West Ham accounts reveal loss of £37m
Moderator: Gnome
- fjthegrey
- Posts: 23050
- Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 3:35 pm
- Location: Ayakin
- Has liked: 14 likes
- Total likes: 1169 likes
Re: West Ham accounts reveal loss of £37m
I wonder if Warren Buffet fancies having a play thing football club?
Even Bill Gates would do.
Even Bill Gates would do.
- PrawnSandwich
- Posts: 10097
- Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2007 10:42 am
- Location: Reaching for the Sky
Re: West Ham accounts reveal loss of £37m
Ashton joke right around the corner...fjthegrey wrote:I wonder if Warren Buffet fancies having a play thing football club?
:arry:
Re: Would I lie to you baby?
Lowlife wrote:Scott Duxbury, late June 2009 in interview on West Ham Till I Die Blog, “there was quite a lot of pressure from our banks that we should sell Scott Parker. I argued very strongly against to the point of, er, perhaps moving on, because we had never breached any of our banking covenants. We had always made our repayments back, but because the banks were getting nervous about their own situations, to me they were putting undue pressure on us and trying to interfere in the operation.”
Nick Igoe, August 2009, “The scale of operating losses and wages caused the group to breach certain banking covenants in 2007-08. Although the group's banking syndicate [later] waived these breaches, a business strategy which relies on the goodwill of the group's bankers to waive covenant breaches is fundamentally flawed."
he says the group not necessarily WHUplc
-
- Posts: 8167
- Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 9:24 am
Re: Would I lie to you baby?
Aha! Now that's interesting. I wonder what they mean when they say 'group' and 'we' and whether they are materially different or not? Timing could come into it then, was Dux later speaking on behalf of a new entity that in truth had never broken it's covenants whilst Igoe referred to a now defunct structure?old fart wrote:he says the group not necessarily WHUplc
- FDiMcA
- teh
- Posts: 4999
- Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2002 2:54 pm
- Location: Locked in a cellar, not sure where but I can smell hotdogs
Re: West Ham accounts reveal loss of £37m
The Chamakh deal like the Diamante one was about spreading payments, the selling club becoming a creditor of West Ham.ashbanki wrote:Yep, there would'nt have been a cat in hells chance of getting the two forwards and RB we needed had that got out!
If it was widley known that we had ridiculous debts and nothing bar the bankers whim to prevent us going bankrupt not only would we have missed out on Chamakh but we would probably have had to pay for Diamante in cash up front either scuppering that deal, or forcing Upsons sale.
If we mark ourselves at 5/10 for the transfer window, I suspect our mark would have been lower if we had invited the Vultures to circle and suggested to clubs who were agreeing to us delaying payment (Including Bordeux) that they were being foolish.
-
- Posts: 10613
- Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 6:11 pm
- Has liked: 1548 likes
- Total likes: 769 likes
Re: West Ham accounts reveal loss of £37m
I've no idea. All I see is a portion of an answer to an unknown question. Don't you think knowing what the question was to which he was replying might be helpful before drawing conclusions. I know I would. You may be right and he was lying but in any case surely the areas that should be concentrated on are a) that the club did make the repayments and b) Scott Parker wasn't sold. I don't think there are many on here who think Duxbury is a paragon of virtue.QuintonNimoy wrote:Scott says we had never broken banking covenants. Never ever. At no time. Ever. Could just be a slip of the tongue of course.
- SammyLeeWasOffside
- Posts: 21813
- Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 9:31 am
- Has liked: 309 likes
- Total likes: 1082 likes
Re: Would I lie to you baby?
It is tougher than the Times crossword trying to fathom what anyone means these days.old fart wrote: he says the group not necessarily WHUplc
I would take it from those quotes that Duxbury's we refers to the football club hadn't broken covenants (I assume we have loans that are just ours). Igoe says the group broke it's covenants which probably means hansa. The Guardian says the club broke it's covenant but nowhere does anyone actually say that.
Can someone who actually understands this stuff shed some light.
Re: West Ham accounts reveal loss of £37m
The question was, "Was there ever a point in all of the ownership situation when you thought there was a danger the club could go under?"
- FDiMcA
- teh
- Posts: 4999
- Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2002 2:54 pm
- Location: Locked in a cellar, not sure where but I can smell hotdogs
Re: Would I lie to you baby?
Im guessing the group is West Ham.SammyLeeWasOffside wrote: I would take it from those quotes that Duxbury's we refers to the football club hadn't broken covenants (I assume we have loans that are just ours). Igoe says the group broke it's covenants which probably means hansa. The Guardian says the club broke it's covenant but nowhere does anyone actually say that.
Can someone who actually understands this stuff shed some light.
Im guessing the bank loans are mostly secured on the stadium owning entity whatever that may be within the group (if West Ham is a group).
This might be different from the entity that operates the stadium and employs players (on the other hand it might not)
Im so far off knowimng the facts Ill say goodnight.
Goodnight
- SammyLeeWasOffside
- Posts: 21813
- Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 9:31 am
- Has liked: 309 likes
- Total likes: 1082 likes
Re: West Ham accounts reveal loss of £37m
So Duxbury probably was referring to we as in the club would you say? The article clearly states the club broke its covenants but then quotes Igoe saying the group. Journalistic license to sensationalise things?Lowlife wrote:The question was, "Was there ever a point in all of the ownership situation when you thought there was a danger the club could go under?"
Clearly the group has broken the covenants but then we all know the group was in trouble in 2008.
- FDiMcA
- teh
- Posts: 4999
- Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2002 2:54 pm
- Location: Locked in a cellar, not sure where but I can smell hotdogs
Re: West Ham accounts reveal loss of £37m
I cant see Igoe making a comment on Hansa or Straumer breaking its covenants.SammyLeeWasOffside wrote:
Clearly the group has broken the covenants but then we all know the group was in trouble in 2008.
I am asumning he means West Ham group.
What entities make up West Ham group?
or did he mean Hansa?
sorry im alseep ignore me
- SammyLeeWasOffside
- Posts: 21813
- Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 9:31 am
- Has liked: 309 likes
- Total likes: 1082 likes
Re: Would I lie to you baby?
FDiMcA wrote:
Im guessing the group is West Ham.
Im guessing the bank loans are mostly secured on the stadium owning entity whatever that may be within the group (if West Ham is a group).
This might be different from the entity that operates the stadium and employs players (on the other hand it might not)
Im so far off knowimng the facts Ill say goodnight.
Goodnight
ok you may be right, personally I would have read the group as the whole group of companies BG was running of which the club was one. As I said comparing quotes from 2 different articles is almost impossible.
Bottom line is we were screwed, we are now a little less screwed and it is all somebodies fault.
- SammyLeeWasOffside
- Posts: 21813
- Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 9:31 am
- Has liked: 309 likes
- Total likes: 1082 likes
Re: West Ham accounts reveal loss of £37m
The ultimate test I googled Hansa and it shows as Hansa Group, googled CB Holdings and it shows as an asset Group, google west ham group and you get video of Rio, Lampard and Dyer in a spanish holiday romp.FDiMcA wrote: What entities make up West Ham group?
or did he mean Hansa?
sorry im alseep ignore me
- West Ham Matt
- Karl Pilkington
- Posts: 19667
- Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2003 3:51 pm
- Location: SACK THE BOARD!!!
- Has liked: 160 likes
- Total likes: 583 likes
-
- Posts: 8167
- Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 9:24 am
Re: West Ham accounts reveal loss of £37m
QuintonNimoy wrote:Scott says we had never broken banking covenants. Never ever. At no time. Ever. Could just be a slip of the tongue of course.
In terms of the "never" bit, no I don't think the question is important. He makes a simple statement of a fact the objective truth of which might be contradicted by what Igoe said. Facts are facts, questions don't change them. However, old fart has identified the possible inconsistency in the statements that might get Dux off the hook, on a technicality at least.KIALOS wrote:I've no idea. All I see is a portion of an answer to an unknown question. Don't you think knowing what the question was to which he was replying might be helpful before drawing conclusions. I know I would.
Well I didn't say that, I said he was polishing the turd. I'm not bothered if he's lying, I expect it most of the time. I just thought I'd unburden you of that particular misapprehension.KIALOS wrote:You may be right and he was lying
If you think there's a fascinating forum conversation to be had in this direction feel free to take the reigns.KIALOS wrote:but in any case surely the areas that should be concentrated on are a) that the club did make the repayments and b) Scott Parker wasn't sold. I don't think there are many on here who think Duxbury is a paragon of virtue.
- Puff Daddy
- Gone for a Burton
- Posts: 42435
- Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 2:08 pm
- Location: Westham Way
- Has liked: 256 likes
- Total likes: 1158 likes
Re: West Ham accounts reveal loss of £37m
Very, very depressing. It does make you wonder if there is something to be said for winding the club up and re-forming under a slightly different name. Eg Westhamunited. How else can we get ourselves out of this God awful mess as we cannot trade our way out of a hole as deep as this ? We are not an attractive proposition for anyone to buy, not as things stand at the moment
- Kent Bubble Blower
- Posts: 4270
- Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 11:06 am
Re: West Ham accounts reveal loss of £37m
No. It doesn't. Really.Puff Daddy wrote:Very, very depressing. It does make you wonder if there is something to be said for winding the club up and re-forming under a slightly different name. Eg Westhamunited. How else can we get ourselves out of this God awful mess as we cannot trade our way out of a hole as deep as this ? We are not an attractive proposition for anyone to buy, not as things stand at the moment
Re: West Ham accounts reveal loss of £37m
*Phone rings on SD’s desk*
“Hi Scott, it’s the bank here, we want you to sell Scott Parker to pay off some of the outstanding debt.”
SP “But we have kept up with all the payments”
Bank “No you haven’t, you have breached several covenants”
SP “That was the group, not us”
Bank “Silly me of course it was, as you were then.”
“Hi Scott, it’s the bank here, we want you to sell Scott Parker to pay off some of the outstanding debt.”
SP “But we have kept up with all the payments”
Bank “No you haven’t, you have breached several covenants”
SP “That was the group, not us”
Bank “Silly me of course it was, as you were then.”