By Kris Gonzo | Senior West Ham Columnist (Follow on X)
News that West Ham owner David Sullivan was banned from attending games and training involving both the women’s and youth teams has raised yet more questions about the club’s safeguarding practices.
Sullivan was believed to be under FA investigation in 2023 after governing bodies became aware of historical allegations.
It is understood that a safeguarding group involving the club, the FA and the local authority prevented him from attending women’s and academy matches and training sessions.
Furthermore, it is believed Sullivan was informed of the restriction in writing by a senior club executive and accepted it without question.
Questions The Club Must Answer
It may well be these safeguarding concerns, rather than anything featured in Monday night’s Panorama documentary, which lead the new football regulator to take a closer look at Sullivan’s continued ownership of West Ham.
The latest revelations also lead to an obvious question.
Why was an owner deemed unsuitable to attend women’s and academy football still considered suitable to run the football club?
Those are internal questions West Ham will now have to answer.
It’s also worth remembering there has historically been a reluctance within the club to welcome a football regulator into the game.
In 2024, Baroness Brady warned the House of Lords there were “dangers lurking in this bill”.
“Aspects of this legislation risks suffocating the very thing that makes English football so unique, the aspiration that allows clubs to rise and succeed in our pyramid system. The ambition that means fans can dream,” she said.
The Regulator Is Now Watching
No doubt the very same regulator will now be examining how the process surrounding Sullivan’s partial ban was implemented.
And I suspect that scrutiny will not be particularly welcome.
Unfortunately, this is just another example of the lack of transparency which has surrounded the club for years and which is now being brought into sharper focus following the fallout from the BBC’s investigation into Sullivan’s past.
It does leave you wondering how much more is still to come.
Being banned from attending youth games provides the answer.
How can anyone defend this individual. Guilty or innocent …..is he the person we should trust to be the figurehead of our proud club. Classless,,clueless ,clown… three c’s with another one not suitable for this blog. Time to take stock and start again with a professional team in place . COYI ⚒️⚒️
There will be plenty more to come out I guess; but most of it will not have been a crime at the time the incidents occured. As distatsteful as many of these stories are, most of us of a certain age are not shocked or surprised. In 1980 a young lady I knew appeared topless on page 5 of the Daily Star on her 16 birthday. She’d shown me her portfolio of pictures a few weeks earlier all taken when she was 15 years-old. Thankfully times have changed, well we thouht they had, but a significant minority are trying to turn the clocks back at the moment and protection of women is one of the things they will row back on.
I would guess he was allowed to run a Club because HE HAS NOT BEEN FOUND GUILTY OF ANYTHING IN A COURT OF LAW.
Yes. Probably that.
Yes Tim, exactly.
The club needs to move on and so do it’s ‘supporters’.
Investigative journalists will be digging as I type. There’s bound to be follow ups in the Sundays.