The Official West Ham United Thread. Vol 2
Discussion
Relax, Rich. I've found if you just accept we'll never challenge for anything, defeats like this don't rile you up. If I'd gone up there, however, I'd be fuming. Wigan is one of the biggest s
tholes I've ever been to when I used to follow us home and away, there's not even a decent night out up there for our away lads. 
BrabusMog said:
sjc said:
Well, I’m just watching a programme on the events leading up to 9/11....and it’s putting everything into perspective....very quickly.
Unrelatable - Bin Laden hit the target far more efficiently than we could ever hope to.RichB said:
coldel said:
The board are once again hoping we can scrape through the league, stay up, pocket a tonne of cash and laugh all the way to the bank again. It really is getting a farce...
With, I believe, in the region of £100 million of their own money invested in the club, in what way are they going go pocket a ton of cash (again) by us staying up? That's the uninformed tosh that I expect to hear stood by the hot dog stand in Stratford not here. In 2015 the net profit for the 20 premier league clubs was in the region of £150m after many years showing a negative, it has grown exponentially since. West Ham now earn more money that Everton or Newcastle putting them 7th in the league. Karen Brady's salary from last season rose from £650k to £905k in one season.
I understand that we wont get someone who owns a country come and blow a fortune on the club, but if the clubs wants to grow it needs to speculate. Otherwise we risk becoming the Arsenal of the bottom half.
Sorry, I'll not re-quote everything but you said laughing all the way to the bank, again. This implies you clearly think that money the club receives from its end position in the league goes into the board's pocket, it doesn't. Once you understand the difference between owning shares in a business and one's personal bank balance then let's debate. Else I stand by my comment that your assertion is tosh. I'm by no means their greatest fan but the Daves, especially Sullivan have put far more into the club than they've taken out.
RichB said:
Sorry, I'll not re-quote everything but you said laughing all the way to the bank, again. This implies you clearly think that money the club receives from its end position in the league goes into the board's pocket, it doesn't. Once you understand the difference between owning shares in a business and one's personal bank balance then let's debate. Else I stand by my comment that your assertion is tosh. I'm by no means their greatest fan but the Daves, especially Sullivan have put far more into the club than they've taken out.
Don't let facts and logic get in the way of a good witch hunt!RichB said:
Sorry, I'll not re-quote everything but you said laughing all the way to the bank, again. This implies you clearly think that money the club receives from its end position in the league goes into the board's pocket, it doesn't. Once you understand the difference between owning shares in a business and one's personal bank balance then let's debate. Else I stand by my comment that your assertion is tosh. I'm by no means their greatest fan but the Daves, especially Sullivan have put far more into the club than they've taken out.
I understand that, ok my comment was flippant, but certainly these owners are no Daniel Levy and I am sorry but you seem to be struggling with the difference between 'investing' and 'putting money in' as they have not made a sunk cost here, they own assets that when they walk away with are likely to be worth more than when they invested. Anyone else could have done the same thing if they bought the clubs assets and shares in the way they have, the idea that they have 'put money in' that makes their engagement with the club into a personal net loss at the end of the business engagement i.e. when they sell, is just as I said above and I will stand by my comment, just tosh I am afraid. The more money that sits in the clubs accounts the higher the net worth of the club, when they sell their ownership of the club will be more valuable. coldel said:
... you seem to be struggling with the difference between 'investing' and 'putting money in' ...
Not struggling with anything, it's blatantly obvious they're the same. But where did you pick up any confusion between investing and putting money, not in my comments and you understand. I simply took issue with you comment that "if" we stay up they'll be laughing all the way to the bank. Ok, so your original comments were flippant but in comparison to Terry "two bob" Brown and the Icelandics I maintain they are better owners. 
Edited by RichB on Saturday 27th January 22:09
RichB said:
coldel said:
... you seem to be struggling with the difference between 'investing' and 'putting money in' ...
Not struggling with anything, it's blatantly obvious they're the same. But where did you pick up any confusion between investing and putting money, not in my comments and you understand. I simply took issue with you comment that "if" we stay up they'll be laughing all the way to the bank. Ok, so your original comments were flippant but in comparison to Terry "two bob" Brown and the Icelandics I maintain they are better owners. Edited by RichB on Saturday 27th January 22:09
The Icelandic owners were actually more interested in investing in the playing staff than the current regime they were just unfortunate that other business ventures in their home country pulled them down (along with anyone in the banking world globally). The issue is currently that with the 7th highest income in the richest league in the world, we are constantly in the bottom 5 in the league for net transfer spend. The squad dare I say it is always 'bare bones' and we seem to be relying more and more on one or two talismans which is fine if you are a Swansea or Huddersfield (no disrespect) but the 17th richest club in the world should have a squad capable of much more but its woefully underinvested - maybe you are ok with that but from an investment and maintenance of the club point of view, I am not.
Edited by coldel on Saturday 27th January 22:23
I never said we were any better! I said the investment effort was much better. In 2006 alright they brought in Tevez and Mascherano 'illegally' but it was still £25m on two players 12 years ago. Upson £12m, Rob Green etc. Net spend -£50m that year. There was certainly an effort there to move the playing squad up a level. Following season Dyer, Parker, Bellamy all at £10m a pop. At least the effort was there!
BrabusMog said:
bad company said:
According to today’s newspaper Masuaku is looking at a 6 match ban. Is that right, sounds like a lot.
He deserves whatever he gets. What sort of person spits at someone else? Total prick.I’m just asking the papers are saying 6 matches when a straight red card is usually 3. Is there a specific ‘tariff’ for spitting? Seems odd in a way as you generally get less for a dangerous tackle which could end a career.
When I played football, admittedly at a level where teams were named after pubs for some reason, if you spat at someone, after a "discussion" you would get your teeth handed to you on your way off the pitch on a stretcher.
Not only that, you'd be booted out of your club and banned by the local FA for a season at least.
Personally I hope he never wears the shirt again.
Weapons Grade Bellendery.
Not only that, you'd be booted out of your club and banned by the local FA for a season at least.
Personally I hope he never wears the shirt again.
Weapons Grade Bellendery.
Gassing Station | Football | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff