Gold again disappoints the “sell up” critics

Gold and fansDavid Gold has again been moved to make it clear there are no plans whatsoever for the present owners to sell the club.

A poor season and the move to the London Stadium have conspired to produce suggestions on social media that the club could (or should ) go on the market.

But after David Sullivan’s regular announcements that HE has no intention of selling,  Gold has added his emphatic denial that the club will leave his and his co chairman’s control.

He was asked by a Twitter follower: ” Mr Gold how are the board going to sort out the problems at West Ham or are you just waiting to sell the club for profit.”

His reaction was fast and to the point as he retorted: “We have no plans to sell the club. dg”

Not surprisingly, since this is Twitter, he was then trolled and praised by a queue of individuals- a situation to which he has clearly become quite accustomed.



About Hugh5outhon1895

Hugh Southon is a lifelong Iron and the founding editor of ClaretandHugh. He is a national newspaper journalist of many years experience and was Bobby Moore's 'ghost' writer during the great man's lifetime. He describes ClaretandHugh as "the Hammers daily newspaper!" Follow on Twitter @hughsouthon

26 comments on “Gold again disappoints the “sell up” critics

  1. Why would he sell up ?? both him and Sullivan earn a huge sum of money off the interest they charge West Ham Utd via loans, they pay £2m a year to RENT the stadium and our net spend under them is minimal and clubs like Crystal Palace spend more on players than we do. Basically they are sitting on a gravy train so what’s a bit of abuse to them…..

    Be interested to hear if anyone thinks i’ve missed the point ???

    • You’ve missed the point mate. This “Sullivan makes 7% on his money/debt” is repeated time and time again especially by those that have an agenda against the Dave’s.

      7% is a rubbish return on his money. My pension and ISA’s are getting between 14/18% pa and have done for the past 3 years. Simple money investment by my financial advisors which frankly Sullivan could probably better. So it’s a fact if he didn’t lend that money to West Ham then a) he could earn more on that money and b) West Ham would pay more to a bank.

      The other thing that strikes me is that Sullivan is lending the bulk (or all of the money?) more than Gold, Storey or the Iceland banks so therefore he has to charge interest doesn’t he otherwise he’d be at a disadvantage.

      Of course when Gold and Sullivan do sell up, if they sell up, they will make a lot of money. We shouldn’t begrudge them that. Quite honestly I believe them when they say they won’t sell up. Why would they? They hardly need another couple of hundred million do they? What a lovely hobby owning your own football club being a fan too. Lucky guys.

      • Owners loan 7% to the club they own..its a sin young John lol

        • My apologies my age ment i missed out interest with regards to the 7%.
          It must be time for my pick me up vitamins lol

      • Spoken if it had come out of one of the Dave’s mouths themselves…Anyone would think this site is is a mouthpiece for the board…

        Oh hang on a minute…it is lol

        • Silly man you ask if you have missed the point,someone takes the time to reply,you dont like the reply so you make some petulant remark about the site.
          Why ask for others opinion if you were only going to disrespect it if it didn’t agree with you.
          I honestly despair of some of you.

          • What a wally brain.He asks for other peoples input then gets narky when he doesnt like the response.
            And since when does it matter whether sites are pro or anti anything.
            Though as i remember it this site was far from owner friendly during Allardyces tenure.I guess people just say what is appropriate to their own silly agendas
            Sometimes it feels like the millwall pikeys would be more accomodating than some of our own fans lol

    • I don’t think that you would get the point even if you sat on the very tip of The Shard.

  2. I think the only time selling would be brought up is if either of the chairman became seriously ill then there may be some uncertainty about the future of the club.

  3. Well if CPFC want to pay they best part of £30 million on Benteke i hardly think it is something to commend them on
    They charge 7% on loans which really is nothing.We already have too many clowns who gob off about the loan regularly.They could easily make far more elsewhere other than loaning at 7%.
    It is something emoty vessels like to talk about with some show of authority they certainly do not have.

    • Agree mate. I’m not sure if they are ignorant or genuinely do not know but a quick search on Google will show average returns on money invested with investment houses or even property.

    • 7% of nigh on £100 million is a lot of money, and let’s face it we’ve massively improved under their leadership….sigh

      • West Ham needed £100m. We couldn’t borrow it from a bank as we had to be debt free as part of the agreement to move to Stratford. Directors loans obviously don’t count.

        West Ham do not pay Corporation Tax on money from director loans but would have to pay it if it were a bank loan.

        The repayments are an expense so West Ham pay less tax. The interest is taxable so the directors pay more tax.

        Its not as simple as the directors taking 7% out of the club.

  4. The point being missed is there has nevr been an invstor – never mind buyer.

  5. The day we are sold to a faceless foreign group will be the day i will be mortified.I think that fans who crave this so much really do only see one outcome…trophys,silverware and league titles.Unfortunately reality has shown in many cases the golden goose has often laid a rotten egg for many other clubs and fans with the same thoughts of quick fix granduer.

    • Spot on Stanley. If I had the time I could list now 20 current owners of premiership or championship sides that I wouldn’t want near my club. Our lot are far from perfect but I’ll be happy if they’re still here in 20 years time.

      • The leagues from top to bottom are littered with clubs who have had foreign investment or owners who have ended up far worse off.It has happened in the lower leagues not just the PL or Champo.
        Its all good looking at Citeh or Chelski but you also need to balance that out with the clubs who have suffered greatly at the hands of these type of owner.

        I can see it now,the support who moan about our current owners being too vocal on social media will then be moaning about us having owners from abroad who are aloof,unapproachable and distanced from the fanbase lmao

        • Yep, Aston Villa springs to mind, you could also argue Arsenal have been much poorer under foreign ownership than they were, Utd under the Glazers, Liverpool under their American owners, Leeds with Cellino although they were ruined by Ridsdale, Forest with their owners , Charlton with DuChatel there are only really Chelski and City that have been successful with foreign owners I think ?

          • Over a prolonged or reasonably prolonged period of time i would say you are right no32.
            If you look in to foreign owners throughout the league pyramid there are so many tales of woe.
            Look at poor old Orient now down in League Two.

    • Manchester City

  6. Stan + Long Dog- could not agree with you more in regards to foreign investor. Of course, we WERE sold to one & look how that ended up. As you rightly say, so so many disasters in this country. Even the ones that have not ended badly- does anyone want us to be like Chelsea or Man C just so you can say we won the PL, we are in Europe? No thanks. I still remember the Man C takeover & their first transfer window. They got Robinho at the last moment. The image of those boneheads chanting ‘We got Robinho’ will live with me. I though they looked so pathetic. It chilled my blood . I am sure the financial ins & outs are more complex than they are being presented, but personally I am prepared to trust that the Daves are not in it primarily to enrich themselves. Call me a mug- I’ve had worse-but they have got my backing.

    • You are of course right matey and i had not forgotten about the biscuit men,how could we.
      I just feel the foriegn investor and faceless consortiums from all over the world has stepped up to a different level even from them.
      I may be old fashioned and a grump but i dread the day i hear a chinese consortium or such like has come in for us.
      I know some fans scream out for it but its not for me.I will take our British owners over that every time.As they say the grass isnt always greener on the other side.
      I read some say these are the worst owners we have ever had and can only come up with the conclusion that they must only be 8 yrs old and know little different lol

  7. Well, if we try to get out of grump mode for a minute you could say they are people getting frustrated. I get like that myself quite often. They want top four status & they want it NOW. I set my sights lower, partly because I think those top clubs (5 or 6 ) have got it sewn up. I want us to be a side who can give you those jokers a good game, with a few wins thrown in. I want us to have good players, but I accept it won’t be ones like Messi, Aguero, Zlatan, ( unless we produce one & keep him for a few years) & to play good football ( that includes having a defence that is not leaking 4 & 5 several times a season). Some will say I am a defeatist settling for second best. Maybe but I think I am a realist. A lot of these foreign owners come unstuck because they think all they need to do is buy ONE good team eg Us in 2007/8, Villa, Blackburn in the 1990s). You have to keep pouring the money in. Only the richest can do this. You still need an awful lot just to compete in the PL but I think maybe our owners can manage that.

Comments are closed.