Board vs Pellegrini [POLL]
Moderators: Gnome, last.caress, Wilko1304, Rio, bristolhammerfc, the pink palermo, chalks
- westham,eggyandchips
- Posts: 25144
- Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 8:06 pm
- Location: On the tour bus
- Has liked: 1979 likes
- Total likes: 1466 likes
- S-H
- Posts: 49113
- Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 7:05 am
- Location: Kumb Inn
- Has liked: 5739 likes
- Total likes: 9649 likes
- the pink palermo
- Huge noggin
- Posts: 45059
- Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 12:00 pm
- Location: The Notorious Gate B @LS
- Has liked: 759 likes
- Total likes: 2944 likes
Re: Board vs Pellegrini [POLL]
The problem is the so called Board. I say so called because in truth it's David Sullivans company, he's the 51% majority shareholder which means he cannot be outvoted on anything.I've also used the word company , rather than club, quite deliberately : the former is a business enterprize, the latter far, far more than that, but make no mistake the two are very different.
At the heart of all of our issues is money, or lack thereof.The "company" is under funded, being financed almost exclusively by the retained earnings from profitable trading, rather than legitimate shareholder equity. A reminder for readers .
Sullivan and Gold have injected just £26m of equity in to WHUFC.They have, meanwhile, in the past decade taken out £16.8m in interest payments, plus the £28m cash from the sale of the Boleyn ground.
In other words they have taken out more money from West Ham United than they have put in.
Those numbers are factual, and are all available in the company's published accounts. We await the most recent set of accounts with baited breath to see how much more Sullivan and Gold have taken out, you can be certain they won't have put anything in, so no need to waste time looking for that.
It's that lack of funding that means manager after manager has to make do and mend with a patchwork squad, with the jam being so thinly spread it is unable to cover the whole slice so to speak.There was a question mark over Zabaleta when we signed him, but to grant a contract extension was madness : the Board will of course claim it was the managers decision to grant an extension, the truth however is to ask what was his alternative ? Nobody ? Another ageing player ? An unproven youngster ?
Meanwhile turning to central defence, who exactly authorised such a long term extension for Winston Reid ? Was it the Manager beating down the Chairmans door, insisting that a CB we signed for £3m a lifetime ago was central to his plans and was a must keep player, or did the Chairman make it clear no funds would be provided to sign an alternative ? The manager signed Balbuena for £4m, meanwhile Jonny Evans joined Leicester City for £3.5m - again can we level criticism at the manager because we paid more for a player with no PL experience than Leicester did for a player once deemed good enough for Manchester United ? Not unless we know how much the player is getting paid we can't. Regardless of the fee, the player will sign for whoever offers him the best prospects, that's a combination of wages, team mates and the chance to win a trophy.The fact that Evans picked Leicester says much about how our club is perceived by the professionals.To Evans, they looked a better bet.
Further up the pitch funds have been provided for the signing of Fornals, who, after a shaky start, is starting to look half decent.Of course the Chairman can do so armed with the knowledge he can always sell Declan Rice in due course and get his money back. After all, what manager wouldn't want to build his midfield around the 32 year old Mark Noble, he's been picked 500 times by around 8 or 9 managers, so he must be good for at least one more season, right ? Or, due to the contract he has , 3 more. I'm not knocking Nobes by the way, I think he's double mustard, but even I can see the end is coming for this magnificent club servent.
The Chairman of course can point to the money spent on Anderson, Yarmolenko and Haller and he would have a fair point were he to ask are they really doing enough to justify their fees .For my money they are not, but had the Chairman dipped in to his pocket and found another £45m could we have signed 2 athletic, energetic midfielders , or 2 decent fullbacks, or a combination thereof , that may have allowed the manager to get more from the three players I've mentioned ?
But no, the Chairman deemed it more appropriate to keep taking cash out of the company, £16.8m in interest payments and £28m for the Boleyn Ground , i.e. £44.8m.
The Chairman has prioritised making money for himself and his fellow shareholders above providing the resources the manager needs to build a competitive team, and for that reason he needs to shoulder the burden of blame.
Should we fall through the trap door he will know, in his heart, he , not the manager, miscalculated., brought down by his own greed, because he wouldn't need to put his hand in his pocket had he simply left the money in the club he and Gold have been taking out.
Sullivan needs to make his mind up. Is he running a company from which he expects a return, or a club, which could be self financing, and successful providing ALL of the funds the club generates are retained in the club , not just the bare minimum, or whatever Sullivan decides it has to make do with because he wants to take some money out of his personal cash point.
£44.8m is a huge sum to a club the size of ours.Sullivan has sold the manager short.
At the heart of all of our issues is money, or lack thereof.The "company" is under funded, being financed almost exclusively by the retained earnings from profitable trading, rather than legitimate shareholder equity. A reminder for readers .
Sullivan and Gold have injected just £26m of equity in to WHUFC.They have, meanwhile, in the past decade taken out £16.8m in interest payments, plus the £28m cash from the sale of the Boleyn ground.
In other words they have taken out more money from West Ham United than they have put in.
Those numbers are factual, and are all available in the company's published accounts. We await the most recent set of accounts with baited breath to see how much more Sullivan and Gold have taken out, you can be certain they won't have put anything in, so no need to waste time looking for that.
It's that lack of funding that means manager after manager has to make do and mend with a patchwork squad, with the jam being so thinly spread it is unable to cover the whole slice so to speak.There was a question mark over Zabaleta when we signed him, but to grant a contract extension was madness : the Board will of course claim it was the managers decision to grant an extension, the truth however is to ask what was his alternative ? Nobody ? Another ageing player ? An unproven youngster ?
Meanwhile turning to central defence, who exactly authorised such a long term extension for Winston Reid ? Was it the Manager beating down the Chairmans door, insisting that a CB we signed for £3m a lifetime ago was central to his plans and was a must keep player, or did the Chairman make it clear no funds would be provided to sign an alternative ? The manager signed Balbuena for £4m, meanwhile Jonny Evans joined Leicester City for £3.5m - again can we level criticism at the manager because we paid more for a player with no PL experience than Leicester did for a player once deemed good enough for Manchester United ? Not unless we know how much the player is getting paid we can't. Regardless of the fee, the player will sign for whoever offers him the best prospects, that's a combination of wages, team mates and the chance to win a trophy.The fact that Evans picked Leicester says much about how our club is perceived by the professionals.To Evans, they looked a better bet.
Further up the pitch funds have been provided for the signing of Fornals, who, after a shaky start, is starting to look half decent.Of course the Chairman can do so armed with the knowledge he can always sell Declan Rice in due course and get his money back. After all, what manager wouldn't want to build his midfield around the 32 year old Mark Noble, he's been picked 500 times by around 8 or 9 managers, so he must be good for at least one more season, right ? Or, due to the contract he has , 3 more. I'm not knocking Nobes by the way, I think he's double mustard, but even I can see the end is coming for this magnificent club servent.
The Chairman of course can point to the money spent on Anderson, Yarmolenko and Haller and he would have a fair point were he to ask are they really doing enough to justify their fees .For my money they are not, but had the Chairman dipped in to his pocket and found another £45m could we have signed 2 athletic, energetic midfielders , or 2 decent fullbacks, or a combination thereof , that may have allowed the manager to get more from the three players I've mentioned ?
But no, the Chairman deemed it more appropriate to keep taking cash out of the company, £16.8m in interest payments and £28m for the Boleyn Ground , i.e. £44.8m.
The Chairman has prioritised making money for himself and his fellow shareholders above providing the resources the manager needs to build a competitive team, and for that reason he needs to shoulder the burden of blame.
Should we fall through the trap door he will know, in his heart, he , not the manager, miscalculated., brought down by his own greed, because he wouldn't need to put his hand in his pocket had he simply left the money in the club he and Gold have been taking out.
Sullivan needs to make his mind up. Is he running a company from which he expects a return, or a club, which could be self financing, and successful providing ALL of the funds the club generates are retained in the club , not just the bare minimum, or whatever Sullivan decides it has to make do with because he wants to take some money out of his personal cash point.
£44.8m is a huge sum to a club the size of ours.Sullivan has sold the manager short.
- S-H
- Posts: 49113
- Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 7:05 am
- Location: Kumb Inn
- Has liked: 5739 likes
- Total likes: 9649 likes
- LeonRivers
- Posts: 10442
- Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 4:57 pm
- Location: Way out of your league
- Has liked: 1032 likes
- Total likes: 394 likes
Re: Board vs Pellegrini [POLL]
It’s a bit harsh to blame David Sullivan for it not being the 1980s any more! :lol:
- Tenbury
- Posts: 9268
- Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2016 3:28 pm
- Location: Too near Kidderminster
- Has liked: 722 likes
- Total likes: 1208 likes
Re: Board vs Pellegrini [POLL]
Graza has it right.
I voted for the board,but now,taking a proper look at the poll title :
'Who's to blame for the current EPL Position ?' , I think it may well be Gsb,Pellers and the players.
But any of us over say 30, have seen us yo-yo over the years between mid prem and mid champ, with a cup run every decade and some great nights both home and away, and so the current EPL position is no great surprise, situation normal.
Thing is though, in the days of old West Ham United, we didn't chuck in the towel just because we were relegated, in fact ,if I recall, we had a good laugh for a season touring the likes of Peterborough , Rotherham and other similar God-forsaken sh*tholes that we prayed we'd never have to see again... all good fun.
This new club West Ham London,or whatever they call themselves, I'm not sure their fans feel the same way.
I think relegation would be a disaster for them, and the creators of that club, two shabby wideboys and their ludicrous fraying figurehead, are solely responsible.
I voted for the board,but now,taking a proper look at the poll title :
'Who's to blame for the current EPL Position ?' , I think it may well be Gsb,Pellers and the players.
But any of us over say 30, have seen us yo-yo over the years between mid prem and mid champ, with a cup run every decade and some great nights both home and away, and so the current EPL position is no great surprise, situation normal.
Thing is though, in the days of old West Ham United, we didn't chuck in the towel just because we were relegated, in fact ,if I recall, we had a good laugh for a season touring the likes of Peterborough , Rotherham and other similar God-forsaken sh*tholes that we prayed we'd never have to see again... all good fun.
This new club West Ham London,or whatever they call themselves, I'm not sure their fans feel the same way.
I think relegation would be a disaster for them, and the creators of that club, two shabby wideboys and their ludicrous fraying figurehead, are solely responsible.
Re: Board vs Pellegrini [POLL]
Can’t find where to vote but equally to blame, the Board for poor recruitment, the management team for a lack of passion, cohesion, fight, legs particularly in midfield, no plan B, not recognising when the system he is using doesn’t work, oh and overall fitness! Pochettino in charge of the same players would be challenging for 6/7th. Certain players do not track back, certain players do not have the “legs” anymore, and several are out of position! We have good wingbacks who are poor full backs but that’s where they play. We are crying out and have been since Kouyate left for a beast with an engine in midfield, they do not even need to be a great footballer, a Sissoko type, yet we keep buying slight attacking wingers. Haller is a good player who needs support which he is not getting, it shouldn’t be either or but both. At Burnley as Rice said we were bullied all over the park, that shouldn’t happen. Unless things change quickly we are going down.
- MadMart
- Posts: 5378
- Joined: Sat Jul 12, 2003 11:58 am
- Location: "overhead a rainbow appears..... in Black and White"
- Has liked: 21 likes
- Total likes: 15 likes
- Contact:
Re: Board vs Pellegrini [POLL]
"Chiefly / ultimately" the fault is with the board - end of. That said, Pellers is doing his very best to get an early Christmas present in terms of a settlement.
- S-H
- Posts: 49113
- Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 7:05 am
- Location: Kumb Inn
- Has liked: 5739 likes
- Total likes: 9649 likes
Re: Board vs Pellegrini [POLL]
Remember under Big Sam when we were flying high, sitting near the top of the table at Christmas, all we needed was 1 or 2 players to have a real crack at the top 4.
Remember under Slav when we were flying high, sitting near the top of the table around Christmas, all we needed was 1 or 2 players to have a real crack at the top 4.
Sullivan knows the cost of sustaining "the next level" which is why, despite having the perfect opportunity, not once, but twice (above) he chose not to take that leap, as he has absolutely no intention of taking this club to any level, other than Premier League club, and if he can do that on the cheap, even better.
His luck will run out sooner or later.
Remember under Slav when we were flying high, sitting near the top of the table around Christmas, all we needed was 1 or 2 players to have a real crack at the top 4.
Sullivan knows the cost of sustaining "the next level" which is why, despite having the perfect opportunity, not once, but twice (above) he chose not to take that leap, as he has absolutely no intention of taking this club to any level, other than Premier League club, and if he can do that on the cheap, even better.
His luck will run out sooner or later.
Re: Board vs Pellegrini [POLL]
Seconded. Club vs company - that is our defining issue, and one that probably won't change until they are bought out.
Proper West Ham fans would not take from the "club" in this way. And lets not forget, these guys are multi millionaires - in fact, Sullivan has a net worth of £1.15bn (according to the Sunday Times 2019). Shameful.
Re: Board vs Pellegrini [POLL]
The Boleyn in its last 5-10 years was not the Boleyn of yesteryear, but compared to the toilet bowl it was an atmospheric cauldron.LeonRivers wrote: ↑Wed Dec 11, 2019 8:29 am It’s a bit harsh to blame David Sullivan for it not being the 1980s any more! :lol:
Re: Board vs Pellegrini [POLL]
Great post in general there. On this point though I very much doubt he will know this deep down. For as much as they openly lie to us about everything I think that a dangerous combination of ego and self delusion shields him/them from truly acknowledging that anything they've done could ever have had a negative impact.the pink palermo wrote: ↑Wed Dec 11, 2019 8:22 am Should we fall through the trap door he will know, in his heart, he , not the manager, miscalculated., brought down by his own greed, because he wouldn't need to put his hand in his pocket had he simply left the money in the club he and Gold have been taking out.
They will try and frame it for the press, the customers and for themselves as 100% the fault of Pellers with a bit of Billic for good measure.
- DaveWHU1964
- Posts: 14873
- Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 10:14 am
- Has liked: 1302 likes
- Total likes: 679 likes
Re: Board vs Pellegrini [POLL]
This.
And Graza's excellent post too -
Pellers has clearly given up. Yes you could argue that a professional should remain professional and motivated but staff have more chance of that happening if those above them support them and this is not the case here for any manager for any length of time. When you're in your late sixties and loaded what is the motivation at a club whose owners want nothing more than PL survival and personal wealth? Of course Man City are more ambitious than us but even his board at Malaga were more ambitious than the one he has here. I wish him the speedy departure he clearly wants and
defy any manager to remain motivated at this sad, cold, seedy shadow of a once magical football club.
Last edited by DaveWHU1964 on Wed Dec 11, 2019 11:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
- S-H
- Posts: 49113
- Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 7:05 am
- Location: Kumb Inn
- Has liked: 5739 likes
- Total likes: 9649 likes
Re: Board vs Pellegrini [POLL]
Out of interest, how did his Man City team perform once it was announced mid season, that Pep would be taking the job?
Did he lose interest or motivation then?
Did he lose interest or motivation then?
Re: Board vs Pellegrini [POLL]
When do you think this happened? As he was doing great up until mid-September! Then we lost to Oxford and it all went to ****. But I don't understand why he would give up - after the transfer window was closed, team performing well. He may have made some poor decisions, but I don't think he gave up...
- Croydon
- Posts: 4652
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 3:22 pm
- Location: This club is not run like a circus any more; it's run like a proper football club.
- Has liked: 330 likes
- Total likes: 591 likes
Re: Board vs Pellegrini [POLL]
Yep, he did. I seem to recall some players noticing a stark difference in Pellers attitude at the time too...
- Sloop John B
- The voice of reason
- Posts: 7448
- Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2002 1:02 pm
- Location: On the High Seas
- Has liked: 225 likes
- Total likes: 448 likes
Re: Board vs Pellegrini [POLL]
Difficult to say 100% as the board haven't been caught in a lie in respect to Pelligrini. The closest is possibly that Pellegrini said Obiang would be replaced and he hasn't.
The silence of the board is one of the strongest positives of Pellegrini's time here.
However it's impossible not to see the pattern that happens with Managers at this club, a fanfare of initial investment followed by a rowing back on finances the following years, any manager will struggle under these circumstances.
Yes Pellegrini takes blame, but the squad is incredibly thin, just look at the match threads...game after game of non-performance and by and large every suggested Starting XI is the same for every one of us... There are simply no options available to make significant changes...
The silence of the board is one of the strongest positives of Pellegrini's time here.
However it's impossible not to see the pattern that happens with Managers at this club, a fanfare of initial investment followed by a rowing back on finances the following years, any manager will struggle under these circumstances.
Yes Pellegrini takes blame, but the squad is incredibly thin, just look at the match threads...game after game of non-performance and by and large every suggested Starting XI is the same for every one of us... There are simply no options available to make significant changes...
- Bill
- Stranded in the smog
- Posts: 10221
- Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2002 3:53 pm
- Location: Middlesbrough
- Has liked: 141 likes
- Total likes: 61 likes
Re: Board vs Pellegrini [POLL]
I voted to blame the board, because basically they are draining the club of money and driving away our fan base. I used to be absolutely gutted with our poor performances, but these days I just shrug my shoulders and feel sad at what has happened to the club I support. Until those 3 bugger off I can't see anything changing.
However, Pellegrini does have to take the blame for some of the poor signings, selections and tactics. He seems to have turned our few good players into dross this season and shows no signs of reversing our form.
However, Pellegrini does have to take the blame for some of the poor signings, selections and tactics. He seems to have turned our few good players into dross this season and shows no signs of reversing our form.