Cash Injection Inbound But Hammers Can’t Spend it

Image for Cash Injection Inbound But Hammers Can’t Spend it

West Ham United could be set for a significant financial boost with potential investors emerging from the Middle East. This comes amidst reports that a significant chunk of the club’s shares, owned by Vanessa Gold, are available for purchase.

West Ham vice-chairman Karren Brady’s recent trip to the Middle East has fuelled speculation of a targeted search for fresh investment. While Czech billionaire Daniel Kretinsky, a current minority investor, has the option to increase his stake, his focus seems to be elsewhere at present.

Any hopes of NBA legend Shaquille O’Neal taking a major role appear slim. If he does invest, it’s likely to be a token gesture similar to celebrity holdings in other clubs.

The real intrigue lies in the financial woes plaguing France’s Ligue 1. The lack of a domestic TV deal threatens to cripple the league, potentially forcing a mass exodus of investors. This situation creates a golden opportunity for West Ham. The Premier League‘s robust TV deals make the London club an incredibly attractive proposition for those seeking to reinvest.

While the exact valuation of West Ham is dependent on market forces, US private equity groups estimate the club to be worth over £795 million.

The truth is that it matters little who owns West Ham from a financial standpoint. Even the most wealthy investors would be handcuffed by PSR restrictions and unable to spend and improve the Hammers first team.

Share this article


  • John Ayris says:

    It’s a revenue game now not a game of deep pocketed owners. Those with higher revenue should be able to spend more on players as they have more leeway within profit and sustainability rules. All things being managed equally competently.

    It doesn’t matter how rich your owners are they cannot spend beyond what PSR allows.

  • Dave says:

    So if Vanessa gold sells her shares she pockets the money?
    Where does the cash injection come from if she sells?

    • AD says:

      That’s a good point, but if a deal doesn’t include a way of also investing in the club, why is Brady putting in the effort to sell Gold’s shares.

      I don’t profess to understand the intricacies, but when Kretinsky bought in (Nov21), we spent around £150m net in the summer window that followed (22), buying Paqueta, Scamacca, Aguerd, Cornet, Emerson, Downes, Areola, Kehrer and only selling Diop.

      • B says:

        Kretinskys buy in (’21) wouldn’t have a single bit of difference to the transfer budget, which would be determined by PSR.
        You have to look at West Hams overall net expenditure against income over a period.

        Current annual turnover suggests £100mil. transfer budget (Plus player sales) would be easily within the rules.

  • rollercoaster hammer says:

    please don’t let our club become part of the sportswashing brigade. for me, it’s just as bad as taking the gambling cash. haven’t bought a shirt for years bc of that.

  • Chris Wheeler says:

    I think it is a case of who you know rather than how much money you have got. If a new investor had the influence to get us a naming rights deal for the stadium which they current owners cannot seem to do. A new investor may be able to attract bigger sponsorship deals. Ect I think we are missing out on millions of pounds from commercial deals that a higher profile investor may be able to sort.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *