In the Premier League, in all of football, throughout the entirety of professional sport, a good rule of thumb to follow is this: the less you hear about your team’s ownership, the better the job that they, and therefore their club, is doing on and off the pitch. These are people who let the results of their work do the talking, who exist as silent, unassuming guides and resources for their sides and their various projects. This is not necessarily a moral judgement on these individuals, but merely an acknowledgement that yes, they are doing what is expected, and perhaps a bit more, of a club owner who cares to any remotely significant extent about said club’s fortunes.
Alas, alas. If you are a fan of West Ham United, or are indeed even a passive follower of the club’s fortunes, you will have seen the news of a foul-blooded power struggle at the London Stadium this week, clouding every other bit of news about the Irons.
First, it was abruptly announced that former Newcastle owner Amanda Staveley was interested in buying a stake in West Ham United. Then, just as quickly as the speculation had begun to make the rounds, Staveley had indeed bought out Vanessa Gold’s share in the club; this was much to the ire of Daniel Kretinsky, who’s not-so-secret desires to become the Hammers’ largest shareholder had been in the public’s knowledge for some time. Then, Kretinsky went a step further: he sold 2% of his stake in West Ham to Jakub Havrlant, thus allowing him a runway to make his own, blocking bid for Gold’s shares without taking him over the 50% mark (which would force him to make a bid for the side in its entirety).
It’s messy, it’s shrouded, somewhat, in mystery, and it’s likely to not be resolved for some time. It's already divided supporters: West Ham's fan advisory board released a statement expressing disappointment that "the proposed share transaction involving Vanessa Gold and Daniel Kretinsky will not now proceed as planned," but others, online and elsewhere, are equally livid with Kretinsky's blocking efforts. No matter the solution, in the short and long term, the conflict is likely to be holistically damaging to West Ham themselves.
There have been several reports that have indicated that, in spite of the recent turmoil, West Ham’s transfer dealings will continue as planned. As a fan, this is difficult to believe (especially given reports from the Athletic that Daniel Kretinsky is considering pulling transfer funds). There are not necessarily any doubts that the club will functionally be able to secure incomings (as evidenced by the recent arrival of Joël Veltman), but there definitely are some worries that the club’s recruitment won’t be as joined-up as initially hoped. With a power vacuum at the top of the food-chain, how will disagreements between the Irons’ scouting team be moderated? How will funds be allocated in a wholeheartedly direct manner? It feels like a tall, if not impossible, order. This is a club for which the transfer market has arguably been the biggest stumbling block, the most frequent source of errors for a team that has, unfortunately, erred a lot in a logistical sense these past few years. To not be able to attack the market with full coherence, then, would be hugely disappointing.
The chaos doesn’t exactly bode well in terms of outgoings, either. Not necessarily in a fundraising sense, but there is certainly decreased coverage from the circling vultures. Essentially, for those on the fringes of returning, the El Hadji Malick Dioufs, the Dinos Mavropanoses, the Taty Castellanoses of this world, if you will, the disorganization at the top will definitely not serve to help push them towards a London Stadium stay. Of course, there will be a less defined apparatus rallying them to rebuff any offers. But, from the point of view of the players, what is the incentive to stay somewhere where there is such administrative choppiness? Who could blame them for wanting to move closer to calmer waters?
Thus, on a day-to-day level, the chaos spells trouble. But its most damning effects for those on the perceived “outside”, the fans, is a symbolic one: it’s a disappointment, a betrayal, even. When the off-season started, there were so many promising signs, so many words that signaled, “the mistakes of the past? They won’t happen again.”
And now… this. West Ham United must do better, must be more transparent and together, for the players, for the supporters upon which the club is built. The infighting must cease, lest the few at the top drag everyone else down with them once again.
Add us as a preferred source on Google