Home
Register
Portal
Log in
In the film Sliding Doors there are two storylines – we see what happens to the main character when she misses her train home and then, in an alternative plot, what happens when she gets it. It is all about how fate can change your life; the fine margins that make a big difference.
Was the night of Jan 18, 2010, West Ham United’s ‘sliding doors’ moment? It was then that the decision was reached by interim chairman Andrew Bernhardt about who would buy the club.
Would it be David Sullivan and David Gold, the former owners of Birmingham City, or the Malaysian entrepreneur Tony Fernandes?
So close had the contest become that Rothschild, the bankers handling the sale, had even prepared alternative press releases – one congratulating Sullivan and Gold, the other Fernandes.
Sullivan and Gold won and post-relegation will increase their stake from 62 per cent to 82 per cent. The pair say they
will also invest, through loans of up to £40 million, to prop up the stricken club.
They also have an option to buy out the remaining stake owned by Straumur, the Icelandic bank which inherited the club after the collapse of the business empire of former owner Bjorgolfur Gudmundsson.
Many of West Ham's problems can be traced to that disastrous regime – the reckless buying, the false promises over investment, the crippling liabilities – and also the terrible costs of the Carlos Tévez affair.
There are still two instalments outstanding on the £21 million the club were ordered to pay Sheffield United while “exceptional items” – compensation and legal fees – in the past four years have totalled a staggering £51.1 million.
But when Sullivan and Gold took over it was also an opportune time to acquire the club.
With the credit crunch biting, West Ham, with a paper-thin squad and a relegation battle to fight needed working capital and that led to a quick sale. Debts were later declared to be £110 million.
The critical figure was £38 million, which was the amount the banks wanted to call in. Credit lines were stopped almost overnight.
Fernandes would have kept Gianfranco Zola as manager but it was clear that Sullivan and Gold did not want him.
In the event, Zola narrowly avoided relegation but this was a manager who had led the club to ninth in the Premier League the season before and who had dealt with the frequent sale of players as West Ham tried hard to stay afloat.
What then happened was bad management — from top to bottom. In fairness, Sullivan has accepted the blame for the appointment of Avram Grant as manager and for the stewardship of the club which has led to relegation.
In a recent interview with Telegraph Sport, Sullivan admitted he had failed this season but pledged to put things right.
Grant’s tenure has been a calamity, from his training regime and his tactics to his motivational skills and communication. Grant sleepwalked to relegation.
He was not, despite claims, West Ham’s first choice, although the owners were encouraged by his record at Portsmouth and Chelsea, where he had dealt with a variety of adversities.
A four-year £1 million-a-season contract was awarded. Maybe the decision to take Grant on was also because he was deemed to be malleable.
West Ham’s transfer activities last summer were not encouraging, with the uninspiring arrivals of the likes of Winston Reid and Pablo Barrera, while off-field cutbacks, many of them necessary, affected morale.
The club needed to hit the ground running at the start of this season but found themselves grounded.
It quickly became apparent that Grant’s managerial skills were limited and the club tried to improve the set-up, with the appointment of Wally Downes as a defence coach, rather than replace Grant immediately.
There followed the badly-handled wooing of Martin O’Neill and Sam Allardyce in January as the club cast around for a new manager.
Grant, it is understood, has argued that the club have not spent what they promised and that he inherited a group of players who did not have the stomach for the fight.
Grant used this same argument during his time as Portsmouth manager when he also questioned the mental toughness of the players.
Given that the likes of Scott Parker have hailed the work done by club psychologist Mike Griffiths, then Grant’s argument appears even more flawed.
The public statements from the owners have not helped. At times, the role of vice-chairman Karren Brady, who has been working part-time and whose salary is paid for by Sullivan and Gold, has been questioned.
There has also been criticism that West Ham’s desire to occupy the Olympic Stadium led to them taking their eye off the ball.
There have also been the strange playing sagas of Benni McCarthy – fined for failing to embrace a weight-loss regime before he received a pay-off – and Danny Gabbidon, whose career has been blighted by injury.
It is understood Gabbidon was also asked whether he would like a pay-off, seemingly without Grant’s consent.
There was even a bizarre theory that the owners wanted the club to be relegated — that it was in some way part of a business plan to slash costs, move on highly-paid players without the supporters complaining and to rebuild at a lower cost base.
But that theory works only if the owners acquired the club for next to nothing – which they vehemently deny.
Even then, a business plan which accepts a £30 million hole in television money and risks all on a swift return from the Championship, would not even find its way on to Brady’s other big project: the television programme The Apprentice.
If it were true, West Ham would not have paid loanees Wayne Bridge £90,000 a week and Robbie Keane £65,000 a week to try to avoid relegation.
What is undeniably true is that West Ham can finally be purged of the Icelandic regime. Now, after a season of mistakes, comes the test as to whether Sullivan and Gold are true stewards or something else. If the right storyline was chosen.
The key figures that reveal the Hammers’ financial plight
£80m: Current debt of the club, who were£5.6m in profit in 2006, but saw the figure rise to £21.4m in 2007 and £38.8m in 2008
£50 m: Cost of relegation. Owners Sullivan and Gold say they need £20 m to £40 m to keep theclub afloat.
£16 m: Parachute payment for first year.
16: West Ham have lost 16 points from goals conceded after 60 minutes, four more than any other side.
15: If all matches finished at half-time this season, West Ham would be 15th in the table with 42 points.
23 per cent: West Ham have won 23 per cent of the games Scott Parker has started this season (seven of 30) and none without him in the starting XI (nought out of seven).
13: They have conceded three or more goals 13 times this season (PL only). Only Blackpool (14) have conceded 3+ goals in more games.
7: Demba Ba is top scorer with seven, despite playing only 12 games. Carlton Cole scored five in 35, and Frédéric Piquionne six in 33.
35: The Hammers have used
35: players in the league this season, more than any other club.
Was the night of Jan 18, 2010, West Ham United’s ‘sliding doors’ moment? It was then that the decision was reached by interim chairman Andrew Bernhardt about who would buy the club.
Would it be David Sullivan and David Gold, the former owners of Birmingham City, or the Malaysian entrepreneur Tony Fernandes?
So close had the contest become that Rothschild, the bankers handling the sale, had even prepared alternative press releases – one congratulating Sullivan and Gold, the other Fernandes.
Sullivan and Gold won and post-relegation will increase their stake from 62 per cent to 82 per cent. The pair say they
will also invest, through loans of up to £40 million, to prop up the stricken club.
They also have an option to buy out the remaining stake owned by Straumur, the Icelandic bank which inherited the club after the collapse of the business empire of former owner Bjorgolfur Gudmundsson.
Many of West Ham's problems can be traced to that disastrous regime – the reckless buying, the false promises over investment, the crippling liabilities – and also the terrible costs of the Carlos Tévez affair.
There are still two instalments outstanding on the £21 million the club were ordered to pay Sheffield United while “exceptional items” – compensation and legal fees – in the past four years have totalled a staggering £51.1 million.
But when Sullivan and Gold took over it was also an opportune time to acquire the club.
With the credit crunch biting, West Ham, with a paper-thin squad and a relegation battle to fight needed working capital and that led to a quick sale. Debts were later declared to be £110 million.
The critical figure was £38 million, which was the amount the banks wanted to call in. Credit lines were stopped almost overnight.
Fernandes would have kept Gianfranco Zola as manager but it was clear that Sullivan and Gold did not want him.
In the event, Zola narrowly avoided relegation but this was a manager who had led the club to ninth in the Premier League the season before and who had dealt with the frequent sale of players as West Ham tried hard to stay afloat.
What then happened was bad management — from top to bottom. In fairness, Sullivan has accepted the blame for the appointment of Avram Grant as manager and for the stewardship of the club which has led to relegation.
In a recent interview with Telegraph Sport, Sullivan admitted he had failed this season but pledged to put things right.
Grant’s tenure has been a calamity, from his training regime and his tactics to his motivational skills and communication. Grant sleepwalked to relegation.
He was not, despite claims, West Ham’s first choice, although the owners were encouraged by his record at Portsmouth and Chelsea, where he had dealt with a variety of adversities.
A four-year £1 million-a-season contract was awarded. Maybe the decision to take Grant on was also because he was deemed to be malleable.
West Ham’s transfer activities last summer were not encouraging, with the uninspiring arrivals of the likes of Winston Reid and Pablo Barrera, while off-field cutbacks, many of them necessary, affected morale.
The club needed to hit the ground running at the start of this season but found themselves grounded.
It quickly became apparent that Grant’s managerial skills were limited and the club tried to improve the set-up, with the appointment of Wally Downes as a defence coach, rather than replace Grant immediately.
There followed the badly-handled wooing of Martin O’Neill and Sam Allardyce in January as the club cast around for a new manager.
Grant, it is understood, has argued that the club have not spent what they promised and that he inherited a group of players who did not have the stomach for the fight.
Grant used this same argument during his time as Portsmouth manager when he also questioned the mental toughness of the players.
Given that the likes of Scott Parker have hailed the work done by club psychologist Mike Griffiths, then Grant’s argument appears even more flawed.
The public statements from the owners have not helped. At times, the role of vice-chairman Karren Brady, who has been working part-time and whose salary is paid for by Sullivan and Gold, has been questioned.
There has also been criticism that West Ham’s desire to occupy the Olympic Stadium led to them taking their eye off the ball.
There have also been the strange playing sagas of Benni McCarthy – fined for failing to embrace a weight-loss regime before he received a pay-off – and Danny Gabbidon, whose career has been blighted by injury.
It is understood Gabbidon was also asked whether he would like a pay-off, seemingly without Grant’s consent.
There was even a bizarre theory that the owners wanted the club to be relegated — that it was in some way part of a business plan to slash costs, move on highly-paid players without the supporters complaining and to rebuild at a lower cost base.
But that theory works only if the owners acquired the club for next to nothing – which they vehemently deny.
Even then, a business plan which accepts a £30 million hole in television money and risks all on a swift return from the Championship, would not even find its way on to Brady’s other big project: the television programme The Apprentice.
If it were true, West Ham would not have paid loanees Wayne Bridge £90,000 a week and Robbie Keane £65,000 a week to try to avoid relegation.
What is undeniably true is that West Ham can finally be purged of the Icelandic regime. Now, after a season of mistakes, comes the test as to whether Sullivan and Gold are true stewards or something else. If the right storyline was chosen.
The key figures that reveal the Hammers’ financial plight
£80m: Current debt of the club, who were£5.6m in profit in 2006, but saw the figure rise to £21.4m in 2007 and £38.8m in 2008
£50 m: Cost of relegation. Owners Sullivan and Gold say they need £20 m to £40 m to keep theclub afloat.
£16 m: Parachute payment for first year.
16: West Ham have lost 16 points from goals conceded after 60 minutes, four more than any other side.
15: If all matches finished at half-time this season, West Ham would be 15th in the table with 42 points.
23 per cent: West Ham have won 23 per cent of the games Scott Parker has started this season (seven of 30) and none without him in the starting XI (nought out of seven).
13: They have conceded three or more goals 13 times this season (PL only). Only Blackpool (14) have conceded 3+ goals in more games.
7: Demba Ba is top scorer with seven, despite playing only 12 games. Carlton Cole scored five in 35, and Frédéric Piquionne six in 33.
35: The Hammers have used
35: players in the league this season, more than any other club.
