Claret & Hugh has learned of an issue with the Gold familyâs shares in West Ham, which could be holding up any potential sale of the club.
As reported earlier this week, preliminary discussions had taken place regarding the shareholding of former joint-chairman David Gold, which was bequeathed to his daughter Vanessa. The Gold family hold 25.1% of shares in the club, and it is understood that an investor prominent in another sport held talks over buying the stake.
However, those discussions never reached an advanced stage, with multiple reasons cited for the interested party walking away. Speaking to C&H this afternoon, a source with inside knowledge revealed a key stumbling block.
David Gold’s estate owned 25% of West Ham shares
âThe Gold family did not put all of their shares up for sale, only 15% of West Hamâs shareholding,â the insider claimed.
âThe issue is that anyone with less than 20% doesnât get a vote on major decisions. So any buyer would effectively be investing without any real influence on club policy.â
Who will spend ÂŁ100m to be powerless?
It appears this issue is at the heart of the stalled talks, with the source concluding: âI canât see the Gold shares selling any time soon. Why would anyone bother?â
Indeed, the prospect of spending over ÂŁ100m without the capacity to influence the direction of the club is proving unappealing. It leaves the Gold family in a position where they may be unable to sell part of their stake and could eventually be forced to relinquish all of it.
Had Daniel KĹetĂnskĂ˝ opted to buy the available 15%, he would have become the clubâs largest shareholderâbut as C&H previously reported, he has no desire to do so.
I just wish they would fulfill their roles as shareholders and vote at meetings to bring in required outside expertise to run the show. A financial expert, director of recruitment, academy, commercial side and they retire gracefully from direct responsibilities while able to influence, but one step back from direct responsibility.
Otherwise, they can keep their shares if their heart is in it and for their future profit/gain as in any business. I would prefer this, rather than having shares sold to mega-buck companies who will bet everything on CL qualification by bringing in expensive players and manager. Maybe this sound small time, but I’d prefer we just grow as a club through good management on and off the pitch.
On the other hand, PSR rules might be a 2nd problem to WHU and other clubs preventing them from competing with those clubs (top 6?) who do have major cash flows coming in from mega-rich investors. That might need fixing by the PL? while WHU needs to fix its own internal problems as well, rather than sell shares to mega investors, who can succeed or fail miserably.
I’d be wary of who shares went to and I’d rather we kept a local identity to the club and grow gradually through the club’s, players and managers own endeavours.
might as well get it right; … “club’s, player’s and manager’s own endeavours.”
Itâs like spoilt children with lots of toys not wanting to share them – silly spoilt children
It’s just about the money..sullivan and Co.just earning money charging extortionate rates of interest ..to the club not going anywhere. Just staying stagnant.. who else would make a song and dance about signing a 40 year old goalkeeper..not brighton bournemouth ect
We really are screwed aint we
Our club lacks any strategic direction whatsoever.
It’s bad enough that we are led by Sullivan and Brady in ever decreasing circles of ineptitude but what is most disappointing is Kretinsky seems happy enough to watch from the sidelines.
What a combination! Rich, Greedy AND stupid.