West Ham Online

Vexed wrote: ↑27 Sep 2025, 10:47 You have to assume we have decided our next manager then. I'm not looking forward to this!

Strange timing. 

yngwies Cat" wrote: ↑27 Sep 2025, 10:44 Tin tacked?

Massive Attack" wrote: ↑26 Sep 2025, 22:18 Ffs

Sevilla of all Clubs have now mocked Potter up jn blackface as Kanoute. This is all getting proper bizarre.



Shows how much the Footballing world laughs at our circus of a Club though, clearly.  

Westside wrote: ↑27 Sep 2025, 00:39 Forgot to say, that Forbes article values us at US$1.125 Billion. If you disagree, take it up with them!

threesixty wrote: ↑26 Sep 2025, 13:30

southbankbornnbred wrote: ↑26 Sep 2025, 13:12 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 wrote: ↑26 Sep 2025, 18:27 Plus, if we owned the damn stadium, we could fuck off the athletics track and reconfigure it as a proper football stadium. Or knock it down and build a proper ground.

So, the place might actually feel like a football stadium and not a soul-less athletics bowl.

But that would take investment and some time.

Lee Trundle" wrote: ↑26 Sep 2025, 13:55 First question at Graham Potter’s pre-Everton press conference:
“Morning Graham, any chance you’ve seen yourself face-swapped into every photo known to man over the last 72 hours?”

I thought that was funny as fuck that also perfectly summed the sap up. Unintentionally mocked by a young female Journo about having the right piss taken out of him by fans and even his own 15yo son he admits laughed his bollocks at how pathetic his old man comes across. Of all the serious questions to ask in a Premier League Press Conference. Now that is classic Partridge shit!

southbankbornnbred wrote: ↑26 Sep 2025, 18:27 Plus, if we owned the damn stadium, we could fuck off the athletics track and reconfigure it as a proper football stadium. Or knock it down and build a proper ground.

So, the place might actually feel like a football stadium and not a soul-less athletics bowl.

But that would take investment and some time.

southbankbornnbred wrote: ↑26 Sep 2025, 18:14

Council Scum" wrote: ↑26 Sep 2025, 15:01

southbankbornnbred wrote: ↑26 Sep 2025, 13:12 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.

Whats the benefit of owning the ground? Getting saddled with 500million of debt to build it? All up keep and repairs to it you have to pay? 

It's a fair Q, CS. But the answer is simply because it would significantly increase our potential revenues - giving us more money to stay competitive in the transfer market etc. If we own the stadium, we could then take ALL matchday receipts (currently shared for things like the food concessions etc). We could get a stadium sponsor and keep all the receipts from that annually, we could retain all other sponsorship income generated within the stadium, we could host other events and keep the profits, we could add more retail/bars/cafes to the stadium, we could even borrow against the value of the stadium asset etc if we need to.

Under the bonkers PSR rules, clubs have to show that their operational revenues now come from "football related" income. Owners can't really just hand the clubs money (although there are various loopholes). So increasing your revenues often relies on maximising the potential within your stadium. But we don't own the stadium. For example, if we did get a stadium sponsor, I think we're entitled to just one-third of the annual income and it's capped at a certain level.

Spurs, for example, will get loads of extra cash by hosting NFL games, gigs etc. And they keep almost all of the income, because it's their ground. So it counts as operational revenues - and they can spend it on players/wages etc. We can't really do that. So we're now hampered by these PSR shits!

Council Scum" wrote: ↑26 Sep 2025, 15:01

southbankbornnbred wrote: ↑26 Sep 2025, 13:12 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.

Whats the benefit of owning the ground? Getting saddled with 500million of debt to build it? All up keep and repairs to it you have to pay? 

southbankbornnbred wrote: ↑26 Sep 2025, 13:12 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.