ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Forum Jump
Posts: 10213
Mar 3 12 5:59 PM
Axe Wound Connoisseur
Posts: 2976
Mar 3 12 6:11 PM
Thick as Fucking Pigshit
Clack wrote:pezza20 wrote:Clack - Fernandez, had he had the money and being an avid Hammers fan, don't you think he would have bought the 50%, the deal the Daves' got was pay half now with an option to buy the rest over 3 years, a good deal for them and the only deal on the table for Straumer. Straumer had no funds to invest in the team and were actively encouraging the club to sell its best players, which would have lead to meltdown no doubt and almost certainly administration. I know for sure that Parker was on their hit list for sale, Duxbury reneged by securitising cash from advance ticket sales and placating the banks that West Ham were a going concern. I can say for a fact that Duxbury was offering the club for 20 million quid, effectively 120m when you add in the debts. Nobody was prepared to pay that figure or take on the debts, the only party that would were G & S. G & S had made decent money from selling Birmingham, they used that cash to but West Ham and have since increased their holding to 67% - Straumer don't want to own any part of the club, they are managing 'assets' and want the money back to pay off debts. I think that's mainly wrong, Pezza.As if Duxbury would have been offering the club for 20 million when actually 50% of it went for 50 million! - I know he wasn't the greatst of businessman, but C'mon!The debt had to be serviced, but paying it all off wasn't part of any deal (G & S have reduced the debt since taking over, mainly by reducing wage bill, but the debt still stands at somewhere between 80 to 100 million).Straumur did not want to sell their only asset (and nor are they in a rush to sell the 33% they stll own now - they've always wanted to sell it at it's maximum value, which they probably see at sometime in the future rather than now)But it was the prospect of relegation that forced Straumurs' hand. The idea of the project was to get rid of the high-earners, run the club on sensible lines, rely on acadamy youngsters and young signings like Savio, and good coaching. No doubt the plan was to sell Parker that summer - he was a high-earner with one year left on contract, as it was the plan to sell Upson that Jan window. But suddenly they realised the Project wasn't working from a football point of view - there's only so much you can get away with in the Prem when you continually sell your best players, and that's when they shit themelves, as the prospect of relegation was never part of the Project masterplan. I don't believe we were near administration, but they realised that if Upson was sold in Jan (as originally planned) and no strikers bought in then relegation was a very serious prospect, which would have been disasterous for the value of their asset. The 50% deal suited them as it meant they continued to own half of their asset, whose value they still hoped would increase over the following years.Yes, if we had been relegated under Straumer and not come up for a couple of seasons, eventually those debts would've unsustainable in the Championship and we may well have eventually gone into admin - as probably we would do anyway under G & S if we don't go up in the next couple of seasons.
pezza20 wrote:Clack - Fernandez, had he had the money and being an avid Hammers fan, don't you think he would have bought the 50%, the deal the Daves' got was pay half now with an option to buy the rest over 3 years, a good deal for them and the only deal on the table for Straumer. Straumer had no funds to invest in the team and were actively encouraging the club to sell its best players, which would have lead to meltdown no doubt and almost certainly administration. I know for sure that Parker was on their hit list for sale, Duxbury reneged by securitising cash from advance ticket sales and placating the banks that West Ham were a going concern. I can say for a fact that Duxbury was offering the club for 20 million quid, effectively 120m when you add in the debts. Nobody was prepared to pay that figure or take on the debts, the only party that would were G & S. G & S had made decent money from selling Birmingham, they used that cash to but West Ham and have since increased their holding to 67% - Straumer don't want to own any part of the club, they are managing 'assets' and want the money back to pay off debts.
Posts: 11746
Mar 3 12 6:24 PM
out-funnied by Big C
Posts: 5828
Mar 4 12 3:00 AM
Stalker of Clowns
Posts: 4578
Mar 4 12 7:17 AM
Can't Recognise A Footballer
Clack wrote:Ok, Duxbury was running the club for Straumur - we all know that, and that is what I meant when I said Straumur. It was reported everywhere that G & S paid £50 million for their 50% - it's complete nonsense to suggest Duxbury was trying to sell the whole club for £20 million (even Fernandes himself said on in the Talksport interview he'd offered £90 million). It's not a FACT that Duxbury screwed up by appointing Zola, who was way out of his depth in this league - it's an opinion. (You could argue that Zola did a good job by keeping a team that was having all it's best players sold in the Prem league). WHU wasn't making a profit because of the massive wage bill and the enourmous transfer fees that had previously been spent on players, but Straumur/ Duxbury believed that if they could stop all that, and stay in the Prem league under the ideas of the new 'Project' then their asset would increase in value in the long-run - and it would have if we'd stayed in Prem and got the debt down. (but the problem was a 'Project' that involves building a team of young acadmey players mixed with cheap foreign bargains found by a Director of Football is just pie in the sky in the realities of the Premier League) But Straumur still have 33% and if all goes well for them, ie. WHU get back in the Prem and G & S continue to reduce the debt (and not to mention if the O/S turns out to be a success) then there asset will be aworth a lot more in a few years time.
Mar 4 12 7:56 AM
Posts: 14106
Mar 4 12 9:03 AM
Got his Mojo back "What a cunt, for sure"
Posts: 10037
Mar 4 12 9:19 AM
Mar 4 12 11:45 AM
Mar 4 12 11:53 AM
Posts: 6213
Mar 4 12 8:11 PM
Predictions Thief
Mar 4 12 8:45 PM
Mar 5 12 1:36 AM
Father Fred wrote:It's a fact that Zola has hardly had a great managerial career since he left us. And it pretty much fact that he's barely even been linked with other jobs, let alone got one.Straumer's asset (their share) won't rise under any circumstance so long as G and S have an option to buy it at a fixed price (and I find it hard to believe that they have a variable option meaning that as they spend money on the club the amount they would have to pay for the rest goes up).But apart from that I beleive you.
Posts: 13261
Mar 5 12 11:42 AM
Posts: 1779
It's All His Fault
Mar 5 12 12:06 PM
Posts: 2161
Mar 5 12 3:59 PM
David Tennant
Posts: 517
Mar 5 12 4:55 PM
Mar 5 12 5:26 PM
mardyone wrote:Joey, I don't think the Premier League will be bothered too much if Portsmouth are liquidated, as some of the parachute money they owe them, has already been assigned to Sacha Gaydamak. May well give him the rest.http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17219854
Mar 5 12 5:32 PM
Share This Link