West Ham Online

After the fiasco of the contracts given to Pellegrini, Lopetegui and Potter would anyone like to bet on Sullivan spending a couple of grand on getting a fit for purpose contract for Potter's replacement that includes a break clause for piss poor results and remuneration based on success?  Nah - I think he'll spaff more millions up the wall.  Businessman, my arse.

threesixty wrote: ↑24 Sep 2025, 11:47

Russ of the BML" wrote: ↑24 Sep 2025, 09:28 The list of managers Sullivan has hired is a list if the most average and under-whelming blokes you could possibly imagine. Don't expect him to change this time around. 

Anyway, FWIW, there won't be a new coach as i doubt we even have the money to sack Potter. If we want Nuno then we may even have to pay his severance to Forest. 

I mean, seriously, I knew Sullivan was a bad owner but when you analyse where we are, it’s genuinely hard to believe how he could have allowed it to get this bad. Mind boggling. 

 

I’m guessing the way he runs the club and how he presents the books is probably why he never gets in an in work manager or is reluctant to pay any compensation. I suppose the idea is some expenditure creates assets and some are just used to run the business (capex vs opex?). 

so he seems to be avoiding additional opex payments like the plague. Maybe it’s all very tax effecient to act this way but it’s really limiting the ability fo the club to be successful as we are always picking from a very small pool of management choices 

also makes you wonder if our club doesn’t actually have say 10m in actual cash on hand at all? Do annual statements show how much free cash West Ham have in the bank?

Russ of the BML" wrote: ↑24 Sep 2025, 09:28 The list of managers Sullivan has hired is a list if the most average and under-whelming blokes you could possibly imagine. Don't expect him to change this time around. 

Anyway, FWIW, there won't be a new coach as i doubt we even have the money to sack Potter. If we want Nuno then we may even have to pay his severance to Forest. 

I mean, seriously, I knew Sullivan was a bad owner but when you analyse where we are, it’s genuinely hard to believe how he could have allowed it to get this bad. Mind boggling. 

 

The list of managers Sullivan has hired is a list if the most average and under-whelming blokes you could possibly imagine. Don't expect him to change this time around. 

Anyway, FWIW, there won't be a new coach as i doubt we even have the money to sack Potter. If we want Nuno then we may even have to pay his severance to Forest. 

I mean, seriously, I knew Sullivan was a bad owner but when you analyse where we are, its genuinely hard to believe how he could have allowed it to get this bad. Mind boggling. 

threesixty wrote: ↑23 Sep 2025, 11:09 The thing is, when you don’t actually know what you’re doing anything you do is sort of doomed to failure no matter how well intentioned. If you do seem to get it right it’s by accident. I feel like Sullivan really thinks he’s had great intentions and its more just bad luck than anything else as to why he always finds himself in this situation. 

And because he’s probably a class A narcissist (as most super rich businessmen are), he will never be able to reflect on the fact that the evidence shows, after 15yrs+ in football, he has been the constant in all the problems. 

I dont think any contract clause or arrangement means anything if you have Sullivan ultimately making decisions. Right now it was him that has decided that given Potters win ratio last season, he deserved to start this season. Even if his contract ended in May he likely would have extended it anyway. Unless he thinks a 1 yr pay off for a manager is worth flirting with relegation? (That’s a crazy business decision by anyone’s standard) So it looks like, Sullivan in over 15yrs of football seriously thought that Potter would do well this season. How can you legislate for that type of decision making at the highest level? You just cant.

A fool and his money are soon parted…

 

Threesixty nails it below.  Sullivan will fvck it up yet again.  Its almost a certainty.  Only appointment that worked more than one season was Moyes second time around although in terms of league form Moyes success streak was just 2 seasons.   

 

Fauxstralian wrote: ↑23 Sep 2025, 11:32 Maybe if we had owners who knew anything about football we’d do what SUPERIOR clubs like Bournemouth, Brighton , Palace & Fulham do 
Have a strategy
Identify a talented manager
Back the talented manager & keep morons out of football decisions 

Those smaller clubs have identified Iraola, Huertzler Glasner & Silva why we have appointed dullards like Avram Grant & Moyes incompetents like Pellegrini Lopetegui  & CockPissPotter 
So now we are looking for someone til the end of the season so it’ll be the desperate types who have been out of work for ages because they got binned off for failing

Maybe if we had owners who knew anything about football we’d do what SUPERIOR clubs like Bournemouth, Brighton , Palace & Fulham do 
Have a strategy
Identify a talented manager
Back the talented manager & keep morons out of football decisions 

Those smaller clubs have identified Iraola, Huertzler Glasner & Silva why we have appointed dullards like Avram Grant & Moyes incompetents like Pellegrini Lopetegui  & CockPissPotter 
So now we are looking for someone til the end of the season so it’ll be the desperate types who have been out of work for ages because they got binned off for failing

Put loads of non standard clauses in which aren't favourable for a manager and he simply won't sign it. Why would he when he wouldn't have to put up with it anywhere else? With a club like ours, unless we are doing a manager a huge favour like plucking someone from the conference who we can basically bend over, we are never in a position to demand anything much at all. Particularly as has been pointed out, it's always US who are the desperate ones. And if we are seeking a top manager he'll just laugh and walk away. All you'll do is attract desperate, shit managers with fuck all to lose.

Only a club like Madrid could hope to do things like that just because they are the golden seat and they know at least some people will crawl over glass to take that job. But even then a top manager would likely think it's not worth the hassle and simply trot off to PSG or Bayern or Barcelona. 

Essentially you're making an already unattractive job that more unattractive by doing this. Particularly as most managers know Sullivan is unlikely to hold up his end of the bargain anyway in giving a manager what they need to be successful. Why should the manager sign up to loads of unusual performance clauses when he knows his employer likely is going to do nowhere near what's required to actually allow the manager to meet them.

Even in the case of Potter, he's been an absolute disaster, but Sullivan has NOT in any way given him ALL the tools he needs. (Some, granted, but no way all) We are bereft at CB and CF. Igor Julio the only recruit to the worst centre back trio in the league? Do me a fucking favour. Callum hopalong Wilson the only recruit to an already woefully undertooled front line? Do me another one. Why on earth is a manager going to agree to a load of strict performance clauses when he knows he's not going to get the tools to do his job properly. It's like a cycling team signing a rider and telling him he's got to place top 5 at the tour de france or whatever to retain his seat and earn his wages, then giving him a fucking child's three speed bike with a flat tyre from cash converters while the others are all on their 15k carbon fibre speed machines.

I think theyre praying moyes fucks up at Everton before next summer and he can come back.

So it will be a short term contract. Maybe a bit of 'temping' for someone between jobs. Or how about zero hours . . 

But FFS they need to find someone decent and give them at least 3 years, like every other club does.



 

Alfs wrote: ↑22 Sep 2025, 22:11

stubbo-admin wrote: ↑22 Sep 2025, 21:48 I think part of the problem is manager's generally know they don't have to take those contracts.

I mean, we should be thinking:

• 3 year contract
• Option to sack for nothing if in bottom 3 with ten games to go 25/26 (last role of dice)
• Option to sack for nothing if relegated
• Option to sack for 6 months pay if in bottom 5 at Xmas 25/26
• Option to sack for 6 months pay if in bottom 7 at End of Season 25/26
• Buy out clause of 15m if any club in the top 10 at time of asking seeks to hire

 

All well and good in theory but you won't attract the best talent with such clauses, unless all clubs signed up to the same paradigm.

The thing is, when you don’t actually know what you’re doing anything you do is sort of doomed to failure no matter how well intentioned. If you do seem to get it right it’s by accident. I feel like Sullivan really thinks he’s had great intentions and its more just bad luck than anything else as to why he always finds himself in this situation. 

And because he’s probably a class A narcissist (as most super rich businessmen are), he will never be able to reflect on the fact that the evidence shows, after 15yrs+ in football, he has been the constant in all the problems. 

I dont think any contract clause or arrangement means anything if you have Sullivan ultimately making decisions. Right now it was him that has decided that given Potters win ratio last season, he deserved to start this season. Even if his contract ended in May he likely would have extended it anyway. Unless he thinks a 1 yr pay off for a manager is worth flirting with relegation? (That’s a crazy business decision by anyone’s standard) So it looks like, Sullivan in over 15yrs of football seriously thought that Potter would do well this season. How can you legislate for that type of decision making at the highest level? You just cant.

A fool and his money are soon parted…

One of West Ham's biggest problems under Sullivan is that he is generally always looking for a new manager because we are in the shit. Thus giving the incoming bloke the upper hand. One of Sulli's many failures is to have never enhanced the brand of 'West Ham' and so we are seen by numerous managers as them doing us a favour. Nuno will be no different.

Had Sullivan done his job properly and instilled a vision, style and ethos way back when he came in, then we would be always searching for a type of manager / coach. That way, you can calculate your compensation / salary costs more efficiently. As it stands, we are a beggar sitting in the road with our cap held out. 

Again, each failure leads back to one culprit. 

I would just write WIN SOME FUCKING GAMES at the top.

Alfs wrote: ↑22 Sep 2025, 22:11

stubbo-admin wrote: ↑22 Sep 2025, 21:48 I think part of the problem is manager's generally know they don't have to take those contracts.

I mean, we should be thinking:

• 3 year contract
• Option to sack for nothing if in bottom 3 with ten games to go 25/26 (last role of dice)
• Option to sack for nothing if relegated
• Option to sack for 6 months pay if in bottom 5 at Xmas 25/26
• Option to sack for 6 months pay if in bottom 7 at End of Season 25/26
• Buy out clause of 15m if any club in the top 10 at time of asking seeks to hire

 

All well and good in theory but you won't attract the best talent with such clauses, unless all clubs signed up to the same paradigm.

stubbo-admin wrote: ↑22 Sep 2025, 21:48 I think part of the problem is manager's generally know they don't have to take those contracts.

I mean, we should be thinking:

• 3 year contract
• Option to sack for nothing if in bottom 3 with ten games to go 25/26 (last role of dice)
• Option to sack for nothing if relegated
• Option to sack for 6 months pay if in bottom 5 at Xmas 25/26
• Option to sack for 6 months pay if in bottom 7 at End of Season 25/26
• Buy out clause of 15m if any club in the top 10 at time of asking seeks to hire

 

I think part of the problem is manager's generally know they don't have to take those contracts.

I mean, we should be thinking:

• 3 year contract
• Option to sack for nothing if in bottom 3 with ten games to go 25/26 (last role of dice)
• Option to sack for nothing if relegated
• Option to sack for 6 months pay if in bottom 5 at Xmas 25/26
• Option to sack for 6 months pay if in bottom 7 at End of Season 25/26
• Buy out clause of 15m if any club in the top 10 at time of asking seeks to hire

Or something like that...all emminently achievable for a manager of any real substance amd protects the club.

But the reality is a guy like Nuno knows he doesn't need to take on the risk...and you can bet they LUURRRVVVEE the payout for failure which is frankly baked in.

On The Ball" wrote: ↑22 Sep 2025, 21:19 Why do you describe the contracts as a "fiasco"? What do you know of them?

Why do you describe the contracts as a "fiasco"? What do you know of them?