WEST HAM HAVE A MONTH
The bubble's burst and Upton Park stands on brink
WEST HAM have just a month to find a buyer willing to bail them out or face the threat of administration.
The financial crisis at Upton Park is so acute following the collapse of Icelandic owner Bjorgolfur Gudmundsson's Landsbanki that several members of the club hierarchy believe the Hammers could go to the wall unless a takeover can be engineered.
Although the club is not officially up for sale, brokers Seymour Pierce are in contact with a prospective buyer who is said to be "cash rich" and wants to buy.
City experts value West Ham at around £100million but buyers have also been made aware of Sheffield United's looming compensation claim of up to £50m.
That has put the Hammers in a Dutch auction - with any potential purchasers simply sitting on their hands and waiting for the price to drop.
West Ham, though, cannot afford a delay. Sources in Reykjavik claim Gudmundsson is under pressure from Iceland's government to move funds into the country's ailing economy.
An Upton Park insider said: "Nobody knows what's going on except that the place is in turmoil.
"The players are now wondering if their wages are guaranteed, boss Gianfranco Zola (left) knows he's going to have to sell in January and people believe Gudmundsson will have no other choice but to sell the club.
"We've been told there is somebody waiting to buy but also that it has to happen quickly or the club is in a desperate situation."
CREDIT CRUNCH
Click here for Newcastle's problems
Click here for Wigan's problems
Click here for Liverpool's problems
Click here for Portsmouth's problems
The root of West Ham's problems can be traced back to the last few seconds of normal time in the 2006 FA Cup Final when West Ham's right-back, an obscure Argentinian by the name of Lionel Scaloni, kicked the ball into touch and changed the course of the club's history.
It's a two-year story of hastily taken decisions, inept football choices and an economic climate that has strangled the life out of the man who has seen his empire crumble in the space of a few months.
The Hammers were on the brink of beating Liverpool 3-2, breaking the Big Four's stranglehold on major trophies and perhaps discovering a springboard to greater things.
But with Djibril Cisse curled up with cramp in the West Ham half, Scaloni decided to side-foot the ball out of play rather than humping it as far from his own goal as possible.
Sensing his side's last chance, Jamie Carragher ordered his team to throw the ball back to Scaloni and then hunt him down.
Panicking, Scaloni skewed his clearance straight to Steven Gerrard. The rest is Cup Final legend.
Former chairman Terence Brown was so incensed he entered the West Ham dressing room to remonstrate with Scaloni, who never wore the claret and blue shirt again.
But when the dust from that defeat had settled, Brown realised that one individual error had called time on his Upton Park reign.
He had neither the money or inclination to continually battle against the odds. The time had come to sell.
Not before time in the eyes of many West Ham fans. Brown had long been an unpopular figure as a result of a botched bond scheme, the sacking of Harry Redknapp, and the disposal of all the club's young jewels.
Rio Ferdinand, Frank Lampard, Joe Cole, Michael Carrick and Jermain Defoe had all been sold to pay off debts and save Brown's skin.
But with the club's star back in ascendancy and the promise of a bumper new TV deal to offset £20m debts, Brown started a process which has now pushed West Ham to the brink of potential administration.
Events started to take shape on the eve of the new season when Argentinians far more illustrious than the hapless Scaloni arrived in east London. Javier Mascherano and Carlos Tevez and were part of a deal brokered by Kia Joorabchian.
The other element was his desire to buy the club, hoping the two World Cup stars might both sweeten and hasten the takeover.
But when Joorabchian's bid started to falter, Brown was forced to cast around for new investors. From the north, an Icelandic group emerged.
Led by Gudmundsson, the second richest man in Iceland, there was an eagerness to conclude the deal that bordered on the obscene. By November, a £104m deal had been done.
Responsibility
Brown walked away with more than £30m but insisted he had done a great deal for the club. According to him, the new owners would invest the money he could not afford.
Despite owning just five per cent of the club, newchairman Eggert Magnusson played to the gallery.
"I appreciate the responsibility
that will come with becoming chairman of West Ham," he stressed.
"I pledge to the staff, the players and the fans that I am here to serve and to do all that I can to deliver genuine success on and off the field."
Magnusson loved the limelight, holding a claret and blue scarf aloft in the directors' box and becoming almost intoxicated by the power.
Global
Ludicrous wages were paid to the likes of Kieron Dyer and Craig Bellamy - despite injury records longer even than their bank balances.
Freddie Ljungberg was lured from Arsenal on £85,000 a week - a salary that dwarfed his deal at the Emirates - even though at 30 the Swede's best days were long gone.
Even more absurd was the fact the Hammers were able to outbid Liverpool in terms of wages for Lucas Neill.
Behind the scenes, though, a deal that had been heralded as a cash transaction was carried out in the form of loans.
Even before West Ham became the Premier League's most public victim of the global financial crisis, there were obvious signs the club had over-reached itself financially.
During the summer, they had to trim the squad and bring the wage bill beneath a ridiculous £60m a year, the legacy of the sacked Magnusson's reign.
A mini fire-sale was taken out of boss Alan Curbishley's hands and led to his resignation.
Saviour
But the stability West Ham fans craved seemed out of reach despite assertions from acolytes of Gudmundsson.
"Mr Gudmundsson is not going to take any money out of the club, there is no reason for fans to worry in any way with regards to what takes place on the pitch," was the message from vice-chairman Asgeir Fridgeirsson.
But a closer analysis tells a different story. One City expert said: "No one seems to know exactly how much of the purchase was done on the back of loans rather than cash.
"As it stands, there seems sufficient income to service the debt but if that changed then the club would be in trouble."
Some close to Gudmundsson suggest he would love to hang on to the Hammers, but having shown a reluctance to use much of what is now a decreasing personal fortune to invest in the club in terms of hard cash, why start now?
Zola and West Ham fans would now seem at the mercy of another saviour. Or should that be predator?
Please note: All comments are moderated.
Tick this box to accept our
TERMS & CONDITIONS
Premier League
Championship
League 1
League 2
FA Cup
Carling Cup
EUROPE Champions Lge
Europa League
INTERNATIONAL England
World Cup
MATCH CENTRE Live scores
Fixtures
Results
Tables
CLUB PAGES Team-by-team
COMMENT
Andy Dunn
Rob Shepherd
Paul Ince
IN-OFF
Transfer news
DREAM TEAM
Fantasy football
EMAIL ALERTS
Free updates
This article has 22 comments
No west ham, no chance. we will always be around.
SUFC stop worrying about the money and get with the football you mugs.
By kjw.. Posted October 18 2008 at 7:05 AM.
Oh dear. Oh dear oh dear. Oh dear oh dear oh dear.
Oh well...
do do dooooooooo
By se16_BEN_se16.. Posted October 13 2008 at 9:05 AM.
PART TWO - SUFC have used the media to a great extent to claim that the Hammers were cheats - and gain public support/opinion on their plight - even after the Hammers were punished by the FA for such conduct. Yet due to the disagreement of that decision - SUFC have also used three other hearings to get the only answer they were looking for, only to be turned down on each occasion - yet the latest farcical hearing based on farcical mathematical equations to gain farcical results to prove their claims isnt even admissible as FACT in a court of law - where SUFC have already been twice but to no avail.
Before everyone starts screaming at these comments i am a completely unbiased supporter of football - i support no individual clubs - but surely these accusations cant be ignored given the fact that the Hammers were also fined, rightly or wrongly based on opinion, for breaking the rules.
SUFC in my opinion played themselves out of the PL over 38 games - based the football i saw them play with 11 players on the pitch - no single player was to blame for their demise - from SUFC or West Ham - but it seems the hierachy of clubs have generated mass speculation on how rules are interpreted/used and it seems to me that SUFC are not as innocent as they claim to be - its pretty obvious that money is the ruling factor over this plight - so isnt match fixing part of that scenario.
By Steve.. Posted October 13 2008 at 4:59 AM.
PART ONE - Just out of curiosity - in some circles there has been some conjecture regarding the last game of the season played by SUFC and Wigan - to the point that there were discussions and/or meetings that took place that discussed the result of that game prior to the game taking place, to ensure that a result was gleaned that sent went Ham down and left SUFC and Wigan in the PL. Of course, the unexpected win by the Hammers at Man u made that result irrelevant, but doesnt that meeting/conversation generate conjecture that they had all intention for match fixing.
There has never been any investigation to these claims, or none that i have read about - yet it was even menetioned, from memory, before, during and after that game from certain parties. No doubt both clubs will deny such accusations - although the manner in which that game was played could provide some insight into how the result that eventually stood came about.
Of course if these accusations are proven to be true, or that meetings/ conversations ever took place then there is surely some rule as to the intent that these two parties were entering into - and the punishment for such intentions is not exactly something to smile about.
By steve.. Posted October 13 2008 at 4:57 AM.
Landsbanki was just one of BG's many investments. He owned a big stake and lost a lot of money. He still has many other investments, West Ham being one of them. Administartion, NO CHANCE!
By eastend.. Posted October 13 2008 at 12:48 AM.
This rush for instant success via someones wallet was always going to end in tears. Hopefully one day football will return to normality, the billionaires will depart and we can all go back and watch at a cheap price football that kicks off on a Saturday at 3pm.
By Mark Lloyd-Fitt.. Posted October 12 2008 at 11:15 PM.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
By NorthamptonLion.. Posted October 12 2008 at 10:17 PM.
all Sheffield had to do was not lose to Wigan on the last day of the season. not lose to WIGAN and they managed to **** that up didn't they! lol
at least now we have teams in the premiership that know how to play football like hull and stoke! haha
hope your having fun down there in the fizzy pop league
By nick.. Posted October 12 2008 at 8:10 PM.
how can you say the way we went about it is disgraceful???west ham cheated and thats that, you're getting punished, finally, and now you're moaning about it.so you're basically whingeing because you're not getting away with cheating!!!see how ridiculous that sounds??i hope you go out of business
By tom.. Posted October 12 2008 at 7:02 PM.
Chaps,
Forget about Sheffield United, there is a really big story here. It is reported in several newspapers. The story is that West Ham will be in administration if they don't find a buyer quickly! That is a huge story, WHU would have 9 points deducted and have to sell the top players.
Forget the doom and gloom over the Blades and get gloomy about something that could ruin the club!
By goatero.. Posted October 12 2008 at 6:15 PM.
It's a football debt boys so unfortunately you lose the points and still pay us
By Jim.. Posted October 12 2008 at 4:18 PM.
I don't really understand how the tribunal came to this decision? How can you speculate on the effects one man can have on a match? What if Kabba had played against Sheff Utd - is it possible Watford could have beaten them? It all seems to be a lot of ifs, buts and maybe's. This is hardly the way to make a judgement on how much someone should get. Also who knows how long Sheff Utd would have stayed up for if we were docked points - surely there must be some kind of limit on what they can claim? I would have thought that the parachute money and the money that they made last year would have had to have been taken into account.
Mike
By Mike.. Posted October 12 2008 at 4:16 PM.
i agree sheffield united got relagated cos they were terrible and played dull boring football that no one wants to see. can u imagine tevez going there....haha not a hope or any decent player
By Eanna F.. Posted October 12 2008 at 4:12 PM.
This Sheffield utd £50m thing will never happen, can you imagine what will happen next the whole of the footbell league will be crying foul. And fooball will be played in front of a judge and not the pitch it's pathetic he way Sheffield have gone about this and should be kicked out of football . If you can't win on the pitch why should you be able to win in court it's a disgrace the premier league should have put a stop to this nonsense long ago. Tevez is playing with the same conditions with Man u as he was at the Hammers, so are the rest of the prem going to take them to court because of his goals shouldn't count. Get real
By Gary.. Posted October 12 2008 at 3:14 PM.
This is all getting a joke Mr Gudmundsson has five different companys, with the bank being the least in value. West ham are most certainly the bottom of the debt list against liverpools £350m. West ham are singled out because of the link with the banking situation other's will go long before West ham.
By Gary.. Posted October 12 2008 at 3:02 PM.
Sheff utd got relagated because they were **** they shouldnt get a penny
By mike.. Posted October 12 2008 at 3:00 PM.
what planet have you been visiting ? west ham were fined, end of story, sheffield united didnt exactly bounce staight back up last term did they.. ..probably west hams fault...rob.
By rob.. Posted October 12 2008 at 2:52 PM.
yet again let down by the men at the top who say they love west ham give the club running's to the fan's who love the club more than life
By neal maddock.. Posted October 12 2008 at 1:56 PM.
i dont see why we have to pay sheff utd a penny. they say we should have been docked pionts but it was the prems decision to gives us a fine appose to docking points NOT us. If sheff want some get out of troble money, get it from the prem not west ham
By mark.. Posted October 12 2008 at 1:06 PM.
The whole thing about the Hammers paying Sheff Utd any compensation in the first place is bloody ridiculous.
If Utd had won more of their games instead of pussyfooting around they wouldn't have been in that situation in the first place.....it's their own doing.
If I was them I would go into administration and take the 10 point deduction, they are good enough to survive and would still be above the spuds on goal difference! lol
By Sue.. Posted October 12 2008 at 9:35 AM.
HA HA HA I would laugh if that happens and Sheff Utd don't get a penny, enjoy the championship.
By nathan.. Posted October 12 2008 at 9:34 AM.
sounds about rigth west ham going to get away from paying the blades owt,its an easy way out losing ten points and getting rid of your debt!
By richard booth.. Posted October 12 2008 at 8:45 AM.