West Ham: the first recession casualty in the Premier League?
The Guardian reckons that West Ham will be taken over by the banks who have control of Bjorgolfur Gudmundsson’s various assets.
Some people see this as the inevitable outcome of the recession and see West Ham as the first Premier League casualty of the current economic crisis, but there’s every suggestion that this could have been avoided if the club had been more prudent in the transfer market and if the Carlos Tevez affair hadn’t come back to bite West Ham in the ass.
In any case, those ships have sailed, and right now West Ham’s only hope for survival is to shed the deadwood, survive another year in the Premier League and look to build for the long-term and maybe, just maybe, survive in the top flight and rebuild the squad long enough to find a buyer once the economy recovers.
Will Portsmouth or Newcastle be next?
west ham fans will give all they money if it need to save the club…all about loyality with us….
Classic misinterpretation of facts by people that don’t understand business, even if they understand football.
There is a chance that the banks will take over the ‘West Ham’ asset as it represents collateral against debts owed. They will have looked at realising the asset (ie selling the club) but clearly will not have been offered a price that they believe represents the true value. If they take over the club, it will be to protect “the asset” and sell it for a much higher price later on. IN ORDER TO DO THIS, THEY WILL HAVE TO MAINTAIN THE ASSET THROUGH APPROPRIATE LEVELS OF INVESTMENT. Stripping the asset of cash (which could result in relegation) WILL BE COUNTER PRODUCTIVE.
Please, please, please don’t write about things you don’t understand.
Newcastle have a benefactor, a la Mike Ashely. Portsmouth have Sacha Gaydamak. Enough said.
There has been some rubbish writen about West Ham in the past year or so but this “article” really takes the biscuit. Total and utter rubbish written by someone with no understanding at all of the club or its situation.
Paul there’s no point in talking to this wally. Old Ahmed’s done this a couple of times to us. It seems he has some sort of problem with the Ammers.
Ahmed you are an idiot. This Situation cant happen before June 9th, by which the club could be sold to new investors. Or, if West Ham aren’t sold by then, as our friend Paul so plainly put it, go through a stage of being owned by the Banks, until such time as a new buyer will pay whats deemed satisfactory. Its long been know the owners of west ham have suffered severely in the financial crisis, its old news. How about writing an article praising Zola and his squads professionalism in holding onto a league position of 7th which could lead to European football; whilst off field matters of the football club continue to dominate the headlines of newspapers and websites. Doesn’t make sense to you though does it?
A much better article:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/leagues/premierleague/westham/5175040/New-owners-promise-not-to-sell-West-Ham-United-for-three-years.html
As usual Ahmed, you’ve got about as much of a clue as my mate Dave who just pissed all over himself by not getting his flies down in time.
Why do you insist on writing about things you know nothing about?
..
@erwf right, read my comment below and tell me where I’ve gone wrong?
@Will yea, I’m sure that at the rate that buyers are falling over each other to buy the club these days, they’ll sell before the 9th.
I hope they do and that they find a good buyer, but seriously now, think with your head and not your heart.
Credit to Zola, he’s done a great job. This wasn’t about him, this was about how the economy, the Tevez saga and the excesses in the transfer season have put a strain on West Ham’s balance sheet, to the extent that they’re not an attractive proposition.
In fairness, if Zola can take West Ham to a top 10 finish next year, he’ll have overachieved. West Ham’s current squad is good but not great, and they’ll need to improve quite a bit which they don’t have money for, which in turn will probably be generated by selling players, which in turn will weaken the team.
But sure, go all out on defending West Ham blindly.
@Paul W – your comment is a classic example of people who assume too much about others. I have as good a grasp on football business as I do on the sport (arguably that’s not very much, but it’s more than you’re giving me credit for). The banks will do what it takes to keep the “Asset” afloat, but they will also do whatever it takes to reduce losses / debt. Now that means selling players, doesn’t it?
Spending more money to save an asset has, at least in this current economic crisis, been an American thing. European economies have been far more reticent over spending money to save failing institutions, preferring to use this time to get rid of the excess and balance the books the hard way.
re your last point Ahmed….How would you explain the current process of quantative easing that the BoE has started + HBOS, Lloyds, RBS, Northern Rock…Any idea what these institutions have in common?
It’s not a case of us blindly defending the Hammers, it’s a case of constantly having to put up with half-@rsed lazy journalism such as yours. The articles are bad enough. The fact you always seem to have defend them says a lot.
@Le Rascal – fair enough, I overlooked that in my previous response, apologies for not getting that right the first time.
Having said that, do you think that the banks will invest more money into West Ham or do you think that they will hold off on selling players?
My view is that their first priority will be to reduce the wage bill and their second priority will be to fund acquisitions through sales. If there is money required for operating expenses then I do expect them to inject more cash into the club, but I find it unlikely in the current climate to see any bank invest significant money into the club.
What do you think?
Ahmed, why bother writing it, and really, why then bother defending it? Your pretense at an insight into the financial realities at West Ham is laughable, and your statement that if Zola manages top ten next year he will have ‘over-achieved’ is even more comical.
Why will their first priority be to reduce the wage bill? This has already been achieved. And in any case the figures regarding certain players wages have been grossly exagerrated time and time again. Stop treating the Mail as a reliable source of information, and you might be better informed.
Why will we be selling players? How is that in new owners interests? Please don’t come out with the same old rubbish that this needs to happen to ‘balance the books’. Whatever happened to the much-trumpeted fire-sale that the press kept saying would take place in January?
We’re not making losses. What gives you the idea we are?
Why will their second priority be to fund acquisitions through sales?
You seem to be labouring under the delusion that money needs to be spent to ’save the asset’ – what exactly has led you to this bizarre conclusion?
To justify your comment about top ten being an over-achievement you say West Ham’s squad is ‘good but not great’. Presumably this means you think outside the top four there are six teams with stronger squads. Could you name them?
None of the replies seem to be ‘blindly defending West Ham’ either – we’re just all sick of this kind of half-arsed, inaccurate crap.
If you’re looking for a casualty then you’d be better off looking at Man U or Liverpool.
This is pretty shoddy journalism and typical of modern journalism – editorial bias rather than an assessment of the facts. “Some people see this as the inevitable outcome of the recession and see West Ham as the first Premier League casualty of the current economic crisis” What people? You?
Control being given to the bank consortia is not necessarily a bad thing. “Casualty” in what way? Nothing really changes as Straumur owned the club anyway.
Apart from the Egg Man’s forrays in the transfer market & the tevez mess the club has been relatively well managed from a business viewpoint and relative to most clubs is on a good financial footing with a healthy turnover despite the troubles of the owner.
It appears from the facts that the Hammers are already looking to the long term. It’s well known that Zola is an advocate of what he describes as a ‘long term vision’ that the club presented to him. This includes a significant investment in state of the art training facilities and an emphasis on youth development including accuisitions of promising young players – thats a long term investment, and not something you’d do if you were looking for a quick return on your money.
The wage bill has been reduced during the last transfer window, and this window will likely see similar moves. The money saved was largely invested back into the club (rather than to the owners creditors) and if the banks are true to their intentions the policy of self sustainment will continue (after all they effectively OK’d these moves in the last window).
It’s not a question of whether a consoria is coming in to asset strip the club…they are already in and as yet they haven’t.
Fair play things *might* be different if the Hammers were facing relegation right now, but forunately they aren’t.
So Ahmed, you’re behind the curve with this story – next time do a little research beforehand.