Teasy

I read somewhere that Ashley aims to make us a bigger brand than Man U, in like 5/6 years. That would be quite interesting if its true then. Would definatly mean that he would have to put money into the club to achieve that though. not sure that £45M a year for 5 years will do that...imagine it will restore us to a Top 6 side; with aspirations to challenge Top 4>>> I think it was £54 million per season which was based on £270 million and a five year plan. I think that kind of money could easily put us into a position of challenging for the Premiership title with the right manager (which I hope Allardyce is). Then again I think £45 million per season could easily do that as well to be honest.

Well I could see it making transfers slightly more difficult due to the current chairman's attention being focused on the takeover. But I honestly don't see why it would freeze any transfer money. Its not as if Shepherd would lose anything if he bought players before accepting Ashley's offer (or being forced out). After all its club money that's always been spent on players, not Freddy's money. He can't take it with him...

Check out the link Chez posted.

What a pile of nonsense the Sheff Utd chairman is talking! The very basis of there claim for reinstatement is that West Ham should have been docked points which would have meant they'd finish below Sheffield. Now he's suggesting that the best option would be to add another place in the Premiership so that both West Ham and Sheff Utd can be in! Doesn't he realise that if West Ham aren't relegated then there's absolutely no reason for his team to be reinstated?.... Don't get me wrong, I think West Ham should have been relegated which would mean Sheff Utd should have stayed up. But to suggest adding an extra place to the Premiership just doesn't make any sense.

That's probably quite unlikely though considering Ashley's got about 4 times as much cash.

Surely Dein is included in a vote for Ashley. Who are the jokers voting for Hunter and Xu Ming? Come on people give us your reasons, don't just vote anonymously.

If he was prepared to throw as much money at us as he has at the XBox brand then Bill would be very welcome I wonder what Sam would do with £4 billion to spend in the next few seasons But seriously, out of the people mentioned it has to be Mike Ashley. Does anyone actually disagree with that? EDIT: Apparently not, just seen the poll.

He is 26 and hasn't played in this country at all yet, I can't see how his experiences will get any broader staying in Germany. I think the broader point still stands. Just because you are English (or in Hargraeves's case plays for England) doesn't mean you should have to play there - and in fact the fewer players on England who play abroad the weaker the team will become. English players are not "wasted" playing in the continent anymroe than Owen is wasted playing for Newcastle. How does staying in the same league he's played in for his whole career broaden his Football experience?... If anything moving to England will broaden it.

Same as Sky Sports then What a rip off. Will not be subscribing to that, Sky Sports is bad enough. In fact I might cancel Sky, paying 44 quid a month and I hardly watch it, even the footy as I only watch Toon matches and ones that catch my fancy. Should all be free, every household in Britain would then get Sky meaning they'd make a mint via advertisers, which they already do anyway. Cancelling some of the things you watch least will save you some cash (trimming down the entertinament package and cancel movies maybe).

Apparently thought to be less by one guy on the West Ham forum who claims its £6.5 million. So far he's failed to respond to people asking him how he knows that.. Whether it goes any deeper then that or whether this is just Teamtalk reporting the word of some bloke on a forum is anybodies guess

Yeah I saw that just after I posted. Thor Björgólfsson is at 23 with £2.04B and Ashley is at 25 with 1.9B. Pretty close given its an estimation anyway. Still his father is the one who owns West Ham and he's not on the list (£600 million I think is his worth). Now if I need to wind up a west ham fan I can just tell them "your owner isn't even a billionaire in pounds so there!"

Just interest, I wanted to know who owned West Ham and what they're worth. The comment "more money then sense" got me wondering just how little sense the guy might have

Thor Björgólfsson doesn't even live in Britain does he? Which British list do you mean?, the Sunday Times rich list? If so Björgólfur Guðmundsson isn't on there AFAICS. Not that its important, I don't want to derail the thread. I'm just interested now..

Ah right did a bit of digging and found out that its Björgólfur Guðmundsson who owns about 90% of West Ham. He's got about £600 million in the bank. His son is (who as far as I can tell has nothing to do with West Ham financially) is Björgólfur Thor Björgólfsson (one hell of a name that!). He has around £1.7 billion in the bank... He isn't richer actually, not according to the info I can see anyway.

Who is this icelandic billionaire and also who is my messiah?..... I'm not religious

How much money do they actually have? Who owns them? As far as I remember its some kind of consortium, but who does that include outisde of Eggert Magnussen?

Parker isn't worth the money we initially paid for him, to make such a profit is something we'd be insane to turn down IMO.

You can't sign someone against there wishes, what a load of shit...

There have been three already, all free transfers. I don't know what his motives are. But at least we're in a far better financial situation then Chelsea where when they were taken over. We should be in a much better position to survive this kind of situation IMO. Especially if the new development still goes ahead.

that article is accurate but it is a season old - prior to last summers buys. They have lost a bit of money since then too. Yeah if it is true and losses are no longer being obsorbed by Abramovich adding last seasons losses would mean a current debt of £249 million. On top of that they seem to be making much bigger losses then transfers alone could explain. Of course they've decreased there yearly losses from £140 million to £80 million. Probaby because they didn't spend as much on players this year as the previous year. But that's still a huge loss, which will not go away simply because they stop buying players. The new sponsorship deal will help, but it won't come close to wiping out those yearly losses.

What did they spend on players last season? Also is that article correct that the club itself have a £169 million debt?

How do you know there revenue is in a different league to ours? I doubt that (depending on what you consider a different league to mean of course). Even if it was do you not think their wage bill is in an even bigger league, I'd bet its in a league of its own entirely. I mean they have numerous players on well over 100,000 per week, Ballack's on 140,000! They'll become self sufficient if they can continue to be successful while cutting that wage bill significantly. They need to keep being successful because the extra fans there now are mostly glory supporters. If the success dwindles, so will merchandise, TV revenue and Sponsorship, as well as prize money. After all its not as if they have a massive fanbase wether they're successful or not to keep there revenue high.. Again according to the Sun Abramovich has told them they have to cap the wages, which means they can't afford to renew many of there players contracts without them accepting pay cuts.

Building a new stadium costs a hell of a lot of money. Also while they may of had a similar size debt as us pre Abramovich, unlike us, they weren't in a position where is was manageable. Will they be now?, without the absolutely astronomical wage bill to pay for out of club revenue I'd say yes. But as it is IMO it relies totally on how successful the team are on the pitch in the next couple of seasons and how loyal some of there players are (I'd safely guess not very).

If that article, from The Sun, is correct on many of its assumptions, then I'll eat my hands. I know what you're getting at, in all fairness, but I simply don't think it's as doom and gloom as you're making out. All the moeny spent by Roman was an investment, and now it's time for the investment to really start paying off. Chelsea won't have a bank balance of £0 because Abramovich isn't throwing his cash about anymore. It just doesn't work like that. They've got massive sponsorship deals now, if they'd still have been on the old ones, then I'd probably agree with you. They've done so much behind the scenes to get more money in, connections in the Far East, even around the world. The only thing they haven't invested in is the stadium which you keep bringing up, as if it's some trump card. If we aren't going by the article here then we have no idea what's happening and really nothing to discuss in the first place I'd agree with you if the situation is as you're assuming, which it might be of course. But if its true that Abramovich has told Chelsea he is having little to do with the club in the future, with his financial support being removed then I'd stick to my opinion. Which is not one of Chelsea going under by the way, but rather that they cannot sustain there current success. Sponsorship deals and connections in the far east are one thing, paying the kind of wage bill they must currently have out of club revenue is another. Players will have to go, the squad will have to be majorly downsized. Also IMO the stadium can be quite important, Its a source of major revenue and also an icon for the club.

The big difference there is that we have a far better financial base then Chelsea had before Abramovich arrived. Our revenue is in a different league to Chelsea's pre take over. If the stadium plan continues it'll then be even stronger. So I'd be far more confident of us being able to survive and even flourish in this kind of situation.