With the ink barely dry on David Sullivan’s resignation letter, West Ham United are a rudderless ship, drifting towards a summer transfer window with many first team players destined for an exit yet without an operating executive structure or a succession plan in place.
All eyes are on Daniel Kretinsky but, according to The Times, it may not be the ‘Czech Sphinx’ or David Sullivan himself who decides the future of Sullivan’s 38% shareholding.
Out with the old, in with the new? West Ham fans, players and the wider football world will wait and see…
In his article “After David Sullivan, does Daniel Kretinsky really want to save West Ham”, journalist Martin Samuels suggests that, along with Kretinsky, it is the newly established football regulator David Kogan who may hold the key to what happens next at West Ham.
Samuels makes the point that at present there is nothing compelling Sullivan to sell, nor Kretinsky to buy: Prolonged legal action by the former Chairman against those making allegations, for example, could keep the future destination of his shareholding uncertain:
“Sullivan, it must be stated, denies all allegations. He has threatened legal action which, if it goes ahead, could delay processes and tie regulatory action in knots. It is unlikely to be a short fight, if this were the case.”
However, Samuels suggests a situation could evolve whereby the football regulator forces Sullivan to sell:
“Equally, a civil action from one of Sullivan’s accusers would almost certainly compel the regulator to act — fit and proper directors have to declare any legal actions against them — and he has the power to order a club owner deemed unsuitable to divest shares. There have been discussions around West Ham’s directors signing up to a disrepute clause, forcing a sale in the event of negative publicity.”
“If Sullivan has to sell to Kretinsky for any of these reasons, that is the end of the matter from West Ham’s perspective. The regulator will not pursue him, as Sullivan at that point would have no involvement in football. For the fans, given the animosity towards Sullivan, this would appear the ideal solution. No wonder they are so anxious to hear Kretinsky’s intentions.”
None of which seems likely to be a rapid fix. As the club drifts towards a transfer window and a new season with no direction and no leadership; employees, players, fans and the wider football world will be looking for any signs of life from the West Ham boardroom. As Samuels writes:
“Does Kretinsky want to own West Ham, run West Ham, save West Ham, build West Ham, make good on the optimistic promises of the previous regime? These are the questions he must answer.”
Am I on my own here, but since 2023 Mr Sullivan has been banned by the FA from having contact with West Ham’s Women’s football, plus the men’s youth teams. I say it again since 2023, this has been fact, and has to be common knowledge amongst the likes of every member of the board, administrive staff, manager, coaches, players, ball boys, or anyone who works at West Ham. In the last 3 years I have never read this information on this or any other ITK site. I honestly feel let down by everything to do with West Ham right now. I feel disgusted that my sons and grandchildren have walked out on that pitch as season ticket holders like their generations before have at Upton Park, where as a kid me and my 2 brothers were carried shoulder high. I understand that a lot of these allegations are historical from the 80’s but my point here is that apparently the FA banned the owner of our football club in 2023 from visiting the Women’s football team and Youth teams and who knew this, how do they feel right now.
And how does that impact you FFS? Fake indignation 😏
And this is the backdrop against which some fans believe we will be active in the transfer mkt. As things stand surviving all this sh@t is going to take some doing.
The regulator can’t ’force a shareholder to divest’ unless there’s a willing buyer.
A minor but overlooked factor, given that Sullivan has always been willing to sell for the right price; the lack of interest in the Gold shares shows that while some people may wish Sullivan gone at any cost, finding the unicorn replacement isn’t going to be easy.
Good things come to those that wait apparently.
Hopefully it won’t be much longer until we can get an owner with a progressive strategic vision. 🤞
So, actually nothing much has changed really MT.
We can hardly say that we previously had effective leadership and direction in the majority of the past 30 transfer windows, can we?