had Saudis pumping in billions on players and we were in the CL every week I doubt anyone would give a shit about a running track."

absolute horse shit. they (gold, the midget & brady) talked about the world class team in the world class stadium. they lied about many things. you come across as the new age type they want, quite willing to fork out £50 for a Foi Gras Baguette, and washed down with a £30 glass of Pimm's. and you can fuck off with the covid bollocks, the game is the fans

 

I’m not sure why anyone would believe the words of a pornographer?
they said whatever they needed to say to make money on the Upton Park site. The reality is they were never ambitious in any true sense and Sullivan at least is no bill kenwright. Look how they treated Birmingham city. 
Any ambition Sullivan has is tied to his own vanity. 

Are you that fella with the two heads from The Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy that is constantly contradicting himself at every turn? 

Zaphod Beeblebrox wasn't it? 

You might think about making that one your future username...

 

 

I don’t think I’m contradicting myself. I’m just stating what their motivation is and why they lied. My opinion in general on clubs needing to own a stadium is where I disagree. No PL club needs to own their stadium for them to have a significant valuation because of the tv money and international brand value of PL football. 

in this specific case, yes GSB would love to own a big piece of land in London for cheap, because who wouldn’t want to get cheap land? Business is business. However, I don’t think the type of people who would want to buy West Ham from them actually care that we would own the stadium because I think they are more interested in the brand value and soft power owning a PL club brings then developing apartments. Only another dodgy wheeler dealer type buyer would care about us owning the land.

The outlay and risk in redeveloping the land to do a spurs thing is huge. I don’t think anyone would want to do it rather than just lease the ground for peanuts. They’ve pretty much got a 700m pound stadium for nothing. If they can’t make substantial money out of that arrangement by itself then they are clowns. 

maybe the stipulation of any sale means they have to play football there forever.  but I bet they don’t buy it if they’re forced to do that. 

[El Scorchio]

Football has changed. Well at least top flight football. It’s a tv first sport now. That’s why there are so many fucking games of football every other day all across Europe etc.  tournament after tournament blah blah 

and that’s why the stadium has never mattered to the owners apart from how cheaply they could get a place to showcase their “tv show”. 

Covid showed you could continue football even without people in the bloody stadium. Also having such a central stadium in London means they can alway gets bums on seats (even if there not proper fans). 

the fallacy is that if we had a better ground we would be a better performing club. Nope. It’s still Sullivan making the decisions. We’d still be where we are. Look at spurs, new stadium same club. The soul of any club is not the ground. It’s a combination of the fans and the owners. It’s what’s in their heads. 

stadium hate (although I understand it) is probably more of a proxy for hating the owners really. If we had Saudis pumping in billions on players and we were in the CL every week I doubt anyone would give a shit about a running track. 






 

 

Disagree. The stadium matters to them. We are much more valuable as a club both financially and to a prospective buyer with that stadium fully owned rather than rented and they know it. I think they are just playing chicken with the government/mayor/whoever to get it at a good price before immediately selling the lot for a big fat profit and fucking off laughing without a second thought as to what they leave behind. 

However the other game of chicken they have been playing with doing just enough to stave off relegation and a full on fan revolt while spending as little as possible of their own money in the meantime seem to have finally caught up with them and gone tits this season. One ‘change’ they failed to see coming was that th promoted sides wouldn’t be as shit as th last few years and they are caught right out. 

 

I don’t understand the logic. Land per sqm around the country varies massively. Anfield or Old Trafford can’t be worth anywhere near the value of any London clubs stadium land but the clubs themselves are worth billions. These are international brands where a vast amount of their income comes from tv money, branding and trophies. In the modern world the stadium has ceased to be the moray important asset a club has.

For example, even though West Ham will make more money from gates and food sales etc than Bournemouth the valuation difference between the two clubs is more about our brand and history / location as we don’t own the stadium. In the tv age both clubs are getting in silly money. 

What I mean is the club is worth substantially more with a stadium (and indeed the land this one is on) on the balance sheet than without it. So they’ll make more money when they sell if they are able to acquire it first. Which I believe is what they are waiting for. To walk away with the maximum amount of money. That’s what they wanted all along. So therefore it’s very important to them. 

[eusebiovic]

"stadium hate (although I understand it) is probably more of a proxy for hating the owners really. If we had Saudis pumping in billions on players and we were in the CL every week I doubt anyone would give a shit about a running track."

absolute horse shit. they (gold, the midget & brady) talked about the world class team in the world class stadium. they lied about many things. you come across as the new age type they want, quite willing to fork out £50 for a Foi Gras Baguette, and washed down with a £30 glass of Pimm's. and you can fuck off with the covid bollocks, the game is the fans

 

I’m not sure why anyone would believe the words of a pornographer?
they said whatever they needed to say to make money on the Upton Park site. The reality is they were never ambitious in any true sense and Sullivan at least is no bill kenwright. Look how they treated Birmingham city. 
Any ambition Sullivan has is tied to his own vanity. 

Are you that fella with the two heads from The Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy that is constantly contradicting himself at every turn? 

Zaphod Beeblebrox wasn't it? 

You might think about making that one your future username...