bondsbootlaces wrote:I asked a lot of people I know, as well as people I don’t for good reasons why staying up is the best thing for us this season. Those who could give an answer were:
We might keep Lanzini and Arnie
We see premier league football, don’t want to see West Ham play Ipswich again
One or both will leave in the summer, they won’t want to be part of this **** show even if we stay up
If you aren’t here for West Ham, why are you here?
They couldn’t back up their points at all, just started having a pop at me. Lost a lot of respect I had for them at that point.
So I open it up to everyone here, what are the reasons why staying up is best for A) West Ham United B) us as supporters?
There is a great sense to the cleanse which comes with relegation. Aston Villa are the most recent example. In 2015 the entire setup was toxic. The players, owner and manager were all derided by the fans, and they seemed to have little or no respect for the fans, or each other. The same was necessary at Sunderland. It’s taken time for Villa, but they have struck the right balance. At Sunderland, the decay was too severe and deep, and it has descended further, and another relegation is inevitable there.
The key issue is, how deep is the rot at the club. In a relegation situation, we lose Chich, Arnie, Manuel, Ogbonna, Reid, and Kouyate. We potentially lose Carroll, Obiang, and Antonio. After that we are left with Byram, Cresswell, Noble, Hughill, and a group youngersters, who gave a less than stellar showing in the FA Cup, against League 1 teams. Sure, we’ll sign a few, but a poor strategy will exacerbate the rot, and might jeopardise any chance of returning to the PL in the short term.
The key issue is, can we sustain a long term existence outside of the PL, or do we go the way of similar clubs who end up playing in front of half empty grounds, and suffering the wash-rinse-repeat which comes from continuity of ownership. If we go the way of Sunderland, relegation would be the worst thing for the club.