Takeover talk

The Forum for all football-related discussion, including West Ham United FC. Our busiest Forum and the place to begin if you're new to KUMB.

Moderators: Gnome, last.caress, Wilko1304, Rio, bristolhammerfc, the pink palermo, chalks

Post Reply
China Block
Posts: 81
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2019 5:00 pm
Total likes: 9 likes

Re: Takeover talk

Post by China Block »

Can we simultaneously have a protest against the current owners and the new ones? Only at West Ham :hammc: :scarfer:
nitramad
Posts: 81
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 3:29 pm

Re: Takeover talk

Post by nitramad »

Hmmmm. So the LLDC are currently operating at a £20m yearly loss on the stadium, which the taxpayer picks up.
If someone else leases the stadium outright it's fair to assume they are picking up the running costs, thereby shifting that £20m loss off the LLDC books instantly. I wouldn't expect it takes too much negotiation with the LLDC on that lease - they'd bite the hand off anyone offering to take that £20m off their hands, probably for 1p per year!
So who do you think will be left with the £20m running costs?
Feels to me as if the club will be financing the running costs while they try to figure out how to turn a profit on the stadium.
User avatar
Rays Rock
Posts: 6419
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2011 2:10 pm
Location: Outsider
Has liked: 46 likes
Total likes: 104 likes

Re: Takeover talk

Post by Rays Rock »

Looks like a desperate attempt to claim a large wedge of London real estate at a decent price. It also looks like their supposed stadium deal hinges on the ownership if the football club being in agreement with changes to the current lease arrangement. They know that there is no way the current owners would agree to the changing ownership of the stadium and therefore the agreement. It looks to me that the ownership of the club is very much a needed consequence of their pre-deal for the stadium. I therefore doubt this group has little to no interest in the clubs future health if its priority is to first get its hands on the stadium. I’m certain that we can do better than this consortium for new ownership. As for the Ferdinands involvement, they are basically the only former west ham players Phillip Beard had in his phone book due to his QPR involvement. All very desperate stuff.
User avatar
jastons
Posts: 12533
Joined: Fri May 07, 2004 7:23 am
Location: Here
Has liked: 885 likes
Total likes: 837 likes

Re: Takeover talk

Post by jastons »

Trap1 wrote: Thu Aug 05, 2021 4:54 pm I think you are completely overplaying the role he would have. He's been asked to be a cheerleader not a Director of Football. I doubt he will be on the board of directors.
Whoever asked him to be a cheerleader has massively overstated his popularity and importance amongst West Ham fans. It shows they (PAI) don't have a clue.

Simple question, does anyone on here believe that any takeover bid from PAI is improved (superficial or otherwise) by the involvement of Rio Ferdinand?
Brown Sauce
Posts: 572
Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2019 1:19 pm
Has liked: 2 likes
Total likes: 7 likes

Re: Takeover talk

Post by Brown Sauce »

I think it’s an excellent statement.

It’s says:
There’s a viable alternative to G&S and we are trying to solve the stadium problem.

It puts more pressure on G&S.

Rio is known across the globe and helps put this in the media spotlight.

Well played PAI.
User avatar
Aceface
Posts: 16360
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 11:01 am
Location: Blighty
Has liked: 358 likes
Total likes: 1446 likes

Re: Takeover talk

Post by Aceface »

Not really a fan of the ex-player angle – love Carlton for instance but why do I care if he's involved unless he's investing personally or in line to be the DoF or whatever? – but if you do go that route I'd probably be more impressed by a tenuous but intelligent individual like Thomas Hitzelsperger being attached than being pandered to by rolling out some numpty ex-pro like DiCanio or Razor Ruddock who you think has greater rapport with the fans.
User avatar
Ding
Posts: 1627
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 5:35 pm
Location: Malaysia
Has liked: 144 likes
Total likes: 509 likes

Re: Takeover talk

Post by Ding »

Alarms:

1. Failure to mention vision with regards to football. I am not talking about revealing details and budgets. There was simply no mention at all. This is clearly not coming from people who have interest in WHU as a football club, let alone people who bothered to research what it means to the fanbase.

2. Rio. They misidentified an ex-player / Man Utd supporter as a West Ham legend. This man has publicly supported the sale of our best player to his favoured club without showing an ounce of respect for us. In this regards, PAI is worst than GSB - who for all their crap would have known who are real West Ham legends.

3. Badly written and unprofessional copy. What sort of people proposing a 600m takeover yet can't be ****ed to hire a PR company to write comms?

No from me.
User avatar
EastleighHammer16
Posts: 7969
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2011 2:36 pm
Has liked: 230 likes
Total likes: 1647 likes

Re: Takeover talk

Post by EastleighHammer16 »



Probably as good as from the horses mouth as it's going to get.
User avatar
Westaam
Posts: 1243
Joined: Sat Apr 29, 2006 1:22 pm
Total likes: 11 likes

Re: Takeover talk

Post by Westaam »

The acceptable line on here is to describe Sullivan as a terrible chancer, but he basically saved the club from administration and meltdown.

There's no doubt his manoeuvres have been imperfect, and many fans are scandalized that he obtains an annual return on the hundreds of million he has tied up in the club, at massive risk.

For my part, I'm just glad he's shut up, and shut his kid up, from the idiotic running commentary that was harming the club a few years ago.

They were on a hiding to nothing with the Olympic Stadium, as not going for it would have left Spurs in Stratford, which would have been terminal for us, and there was never any possibility of going for it in such a way that would have left the stadium satisfactory for purpose. Blame Tessa Jowell and Seb Coe for the gap between the lower and upper tiers, not Sullivan and Gold.

They didn't do themselves any favours with things like West Ham Olympic, and not making much of an effort to embed the fan experience in ways which would have been possible.

But they did put their money where their mouth was, eventually, and it was just unfortunate that they chose to do it with Pellegrini. They blew a vast amount of money to give us that promised lift-up, and if they'd have kept Moyes on the first time around and given that kind of money to him, then people wouldn't be so quick to forget that funding boost.

One thing Sullivan has always said is that he would not sell the club unless he felt the buyer would take West Ham to the very top level.

He's been so consistent in saying it, and since he is a genuine fan, I kind of believe him. With the caveat that if a chancer came along with mega mega money, allowing him and Gold to cash out in conditions that were super-optimal for them, if not the club (and particularly if the footballing side were looking precarious) then even a saint would be tempted.

But there's no massive rush to sell. We have a strong manager at the moment, who has signed a three year contract, who should hopefully keep the club well afloat during that time. The sale percentage clause hasn't expired yet, has it (is it next year?).

I think that at such time as Sullivan and Gold are ready to sell, they will go about it by putting out feelers to those top level parties who could genuinely do what Sullivan said he wanted the club to achieve. That's if a buyer like that doesn't come along of their own accord. In the meantime, PAI are not going to be the only chancers sniffing around - but kudos to them for their pretty outrageous statement today.

It may come to a head sooner rather than later if the new athletics stadium in Birmingham and the LLDC losses force events.

I just hope that by some magic or other, the apocryphal top level buyer is prompted to emerge onto the scene in time.
User avatar
bonzosbeard
Posts: 13223
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 2:48 am
Location: somerset
Has liked: 2115 likes
Total likes: 1336 likes

Re: Takeover talk

Post by bonzosbeard »

Ding wrote: Thu Aug 05, 2021 5:34 pm Alarms:

1. Failure to mention vision with regards to football. I am not talking about revealing details and budgets. There was simply no mention at all. This is clearly not coming from people who have interest in WHU as a football club, let alone people who bothered to research what it means to the fanbase.

2. Rio. They misidentified an ex-player / Man Utd supporter as a West Ham legend. This man has publicly supported the sale of our best player to his favoured club without showing an ounce of respect for us. In this regards, PAI is worst than GSB - who for all their crap would have known who are real West Ham legends.

3. Badly written and unprofessional copy. What sort of people proposing a 600m takeover yet can't be ****ed to hire a PR company to write comms?

No from me.
Agreed.

Do people really want to be possibly saddled with 600M debt and lose 20M every year owning a loss making stadium?

The property developers who own us won't care.

I'm waiting out a proper buyout by people who think a good investment would be West Ham competing at a higher level. A team competing at the top table would be good for their brand.
User avatar
Alf Garnett's (Ex) Missus
Posts: 8142
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2003 5:08 pm
Location: A bit rural...
Has liked: 255 likes
Total likes: 196 likes

Re: Takeover talk

Post by Alf Garnett's (Ex) Missus »

On the £20m a year losses....would Beard's experience of the O2 not give an opportunity to reverse this?
User avatar
NedN
Posts: 3474
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 4:03 am
Location: Denver, USA
Has liked: 132 likes
Total likes: 586 likes

Re: Takeover talk

Post by NedN »

The statement focuses on something that west ham fans hate and that new owners could fix, which GSB are unwilling to fix. In this way it is almost more tailored to the fans who want the Matchday experience brought back over all else, which is most of the same people who are upset with the Dave’s

Honestly it looks like they realize that if they fixed the stadium and were not disasters/embarrassments publicly, most people would prefer them to GSB even if they didn’t spend any more on transfers or huge amounts every year

The best way to improve the statement in my opinion would have been to add that they want to focus on building up the scouting network and youth facilities to that of a top club…saying we hope to spend 100mm a year in my opinion would ring hollow to many…

it’s a preliminary statement and they really aren’t close to buying the club, I suspect more will come on plans for the squad if they get closer…

Who knows if they’d be any better, we will see how this all unfolds
User avatar
southendmadhammer
Posts: 1459
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2004 7:58 pm
Location: London

Re: Takeover talk

Post by southendmadhammer »

Love how people are critiquing a group that has constructed a deal to purchase the ground and (hopefully) club from the people that literally blew up the boleyn and sold it off and pocketed the proceeds.

Quite baffling.
User avatar
Hugh Jargon
Posts: 5942
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 2:50 pm
Has liked: 170 likes
Total likes: 475 likes

Re: Takeover talk

Post by Hugh Jargon »

I've never heard Rio slag us off. Opposite in fact. Pros are different to fans. It's all about the money and the medals as its their job.
Brown Sauce
Posts: 572
Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2019 1:19 pm
Has liked: 2 likes
Total likes: 7 likes

Re: Takeover talk

Post by Brown Sauce »

Westaam wrote: Thu Aug 05, 2021 5:47 pm The acceptable line on here is to describe Sullivan as a terrible chancer, but he basically saved the club from administration and meltdown.
Wow

FYI none of the money is at his risk.

We didn’t HAVE to move to the OS

They didn’t put their money where their mouth was, they used the money they saved the previous year then reduced the budget back down the following year.

Any money wasted is their fault - they sign the cheques.

It’s not their money, not a penny of their personal fortune has been put into this.
Castle
Posts: 198
Joined: Fri May 20, 2011 9:25 am
Total likes: 11 likes

Re: Takeover talk

Post by Castle »

As a previous poster mentioned I believe Noble has a property portfolio with Rio and Bobby.

Rio has personal branded himself through Twitter since his playing days. He is now non-exec Director to a number of companies, he knows big players and it wouldn't surprise me if his invested in this himself. We are a sleeping giant with a stadium complex that could be the best in the countrt and rival most NFL stadiums. They know Rios a worldwide celebrity and while West Ham fans don't like it the media will lap it up and put more pressure on our board. Remember Rio is also a pundit for a number of broadcasters and its very easy to change football fans options on things.

I would be very surprised if Noble isn't also involved in this and would play an active part when he retires.
User avatar
jastons
Posts: 12533
Joined: Fri May 07, 2004 7:23 am
Location: Here
Has liked: 885 likes
Total likes: 837 likes

Re: Takeover talk

Post by jastons »

southendmadhammer wrote: Thu Aug 05, 2021 5:56 pm Love how people are critiquing a group that has constructed a deal to purchase the ground and (hopefully) club from the people that literally blew up the boleyn and sold it off and pocketed the proceeds.

Quite baffling.
Critiquing PAI is not the same as defending GSB.
User avatar
Alf Garnett's (Ex) Missus
Posts: 8142
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2003 5:08 pm
Location: A bit rural...
Has liked: 255 likes
Total likes: 196 likes

Re: Takeover talk

Post by Alf Garnett's (Ex) Missus »

INTERESTING

Thanks UTJ
User avatar
whizzer
Posts: 1504
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2004 10:46 am
Location: Lost In The Abyss
Has liked: 24 likes
Total likes: 6 likes

Re: Takeover talk

Post by whizzer »

southendmadhammer wrote: Thu Aug 05, 2021 5:56 pm Love how people are critiquing a group that has constructed a deal to purchase the ground and (hopefully) club from the people that literally blew up the boleyn and sold it off and pocketed the proceeds.

Quite baffling.
Totally agree #GSBOUT
User avatar
Supreme
Posts: 738
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2006 9:11 pm
Location: East Stand Upper RIP
Has liked: 25 likes
Total likes: 129 likes

Re: Takeover talk

Post by Supreme »

southendmadhammer wrote: Thu Aug 05, 2021 5:56 pm Love how people are critiquing a group that has constructed a deal to purchase the ground and (hopefully) club from the people that literally blew up the boleyn and sold it off and pocketed the proceeds.

Quite baffling.
Unbelievable isnt it. We have had years of pretty much everyone on this forum moaning about the Stadium move and how **** it is, how rubbish the match day experience is, how it isn't fit for football etc.
Then a potential buyer comes along acknowledging how bad the ground/experience is and outlines some pretty encouraging visions on taking full control of the ground, surrounding area, improving infrastructure etc....and its shot down to bits by the vast majority on here and even people screaming 'PAI Out' because they didn't state in print that they would be providing a 500 billion transfer war chest.

f*** me. We really are an unbelievable fan base at times.
Post Reply