David Sullivan

13567

Comments

  • alderzalderz
    ScotHammer said:

    I hate trial by media whoever it is.

    For sexual offences by billionaires I’ll take trial by media over trial by nothing at all
  • ASLEFshruggedASLEFshrugged
    Slacker said:

    Remember the state the club was in when they took over.

    All I remember about when they took over was they promised us a world class striker and we got Benni McCarthy...
  • claretandblueskyclaretandbluesky
    I think many people have had their time at West Ham improved by Declan Rice, Moyes could quite rightly state that he won us a trophy, but the most important factor was probably Rice, likewise with Sullivan, they could claim they brought European football to the London Stadium, and they did, but would it have occurred without Rice? I doubt it.

    I only point this out as aside from our Euro adventure it's quite hard to find many high points at all in Sullivan's reign. It could have been a lot worse as we have all seen clubs get in real trouble through a lot worse management than we have had, but there really isn't much to hold up as a measure of success under Sully.
  • jay_in_cptjay_in_cpt
    edited June 7
    claretandbluesky said:

    I think many people have had their time at West Ham improved by Declan Rice, Moyes could quite rightly state that he won us a trophy, but the most important factor was probably Rice, likewise with Sullivan, they could claim they brought European football to the London Stadium, and they did, but would it have occurred without Rice? I doubt it.

    I only point this out as aside from our Euro adventure it's quite hard to find many high points at all in Sullivan's reign. It could have been a lot worse as we have all seen clubs get in real trouble through a lot worse management than we have had, but there really isn't much to hold up as a measure of success under Sully.

    Agree with most of that, it's fair to point out, like we all know, the last real glory WHUFC had was in 1980, many on here weren't even thought of then, so they ( Sullivan and the late Gold ) hardly had a lot to better themselves than....IMO
  • OutcastLondonerOutcastLondoner
    Slacker said:

    Fortuneseeker said:

    @Slacker, So it's the be careful what you wish for mode then?

    No not really , but I think some have got rather short memories. Remember the state the club was in when they took over.Look he’s made some dreadful mistakes at the club with managers and transfers and I’m by no means a GSB apologist but I don’t think everything can be laid at his door.
    Let’s see what happens……

    I remember us being £100m in debt and close to liquidation. It seems we still owe a massive amount of money and not financially safe.

    This will be the second time we've been relegated under Sullivan and we're now in a stadium most people don't like.

    Moyes did a great job for a while in building something for us but we failed to build on that and most decisions since the ECL win have been pretty bad and led us to where we are.

    I know we're not exactly where we were when GSB took over but I don't think we're that much better off.
  • Expat_HammerExpat_Hammer
    OutcastLondoner said:

    Slacker said:

    Fortuneseeker said:

    @Slacker, So it's the be careful what you wish for mode then?

    No not really , but I think some have got rather short memories. Remember the state the club was in when they took over.Look he’s made some dreadful mistakes at the club with managers and transfers and I’m by no means a GSB apologist but I don’t think everything can be laid at his door.
    Let’s see what happens……

    I know we're not exactly where we were when GSB took over but I don't think we're that much better off.
    I would argue that we are worse off without the tangible asset of a stadium.
  • ASLEFshruggedASLEFshrugged
    edited June 8
    claretandbluesky said:

    I think many people have had their time at West Ham improved by Declan Rice, Moyes could quite rightly state that he won us a trophy, but the most important factor was probably Rice, likewise with Sullivan, they could claim they brought European football to the London Stadium, and they did, but would it have occurred without Rice? I doubt it.

    Tony Carr signed Rice, S&G replaced Carr in 2014, we've had three Academy directors since then and the only graduate they produced who has made any major contribution was Ben Johnson

    He's only 75, maybe we could tempt him back...
  • ASLEFshruggedASLEFshrugged
    The Athletic/New York Times have been told by “ a senior source with knowledge of the situation, speaking anonymously to protect their position, that Sullivan would consider selling his 38.8 per cent stake”

    Suddenly relegation doesn’t seem so bad…
  • IronHerbIronHerb
    I think it's Panorama and The Times that have forced the situation, but it has sugar coated relegation for sure.
  • thornburyironthornburyiron
    Apparently 7 women have come forward to accuse him of being a sexual predator some way back.
  • stevesteve
    just read the bbc artical on it .Does not look good for him does it ,
  • IronHerbIronHerb
    https://x.com/MikeKeegan_DM/status/2064054742549176726
  • chicagohammerchicagohammer
    Also just read it and no, it does not make great reading…..especially given the nature of his business I do not feel shocked but I cannot help but feel, why now?…not wanting to defend, deny nor prejudge anything but knowing the investigation spans decades it is slightly surprising that there is not more evidence and accusations as I have no doubt that inappropriate behaviour would have been pretty common back then.
  • CrustyCrusty
    I expect Sullivan will try to tough it out, he's obviously shameless.
  • MrsGreyMrsGrey
    https://www.theguardian.com/media/2026/jun/08/revealed-david-sullivan-sunday-sport-sold-sexualised-images-girls

    Anyone else struggling to see how this is a 'revelation'?
    The article says it was actually explicitly stated in actual newspapers sold to loads of people at the time.

    Not really a secret?
  • IronHerbIronHerb
    chicagohammer said:

    Also just read it and no, it does not make great reading…..especially given the nature of his business I do not feel shocked but I cannot help but feel, why now?…not wanting to defend, deny nor prejudge anything but knowing the investigation spans decades it is slightly surprising that there is not more evidence and accusations as I have no doubt that inappropriate behaviour would have been pretty common back then.

    So why has he stood down?
  • Expat_HammerExpat_Hammer
    chicagohammer said:

    I have no doubt that inappropriate behaviour would have been pretty common back then.

    As Mrs E said, it was pretty common, but that doesn't make it right.
  • IronHerbIronHerb
    There's inappropriate then there are the allegations, which are beyond inappropriate.
  • MoojorMoojor
    chicagohammer said:

    Also just read it and no, it does not make great reading…..especially given the nature of his business I do not feel shocked but I cannot help but feel, why now?…not wanting to defend, deny nor prejudge anything but knowing the investigation spans decades it is slightly surprising that there is not more evidence and accusations as I have no doubt that inappropriate behaviour would have been pretty common back then.

    1. not more evidence / accusations - at the time this is said to take place women would 100% either be ignored if they said something or accused of "wanting it" what happened would have been their fault. Many women would probably bury the abuse and try to move on with their lives. Let's be honest here, we have the Epstein files, millions of emails, there are names of abusers and their actions in those files. How many men have been charged with anything?
    2. Why now? Because of things like Me too, Gisèle Pelicot and even in a sense the Epstein files. Women who have been abused realise that the shame isn't on them, they don't need to hide and bury it. They can speak up and hopefully it will be taken seriously.
    3. So you'll have those who have families and different lives now who don't want to drag up / relive the abuse and those that feel they can say what happened.
  • ASLEFshruggedASLEFshrugged
    "Football regulator could force David Sullivan to sell West Ham stake"

    "The IFR, introduced under last year’s Football Governance Act, is the game’s independent watchdog and oversees its own owners, directors and senior executives (ODSE) regime for clubs across the Premier League and English Football League. It has the power to expel any figures it considers unsuitable. “Honesty and integrity” assessments of owners are part of its remit.

    An IFR spokesperson said: “These are extremely serious allegations. We are in contact with West Ham on this matter and will use our statutory powers to seek urgent information from David Sullivan relating to his suitability under our owners, directors and senior executives regime. We are unable to comment further at this stage.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/football/2026/jun/09/football-regulator-could-force-david-sullivan-sell-west-ham-stake
  • CrustyCrusty
    I felt very sorry for the women in "Panorama" last night for whom time has most certainly not been a healer.
    I feel equally sorry for the thousands of victims who were not mentioned in the programme.
    But, I am left wondering what, if anything, was revealed last night that the Essex Police didn't know about when they decided to take no further action in 2023?
    If nothing, then why was the Panorama programme made at all?
    If the intention was to shame, embarrass or to do reputational damage to Sullivan, well that ship has not already sailed, it seems to have never existed.

    My heart goes out to the victims of opportunist swine in positions of power, who care not a jot for the impact of their actions, but only for self gratification.

  • alderzalderz
    Crusty said:

    I felt very sorry for the women in "Panorama" last night for whom time has most certainly not been a healer.
    I feel equally sorry for the thousands of victims who were not mentioned in the programme.
    But, I am left wondering what, if anything, was revealed last night that the Essex Police didn't know about when they decided to take no further action in 2023?
    If nothing, then why was the Panorama programme made at all?
    If the intention was to shame, embarrass or to do reputational damage to Sullivan, well that ship has not already sailed, it seems to have never existed.

    My heart goes out to the victims of opportunist swine in positions of power, who care not a jot for the impact of their actions, but only for self gratification.

    There’s a different standard for civil and criminal trials, and I would assume that the journalists did their due diligence, but have a much lower burden of proof than a criminal court would - hence a lack of action from Essex Police.
  • WhitehorsehammerWhitehorsehammer
    I agree with what you have said Crusty, it is the CPS that decide whether to prosecute or not and they must have a reasonable expectation of getting a prosecution, what was in last night's program fell well short of that. We mostly think that Sullivan is a sleazy person, but that is not a crime. The IFS governance sets a much lower bar though.
  • claretandblueskyclaretandbluesky
    That seems to be a programme dedicated to letting everyone know Sullivan is a sleazeball! I am not sure anyone ever suspected otherwise, knowing how he made his money. I was expecting something along the lines of Russel Brands expose, stuff that would lead to police charges.

    The glaring omission is any mention of the very famous Karen Brady when telling the Sullivan story.
  • alderzalderz
    claretandbluesky said:

    That seems to be a programme dedicated to letting everyone know Sullivan is a sleazeball! I am not sure anyone ever suspected otherwise, knowing how he made his money. I was expecting something along the lines of Russel Brands expose, stuff that would lead to police charges.

    The glaring omission is any mention of the very famous Karen Brady when telling the Sullivan story.

    I mean, there were several allegations from women saying that Sullivan forced them to sleep with him, which is a bit more than him being a sleazeball.
  • ScotHammerScotHammer
    I think most of us will agree Sullivan is not a nice person. However, in the documentary I’m not sure he committed any crimes that he could be convicted of. Most of the incidents happened in the 80s and 90s when standards were very different. Much as I feel sorry for any victims I’m not convinced what he did was illegal, however despicable.
  • claretandblueskyclaretandbluesky
    That's my point he doesn't appear to have forced anyone to sleep with him but rather offered incentives to do so, I believe the police would quite rightly view forcing as rape. I guess there is a parallel to Weinstein in as much as using the casting couch method of abuse of power, but clearly Weinstein went much further.

    I think the Russel Brand trial later this year will be fascinating from a legal perspective. It will really test the ground regard where does abuse of power and position cross the line into criminality regarding sexual crimes.
  • EXETERHAMMEREXETERHAMMER
    Convicted or not, his actions and behaviours were wrong. I am most sorry for the victims.

    I also don’t want a man like this at West Ham, even if it was different times. It’s not ok to say times were different then. He has to recognise that abusing your position of power is wrong.

    Not a nice man
  • MrsGreyMrsGrey
    ASLEFshrugged said:

    "Football regulator could force David Sullivan to sell West Ham stake"

    "The IFR, introduced under last year’s Football Governance Act, is the game’s independent watchdog and oversees its own owners, directors and senior executives (ODSE) regime for clubs across the Premier League and English Football League. It has the power to expel any figures it considers unsuitable. “Honesty and integrity” assessments of owners are part of its remit.

    An IFR spokesperson said: “These are extremely serious allegations. We are in contact with West Ham on this matter and will use our statutory powers to seek urgent information from David Sullivan relating to his suitability under our owners, directors and senior executives regime. We are unable to comment further at this stage.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/football/2026/jun/09/football-regulator-could-force-david-sullivan-sell-west-ham-stake

    If they are going to widen the fit and proper assessment beyond financial matters, into morality, they are going to be very busy with Newcastle and Man City.
  • thornburyironthornburyiron
    C&B Sky what on earth would Karen Brady have to do with anything. These allegations are way before she had anything to do with Sullivan unless you’re suggesting she was one of his victims at some stage.
Sign In or Register to comment.