Home to Spurs - Saturday 23rd November 12.30pm

1…5678911»

Comments

  • buffybegoodbuffybegood
    thornburyiron said:


    The owners always seem happy for this club to sleep walk to nowhere.

    Why they couldn’t have been happy for that at the BG, well that is the mystery.

    They wouldn't have made half the money they have if we'd have done that, moving to the OS was the ONLY reason they bought us in the first place.
  • OldCastleSwiftOldCastleSwift
    Lukerz said:

    Why they couldn’t have been happy for that at the BG, well that is the mystery.

    Not sure there's a mystery to this at all. For a start they got to sell the BG.

    They saw the commercial revenue opportunities that the LS offered, and said as much from day one. If the 2012 Olympics weren't held in London, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have been interested in buying the club. I mean, can anyone honestly say that G&S would have funded a new stadium to be built?

    They saw a business opportunity in a new, low-rent stadium and another 30,000 punters coming through the gates. Much like when they thought they could move Birmingham to the NEC.
  • OldCastleSwiftOldCastleSwift
    The financial benefits to G&S are discussed in this article:

    https://www.cityam.com/revealed-west-ham-owners-free-cash-olympic-stadium-deal/
  • ASLEFshruggedASLEFshrugged
    S&G sold the Boleyn for £40m but they didn't make anything out of it, it went straight to the banks to service "The Debt".

    I agree they wouldn't have bought the club if the Olympics hadn't come to Stratford and Boris hadn't already said he wanted a football club (he was saying that before he was elected in 2008).
  • OldCastleSwiftOldCastleSwift
    ASLEFshrugged said:

    S&G sold the Boleyn for £40m but they didn't make anything out of it, it went straight to the banks to service "The Debt".

    Would they not have had to settle that debt at some point though? Ergo, they've saved themselves £40m.

    Probably too simplistic a way to look at it, but I just think that everything they've done is to the benefit of themselves rather than the club and the fans.
  • buffybegoodbuffybegood
    OldCastleSwift said:


    Probably too simplistic a way to look at it, but I just think that everything they've done is to the benefit of themselves rather than the club and the fans.

    I don't think that's simplistic at all, that's 100% how I see what they've done, the Club is just a toy thing for them to play with and earn money out of.
  • BubblesNeverDiesBubblesNeverDies
    As poor as Roberto was, Diop was as much at fault for the 1st and 3rd goals, and he could have stuck a leg out to intercept the cross for the 2nd.
  • Expat_HammerExpat_Hammer
    Not so sure about the third, it seemd to me that untouchable 'arry ploughed into the back of Diop, so in my humble little opinion should have been a free kick against the FA's wonder star
  • FortuneseekerFortuneseeker
    Expat,

    Any half decent goalkeeper would have saved at least two of the 3 goals we conceded yesterday. He makes Allen McKnight look world class! :angry:
  • baracks_a_hammerbaracks_a_hammer
    First goal clear error and fab would definitely have saved the third (header was in the centre of the goal

    Without fab we would have probably been bottom six last season.
  • BubblesNeverDiesBubblesNeverDies
    Baracks
    "Without fab we would have probably been bottom six last season"
    By that you imply that the defence is not doing a good enough job, so in effect you agree with my point about Diop.
  • FortuneseekerFortuneseeker
    Bubbles,

    The stats show Fabianski made the most saves of all the keepers in the Premier League last season. You can interpret that fact in a few ways, it may indicate when called upon he was required to make more saves than he should have been but was able to make them in the main. The key point is surely that "calamity" doesn't instill any confidence in the back four and they are playing under extra pressure every time he plays. Pelle doesn't help the situation by continually changing the personnel in the defence so they is no continuity.
  • BubblesNeverDiesBubblesNeverDies
    Fortune, I'm not defending Roberto, just pointing out that the defence are as much at fault. :ok:
  • FortuneseekerFortuneseeker
    Bubbles.

    :ok: I think we have a few issues to address, Roberto is the one being played out most in the public eye.
  • Pearces_Left_FootPearces_Left_Foot
    https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11685/11869365/west-hams-woe-under-manuel-pellegrini-whats-gone-wrong

    There is stat that we have been out run by every team we have played this season until we can match teams for work ethic its going to be a long season
  • welovethehammerswelovethehammers
    Pearces_Left_Foot said:

    https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11685/11869365/west-hams-woe-under-manuel-pellegrini-whats-gone-wrong

    There is stat that we have been out run by every team we have played this season until we can match teams for work ethic its going to be a long season

    I'm not surprised. On the ball we are static.

    Off the ball, we are trying to keep up with the opposition's runners (and failing miserably at this). Take the Tottenham game... they hit us on the break and 3 of their players (Lucas, Son and Ali) are sprinting forwards while we only have 1 or 2 chasing them back.

    So we don't run when in possession as we offer no movement, and then we don't chase/close them down with the same numbers or intensity that they burst forward in.
This discussion has been closed.