The good, the bad, and the unknown

During the nerve wrecking wait on a new owner one cannot help thinking about what may await us when the takeover is completed.
In my professional experience, one can quite often disregard what people say they will do. However, the info you get by studying what they have done previously cannot be overestimated. This certainly does not make it easy to “choose” one bidder before the others as precious little is there to evaluate.

The G&S track record seem to say that they are not going to gamble their own money (but then can you name one current owner that has put his own money at risk, barring Sheikh Mansour?) they will not flood the Club even with loaned money, and most certainly they will not spend flamboyantly or at a time that is, to cite Jack Sparrow, “not opportune”. So with them we seem to be reasonably secured from economic chance taking, also with borrowed money.
As runners of Birmingham they have solved quite a few of the squad problems by loans, a method we know all to well.

This “safety first” strategy, where feelings will certainly take a back seat to money, no matter what they say about being West Ham, means that they will most likely take the risk of going down rather than adding funds and endangering their investment. If that is their choice, be sure they have made certain that the drop will solve, not create, economical problems. It’s money first sporting success second, to them.

Their track record also says that they did take on a bleak looking side with financial difficulty in the Fizzy Pop and transformed them to a mid table Premiere outfit, granted by the aid of some lucky breaks. If they could do that with Birmingham, I’m sure they can do even better with West Ham.
Also, let’s not forget that sporting success of West Ham means more money to them, so if this relative success is achieved “wisely” they seek it too!
After talking and mailing to friends that has been more on top of the Birmingham situation fanwise, I realize that there are a few downsides to their ownership. The biggest problem most of the fans seem to have had with G&S is their flexible attitude towards the “truth”. They seem happy to lead people to believe that big things are going to happen and then not really living up to that “promise”. This is a way of leadership I cannot stand and that has also been a problem I’ve had all along with Duckers… The other dark side of G&S people mention is that they have “beriched themselves” at the expence of the club. If that is accompanied by some sort of success for the Club I cannot see that this would be a bigger problem than paying good wages to the right players or the right manager. One can dislike greed in sports, but it is everywhere to be found.

With Tony Fernandes we don’t have much of a clue what we wuold get. He seem like an easy going fella and I don’t doubt his good will or feelings for the Club. Being a “foreigner” myself I know that one can have a relation to the club that so strong that it at times borders to the unhealthy. If the Lotus F1 thing had had a few years of running, maybe we could deduct something from there, but his resilience or determination in projects that are not fundamental to his business is yet to be tested. At the surface it appears as there would be quite a difference between a West Ham run by G&S and a West Ham run by Tony Fernandes but then Tony is known for his low fare, low cost, low budget, low standard versions so maybe the difference is less than we expect? But then, we don’t even know how big a part he would play if the deal that he promise will bring “an owner who will make a difference and care” goes through. Rather than bankrolling stuff he seem to be known for bringing investors to projects and with the exception for Air Asia has not been the major contributor in projects so his views or passion may be as relevant as Eggy’s [shivers].

The part of the Intermarket group will, by necessity, be a short one as precious little is known about the real backers of the bid supposedly tabled today. This is also the most worrying part of that bid. Why all the secrecy? The nice interpretation is that the backer – if not successful in this bid – does not want to be associated with it. The other possibility is that the group contains people that most people not would welcome (back) as owners. The field is open for speculation, but as I said previously, business that does not stand the light of day is very seldom one that I would welcome.

Hopefully in a not to far future we will know who the devil (it) is…