Gold and Sullivan aint messing about

[stroud canary 0]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/w/west_ham_utd/8473694.stm

who could this be?

[Lambert is King 0]

Just think if they would have bought us instead we would have had Ruud upfront possibly against Brentford. I wonder who would have been dropped Holt or Martin.

[Big Slob 0]

Unfortunately not me, ummm maybe Raul. Don''t think he''s getting a look-in with Benzema and Higuain there at Real.

[morty 0]

Michael Owen lol?

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 2,424]

Think it is Ruud as the article suggests, but think that would be a bad move. He really isn''t the player he once was and surely Gold and Sullivan should realise that spending that kind of money on wages is what got West Ham into the problems they have now. Hope they do stay up as it is the closest club to where I live, tickets aren''t impossibly hard to get and it''s nice to see Premier League football occasionally.

[stroud canary 0]

[quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"]Think it is Ruud as the article suggests, but think that would be a bad move. He really isn''t the player he once was and surely Gold and Sullivan should realise that spending that kind of money on wages is what got West Ham into the problems they have now. Hope they do stay up as it is the closest club to where I live, tickets aren''t impossibly hard to get and it''s nice to see Premier League football occasionally.
[/quote]

Agree with that - If it is Ruud thats a dreadful waste of money. That would rack up 5m in 12 months on 1 has been - not good business

[Mr. Bump 0]

Goran Maric?

[Puzzy magnet 0]

So one day West Ham are skint and going bust - the next they are offering someone £100,000-a-week. Absurd.

[newyorkcanary 14]

Don''t you know this is all part of the "seven year plan" to get West Ham into the Champions league?  Obviously offering 100k a week to a 33 year old with 1 club appearance this year is good business!  Ugh we are such unfortunate souls to have to put up with the likes of Paul Lambert, delivering results from within as opposed to buying on the open market.  I wish Delia had more money so we could get rid of Lambert and buy a nice expensive manager like Sven.  Wouldn''t that be swell?

[Chelmsford Canary 0]

Is that not exactly how West Ham got into a financial mess in the first place?

Signing players on huge wages?!

Signed Freddie Ljungberg on a free, was being paid £30K at Arsenal, so West Ham pay him £80K and don''t play him! Good idea

If it is Van Nistlerooy, he''s getting old, and injure prone = big mistake

[Graham Humphrey 13]

Good to see lessons have been learned [:S]Hopefully we''ll see West Ham in the Championship next year...

[Lambo 0]

Van Nistelrooy will still put the ball away for you, much like Pippo Inzaghi, RVN''s Madrid goals per game ratio is unreal. Even in that one appearence this season he scored, he wasn''t played since because he''s getting the same treatment the rest of the Dutch contingant that started the season there did, Snjeider, Robben, Van Der Vaart, they all got dropped for no apparent reason.

He missed last season because of the same injury that delayed his Man U move a season, not because he''s constantly getting injured. It''s a class buy for West Ham if they get him, he''ll fire them to safety.

[YankeeCanary 0]

Their next four games are mostly with other relegation candidates. Not likely perhaps, but I would love to see West Ham come out on the wrong side of those results, just to see a little sweating begin.

[Yellow Rider 0]

[quote user="Puzzy magnet "]So one day West Ham are skint and going bust - the next they are offering someone £100,000-a-week. Absurd.[/quote]

You''re spot on Puzzy - this is ''madness gone mad'' but, of course,as its those ''loveable old cockney rogues from the East End'' everyone turns a blind eye.  

I heard the Sullivan, Gold, Eastenders ''love in'' of a press conference earlier this week when the ageing porn baron raged at the Icelandic owners for ....''this mess'' and the ''appalling finacial situation brought about by amzing wages''. The boy Sullivan then revealed that even AFTER the takeover the club woud still owe £50M to various banks and £40M to ''other clubs''!

Now I may not be the sharpest tool in the box at understanding debt arrangements and complex balance sheets but I sure as hell understand that you can''t keep spending cash you ain''t got!! How on earth Sullivan can now offer £100k a week for a striker in the same week he scorns the £60k per week paid to the likes of Bellamy, Parker and others is simply astonishing.

Oh, and another thing. The old Pompey Chimes are having their collars severely felt by Scudamore who is withholding TV money until the Premier League are.....''absolutely convinced that every single penny has been paid as owed to other clubs''. That''s an admirable stance (for once). I wait to see what crushing terms are imposed on the East End ''barrow boys'' who, it would appear, are far worse in debt than Pompey. Lets just say I ain''t holding my breath for action!! You see, Gold and his sidekick are ''from London'' and ''have the interests of the club at heart'' and, of course, they are ''good old cockney boys''.

Those ''wonderful East End fans''  are welcome to Sullivan and Gold - thank God they didn''t end up at Norwich!!!   

 

[Rastaman 0]

100k a week for ruud is got business if theres no transfer fee! He will get them 10 goals at least and we all know that geting goals is the hardset thing to do when at the botham of th PL. If those goals keep them up thats a good 5million spent imo.

[Chip20 69]

One of those two (I forget which one) was interviewed on Radio Five earlier this week and when asked about the financial situation basically blasted the former owners for paying inflated wages. Cited an example of an unnamed Arsenal player who was on 30K there and was payed 80K by West Ham. I''m sure his implication was that they would never be so reckless themselves!

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 2,424]

[quote user="Chip20"]One of those two (I forget which one) was interviewed on Radio Five earlier this week and when asked about the financial situation basically blasted the former owners for paying inflated wages. Cited an example of an unnamed Arsenal player who was on 30K there and was payed 80K by West Ham. I''m sure his implication was that they would never be so reckless themselves![/quote]

I think the difference now is Gold and Sullivan are using their own money to finance this transfer, and I guess it will only be until the end of the season. I can see why they are taking the risk as West Ham desperatly need to stay in the Prem, but as you say blasting players wages and them so openly talking about a massive deal for a player smacks a little hypocritical.

 

 

[lordyfan 0]

[quote user="Chip20"]One of those two (I forget which one) was interviewed on Radio Five earlier this week and when asked about the financial situation basically blasted the former owners for paying inflated wages. Cited an example of an unnamed Arsenal player who was on 30K there and was payed 80K by West Ham. I''m sure his implication was that they would never be so reckless themselves![/quote]i heard that too. It was David Gold. Its blatantly obvious who he was talking about, one freddy ljundberg.Whay, also, do they think ruud van nistelrooij [the correct spelling b.t.w] is worth 100k a week?. How many games has he played in madrid?. Reckless?, i think its a case of heart ruling head.

[chicken 0]

[quote user="Rastaman"]100k a week for ruud is got business if theres no transfer fee! He will get them 10 goals at least and we all know that geting goals is the hardset thing to do when at the botham of th PL. If those goals keep them up thats a good 5million spent imo.[/quote]Exactly. I don''t think Ruud is that big a gamble, we know he can play the English game, we know he can score goals at premiership level - the only risk is the same as any other plaer - injury. And for that money you probably wouldn''t get a much better striker these days. If his goals keep them up then as Rastaman says - the wages would pay for themselves.