Latest Opinion

Lighting the fuse then running off home for your tea? It would appear so.

The saga continues. The former chairman clings on, his seat inside the stadium arena remains occupied even as his place in the boardroom is vacant. He remains able to attend matches at the London Stadium due, in no small part, to the absolute state of confusion as to what is going on at West Ham United.




It is a situation caused by Vanessa Gold changing her mind on selling a portion of her shares to Daniel Kretinsky and instead reaching a “legally binding” agreement to sell her entire portfolio to Amanda Staveley. Subject, of course, to the now famous ore-emption rights of existing shareholders not buying them instead.

I won’t go through the mechanics of the process, it’s been done to death on the KUMB Forum. Suffice to say it’s a long winded affair that is unlikely to be concluded while the transfer window is still open.

So, let’s call it what it is. In my opinion, it is an act of deliberate sabotage. A strong word, I know - but how else could you describe it?

The timing was deliberate, the intention clear. The club had just been relegated and that relegation was likely to cost a considerable amount of money. Vanessa Gold was offered a route out of having to fund her slice of that by Amanda Staveley, and decided she would take the money and run.

The reality is however, due to those pre-emption rights it’s unlikely she will be heading down Mexico way with Staveley’s money. Far likelier it will be Daniel Kretinsky’s - and rather more than he really wanted to give her.

None of us are privy to the private discussions between the club's shareholders, but I cannot imagine they are currently all that pleasant between Mr. Kretinsky and Ms. Gold. They had a deal, they had a plan, they had reached an agreement. Seemingly though, they didn’t have a contract - or not an enforceable one, at least.

Mr. Kretinsky is a lawyer by trade, a profession famous for putting nothing in writing, doing deals worth millions on a handshake and assuming everyone will simply do as they said they would. Absolutely famous for it. All of them.




No, not in your experience? Really? Colour me shocked. Mine neither. More than anyone else on the planet, they know the rules. They know the law. Daniel Kretinsky buys slices of very large companies for a living. He knows what a legal agreement is or isn’t. He isn’t guessing or assuming, or taking anything at face value, that isn’t how his line of work operates.

Nor is Kretinsky stupid. It’s one thing sitting in front of a House of Commons select committee and saying “I am a numbers man” and quite another saying he needs his fingers to count. And percentages? Well, they’re just way too difficult.

Nice try Daniel, seriously, I doff my cap, but I’m sorry - I’m not buying it. The whole act where you have been left standing there like a naughty schoolboy may fool the likes of Liam Byrne in the House of Commons, but West Ham United supporters work harder than he does for their money - and we’re a tougher crowd.

Now, none of this is to suggest any dishonesty on the part of Mr. Kretinsky in anyway. He’s a smart guy, he’s playing poker with some experienced players and getting them to show their hands is the game being played. That means he has to lay a few traps to get them to reveal their true position.

Ms. Gold has somehow moved from selling a portion of “her” shares to selling all of them. Two completely different hands; the first may be a couple of Tens, the second three Aces. They have different values, and Mr. Kretinsky now knows whether to “Raise” or “Call”.

He is said to be furious with Ms. Gold, has even publicly commented that the whole affair has destabilised the club. Poor me, I’m just a victim, a simple businessman, what can I do? Seriously, I’m filling up here. However once we move past all the theatrics, let’s understand what Mr. Kretinsky was really trying to get to the bottom of.

Who really owns the Gold shares?




I’m not talking about the name on a certificate, I’m talking about the “controlling mind”. The shares held by the Gold family entities are in four tranches, a block of 17.2%, a block of 4.9%, a block of 2.9% and a final block of 0.1%.

Now, keen observers of this saga will know that the previously announced “agreement” between Daniel Kretinsky and Vanessa Gold was for him to buy enough shares to own 43% of the club. Clearly if he had acquired just the final three tranches he would have been short, as they total just 7.9%.

It’s not, therefore unreasonable to assume the 16% he was buying came from the 17.2% tranche, leaving her with 1.2% from that tranche plus the other three smaller tranches.

So far, so neat, so tidy. It does beg the question however as to why only 16% were being bought, rather than the full 17.2 %? After all, Ms. Gold would still have her three smaller tranches, still have 7.9% of the club. Crucially, that would have left her as a smaller shareholder than Albert Tripp-Smith, who has 8%, and one vote in the boardroom.

Would 7.9% give you a voice? Would it give you a vote? When Mr. Kretinsky was in the House of Commons presenting his apologies for the Royal Mail delivery record, he would have been learning the most important rule in politics is to learn how to count. Hence when he and Vanessa Gold made their joint statement back in June that she would vote with 1890 Holdings on all important matters it was a recognition that her shareholding may have diminished, but her power was still there to some extent.

That is, of course if the three tranches totalling 7.9% were hers to speak for. Her voting with 1890’s Holdings effectively gave Kretinsky control of the club without him having to hand a penny to other investors. The joint statement suggested the smaller shareholders were all in alignment with that plan. And they may have been, at that moment in time.

Perhaps the person or entity that really controlled those shares decided that the joint statement issued by Mr. Kretinsky and Ms.Gold showed enough of the Czech’s hand to convince them that now was the time for the club to change hands? Maybe even going so far as to actively encourage Amanda Staveley to set the ball rolling with her statement? In poker parlance, the other player has said: “see you and raise you”.




Now, most of the players have shown a bit of what they have, the club is clearly up for sale, with , so far, only Vanessa Gold saying the price she would be happy to accept.

Mr Kretinsky was so furious, so absolutely devastated he couldn’t think straight, but somehow managed to come up with a mad idea – overnight. I mean who knew losing your temper could grease the creative juices so successfully? He would sell a small slice of his shareholding, 2.2% to a friendly investor, that would allow him to get to a controlling shareholding without going above 50% himself if he was the only person to take up his pre-emption rights.

An idea as good as that usually takes investment bankers months to think up, but Mr. Kretinsky was so wound up it came to him overnight, in a flash of inspiration. The best I would have come up with would have been to turn the Monopoly board upside down and storm out.

This means the other shareholders, especially the smaller ones, have to declare their intentions. Do they see Mr. Kretinsky as the man to take the club forward? Do they trust him not to dilute their shareholding by having a rights issue, voted for by Mr. Kretinsky and his proposed friendly investor who is being lined up to acquire the 2.2% slice – subject of course to the other shareholders pre- emption rights being respected?

One thing is certain. The 2.2% slice put on the market by Mr. Kretinsky will be priced considerably higher than the shares being offered by Vanessa Gold. The question Mr Kretinsky is asking of the other shareholders is, what do you value the club at?

If they don’t buy his slice, then not that highly. If they do buy his slice, he recovers some of the money he overpaid to buy his original stake, possibly enough to allow him to sell his remaining shares at the Staveley price without making a loss on his investment.

Were Mr. Sullivan to elect to buy that 2.2% it would take him past the magical number of 40% at which point he is obliged to offer to buy all other shareholders out at the price he paid to reach that threshold. Even if he has the available funds, would Mr. Sullivan really want to do it ? I doubt it. Would one of the smaller investors buy a portion of the 2.2%, and Mr Sullivan the balance, but a small enough amount to ensure he stays below 40%? Time will tell, and we will know in due course.




Mr. Kretinsky has shown some of his hand, but not all of it. He has kept his options open until he sees what everyone’s position is. From his perspective, it’s smart.

The problem, of course, for the club, is the promised funding from E.P. Holdings was subject to him and Vanessa Gold completing their deal. How lucky was it for him that not all of his lawyer's instincts deserted him on that particular detail? Lucky, smart and rich, but “not a numbers person”. Wow, a great combination.

Not so lucky however for either Nuno, nor captain Jarrod, both of whom had signed up in the belief sunlit uplands were just around the corner. Now they must be getting told it’s just a bit further, a bit further, a bit further... This transfer window has been made far more difficult due to the lack of funding caused by Mr. Kretinsky’s agreement with Vanessa Gold not being completed. The impact on the clubs' fortunes cannot be overstated.

And the supporters? Well the club have had our money. An astonishing 52,000 snapped up season tickets, dreaming of better days ahead. Seemingly we are just collateral damage in this takeover battle, mere foot soldiers sent over the top by armchair generals sat far from the front. One day though, this battle, which has been going on since November 2021, will be over.

And we, the supporters will remember. We will remember who made what promise, who behaved or acted in the best interests of West Ham United. We can all see the club's shareholders haggling over the price of the club, a business for which the last published accounts showed negative shareholder’s funds.

We will remember the small man from Wales who, even in his final days at the club, haggled for every penny he could to leave. We will remember those that helped him, rather than the club. We may forgive some short-term problems for the club if the final outcome delivers a better day for West Ham United, but as he seeks to reach Czech-mate in his game of chess with David Sullivan and other shareholders, Daniel Kretinsky will be wise to recall the words of a great Irishman.

"But I, being poor, have only my dreams;
I have spread my dreams under your feet;
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams."

* Like to share your thoughts on this article? Please visit the KUMB Forum to leave a comment.

* Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the highlighted author/s and do not necessarily represent or reflect the official policy or position of KUMB.com.