Yes folks, the summer transfer window is approaching, and for West Ham United it’s going to be a busy one. Or is it?
We all know where we ended up, debates can be had about whether it was the coaching staff, the tactics, VAR or the players not being good enough, but nobody can argue with the fact the club finds itself in what some of us will always call Division Two, aka The Championship.
The club's income will collapse with the loss of sponsorships, TV revenue and lower matchday income. It needs to cut costs.
Unfortunately, for many members of the club's staff, people whose names are never in the press but the people who actually do a hard days work for not a lot of money, relegation will be catastrophic: they’ll lose their jobs, and, as many of them will be genuine West Ham United supporters, it will be doubly devastating. For those people, spare a thought.
The bulk of the supporters' attention though will be on the players, coaching staff and boardroom. Nobody disputes change is needed in those areas, the question is to what degree, and crucially, who decides what and how?
We have already seen the opening salvos in what could be a summer of confusion with, upon her departure, Karren Brady telling her preferred press agent that she had negotiated a deal between the existing shareholders for Daniel Kretinsky and David Sullivan to each have matching shareholdings as a consequence of each of them buying some shares from the Gold family estate.
That of course begs the question, who is in charge now? Each of those two are billed as co-chairmen, straightforward enough you would think until they disagree, then what?
It hasn’t taken long, with the news coming out following the confirmation of our relegation, that Daniel Kretinsky wanted Nuno Espirito Santo to stay on as Head Coach. That is, of course, David Sullivan's version of events. As for what Mr Kretinsky’s version is, who knows, he doesn’t say very much to anyone at all. Actions not words are the evidence of real power. Sometimes though, so inaction can be too. Deciding not to follow a course of action can be just as powerful.
Next up, we have started to see well-informed Journalists commenting that the club wished to retain the services of five key players: Hermansen, Bowen, Soucek, Mavropanos and Castellanos. That gave supporters a real boost and the comments on the KUMB Forum were overwhelmingly positive as to our prospects for a swift return to the top flight.
This was further enhanced with the news reported on KUMB.com yesterday that two of the five had given strong indications they were likely to stay, along with Callum Wilson who appeared to have had an overnight change of heart, having previously announced a sort of farewell on Instagram.
Yet today, we have seen alternative suggestions from people believed to be close to David Sullivan that supporters should forget what they may have heard elsewhere, that those five and the tea urn at Rush Green are available for sale, all offers considered, enquire within.
Curiouser and curiouser. Or, maybe not.
It’s fairly straightforward, we have a battle being fought in full view. A disagreement between major shareholders as to how to fund the club, how to make key decisions and who makes those decisions. Quite simply the financial situation the club has found itself in means to retain his power and control David Sullivan needs to sell players, or face the prospect of having to invest more money into the club.
In sixteen years he has invested the bare minimum of new capital into West Ham United, preferring instead to trade players - and that’s fair enough. It’s a legitimate way to run a football club. Until that is, somebody else, with equal status says he doesn’t want to sell certain players.
That doesn’t mean he particularly likes those players, it might simply mean that he believes the decision as to who comes and who goes should be made by somebody more professionally qualified to do so.
The problem , of course, is the club owes other clubs money, and plenty of it. The club will lose a significant sum of money when the books are published for the season just ended to add to the loss of £104m the previous season, and is facing the prospect of a third consecutive loss-making season in our new division.
A hundred million here, fifty million there, pretty soon you are talking serious money. The club have already taken out one super-sized loan at high interest rates, there must be a limit to how much more it could borrow at any price given its new found commercial reality.
If we don’t sell the players, where does the money come from to pay outstanding creditors? And quite simply, one major shareholder needs to sell players to retain his current role at the club, whereas the other major shareholder doesn’t. He is more likely to have a stronger hand if a shareholder rights issue is called.
Were the shareholders to call a rights issue, that is, raise new capital to inject into the club, each of them have the right to buy new shares issued by the club in proportion to their current shareholding. If an investor chooses not to take up their “rights”, they face a diluted shareholding. It’s clear a rights issue may suit some shareholders more than others.
In plain English, Mr Sullivan may be suggesting to every player's agent their client needs to leave, for financial reasons, while Mr Kretinsky - who won’t be saying anything publicly - might be letting it be known privately that isn’t the case. Other options, to some extent exist. Some of course, will have to go for the club to meet its SCR obligations, but not all and not necessarily the five who we were told the club wished to retain.
None of this means Daniel Kretinsky has a burning desire to buy West Ham United Football Club, he may simply have a different opinion to Mr Sullivan as to how to protect his investment. At this stage, none of us know what the two main shareholders have agreed in terms of a decision-making process in the event they cannot agree on key matters.
Can Mr Sullivan actually sell anyone at all without other shareholders' approval? Who do the players' agents believe have the power to negotiate? Are they actually talking to the decision maker, or simply “Johnny on the spot” as David Sullivan was wonderfully described by Christian Purslow this week in his Podcast?
One thing is for sure - we are in for an interesting transfer window and potentially a blockbuster summer in terms of boardroom activity. Will we see a New Order, or will confusion reign?
* 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.