West Ham accounts reveal loss of £37m

[fjthegrey]

I wonder if Warren Buffet fancies having a play thing football club?

Even Bill Gates would do.

[PrawnSandwich]

I wonder if Warren Buffet fancies having a play thing football club?

Ashton joke right around the corner...
:arry:

[old fart]

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

[ashbanki]

Yep, there would'nt have been a cat in hells chance of getting the two forwards and RB we needed had that got out!

[QuintonNimoy]

he says the group not necessarily WHUplc

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?

[FDiMcA]

Yep, there would'nt have been a cat in hells chance of getting the two forwards and RB we needed had that got out!

The Chamakh deal like the Diamante one was about spreading payments, the selling club becoming a creditor of West Ham.
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.

[Kialos]

Scott says we had never broken banking covenants. Never ever. At no time. Ever. Could just be a slip of the tongue of course.

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.

[SammyLeeWasOffside]

he says the group not necessarily WHUplc

It is tougher than the Times crossword trying to fathom what anyone means these days.

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.

[Lowlife]

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]

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 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

[SammyLeeWasOffside]

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?"

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?

Clearly the group has broken the covenants but then we all know the group was in trouble in 2008.

[FDiMcA]

Clearly the group has broken the covenants but then we all know the group was in trouble in 2008.

I cant see Igoe making a comment on Hansa or Straumer breaking its covenants.
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]

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.

[FDiMcA]

I have no idea, but agree with your closing sentiment

[SammyLeeWasOffside]

What entities make up West Ham group?
or did he mean Hansa?

sorry im alseep ignore me

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.

[West Ham Matt]

Don't tell me we are run by this ****

[QuintonNimoy]

Scott says we had never broken banking covenants. Never ever. At no time. Ever. Could just be a slip of the tongue of course.

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.

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.

You may be right and he was lying

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.

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.

If you think there's a fascinating forum conversation to be had in this direction feel free to take the reigns.

[Puff Daddy]

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]

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

No. It doesn't. Really.

[Lowlife]

*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.”