If Potter would get sacked who would you want IN to replace him?

[Barty888]

25% win percentage 

Clueless today

[southbankbornnbred]

Don't forget, Sullivan only owns 37% of shares. So he gets 37% of any full-buyout sale price.

Back of a fag packet calculation: he's probably invested around £80m to £100m of his own money in West Ham since buying the club 15 years ago (excluding loans, which he's largely taken back).

37% of £800m (his target price) is £296m
Less his approx £100m investment: £196m

Spread over the 15 years of ownership: equates to around £13m profit for each year he's owned the club.

Which is not huge by major investment standards. So you can see why the twonk is pushing for the highest price he can get. He won't get £800m for West Ham, though. You'd have to be a right mug to pay that. No ground to own, and limited commercial revenues until you bought the ground. Plus, you'd have to set aside, or plan for, hundreds of millions to redevelop it purely for football purposes.

 

Apparently ENIC just rejected an informal bid of 4.5b for Spurs. 
They have a stadium but that isn’t worth 3b of that price.

valuations for private companies can be typically 8-10 times revenue. West Ham revenue is about 250m right?  

Think Deloitte's 2024-25 money league had our revenues at around £285m (325m Euros). Spurs' are currently at or around 550m euros due to Champions League money. Usually more like 500m-ish.

I have no idea how Premier League club valuations differ from "general" (if there is such a thing these days) private company valuations. But given how potential increases in revenues under PSR are strongly tied to ground ownership (potential ground sponsorship, ability to host other events, on-site retail/bars, an asset to borrow against etc etc), then I would imagine that ground ownership will play a significant part in future realistic valuations. Which 'might' be why nobody has bitten at Sullivan's high-looking £800m.

[threesixty]

Don't forget, Sullivan only owns 37% of shares. So he gets 37% of any full-buyout sale price.

Back of a fag packet calculation: he's probably invested around £80m to £100m of his own money in West Ham since buying the club 15 years ago (excluding loans, which he's largely taken back).

37% of £800m (his target price) is £296m
Less his approx £100m investment: £196m

Spread over the 15 years of ownership: equates to around £13m profit for each year he's owned the club.

Which is not huge by major investment standards. So you can see why the twonk is pushing for the highest price he can get. He won't get £800m for West Ham, though. You'd have to be a right mug to pay that. No ground to own, and limited commercial revenues until you bought the ground. Plus, you'd have to set aside, or plan for, hundreds of millions to redevelop it purely for football purposes.

 

 

Apparently ENIC just rejected an informal bid of 4.5b for Spurs. 
They have a stadium but that isn’t worth 3b of that price.

valuations for private companies can be typically 8-10 times revenue. West Ham revenue is about 250m right?  

[southbankbornnbred]

Don't forget, Sullivan only owns 37% of shares. So he gets 37% of any full-buyout sale price.

Back of a fag packet calculation: he's probably invested around £80m to £100m of his own money in West Ham since buying the club 15 years ago (excluding loans, which he's largely taken back).

37% of £800m (his target price) is £296m
Less his approx £100m investment: £196m

Spread over the 15 years of ownership: equates to around £13m profit for each year he's owned the club.

Which is not huge by major investment standards. So you can see why the twonk is pushing for the highest price he can get. He won't get £800m for West Ham, though. You'd have to be a right mug to pay that. No ground to own, and limited commercial revenues until you bought the ground. Plus, you'd have to set aside, or plan for, hundreds of millions to redevelop it purely for football purposes.

[southbankbornnbred]

Yep - it all indicates that they're readying for a sale. They have been for a couple of seasons.

The stumbling block is Sullivan's preposterous £800m+ valuation of a club that doesn't own its own ground, and might soon be in the Championship.

[goose]

I believe the club has no long term loan debt.
The operation of the club is financed by operational income (largely tv money).
the revolving credit facility is available to use as and when we need it, its not dissimilar to using an overdraft.

[threesixty]

However a straight out loan to cover operating expenses is going to cost more than a loan to buy an asset. 

What are you blathering on about? They have a credit facility in place, secured against future income. If they borrow on it then the interest rate is the same whatever they spend it on. Buying a football player will see his value included as an asset on the balance sheet whereas hiring a manager does not, but that has no bearing on loan costs, only things like PSR and the value of the club itself.

 

 

The general principal for loans are if they are linked with an asset is the loan rate is cheaper because there is collateral
involved. General borrowing is always more expensive. 

You seem to be saying all their purchases for players or operational costs come from the same credit agreement. That sounds a bit bonkers. But you obviously know the detail…

[Jean-Luc Paul Goddard]

However a straight out loan to cover operating expenses is going to cost more than a loan to buy an asset. 

What are you blathering on about? They have a credit facility in place, secured against future income. If they borrow on it then the interest rate is the same whatever they spend it on. Buying a football player will see his value included as an asset on the balance sheet whereas hiring a manager does not, but that has no bearing on loan costs, only things like PSR and the value of the club itself.

[threesixty]

TldR: 
the point I’m making is that spending 50m on Paq is ok for him because he’s not actually paying for it out of his money. But paying comp for Potter etc would mean it coming out of his own money. Even though in the long run, getting a great manager in would increase the value of all his players and the club revenue, he priorities the self sufficiency and lean running of the club as a principal (and it means he doesn’t have to invest anything more). 




 

 

why should he piss away £50m of his own money on a player? unless you will allow him to take the money back of/when we sell the player?
would you throw £50m of your own money down the drain? i wouldnt.

if he really wanted to he could lend the club money at a preferable rate to a bank.

the management accountants are stupid, when budgeting operating expense for this year there will be the risk of sacking a manager and they'll have allowed for that and any impact on PSR. remember the club has significantly reduced its wage bill this year as well.

 

 

It doesn’t need to come out of his own money. There’s many ways to finance this. However a straight out loan to cover operating expenses is going to cost more than a loan to buy an asset. So maybe that’s the reason?

Whatever it is, it’s unusual for any club be so averse to pursuing a manager in contract. I first I thought it was some noble “we don’t like tapping up managers” thing that he was as stuck on. Now I just think it’s literally penny pinching as a principal. 

[El Scorchio]

TldR: 
the point I’m making is that spending 50m on Paq is ok for him because he’s not actually paying for it out of his money. But paying comp for Potter etc would mean it coming out of his own money. Even though in the long run, getting a great manager in would increase the value of all his players and the club revenue, he priorities the self sufficiency and lean running of the club as a principal (and it means he doesn’t have to invest anything more). 



 

 

why should he piss away £50m of his own money on a player? unless you will allow him to take the money back of/when we sell the player?
would you throw £50m of your own money down the drain? i wouldnt.

if he really wanted to he could lend the club money at a preferable rate to a bank.

the management accountants are stupid, when budgeting operating expense for this year there will be the risk of sacking a manager and they'll have allowed for that and any impact on PSR. remember the club has significantly reduced its wage bill this year as well.

Or make a fully interest free loan. But then he doesn’t get anything out of it does he…

[goose]

TldR: 
the point I’m making is that spending 50m on Paq is ok for him because he’s not actually paying for it out of his money. But paying comp for Potter etc would mean it coming out of his own money. Even though in the long run, getting a great manager in would increase the value of all his players and the club revenue, he priorities the self sufficiency and lean running of the club as a principal (and it means he doesn’t have to invest anything more). 


 

 

 

why should he piss away £50m of his own money on a player? unless you will allow him to take the money back of/when we sell the player?
would you throw £50m of your own money down the drain? i wouldnt.

if he really wanted to he could lend the club money at a preferable rate to a bank.

the management accountants are stupid, when budgeting operating expense for this year there will be the risk of sacking a manager and they'll have allowed for that and any impact on PSR. remember the club has significantly reduced its wage bill this year as well.

[Jean-Luc Paul Goddard]

TldR: 
the point I’m making is that spending 50m on Paq is ok for him because he’s not actually paying for it out of his money. But paying comp for Potter etc would mean it coming out of his own money. 
 

Why would it need to come out of his own money? Even if the club is completely boracic at the moment it has enough of a credit facility to easily pay for manager compensation (and funding new players in January). The issue is not, and never has been, about the availability of money. It's about the decision making behind how to spend what is available and whether to take on more debt to finance improvements. This is where Sullivan has shown his incompetence time and again.

Regarding his desire to only bring in out of work managers he needs to learn the adage, "buy cheap, buy twice".

[El Scorchio]

That is true. The investment in the club vs revenue is pitiful compared to almost all clubs our size. Especially considering the loans they made to the club which they were taking interest on, which apparently no or almost no other owners do. So they’ve taken money out all right. 

[threesixty]

TldR: 
the point I’m making is that spending 50m on Paq is ok for him because he’s not actually paying for it out of his money. But paying comp for Potter etc would mean it coming out of his own money. Even though in the long run, getting a great manager in would increase the value of all his players and the club revenue, he priorities the self sufficiency and lean running of the club as a principal (and it means he doesn’t have to invest anything more). 
 

[North Bank]

I've submitted West Ham's latest accounts into AI and asked for a report.  It's not goog.

https://claude.ai/public/artifacts/45f6 ... c313339a1c

 

Alfa this was the bit that stood out and probably explains why no-one in their right mind has seriously looked at us along with the fact that Brady in negotiations with top tier business people is like a kite in a storm.Going Concern Issues

• The company appears to be technically insolvent
• Significant dependence on creditor forbearance
• May require immediate capital injection or restructuring

[threesixty]

It all depends how you want to run a business. Lots of the biggest businesses in the country have very little actual cash in the bank. That can be quite normal. Why have a load of cash on hand if it’s not making money and you’re not using it? 

my theory (and its just a theory) is that he runs West Ham in a very lean way. Looking at the books over the years from 2020 to 2024 he’s gone from the club declaring 17m in cash to 3.6m in 2021, to 8.2m, then 96m in 2023 (Rice sale, Europe etc) and in 2024 the cash went down to 34m. (Apparently they paid off the debt then owed to shareholders and banks) 

so it’s a healthy, “self sustaining” club. And that’s the key. 
it’s not financially “healthy” if you spend 20m on compensation to get in a manager and pay off an old one. That depletes your operating cash heavily. Managers are not assets. It’s an operational spend. So you can’t really borrow against it. It’s seems like a cost he wants to avoid.

I think Alfie from HITC pointed out that Sullivan has invested the least amount of money in West Ham vs any PL club since he bought the thing. So I think he is really allergic to having to dip into his own pocket to pay for changing managers. 

Thats his choice. And financially it makes sense to him and the club as long as we don’t get relegated. But I think it’s a huge risk as well because this league is getting harder and harder. Many people feel that Sullivans target is really just to stay in this league and not much else. When you look at how he prioritises things maybe they’re right.


 

[goose]

360 - I could tell you that what you’ve posted is a load of old cock, but that’s been very nicely done below.

To me it feels as though more & more pressure is on Sullivan and his decision making abilities. Hopefully this means being forced to break with tradition & actually get a manager out of his current contract to manage West Ham. Silva would be way better than anyone else we’ve seen linked.

[Jean-Luc Paul Goddard]

I seriously bet all West Ham’s operating costs are loans and all our transfer fees are paid for with borrowed money. I don’t think the club is uses money it has earned or has in the bank at all. It’s the only thing that explains it. 

That doesn't explain shit. It doesn't even make any sense. You seem to be implying that any revenue that comes into the club is siphoned off to go into Sullivan's back pocket or something equally asinine. If all our costs were paid for by loans we'd have a mountain of debt, which would be seen in the accounts. Quite the reverse is true. The club uses all its revenue to pay its operating costs, transfer fees, etc. and borrows very little compared to other clubs.

I've submitted West Ham's latest accounts into AI and asked for a report.  It's not goog.

https://claude.ai/public/artifacts/45f6 ... c313339a1c

I don't imagine this means anything much. Do the same for any other Premier League club and things will most likely look worse, given that ours is one of the few clubs with a low level of debt. 

[Alfs]

I've submitted West Ham's latest accounts into AI and asked for a report.  It's not goog.

https://claude.ai/public/artifacts/45f6 ... c313339a1c
 

[RBshorty]

Regardless of who would cough up the compo for Silva. It’s highly unlikely he would want to come here. Just to get thrown under the bus by the dwarf. At the first bump in the road. It’s a BS story. Being put out by the usual sources.

[threesixty]

Claret & POO are suggesting Kretinsky wasn't impressed with Scott Parker, Gary O’Neil, and Slaven Bilic, and wants Marco Silva.

The midget and tart don't want to pay the compensation for him.

Kretinsky sounds like he's the only one with any sense.

 

What is it about compensation they are so allergic to? Considering they lose so much money on transfers etc. 
I really don’t think the actual West Ham FC as a limited company has any money in the bank. And probably never has. 
it makes no sense. 

I genuinely don't think Sullivan has the foresight to see that when we buy a lot of our players we are destined to lose a lot of money on them. He's probably shocked to be lumbered with a bunch of unsellable shit we've had to give away or leave to rot in our reserves. It's just a symptom of little or no strategy, long term vision and a scattergun approach- like what did he think was going to happen with Danny Ings, JWP etc? Wed be able to recoup our money? 

Granted I don't think you could foresee that Aguerd and Alvarez would just become malcontents and down tools under multiple managers after both arguably performing well below expectations- but again when each was bought in was there actually a proper plan about how they'd fit into the squad there at the time? It looked like they never really knew what to do with Aguerd in particular from the off. I feel we buy a lot of players for the sake of getting them in- usually in a panic- rather than really looking at how they compliment what we already have at the club and how signing them moves us forward in the short and long term. Even Paqueta is a good example. He was a good player who became available and that's why we got him before thinking about how a manager would utilise him with what we have already, rather than 'we need a player at this position who can do this- Lucas Paqueta has those attributes so let's get him' It's all backwards. You can see this from the way Paqueta has been shifted around all sorts of positions in the team- a lot of the time to accommodate far worse players. You don't do that with your best player.

Anyway, I agree that the amount we lose by having a terrible transfer policy dwarfs the numbers we'd have to pay to get managers who are in a job already- and indeed by recruiting terrible managers we are paying loads out when we fire them anyway. It needs a shift of mindset to go forward rather than just treading water like we are.

 

 

 

 

There must be something specific about where the cash is coming from though? There’s not a single club in the league that is that allergic to pursuing a manager currently in a job. This is 15yrs and I don’t think he’s ever done it. We’ve had about 10 managers or something silly right? 

I think he may have paid out compensation for sacking someone but never to get them to join. Is it just superstition? 
It’s actually a mental issue. What business person decides to only choose from the smallest set of options to run a multi million pound business? Something very fishy about that in my mind. 

How much cash does west ham actually have? Or do they not have to disclose it? West Ham isn’t publicly traded so perhaps not. 

I seriously bet all West Ham’s operating costs are loans and all our transfer fees are paid for with borrowed money. I don’t think the club is uses money it has earned or has in the bank at all. It’s the only thing that explains it. 

if kratinsky gets silva he will be paying the comp out of his own pocket. 

[XKhammer]

Yesterday - reports from the usual YouTubers that Kretinsky wants Scott Parker.
Today -  - reports from the usual YouTubers that Kretinsky doesn't want Scott Parker.
What crap will they be spouting tomorrow?

Scott Parker doesn't want Kretinsky?

[Ceasar]

I want a versatile tactically astute manager who can switch styles based on opponents and the way plan A is going He needs to be a good man manager capable of improving players in the team and capable of helping the very promising batch of youngsters from the academy integrate into the squad No short termism please and don't be cheap Sullivan! The manager position is the most important position at every club! So be AMBITIOUS!!!!   

Not one in the managers linked fits this criteria

Sullivan stop being cheap you stupid midget and pay properly for someone not unemployed ffs!

[Gary Strodders shank]

I think it is more a case of who would be prepared to join the circus that is currently West ham ?
.
Whilst Dave dithers  the main targets such as Nuno are likely to go elsewhere as we plummet further down the table and  become less and less of an attractive proposition.

No decent manager is going to fall for the BS bs anymore 
World class stadium massive potential 68k blah blah it's all phoney baloney and everyone knows it.

The genie is out of the bottle.

The fanbase is the clubs biggest asset (although BS treat ius with contempt) but any manager coming in will likely come for the money or to try and get his career back on track after being released elsewhere.

I wouldn't be surprised to see two appointments by the end of the season.

The final one being a Big Sam desperation move in a vein attempt to keep us up.

We are in terminal decline and have been for the past three seasons under three different managers.





 

[Mike Oxsaw]

I just want to tell you about Martin
'Cause nobody I know wants a guv'ner like him
The season has already started
We're shit in defence and crap on the wings
At training the boss would always say we're alright
But Potter always parked the old bus
Sulli the clown thought he'd push him around
Owning more of the Hammers than us
So we got up a protest to give him bum's rush
Then got beaten (again) and the board thought it cool

But we don't want a guv'ner like Martin
Nobody deserves a guv'ner like him like him

[RBshorty]

Remember who is passing out all this news.? Hot air doesn’t cost a bean.

Remember.

”When the Money gets Tight. The Shit gets Real.!”