On Sunday, The Times published an article by Chief Correspondent Martin Samuel in which he criticised a decision by the Fan Advisory Board of West Ham United to issue a vote of no confidence in the club's board of directors.
Last Monday a statement issued on behalf of 11 of the FAB's member groups said it would be backing "multiple protests" against the board, while calling for "professional full-time executives with both football and commercial expertise" to provide a "move to a competitive, professional leadership".
In his article for The Sunday Times, Samuel criticised the FAB's decision, stating that "talk of the club dying, of its existence being threatened, of sustained failure under the present regime - it’s all so overwrought."
Earlier today, KUMB member The Pink Palermo fashioned the following considered response to Samuel's piece.
It could all be better, but West Ham are a long way from their deathbed: a response
I'm not going to defend Martin Samuel's opinion because, frankly, there's an awful lot of it I disagree with. However I will defend his right to offer an opinion.
Now, there may be some legitimate debate as to whether he really is expressing his opinion or whether he is doing somebody else's bidding, but he stuck his name on the article so he has to own it. He's a big boy and I'm sure he will be fine with that.
It was interesting to read his assessment of the Levy era at Tottenham Hotspur, in particular: "Levy’s acumen built the country’s best stadium, an equally admired training ground."
If those are two of Samuel's benchmarks, is it unreasonable for the supporters of West Ham United football club to ask questions as to how our owners and executives have performed on those two issues?
What is more, Mr Samuel goes on to say: "Say what you like about Levy, but he was very good at what he was asked to do."
Clearly there are many readers of this website that might agree with the sentiment that many people are good at what they have been asked to do. One or two of them may even think that applies to what talented sports writers for The Times have written, but let's stick to those whose performance has been questioned by the club's FAB.
Is vice chair Karren Brady good at what she has been asked to do? Now, in fairness, none of us on here know for certain what it is she has been asked to do, so we can only assess her on what she has delivered.
Hence the vote of no confidence.
Let's remember the West Ham United Fan Advisory Board are not some ramshackle collective of disgruntled malcontents. They were democratically elected under a process overseen by the club itself. They have executed their responsibilities appropriately, so I take issue with Mr Samuel's opinion in this regard.
Still, further on in his column, in the section most readers here appear to be referencing he goes on to comment: "Supporters of clubs in genuine distress, like Sheffield Wednesday, must look at West Ham’s fanbase and wonder what will happen if true calamity ever befalls them?"
Yes, maybe the supporters of The Owls will take that view. They may also take the view that they should have acted sooner themselves.
Sheffield Wednesday have a proud history; a famous English football club with a decent level of support. They last won the league in 1930, the FA Cup in 1935 and the League Cup in 1991 (when it was briefly known as the Rumbelows Cup). The last time they played us was at Hillsborough, defeating us by a single goal in 2012 in the third round of the FA Cup .
I'm not sure if Mr Samuel was there that day. I was and got to see Brian Montenegro's only appearance for us and the final outing, of three, for goalkeeper Ruud Boffin. We were a Championship club at the time, and Wednesday were in League One.
The highlight of the day for me was not getting a parking ticket, as I had, at our previous visit to Hillsborough back in 2005, for a game in the Championship in which we ran out 4-2 winners. (David Bellion, Christian Dailly and Bobby Zamora with a brace, since you ask.)
But let's move on to his other comments. "The surest way of turning drama into crisis is for the London Stadium to become a hub of furious discontent, again."
I'm not sure how closely Mr Samuel is following this story but for the record, no supporters' groups have called for any protests inside the London Stadium. They have called for two specific actions outside of it: one is a gathering at the gates, the other a boycott of the Brentford match.
Sheffield Wednesday supporters, who he himself referenced, boycotted their recent Carabao Cup tie against (major rivals) Leeds United. So, what's good for the goose, surely?
In Yorkshire, it was a big story. And rightly so. Traditionally, a game between those two clubs would swell either club's coffers substantially and the boycott showed just 7,801 turned up. A year previously, a crowd of 28,800 turned up to see the same two clubs battle it out in the Championship.
Next up, Mr Samuel offers his view on the stadium itself: "The new ground is fine until the results turn."
Well it's an opinion, although I'm not sure how often he will have watched a game from the back of block 250 or 223.
I have no idea how the view is from the Directors' box but I can speak with some authority how the view is from block 107 and it's far, far worse than row P in the Rio Upper at Upton Park. It's over three times the price as well.
These things matter to those who pay to get in rather than be paid to attend. Yes, Spurs fans may grumble about the price of their tickets, but the views, the access, the location of the stadium, those things are certainly no worse than the old White Hart Lane. We've already documented Mr Samuel's opinion as to their new ground and it was graded rather better than "fine".
He then goes on to dismiss, or try to, the Hammers United statement that references three clubs who, by any reasonable measure, would not be historical peer group comparisons with West Ham United.
"What makes West Ham fans’ advisory groups think they are better than the FA Cup holders, or smaller clubs that are fabulously well run?"
Perhaps without realising it, within his id, a part of him grasps the final five words in that quote. The whole point of the FAB's vote of no confidence is West Ham are not fabulously well run, nor are we currently the FA cup holders. Which only emphasises the point that other clubs with modest means have marshalled their resources better than we have.
And let's not forget, Sheffield Wednesday won the FA cup in 1935 and were probably still celebrating that fact in 1945, 1955, 1965, 1975, 1985 and so on, until they finally realised in 2025 it's been a while.
Still, undeterred, Samuel continues. "West Ham have played 'the likes of' Bournemouth, Brighton, Brentford and Palace 64 times in the league in recent seasons, and won a grand total of 15 games."
Well, quite. Inadvertently he makes the point for the FAB and Hammers United. The truth, always comes out. He does however make a point oft quoted on this website: "Recruitment has been inconsistent, sometimes poor, and managerial appointments, too."
Now, we all know no club ever gets it right all of the time in the transfer market. It's hard however to think of any Chairman in the modern game who is so actively involved in the selection of who to sign rather than simply negotiating the deal for a player the Coach or DoF has recommended be signed.
Yes, Spurs fans would criticise, perhaps unfairly, their now departed Chairman for being a little , how shall I put this, careful with his club's money, but I've no issue with our Chairman haggling. That is his job.
What isn't his job is actually choosing who to sign and presenting them to the Coach as a 'gift' at the training ground. There's no suggestion Daniel Levy ever did that at Spurs as far as I am aware, although Sam Allardyce claimed that to be the case during his tenure at West Ham.
As for the selection of manager? Let us not airbrush from history that the trophy won on this board's watch was done so by a manager in his second stint at the club, having been prematurely let go previously. Both the person who replaced him then and after he won a trophy, are widely believed to have been chosen by our Chairman.
Maybe Mr Samuel would like to offer his views on those choices at some point?
Finally, he goes on to make a few interesting comments on the new football regulator. "Once an owner cannot pay the staff, or another club its money owed, the League should have the power to seize the asset and call in administrators.”
And: "I’d have teams of lawyers and accountants on standby ready to march on Reading this morning, and take the club out of the hands of Dai Yongge. The moment an owner can’t pay the wages, or HMRC or other clubs and contractors, even for a matter of weeks, he would forfeit the right to run the business."
As well as: "…will result in the club being placed under the control of an executive administrator appointed by the English Football Association, where it will remain until sold at a competitive market price."
All good, fair comments in themselves. Perhaps though, they would be more powerful were he to have linked those opinions he has contributed to various publications over the years to the current situation at West Ham United (and, to be fair, other Premier League clubs).
As previously documented on this website, a number of the club's supporters have expressed concerns as to the increasing level of football creditors and in particular when weighed against our club's inability to develop additional revenue streams and strong operating cash flow.
That, of course would bring us back to the performance and acumen of the board of directors of West Ham United Football Club and the reasons why the FAB issued its vote of no confidence.
As for the rest of Mr Samuel's article, I agree with every word he wrote about Lucas Paqueta and Marc Guehi. So at least one reader agrees with a couple of the points he made in his column.
* Like to share your thoughts on this article? Please visit the KUMB Forum to leave a comment.
* Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the highlighted author/s and do not necessarily represent or reflect the official policy or position of KUMB.com.