Latest accounts

[Niblets]

WH Holding Ltd has today announced its financial results for the year ending 31 May 2025.The Club reports a net loss before tax of £104.2m, an adverse movement from the profit of £57.2m in 2023/24.

This loss was caused by our significantly lower profit on player sales and higher amortisation, our lower Premier League position, and not competing in Europe.Turnover was £227.6m, down £42.1m against last year, driven by no European income, our lower PL position and fewer live broadcast games.

The Club continues to comply with Financial Fair Play (FFP) rules, including PSR, and expects to do so in the future as the new Squad Cost Ratio (SCR) rules are introduced in the forthcoming years.

Click here to view West Ham United's 2024/25 financial results.

In short, we are absolutely fucked if we go down.

[Westside]

Yes, Kilman's value is written down at £8m per year. At the end of this year his book value will be £24m. Should someone foolish buy him for £30m then we could report a £6m profit. I'm not sure what happens from an accounting perspective is he is sold for less than £24m. 

If Kilman is sold for say £20 million, with a book value of £24 million, then a loss of £4 million will be booked in the accounts.

It was Chelsea who were giving players 7 - 8 year contracts to spread their amortisation costs over a longer period, but the Premier League made the maximum period 5 years for PSR purposes (going forward, not retrospectively).

[John Drake]

Yes, Kilman's value is written down at £8m per year. At the end of this year his book value will be £24m. Should someone foolish buy him for £30m then we could report a £6m profit. I'm not sure what happens from an accounting perspective is he is sold for less than £24m. 

[eusebiovic]

Correct me if I'm wrong because I've never been a maths expert.

Does the reported £40 Million fee paid for Kilman over a seven year contract mean that £5-6 Million per financial year is regarded as debt? Do Wolves receive this every season until his contract runs out or do they get it earlier?

I know football is crooked and everyone is robbing Peter to pay Paul but obviously if a club gets too many of these deals wrong that is when the shit hits the fan. Imagine 20 Maximilians on similar fees on a seven year contract.

Every club has a different tipping point but I would imagine that Spurs maybe even Chelsea might be close to theirs as well.



 

Transfer fees are paid on the drip, but payment terms have no relation to the length of a player's contract. Wolves will get their dosh in installments, per the terms of the deal we negotiated with them. Generally, after an initial payment, payments are made every 6 months, over 1 or 2 years. We owed nearly £200  million in transfer fees at May 2025. Some has to be paid within a year of then, some after.  

A transfer fee, is charged in the accounts, over the length of the contract, in equal annual charges. Although only over a maximum of 5 years, for PSR purposes.

Ah! So the Kilman fee will be £8 million per year in the accounts over a period of 5 years?

Didn't that ex-Derby County owner Mel Morris get the book thrown at him for amortization accounting practices? Now every fucker is doing it. 

[Westside]

Correct me if I'm wrong because I've never been a maths expert.

Does the reported £40 Million fee paid for Kilman over a seven year contract mean that £5-6 Million per financial year is regarded as debt? Do Wolves receive this every season until his contract runs out or do they get it earlier?

I know football is crooked and everyone is robbing Peter to pay Paul but obviously if a club gets too many of these deals wrong that is when the shit hits the fan. Imagine 20 Maximilians on similar fees on a seven year contract.

Every club has a different tipping point but I would imagine that Spurs maybe even Chelsea might be close to theirs as well.


 

Transfer fees are paid on the drip, but payment terms have no relation to the length of a player's contract. Wolves will get their dosh in installments, per the terms of the deal we negotiated with them. Generally, after an initial payment, payments are made every 6 months, over 1 or 2 years. We owed nearly £200  million in transfer fees at May 2025. Some has to be paid within a year of then, some after.  

A transfer fee, is charged in the accounts, over the length of the contract, in equal annual charges. Although only over a maximum of 5 years, for PSR purposes.

[eusebiovic]

Correct me if I'm wrong because I've never been a maths expert.

Does the reported £40 Million fee paid for Kilman over a seven year contract mean that £5-6 Million per financial year is regarded as debt? Do Wolves receive this every season until his contract runs out or do they get it earlier?

I know football is crooked and everyone is robbing Peter to pay Paul but obviously if a club gets too many of these deals wrong that is when the shit hits the fan. Imagine 20 Maximilians on similar fees on a seven year contract.

Every club has a different tipping point but I would imagine that Spurs maybe even Chelsea might be close to theirs as well.

 

[John Drake]

Profit on player sales only relates to any surplus once you subtract remaining book value from transfer fee received. That £20m must have been the scraps from selling Downes, Benrahma and Kehrer.

It’s the running of the club that’s a mess rather than the accounts. Too reliant on Broadcast revenues, maybe the worst in the league for profit on player sales (once Rice is taken out of the equation) and most importantly, the most tight-fisted owners around.

Football clubs aren’t run to make operating profits. The motives are either asset value appreciation, prestige, or other non-financial reasons. The owners have to accept the reality by injecting funds or selling up.  

This from the Swiss Ramble analysis of this year’s accounts.

“This could be an issue for West Ham, as their owners have rarely put money into the club.In 2020/21 Sullivan and Gold provided £30m via a rights issue to support the club during the pandemic, while there was a net £72m the following season, as Kretinsky’s £125m investment in equity was partly used to repay £54m of shareholder loans.However, there has been no funding from the owners in the four years since then.In stark contrast, owners at other clubs have been far more generous with no fewer than six clubs receiving more than £200m in the last three years, namely Chelsea £927m, Newcastle United £303m, Fulham £302m, Everton £300m, Aston Villa £272m and Manchester United £239m.”

To that you can add: Bournemouth £160m, Liverpool £147m, Arsenal £121m, Crystal Palace £99m, Tottenham £97m, Wolves £83m, Nottm Forest £71m

[Westside]

196 million owed to other clubs in transfer fees. 3.9 million owed to us in transfer fees.

It's almost impressive the board could be that bad at the transfer deficit. 20% of it is probably Kilman but FMOB that's a lot to spunk up the wall.

 

 

Whilst the accounts are a mess we actually made a profit of £20 million on player sales in these accounts.  And as for the uncertainty of a year's stability, the accounts are over 9 months old and we are still here. Think we will  be around for another 3 months. 

[nychammer]

So we're fucked if we go down and fucked if we stay up.   But if we stay up we'll probs do a Wolves next season anyway?  

What a mess, probably better going down now force out the dildo dwarf and prevent having to endure 2-3 wins all season next year. 

We wont be getting rid of Dildos R Us inc. if we go down. No way they are selling at a championship valuation when they already have a grossly distorted and inflated opinion of what our value is as a PL Club.

[kylay]

196 million owed to other clubs in transfer fees. 3.9 million owed to us in transfer fees.

It's almost impressive the board could be that bad at the transfer deficit. 20% of it is probably Kilman but FMOB that's a lot to spunk up the wall.

[ATHammer]

There is a question for the auditors in all this:
"The Board is confident in the ability of these mitigating actions to generate the required liquidity given: - - Player sales: The Group has a proven track record of player trading; there is an active market for players and the necessary cash proceeds can be quickly generated via the factoring of those future receivables."
What track Record?
Declan Rice? Yep, received a good and favourable terms whack for him. But, he was a generational talent. Do we have another? Not at the moment.
In player purchases and sales during this boards tenure I understand they have sold only 4 players at a profit on the purchase price. Given that in the same period we have had something like 40+ strikers this is around 10% of player acquisitions in one position alone. Proven Track Record?
Sebastian Haller, Philipe Anderson, Gianluca Scamacca, Nicola Vlasic, etc. High profile player purchases whose sales demonstrated a complete failure to maximise profits due to poor business decisions in both player recruitment and selection of coaching staff. The first three above were good players but totally unsuited to the way we played, Vlasic had already failed in the premier league and came back to fail again. To get the managers job, the first, and guiding consideration, is that the head coach (manager) is out of work!. Proven track record? Sure, of getting it hopelessly wrong.
Player trading would involve, presumably Bowen, Fernandez, Todibo, Summerville in total or part. Is there an ongoing business if some, or all of those players are sold without suitable quality replacements, to balance the books? 
PWC state:
"Based on the work we have performed, we have not identified any material uncertainties relating to events or conditions that, individually or collectively, may cast significant doubt on the group's and the company’s ability to continue as a going concern for a period of at least twelve months from when the financial statements are authorised for issue."
Oh, as supporters then we should all rest easy then.
PWC must have seen a business plan that addresses the fact that the Directors manage a business with no real tangible assets beyond the players. Any assets the business does own are mortgaged heavily; The directors are basing income on future season ticket and TV revenue as well as the aforementioned player sales where their track record has, at best, proven to be patchy. And, while we are at it, the business plan has a process in place to manage dead wood or players bought at a high cost, who have little to no value, are on big wages and are unlikely to make the first team or be sold at anywhere near the purchase price. (And I don't mean Kilman as the impact of that waste of space will only start to creep in to the next set of these buffoons numbers. The next 12 months look exciting as the more recent sales and acquisitions bite and the performances on the pitch reflect this continuing astute financial stewardship)
I am sure PWC will point to accounting practice, it is referenced in their statement, but to an untrained eye this looks like a business which may have warranted more visible challenge to the accounts. What about the going concern and ability to perform and trade out of the situation? It was the same directors that made the decisions, in favourable economic conditions, that got them into this mess. What evidence is there that they are more suited to manage the club in financial adversity than when they had higher gate and TV revenue due to on field success?
So how can, without reference to a mitigation and robust business strategy the statements in the accounts go unchallenged?
It is known that further bad decisions, with financial consequences, have been made (e.g. Kilman) so track record and the evidence of past performance suggest we, as supporters, are in a world of shit. The "at least 12 months" stability PWC refer to seems more wishful thinking rather than evidence based. 
This board have proven capable of carpet bagging and that is about it.    
 

[Takashi Miike]

[Bow_Bells]

https://hammersunited.co.uk/wh-holding-limited-annual-report-financial-statements-2025/

[Rossal]

So we're fucked if we go down and fucked if we stay up.   But if we stay up we'll probs do a Wolves next season anyway?  

What a mess, probably better going down now force out the dildo dwarf and prevent having to endure 2-3 wins all season next year. 

[goose]

Because he's a businessman with multiple interests and, when he had several options on how to invest his growing fortune, he did that to give him the choice of being first in the queue at West Ham. Without sounding like I'm patronising, it's a common strategy in business finance known as having a "real option" or a "call option".

Clearly, he's since changed his mind. Most likely because he has since bought into other businesses - such as Royal Mail - at huge cost. The war in Ukraine also hit his energy interests. He's not only interested in West Ham.

Which might be a strength or a weakness. Personally, I think we could do with a competent owner (Kretinsky is one of those) a little more focused on building this club properly (and that's where I think he falls down).

I know what it is, my point is that you wouldn’t pay for that privilege if you had zero interest in those shares.

But he did have an interest in possibly buying West Ham at the time. Things change. Things change quickly in the business world - because other options come along and events (such as war in Ukraine, the availability of Royal Mail etc) get in the way. Investors know that, so the call option pins rights to them. They don't always have to exercise them. He'll probably get his money back even when you factor in what he paid for the rights.

Exactly.
The interest is there but at the right price and in the right circumstances. It’s not a guarantee but it’s not zero interest.

[kinglewy]

Who would buy us now, Championship Club in debt and no ground owners.  As we have always known Gold & Sullivan we’re shafting the club from the start.

[southbankbornnbred]

Why pay to have an option on Sullivan’s shares if you have zero interest in buying them?

Because he's a businessman with multiple interests and, when he had several options on how to invest his growing fortune, he did that to give him the choice of being first in the queue at West Ham. Without sounding like I'm patronising, it's a common strategy in business finance known as having a "real option" or a "call option".

Clearly, he's since changed his mind. Most likely because he has since bought into other businesses - such as Royal Mail - at huge cost. The war in Ukraine also hit his energy interests. He's not only interested in West Ham.

Which might be a strength or a weakness. Personally, I think we could do with a competent owner (Kretinsky is one of those) a little more focused on building this club properly (and that's where I think he falls down).

I know what it is, my point is that you wouldn’t pay for that privilege if you had zero interest in those shares.

But he did have an interest in possibly buying West Ham at the time. Things change. Things change quickly in the business world - because other options come along and events (such as war in Ukraine, the availability of Royal Mail etc) get in the way. Investors know that, so the call option pins rights to them. They don't always have to exercise them. He'll probably get his money back even when you factor in what he paid for the rights.

[goose]

He has zero interest in buying the club. 

Why pay to have an option on Sullivan’s shares if you have zero interest in buying them?

Because he's a businessman with multiple interests and, when he had several options on how to invest his growing fortune, he did that to give him the choice of being first in the queue at West Ham. Without sounding like I'm patronising, it's a common strategy in business finance known as having a "real option" or a "call option".

Clearly, he's since changed his mind. Most likely because he has since bought into other businesses - such as Royal Mail - at huge cost. The war in Ukraine also hit his energy interests. He's not only interested in West Ham.

Which might be a strength or a weakness. Personally, I think we could do with a competent owner (Kretinsky is one of those) a little more focused on building this club properly (and that's where I think he falls down).

I know what it is, my point is that you wouldn’t pay for that privilege if you had zero interest in those shares.

[southbankbornnbred]

Kretinsky still stands to make money on his West Ham investment IF the club is sold in the near future. So paying for the option was not a bad choice for him at the time.

[southbankbornnbred]

I have often found myself pondering whether this is the Kretinsky plan all along but it's taking so long to come to fruition that it's only natural to suspect other motives.

For what it's worth I think he got lumbered with investing in West Ham via one of his employees looking to diversify his portfolio of interests.

I don't think for one nanosecond he would have come anywhere near the club if he knew how toxic and fucked up the ownership really were. 

So perhaps he is playing the long game but I'm not holding my breath.

He has zero interest in buying the club. 

Why pay to have an option on Sullivan’s shares if you have zero interest in buying them?

Because he's a businessman with multiple interests and, when he had several options on how to invest his growing fortune, he did that to give him the choice of being first in the queue at West Ham. Without sounding like I'm patronising, it's a common strategy in business finance known as having a "real option" or a "call option".

Clearly, he's since changed his mind. Most likely because he has since bought into other businesses - such as Royal Mail - at huge cost. The war in Ukraine also hit his energy interests. He's not only interested in West Ham.

Which might be a strength or a weakness. Personally, I think we could do with a competent owner (Kretinsky is one of those) a little more focused on building this club properly (and that's where I think he falls down).

[goose]

Here's the thing about Kretinsky. 

He waits until the asset is on its knees, then he swoops. He is not going to put in a penny more until he has control, dilution for Sullivan.

Think about it: why is Sullivan borrowing from these external groups at a high interest, when Kretinsky could EASILY offer a shareholder loan? Because Kretinsky thinks Sullivan is a buffoon.

He is waiting for Sullivan to come begging, then he has the power to exert control. 

Kretinsky whole game is about using time to gain leverage, like a python slowly squeezing its victim. 




 

I have often found myself pondering whether this is the Kretinsky plan all along but it's taking so long to come to fruition that it's only natural to suspect other motives.

For what it's worth I think he got lumbered with investing in West Ham via one of his employees looking to diversify his portfolio of interests.

I don't think for one nanosecond he would have come anywhere near the club if he knew how toxic and fucked up the ownership really were. 

So perhaps he is playing the long game but I'm not holding my breath.

He has zero interest in buying the club. 

Why pay to have an option on Sullivan’s shares if you have zero interest in buying them?

[eusebiovic]

Obviously the numbers themselves are catastrophic and a true testament to the inappropriateness of Brady (self styled CEO) and Sullivan (Property Developer par excellence) to run our club.
There are also two other key statements which absolutely demonstrate, beyond doubt, the contempt the board holds for the supporters:
1."Fans - - - Fans are the lifeblood of our club and are always foremost in our decision making. We have a Board objective around putting our Fans First in our decision making recognising our custodianship  We are proud to have an ever-increasing number of supporters’ clubs around the world." 
2. "West Ham United remains committed to listening and responding to the needs of its supporters and one of the Board’s core objectives is to always put fans first."

These statements hold true only in so far as no one questions or challenges the brilliant job this board has done in getting us both into the relegation zone through a number of ridiculous sporting decisions and appointments and, effectively trading in a manner tantamount to bankruptcy through their prudent financial management.

Any dissent shown by said fans as to the abject state these wankers have got us in,  they are their published accounts. not the supporters, containing the details up to last year, with more shit to come, will be met with KGB efficiency and the board asking other clubs to treat us like they do. 

Brady once called us scum and the evidence suggests that is how she thinks we should be treated and the statements in the accounts, like the numbers are a fucking disgrace.. 

Eventually other clubs won't want to trade with us because they know the numbers can only get worse with the kicking the can down the road business plan. That means a worse deal for them with more clauses and increasingly bizarre conditions. Word gets around as it has done for many years now 

The few that do chance their arm to trade with Sullivan are delighted because they know the boardroom is so disfunctional it presents an opportunity to pull their pants down. 

[ATHammer]

Obviously the numbers themselves are catastrophic and a true testament to the inappropriateness of Brady (self styled CEO) and Sullivan (Property Developer par excellence) to run our club.
There are also two other key statements which absolutely demonstrate, beyond doubt, the contempt the board holds for the supporters:
1."Fans - - - Fans are the lifeblood of our club and are always foremost in our decision making. We have a Board objective around putting our Fans First in our decision making recognising our custodianship  We are proud to have an ever-increasing number of supporters’ clubs around the world." 
2. "West Ham United remains committed to listening and responding to the needs of its supporters and one of the Board’s core objectives is to always put fans first."

These statements hold true only in so far as no one questions or challenges the brilliant job this board has done in getting us both into the relegation zone through a number of ridiculous sporting decisions and appointments and, effectively trading in a manner tantamount to bankruptcy through their prudent financial management.

Any dissent shown by said fans as to the abject state these wankers have got us in,  they are their published accounts. not the supporters, containing the details up to last year, with more shit to come, will be met with KGB efficiency and the board asking other clubs to treat us like they do. 

Brady once called us scum and the evidence suggests that is how she thinks we should be treated and the statements in the accounts, like the numbers are a fucking disgrace.. 

[eusebiovic]

For what it's worth I think he got lumbered with investing in West Ham via one of his employees looking to diversify his portfolio of interests.

I don't think for one nanosecond he would have come anywhere near the club if he knew how toxic and fucked up the ownership really were. 

 

Multi-billionaire splurges £200M on an asset he knows nothing about and doesn't bother with due diligence because an employee did the deal.  Hmmm.

I get it but it's not unheard of to have a team of people looking for investments especially as at one point he was worth about 11 billion pounds. It might've gone down a bit since his peak valuation which funnily enough coincides with the time he invested in WH.

[northbankfrank]

For what it's worth I think he got lumbered with investing in West Ham via one of his employees looking to diversify his portfolio of interests.

I don't think for one nanosecond he would have come anywhere near the club if he knew how toxic and fucked up the ownership really were. 

 

 

Multi-billionaire splurges £200M on an asset he knows nothing about and doesn't bother with due diligence because an employee did the deal.  Hmmm.

[Council Scum]

Here's the thing about Kretinsky. 

He waits until the asset is on its knees, then he swoops. He is not going to put in a penny more until he has control, dilution for Sullivan.

Think about it: why is Sullivan borrowing from these external groups at a high interest, when Kretinsky could EASILY offer a shareholder loan? Because Kretinsky thinks Sullivan is a buffoon.

He is waiting for Sullivan to come begging, then he has the power to exert control. 

Kretinsky whole game is about using time to gain leverage, like a python slowly squeezing its victim. 



 

I have often found myself pondering whether this is the Kretinsky plan all along but it's taking so long to come to fruition that it's only natural to suspect other motives.

For what it's worth I think he got lumbered with investing in West Ham via one of his employees looking to diversify his portfolio of interests.

I don't think for one nanosecond he would have come anywhere near the club if he knew how toxic and fucked up the ownership really were. 

So perhaps he is playing the long game but I'm not holding my breath.

He has zero interest in buying the club.