West Ham Financial Problems

[chalks]

Means exactly what it says.

West ham were in a financial mess in 2005. They didn't sell players to pay their debts, but instead kept them in the hope of promotion. They scraped in the play offs (relied on other results on the final day) and escaped Administration as a result. They basically gambled everything on promotion.

Amazing how things change on just one game. Leeds might be a decent prem side now had they won the play off final the following year, look at them now.

Dont let the facts get in the way eh.

Who exactly didnt we sell??? Joe Cole?? Trevor Sinclair???Paolo Di Canio???Freddie Kanoute???Glenn Johnson???

Or as it Carrick, who through having an injury meant we couldnt shift him.

Or was it David James, who showed loyalty in wanting to stay.

Oh hang on, it was Jermain Defoe wasnt it??!! Thats right, Defoe, who we kept because we didnt need to sell him through having shifted all the others.

'escaped administration as a result'............yeah ok

[chalks]

I also have some very juicy rumours about why West Ham are happy to operate the way they do, financially, but I can't say!

put your money where your mouth is and pm them then.

I know exactly why we are penniless right now, and why we will accept the right bid for any first team squad player.

[SpaceCruiser]

Still can't accept how dodgy your club is?

[chalks]

Still can't accept how dodgy your club is?

didnt think it would take long for you to start spouting your mouth off.

im fully aware of how dodgy my football club has been.

Got over your relegation yet diddums???

[papereyes]

Look at 'team'

Half of them are acting as if we never went down.

[Baines]

Look at 'team'

Half of them are acting as if we never went down.

I'd like to wait until a few games into the season and the end of the transfer window before I take a view on whether we're likely to have gone down last season.

[chalks]

I also have some very juicy rumours about why West Ham are happy to operate the way they do, financially, but I can't say!

didnt get that pm

[Streets]

I also have some very juicy rumours about why West Ham are happy to operate the way they do, financially, but I can't say!

didnt get that pm

Dirk is VERY reliable and is connected in many a capacity, chalk. So get over yourself and f**k off.

It's about time your corrupt little club paid for it's mistakes.

[chalks]

I also have some very juicy rumours about why West Ham are happy to operate the way they do, financially, but I can't say!

didnt get that pm

Dirk is VERY reliable and is connected in many a capacity, chalk. So get over yourself and f**k off.

It's about time your corrupt little club paid for it's mistakes.

schools finished then

why is it every forum has a couple of arseholes?

[SpaceCruiser]

I hope you're counting yourself in that statement.

[chalks]

I hope you're counting yourself in that statement.

lol i set em up you knock em in spacey boy.

does your dad still touch you up at bedtime?

[Ian Royal]

So in what capacity do you meet with senior personal regularly at your club Chalks? And in what position do you serve in the FSF.

Because Dirkers is actually actively involved in the football world.

Of course West Ham wouldn't be docked 30 points if they went into Admin and came out without a CVA and were caught breaching agent rules.

They'd get 25. They haven't been in administration twice before in the last *cough* years. at least thats what I'll be saying until they get a 10p fine and a stern talking to.

[Streets]

I hope you're counting yourself in that statement.

lol i set em up you knock em in spacey boy.

does your dad still touch you up at bedtime?

You know Spacey?!

[Tony Le Mesmer]

Means exactly what it says.

West ham were in a financial mess in 2005. They didn't sell players to pay their debts, but instead kept them in the hope of promotion. They scraped in the play offs (relied on other results on the final day) and escaped Administration as a result. They basically gambled everything on promotion.

Amazing how things change on just one game. Leeds might be a decent prem side now had they won the play off final the following year, look at them now.

Dont let the facts get in the way eh.

Who exactly didnt we sell??? Joe Cole?? Trevor Sinclair???Paolo Di Canio???Freddie Kanoute???Glenn Johnson???

Or as it Carrick, who through having an injury meant we couldnt shift him.

Or was it David James, who showed loyalty in wanting to stay.

Oh hang on, it was Jermain Defoe wasnt it??!! Thats right, Defoe, who we kept because we didnt need to sell him through having shifted all the others.

'escaped administration as a result'............yeah ok

Mullins, Noble, Etherington, Zamora, Sheringham, Harewood. Any more? All players you could not afford to keep or could have sold.

[chalks]

Mullins, Noble, Etherington, Zamora, Sheringham, Harewood. Any more? All players you could not afford to keep or could have sold.

would that be the free transfer Sheringham??
Or the Mark Noble that had played no more than a couple of first team games and who was 17???
Or Marlon Harewood, who cost us 250k and who was on 12k per week??? Maybe Bobby Zamora, who was on 9k per week???

Nope. Must have been Mullins and Etherington, who cost a combined 500k.

Yep, we couldnt afford to keep any of them. But we did sell Carrick and James that summer.............

[chalks]

So in what capacity do you meet with senior personal regularly at your club Chalks? And in what position do you serve in the FSF.

Because Dirkers is actually actively involved in the football world.

Of course West Ham wouldn't be docked 30 points if they went into Admin and came out without a CVA and were caught breaching agent rules.

They'd get 25. They haven't been in administration twice before in the last *cough* years. at least thats what I'll be saying until they get a 10p fine and a stern talking to.

In which case he'd have pm'ed me with his 'oh so secret' info

I know exactly why West Ham are tightening the purse strings and if 'Dirkers' really does know all sorts of things about my club then i'd expect him to tell me what i already know. But he hasnt.

[Tony Le Mesmer]

Mullins, Noble, Etherington, Zamora, Sheringham, Harewood. Any more? All players you could not afford to keep or could have sold.

would that be the free transfer Sheringham??
Or the Mark Noble that had played no more than a couple of first team games and who was 17???
Or Marlon Harewood, who cost us 250k and who was on 12k per week??? Maybe Bobby Zamora, who was on 9k per week???

Nope. Must have been Mullins and Etherington, who cost a combined 500k.

Yep, we couldnt afford to keep any of them. But we did sell Carrick and James that summer.............

LOL. im talking about what they were worth you idiot, not what they cost.

[chalks]

Mullins, Noble, Etherington, Zamora, Sheringham, Harewood. Any more? All players you could not afford to keep or could have sold.

would that be the free transfer Sheringham??
Or the Mark Noble that had played no more than a couple of first team games and who was 17???
Or Marlon Harewood, who cost us 250k and who was on 12k per week??? Maybe Bobby Zamora, who was on 9k per week???

Nope. Must have been Mullins and Etherington, who cost a combined 500k.

Yep, we couldnt afford to keep any of them. But we did sell Carrick and James that summer.............

LOL. im talking about what they were worth you idiot, not what they cost.

But thats relevant. Your suggesting we gambled our future by not selling them. We didnt need to sell any of the players you suggested due to them costing oxf*rd all and being on low salaries. Plus Carrick and James leaving were the sales that tided us over.

Great management by Pardew.

Your argument is non existent.

[Dirk Gently]

May I personally apologise to Chalks for not actually living my life on Hobnob - I apologise for the extreme inconvenience this seems to have caused you.

What I actually said was

I also have some very juicy rumours about why West Ham are happy to operate the way they do, financially, but I can't say!

So I don't "know anything about your club" - I have been told some things which may or may not be true - hence the use of the word "rumours". I see no reason to PM them - as I say, they are rumours and as I'm not saying whether I believe them or not then all I'm going to do is pass them on without comment. My reticence is to make sure that I (and Graham!) don't get sued.

It was simply pointed out to me by someone with better links than me that if anyone wanted to run an operation designed to launder large quantities of dirty money, then purchasing a Premier League Football Club and running it with a negative cashflow would be the perfect way to do that. Pay players and bills with illicit money and keep the legitimate TV and ticket income.

Any sensible person looking to legitimise any dirty money in this way would also do best to have any takeover fronted by someone who seems reputable, and, of course, it would make most sense for this to be performed by a consortium outside of the UK, as the whole aim of the exercise would be to bring external money into the UK financial system.

[Baines]

It was simply pointed out to me by someone with better links than me that if anyone wanted to run an operation designed to launder large quantities of dirty money, then purchasing a Premier League Football Club and running it with a negative cashflow would be the perfect way to do that. Pay players and bills with illicit money and keep the legitimate TV and ticket income.

A number of Russian clients I have make similar, but less guarded comments, about Chelsea.