Jump to content

West Ham co-owner David Gold hints Charlie Austin's Southampton deal is not a bargain


Saint IQ

Recommended Posts

Sullivan: "They say he has no ligaments in his knee, who knows?"

 

Well, Sullivan, if you don't know STFU.

 

And to think the state gives an honour to his secretary Karen Brady, who masquerades as a "business woman". Tory Party mouthpiece, more like.

 

I suspect that Austin will play more games for us that that other non bargain Andy Carroll does for WetSpam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have (Which I am delighted about) appeared to take a punt at 4 million - Great bit of business, but there is a reason why 18 premier goals a seaon, England Internationals go for 4million pounds and it's not just because he could leave in the summer on a free. QPR would have off loaded him for the big bucks back in the day, if they could have...... They couldn't.

All bets are off when you talk about QPR in a business sense, though.

 

They turned down £12m for him from Leicester in the summer, holding out for £15m. They are basically a football club owned by an egomaniac without the slightest sense of how to operate as a business. Makes you wonder how these people make their money in order to buy a football club in the first place...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All bets are off when you talk about QPR in a business sense, though.

 

They turned down £12m for him from Leicester in the summer, holding out for £15m. They are basically a football club owned by an egomaniac without the slightest sense of how to operate as a business. Makes you wonder how these people make their money in order to buy a football club in the first place...

 

Spot on

 

Horrible club

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sullivan on sky sports being interviewed. He sounds a right uneducated tool, how he has made a fortune ill never know.

Doesn't even know he is signing Byram not Byron.

 

Also said he never normally comments on deals befoe they are done...apart from telling his Son who tweets about it!

 

Their owners are a right pair of wallies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The last few stories from his comments seem to be "I don't know any facts but I reckon maybe this".

 

Glad he's nowhere near our club. If Saints were offering 100k a week our recruitment and sale policy would have been very different the last year or two! Not a chance in hell.

 

But no salary is a bargain is it, a likely 50-60k a week is still insane money. He's a bargain if he scores goals in the premier league basically. Score 15-20 a season and you're a bargain at 4m or 24m these days.

 

Saints will be offering £100m a week just like everyone else pretty quickly. It's inevitable that most of the new tv deal will end up in the bank accounts of the players, it always does. The overall standard of the Prem will rise, better players than ever will come to clubs that previously couldn't afford them, players in the Prem will end up with more money as a result, will be interesting to see what happens to the parachutes and Championship clubs, as we've recently gone through a spell of parity where sides have been able to come up and compete and often bounce back due to the ability to retain players on big money from the parachutes. Whether that continues when there's less incentive than ever to stay with relegated clubs remains to be seen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All bets are off when you talk about QPR in a business sense, though.

 

They turned down £12m for him from Leicester in the summer, holding out for £15m. They are basically a football club owned by an egomaniac without the slightest sense of how to operate as a business. Makes you wonder how these people make their money in order to buy a football club in the first place...

 

There is a 'rational' explanation. QPR friends tell me that they were happy to keep Austin for another season, even if it meant potentially seeing go for free in the summer. In effect, his goals represented their best chance of securing promotion and premiership lucre. And if QPR did go up, its quite possible he would have signed another contract.

 

Its a gamble that hasn't paid off -it doesn't look like they'll even make the playoffs- but you cant say its bad business per se.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I bet Chazza is itching to show David Gold just what a bargain we have got by banging in goals against his team on the 8th Feb :D

 

****ing hope so.

 

I can't quite decide whether I like WHU or not, but when this plum of a co-chairman (or both of them to be honest) come out and spout utter ****e to detract attention away from themselves, well...... I see he is on SSN saying a 20 goal a season striker maybe coming in within the next 7 days on loan with an option to buy. Wonder whether it will work out cheaper than Charlie boy?

Edited by angelman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

****ing hope so.

 

I can't quite decide whether I like WHU or not, but when this plum of a co-chairman (or both of them to be honest) come out and spout utter ****e to detract attention away from themselves, well...... I see he is on SSN saying a 20 goal a season striker maybe coming in within the next 7 days on loan with an option to buy. Wonder whether it will work out cheaper than Charlie boy?

 

Gignac

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, looking at last season and the 20 goals a season players, there was....

 

Aguero transfer was something like £35m and his value has gone up - 26 PL goals

Kane no transfer fee to speak of, but people speaking of £45m - 21 PL goals

Costa signed for £32.5m - 20 PL goals

 

then after that it was Austin with his 18 goals (signed for £4m). Seems WHU have been jilted. Would ****ing love it if we could sign Byram under their noses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you've got to realize is that in view of the BBC Panorama program late last year,all concerned with West Ham in an ownership/ directorship position are going to make an absolute killing when foreign owners take over the club due to its location in the capital .It was looking very good that they were going to be relegated under big sams leadership but sadly they've played above themselves this season and are now going to reap the financial benefits of being in the Olympic stadium.The question on that still hasnt been answered and that the answers were redacted as to show the real truth behind the costs of running the Olympic stadium and all that the overheads should be ,even freedom of information act couldnt uncover the actual costs that seem to be a steal,and thats why the smaller clubs that would be affected on the impact of WHU taking ownership of the stadium.They are also giving away an awful lot of free or very cheap match day tickets.Needs to be further investigation,but sadly the truth will never be made known.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see he is on SSN saying a 20 goal a season striker maybe coming in within the next 7 days on loan with an option to buy. Wonder whether it will work out cheaper than Charlie boy?

 

Gignac

 

doubt that, he's made up hotshotting it in the Mexican League.

 

Sullivan said it was a player in an unusual league (compared it to getting Lanzini from UAE, although he said Saudi Arabia as he really is clueless) who has played in a bigger league in the past. So in that respect Gignac matches what Sullivan described.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

****ing hope so.

 

I can't quite decide whether I like WHU or not, but when this plum of a co-chairman (or both of them to be honest) come out and spout utter ****e to detract attention away from themselves, well...... I see he is on SSN saying a 20 goal a season striker maybe coming in within the next 7 days on loan with an option to buy. Wonder whether it will work out cheaper than Charlie boy?

 

I still think Bilic appointment will go pear shaped soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you've got to realize is that in view of the BBC Panorama program late last year,all concerned with West Ham in an ownership/ directorship position are going to make an absolute killing when foreign owners take over the club due to its location in the capital .It was looking very good that they were going to be relegated under big sams leadership but sadly they've played above themselves this season and are now going to reap the financial benefits of being in the Olympic stadium.The question on that still hasnt been answered and that the answers were redacted as to show the real truth behind the costs of running the Olympic stadium and all that the overheads should be ,even freedom of information act couldnt uncover the actual costs that seem to be a steal,and thats why the smaller clubs that would be affected on the impact of WHU taking ownership of the stadium.They are also giving away an awful lot of free or very cheap match day tickets.Needs to be further investigation,but sadly the truth will never be made known.

wont west ham literally be renting the venue for their home games. nothing else?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you've got to realize is that in view of the BBC Panorama program late last year,all concerned with West Ham in an ownership/ directorship position are going to make an absolute killing when foreign owners take over the club due to its location in the capital .It was looking very good that they were going to be relegated under big sams leadership but sadly they've played above themselves this season and are now going to reap the financial benefits of being in the Olympic stadium.The question on that still hasnt been answered and that the answers were redacted as to show the real truth behind the costs of running the Olympic stadium and all that the overheads should be ,even freedom of information act couldnt uncover the actual costs that seem to be a steal,and thats why the smaller clubs that would be affected on the impact of WHU taking ownership of the stadium.They are also giving away an awful lot of free or very cheap match day tickets.Needs to be further investigation,but sadly the truth will never be made known.

 

The politicians aren't going to be any help. Anything to avoid showing that the £12bn spent on the Olympics was nothing short of a vanity project. That is why they are happy to see the Olympic Stadium being occupied, even if it means government (ie us) pays for it. It's actually an f'ing disgrace and the PL shouldn't allow such an unfair advantage to a club over it's rivals. But they've got it, so good luck to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, looking at last season and the 20 goals a season players, there was....

 

Aguero transfer was something like £35m and his value has gone up - 26 PL goals

Kane no transfer fee to speak of, but people speaking of £45m - 21 PL goals

Costa signed for £32.5m - 20 PL goals

 

then after that it was Austin with his 18 goals (signed for £4m). Seems WHU have been jilted. Would ****ing love it if we could sign Byram under their noses.

 

Indeed, what a memorable window that would be. Thus allowing the dildo bros to get f*cked, good and proper!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

wont west ham literally be renting the venue for their home games. nothing else?

 

Yeah they get use of the stadium for 19 days of the year plus whatever cup games they get.

 

I think once Upton Park is sold off the owners will sell up.

 

Not sure I would want Saints to rent a stadium rather than own one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

wont west ham literally be renting the venue for their home games. nothing else?

 

I do believe that to be the case and also its against FIFAs rules that no government is involved in the running costs of a football team,well yet again that simply isnt the case .WHU are sharing the cost of policing games in conjugation with i think the security costs of the stadium,cant quite remember how that bit went.

Anyhow the bottom line is that the chairmen of the premier league all i think voted for this to be blocked or in part some did ,but alas it still passed through due to some dodgy dealings etc and not all of the parties being truthful about the plain facts it has been covered up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sullivan said it was a player in an unusual league (compared it to getting Lanzini from UAE, although he said Saudi Arabia as he really is clueless) who has played in a bigger league in the past. So in that respect Gignac matches what Sullivan described.

 

Or Demba Ba who's playing in china

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-3403830/West-Ham-owner-David-Gold-claims-Charlie-Austin-s-Southampton-deal-not-bargain-wages-100-000-week.html

 

I really don't believe he can be on that much. The cheek of him to come out and say that when he probably doesn't have any way of knowing for sure how much we have offered to pay him. I believe I saw glass ankle Carroll is on near that when they got him, he cost 15m and has been injured for over half their games! :lol:

 

 

According to that report..about Wham bidding for Daniel Sturridge.........it's so that Andy Carroll will have company in the treatment room.:lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Sullivan on sky sports being interviewed. He sounds a right uneducated tool, how he has made a fortune ill never know.

 

Er?..How intelligent do you have to be to run a porn shop?

 

I read today that his partner in WHam - David Gold - was offering an alternative explanation to Sullivan's earlier comment ....

 

He said ...." Na! you got it all wrong, (or words to that effect)

I've always thought Charlie Austin was a good player, it's just that we thought he was a bit of a chance for £12million with his injury record.

 

(well they should know having bought Andy Carroll)

 

......if I knew he was available for £4 million - (he said) ...we'd have taken a gamble "

 

Well David......it seems that Les Reed did ask the question ....so (as a Premier League Chairman)....why didn't you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What makes them think he would choose WHU over Saints. It sounds as though his family life, now being able to live in Bournemouth, had a big influence and he jumped at the chance, rather than wait for his contract to run out and cash in as a free agent. I personally think if Saints were in the frame WHU had no chance of signing him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's that got to do with it? Yes, prices will go up and up, but that's not what Gold said.

 

No, but you said "If Saints were offering 100k a week our recruitment and sale policy would have been very different the last year or two!". Our recruitment and sale policy are unlikely to change much, our wages are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...