For months, West Ham fans have lived in the shadow of one big question:
Is Daniel Křetínský gearing up for a full takeover?
But let’s flip the script. What if he doesn’t increase his stake? What if 27% is where he stops?
And let’s not forget he had a formal option to buy full control of West Ham previously, and it expired in March 2022, costing him £18 million, which he paid as a non‑refundable fee.
Suddenly, the picture looks very different and far more complicated.
Whilst David Sullivan stepped down yesterday he still remains the club’s largest shareholder at 38.8%.
Without Křetínský increasing his stake, Sullivan in the form of his sons, who are both Directors of WH Holding Ltd, become key decision makers. This is where it gets interesting. If Sullivan keeps his shares and wanted to reappoint himself to the board, his 38.8% isn’t enough. He’d need Vanessa Gold, or Daniel Kretinsky to get to the magical 50%+ under an ordinary resolution.
Without one of them, he simply doesn’t have the votes.
One thing is clear: If Křetínský doesn’t move, West Ham’s future won’t be shaped by one person, it’ll be shaped by the alliances between them.
There were unconfirmed reports in April that Křetínský had agreed to buy roughly 11.8% of the Golds family stake, bringing his shareholding in the club up to roughly 40% making him equal with Sullivan.
Speculation will soon give way to clarity, with the boardroom situation expected to be resolved in the coming days. As the club said on Saturday: “The club will provide an update on the future structure of the Board of Directors in due course, but will make no further comments at this time.”
The word is he’s already done it but with kretinsky he’s not an open book
Does Kretinsky’s ownership of Slavia affect whether or not he can be an owner of West Ham ?
No it’s only a problem if we end up meeting in Europe which isn’t a problem at the moment and unless we win a domestic cup not likely in the near future
I think buying out others shares is a bit more complicated than it first seems, as is the bailing out of the mooted £90 m, This would give a debt in the region of £300m, almost half the current club value after relegation.
Why would anyone buy additional shares in the club when you are really buying an increased share of the debt, current valuations surely need to take that into account.
Wouldn’t the way forward would be a share issue equivalent to 50 % dilution of current share holdings, the revenue created would go into the coffers and service the current debt, current shareholders will have contributed by default, and those with ambition will by the shares.
I thought Kretinskeys share was 40 % Matt as he was known as the co-owner?