What have West Ham Done That we havent???

[larry1971]

Spent beyond their means!

Doubt we'd be 3rd bottom if we'd signed Nolan, Jarvis and Carroll in the last 2 seasons. Back in the real world, we don't sign £35 mill England internationals.

not sure about that - Carroll, is in on loan , although I think we are paying most of his wages and the £10m for Jarvis, is the most we have spent since Alardyce took over and by todays standards that's chicken feed - our problem now is that Sullivan and Gold are so comitted to the move to the Olympic Stadium that we simply can't afford to be relegated that's why Sam has been given the money to spend on transfers and paying big wages.

[soggy biscuit]

the £10m for Jarvis, by todays standards that's chicken feed

Sums up much of what is wrong with many premier league fans. £10.75m for a player in Div 2 for a club who had just got promoted and said themselves they were close to 'financial Armageddon' really is not chicken feed.

[MrWestHam]

We're always going to be able to pay more because we have a larger, more loyal and established fan base than most of our competition. Not only did we average well over 30,000 last season despite a dissapointing campaign, we're stuffing more than that in this year (average over 33k). And that's despite paying more than most in the premier league.

You can understand that Reading's bankrollers can't afford to take that chance on a big signing giving the small capacity of the ground and that the attendance seems much more sensitive to how the team is performing than a club like ours despite how cheap it is to watch.

[melonhead]

what i dont understand about west ham is why are you always advertising tickets on radio for games?

i know fulham have to do that,but why on earth do you?

[MrWestHam]

I think the new owners are much more tenacious in pro actively selling tickets and they put the staff under pressure to prove they are doing their jobs properly Every penny counts for the porn brothers and they hate the sight of one empty seat. Quite a few people have felt disinfranchised from their community football club but could be convinced to come back over with a decent offer at the right time.

One of the problems the club has had historically is arrogance (as you can see from my last post, some of us still have it...) and I don't mind seeing the Porn Brothers not being too proud to advertise in the local media.

[Caskeys Lovechild]

What complete, and total bullshit. 7000 extra seats bring in £5 million a year - When you take out the additional costs of running those 7000 seats, you're talking £4million tops - chicken feed - it has nothing to do with the size of the stadium.

Match attendance makes up a very very small percentage of a clubs income - whether you're Colchester United, or Manchester United.

[MrWestHam]

7k a week all buying the stuff that goes with a match day. Not just the ticket. Programmes, strips, food, drink, foam fingers, claret and blue Christmas hats, autograph books, horse masks, neck braces.

It all adds up.

[Royal Lady]

In answer to the OP, we haven't won the World Cup in 1966

[Caskeys Lovechild]

7k a week all buying the stuff that goes with a match day. Not just the ticket. Programmes, strips, food, drink, foam fingers, claret and blue Christmas hats, autograph books, horse masks, neck braces.

It all adds up.

Even if you double it, and presume there's no cost (ie the whole amount is profit - which it's not, for ANY of the items mentioned) you're still only talking £10million - still a tiny contribution. In reality, of that £10million, only £6million is profit (at the most) because all of the items you mention, only offer a 20-30% profit margin. It's worth having, but it's certainly NOT the difference between the two teams in terms of spending power.

[Seal]

What complete, and total bullshit. 7000 extra seats bring in £5 million a year - When you take out the additional costs of running those 7000 seats, you're talking £4million tops - chicken feed - it has nothing to do with the size of the stadium.

Match attendance makes up a very very small percentage of a clubs income - whether you're Colchester United, or Manchester United.

Totally incorrect.

Match day revenue makes c.20%+ of Premier League Clubs total revenue.

Manchester Utd make £3.8m per match, about £100m a year, which is c.30% of revenue. In the case of Colchester United, it will be 30-40% of their total revenue.

[Royalclapper]

I think the new owners are much more tenacious in pro actively selling tickets and they put the staff under pressure to prove they are doing their jobs properly Every penny counts for the porn brothers and they hate the sight of one empty seat. Quite a few people have felt disinfranchised from their community football club but could be convinced to come back over with a decent offer at the right time.

One of the problems the club has had historically is arrogance (as you can see from my last post, some of us still have it...) and I don't mind seeing the Porn Brothers not being too proud to advertise in the local media.

Agree with this. It's almost like there is an internal conflict of interests between the traditional and modern day demands of the fans etc (perhaps even more apparent than at other clubs). I've always thought of West Ham to be one of the few genuine and true to its roots football clubs around, consistently producing lots of their own first teamers. Not so evident in the most recent of seasons. Think Noble is home grown mind you. Strikes me that someone like Jarvis (although decent) would have formerly been found from within their own ranks.

Not sure about the attendance issue though. Spurs generally attract a higher quality of player than West Ham with not that much higher attendance figures which suggests their commercial value and potential is greater. Also, Leeds, Man City, Sheff Weds, and Forest have had spells in the third tier with similar (some a bit less, some a bit greater) followings than West Ham. Can't see a reason why that couldn't happen to them (even though it might not). And it would have become difficult to sustain gates of 30,000 when outside the top flight for more than a few seasons.

[robinsfriday]

At the time of writing this WH are in 8th place and holding City at home

So what have they done that we havent?

Transfers, Management or what?

Since you've joined in August you've started how many threads with endless oxf*rd questions. Get out more.

[Rev Algenon Stickleback H]

I'd say one obvious thing they did was go up with a better set of players that needed less strengthening.

Yes, we finished above them last season, but we did that getting results way beyond the expectations of everyone, while they finished a whole 3 points behind with a team their fans all felt was under-performing.

[larry1971]

the £10m for Jarvis, by todays standards that's chicken feed

Sums up much of what is wrong with many premier league fans. £10.75m for a player in Div 2 for a club who had just got promoted and said themselves they were close to 'financial Armageddon' really is not chicken feed.

oh I agree - I just ment when you compare £10m to some of the fees being paid out it's not a lot - but for clubs like West Ham it's a catch 22 situation yes you're already in huge debt but that debt will get far worse if we are relegated so you are basicaly forced to have to shell out on big transfer fees and wages to keep you in the Premiership as at £80m plusin debt administration is a serious possibility if we go down.

[Caskeys Lovechild]

What complete, and total bullshit. 7000 extra seats bring in £5 million a year - When you take out the additional costs of running those 7000 seats, you're talking £4million tops - chicken feed - it has nothing to do with the size of the stadium.

Match attendance makes up a very very small percentage of a clubs income - whether you're Colchester United, or Manchester United.

Totally incorrect.

Match day revenue makes c.20%+ of Premier League Clubs total revenue.

Manchester Utd make £3.8m per match, about £100m a year, which is c.30% of revenue. In the case of Colchester United, it will be 30-40% of their total revenue.

Manchester United TURN OVER £3.8m per match. You think they put that match on without any costs? Stewarding, Policing, Cost of printing tickets, administration of tickets, property costs, lighting - and that's just the stuff I can think of off the cuff.....

The revenue you quote per game, is their turnover....you can't invest turnover....you can only invest profit....unless you want to go bust.

[royalsteve]

west ham's problems last season

they had a crap goalie in green, massively overrated and got rid and got a decentish keeper in instead
they got two decent players in on loan who have plenty of prem experience - carroll and benayoun
look like they got a decent find in maiga or whatever hes called
agree they are a prem side who struggled with the championship
aladyces protect the point doesnt work too well in the championship with the extra games/teams and the fact that anyone can beat anyone and a point doesnt move you much up the league, whereas in the prem a point DOES make a difference
they have a manager with prem experience

theyll stay up


southampton were good in attack but poor in defence - fonte is a liability, didnt think their keeper was that great either, but i dont think theyve addressed these issues

[Royal91]

Couldn't give a toss what West Ham are doing. Its not how you start its how you finish and their finances are a complete JOKE.

Wasn't so long ago they wanted that Fat bastard Sam out. Give them a few weeks and they will probably crumble. Got a history of being a YOYO club.

[Seal]

What complete, and total bullshit. 7000 extra seats bring in £5 million a year - When you take out the additional costs of running those 7000 seats, you're talking £4million tops - chicken feed - it has nothing to do with the size of the stadium.

Match attendance makes up a very very small percentage of a clubs income - whether you're Colchester United, or Manchester United.

Totally incorrect.

Match day revenue makes c.20%+ of Premier League Clubs total revenue.

Manchester Utd make £3.8m per match, about £100m a year, which is c.30% of revenue. In the case of Colchester United, it will be 30-40% of their total revenue.

Manchester United TURN OVER £3.8m per match. You think they put that match on without any costs? Stewarding, Policing, Cost of printing tickets, administration of tickets, property costs, lighting - and that's just the stuff I can think of off the cuff.....

The revenue you quote per game, is their turnover....you can't invest turnover....you can only invest profit....unless you want to go bust.

you can't invest turnover? You can only invest profit?

Here's how it works:-

1) Club makes money (from 3 keys sources - Media, Commercial, Matchday)
2) Club spends / invests money (costs, admin, salaries, transfer fees etc etc)
3) Club has profit / loss based on 1) - 2)

Matchday is 30% of revenue, and therefore significantly impacts the signings a club can make and the profit / loss they operate at.

[Still Hate Futcher!]

Comparisons with West Ham are a bit pointless as (a) They have a bigger ground and a bigger fanbase and (b) They are prepared to run up large debts to invest in their squad. It's like a West Ham fan starting a thread entitled 'What have Man Utd done that we haven't''? Answer: spent £30+ mill on Van Persie, as they sell 60,000 tickets per game and are happy with a £200 mill debt.

The fact we were better than West Ham last season shows how far we've come. To expect to finish above them every year is a bit otimistic.

Would you swap Brian for Fat Sam? I fcukin' wouldn't!

[Colin Cheeselog]

we have a... more loyal... fan base than most of our competition

What analysis did you use to quantify the loyalty of your fans against that of others?