Anil, consortium or the royal scam?

That Björgólfur Guðmundssons is going to sell West Ham has been a certain thing more or less since the collapse of the Icelandic financial system was first acknowledged in October. I for one was certain that BG would sell West Ham at first chance to be able to rescue his crumbling financial empire, and maybe he did start the sale-machinery early, we’ll never know for certain no matter how many autobiographies are written.
At least we know that when the bankrupt holding company Hansa ehf, applied for a moratorium in December BG stated that a sale process had been started, and it was said that 5 different parties had signed "non-disclosure agreements" meaning that they had asked to do a preliminary assessment of the clubs economy. If these interested parties were all BG’s friends just doing him a favour, claim owners checking the possibilities or genuinely interested buyers is anyone’s guess. Asgeir Fridgeirsson, vice president of the board of West Ham said on March 4th, in connection with the last (?) prolongation of the moratorium, that “There is interest from many investors…”. All of these statements are of course necessary to keep any investors from being overconfident in the bargaining process, or to keep the courts and the claim owners believing that there is still some gold at the end of the rainbow - if they are patient.

We can conclude that a sale was not imminent in December, but at that point there were so much uncertainty about the size of the payment to Sheffield about Tevez, Now at least that issue has cleared up, making an investment in the club a less insecure venture.

BG, or his errand boys, have recently said there will be no sale until the summer. Unfortunately he doesn’t tell us why. But a not too wild guess is that there is no one even closely meeting his selling criteria and he has no longer than june before he loses the control over Hansa.

Up to now there has of course been much speculation on who those interested parties are. If you, like myself, is an avid reader of the KUMB thread “West Ham for Sale” you know that an English consortium and an “Asian billionaire” has been mentioned more often than others.
The existence of that Consortium has been cast in doubt by some, but others claim, as did the Guardian, that there certainly is one and they are willing to invest £100 million in the club. In the ITK battle at KUMB one of the posters warned us against believing everything that was said in the newspapers the upcoming days as “all sides have their own people installed!!”, failing to issue the same warning about ITK people at KUMB. Am I only imagining things or has the language of some posters changed considerably?

The consortium is supposedly fronted by someone with West Ham connections. The ones claiming there is a consortium never mention any names themselves stating that their sources won’t give them any, confirming that the sources, or the sources’ sources, knows full well what will happen to the information and only “leak” what is in their best interest. This doesn’t necessarily mean it’s bollocks but one should beware. This consortium is supposed to have been interested all along, meaning from November/December, and still names have not been leaked! Very discreet indeed, or are there no names to leak?

The main suspect for being the“Asian billionaire” is Anil Ambani. Ambani was put forward as a potential buyer already in October, and resurfaced in December as one of the candidates to take over. In October he was listed by Forbes as the 6th richest man on the planet but now the financial crisis has taken three quarters of last years “biggest billionair gainer’s” assets, making Anil this years biggest loser, leaving the poor fellow with little more than $10 billion worth of assets.
According to some sources this doesn’t stop him from making huge investments though. And as Forbes states, maybe somewhat redundantly, "[Anil Ambani] remains quite wealthy... That is something many others can't claim".
I still have problems seeing that these, in their own eyes, struggling billionaires can bother buying a football club. One of the things that made Anil rise in last years Forbes index is efficient and enthusiastic building of an empire, and I can’t see this being a part of that. On the other hand, being voted the (EDITED, please see comments below, “happiest and healthiest man" has been deleted in this post) “number one role model for happiness and health in business" by India based magazine “Complete Wellbeing” (can one vote on anything?) he sounds like the business equivalent of Gianfranco Zola – a match made in heaven?

I fail to draw any conclusions out of this (not the” happy” part, the other stuff!). If there is one to draw it is that at least that there isn’t any cash rich buyer really interested in acquiring us at the moment, but you all knew this even before suffering though this post. Consider it a critical review.

Important but nothing new

Today the "news" is that West Ham will dispute Sheffields compensation claim.
The Mirror (...) writes that "They want £46million, but West Ham's legal team aim to prove the cost of salaries in the top flight mean the Blades would not have been better off if they had stayed up."

I fail to find anything new in this. This was always going to happen. West Ham, will keep on disputing this until a settlement is done or a court decision is final.
Even though this appears to be a fight in the tribunal, it affects the forthcoming PL/FA hearing as well as a possible out of court settlement. A settlement will be cheaper if Sheffield are getting afraid that this is dragging on past the next transfer deadline and/or is threatening to leave them without compensation.

The day we stop disputing Sheffields claims is the day there are news to report!

„Auknar líkur á þjóðargjaldþroti"

The other day we heard that one of Björgolfur Guðmundsson’s (yes, our owner) final assets (?) the Straumur-Burdaras investment bank was taken over by the Icelandic government.
(BG and his son has a 34 per cent stake in Straumur through their company Samson Global Holdings).
This has implications for the well being of Hansa ehf. since Hansa owe Straumur money (Hansa, if you’ve been out of town for half a year or so, is a BG controlled holding company on the verge of bankruptcy, only fighting off creditors by being placed under a “moratorium” to give it time to sort out business. Hansa is the company through which BG owns West Ham Holding that in turn is the owner of West Ham United plc – the holder of the Premiere league licence, and this means that “sort out business” in the case of Hansa is the equivalent of selling the Club at a decent price.)

As long as BG-influenced companies were owing each other, BG and his son had at least some influence over the handling of these debts. They were hardly going to force each other to do avoidable bad business. But now the Icelandic government has taken over Straumurs role as creditor of Hansa making this a bit more insecure.
However, the government does not seem inclined to force BG to sell at any price. If it had wanted that to happen they could have done so by opposing the moratorium now.

Today we hear from the Guardian that MP bank, the bank that has previously opposed a prolongation of the moratorium of Hansa, is now going along with a second 3 month extension of the moratorium (read HERE and HERE about the moratorium and the first prolongation). This means that BG will still have some influence over things at Hansa, meaning the sale of West Ham for another 3 months.

But the real news in this: the reason MP Bank dropped its opposition was that the ability of BG (or actually BG’s son) to have “first refusal” on the sale of the Club. As far as I understand, this weakens the position of the current owners and clears some obstacles on the road to a sale of the Club.

Do you find that too straight forward?
Well have no fear, it may become much more complicated!
According to Bloomberg News, players in the financial market is now speculating in the bankruptcy of the entire country of Iceland (and you thought you had problems…)! By taking the control over the last major bank of Iceland the country “is now assuming responsibility for more deposit guarantees, and the question is whether the Icelandic state is big enough to bear the burden.”
In the hands of the International Monetary Fund IMF the Icelandic government policies may be substantially tougher when it comes to collecting debts!

Mess, message, messenger?

The article in the Independent today is a rare thing. A modulated piece of journalism about West Ham!
Jason Burt, the author of the article, is said to be close to the West Ham board and was the one to first publish the news that the Icelanders were in for us.
This makes this article extra interesting to “dissect” since at least some of the information probably stems from the Club. Tipping off a journo is a somewhat smoother way to communicate to the public than through a Q&A article with a despised CEO on the official site, making it a better vehicle for the club positions – and propaganda.

The article starts out with previously known stuff about Ethers and Davenport on their way for decent money, and this adds some more credibility to these rumours. They also make good sense to me.

But what will the money be used for? Burt argues that this money will increase the possibility to keep Bellamy, Upson and Parker.
It goes without saying that selling non-essential players cannot be bad for our possibilities to keep the first team players, or even get someone new in, but it obviously depends on how much money is needed and for what? Is it to lower the wage bill so we can turn the club into a self sufficient business not in the need for extra money from the outside? And is this enough? Is it to build the financial buffer in case we need to pay Sheffield off for the Tevez thing?
Regardless, I have a feeling that at least one or maybe two high earners will be sold during the window to further reduce the wage cost, decreasing the running expenses. My guess is no different than anybody else’s – Neill is one of them. However, to speculate on the amount of money needed is really tough for one with no access to the books.

Burt then sends on the Board message that “The money gained from such transfers will be ploughed back into the running of the club”. What exactly does that mean and is the opposite even thinkable?

Burt also mentions in his article that offers for several players have been turned down by the club. He uses this partly to strengthen the feeling that no essential players will have to be sold. I don’t really disagree with that, but one must bear in mind that this would also be the usual conduct for any bargaining – turning down the first offers. Turning down offers is by no means exclusively significant for a club truly trying to hang on to players.

Please note that I, as I have repeatedly said, is not totally against a sale of any player. It all comes down to the price and the alternative. There is plenty of time for renewed and improved offers for these players.

The board has repeatedly said the Club is in economical balance, but to spot the difference between fact and a well run PR stunt is not always easy!
Some have even taken this “planning for the future” as a sign that our owner Björgolfur Guðmundsson is holding on to the club but I am of a different opinion. BG desperately need people to think that holding on to the Club is a real possibility, as the opposite will definitely be detrimental to his position during a sale negotiation.
This work, to show that West Ham is a well run club with a viable future, is of utmost importance to persuade a buyer (with less than oil money) that there are no additional costs (bar the Tevez stuff) attached to a takeover. It’s pretty much like letting the car have a service before you sell it, giving the buyer a feeling of security.
What really decides if BG will (be able to) hold on to the club is the economical situation of the holding company Hansa, not the state of the club economy as such.

The Burt article goes on stating that BG is keen to sell before the moratorium on the holding company is lifted in March.
Eh… yes... that makes sense, since after the moratorium is lifted it’s all out of his hands and he can no longer influence the sale! If he wants to have a say it’s before March or never! It doesn’t take any inside information to figure that one out.
Burt then says that the asking price is probably less than the ridiculous £250 million stated in the moratorium request (with the purpose to persuade the Icelandic legal system to grant the moratorium…). That is also something that everybody even remotely interested in this issue already knew.

To sum it up, one finds surprisingly little of news value in this article but finally someone that put information together without the aim to ride on the catastrophe wave. Just what you would expect of a journo tipped off by the club.

The sale of West Ham has begun!

According to the Icelandic news site Newsfrettir the sale of West Ham is formally on!

In a court hearing it was announced that Hansa ehf, the company through which Björgolfur Guðmundsson owns West Ham, was surprisingly granted a prolongation of the moratorium (background HERE).
This is bad news for the ones wanting a forced and quick sale of the Club since it, as far as I understand, gives BG until March before he formally can be forced to sell.

But interestingly it was stated that "...the sale process of the most valued property of Hansa, WH Holding ltd. that owns the football company West Ham united has now begun."

As the faithful reader knows, this is in line with what we have been saying at Bubbleview, but it has been a much slower process than I anticipated that I some days almost lost hope.

At the very least, this is one step closer to the club finally being sold. However, even if I firmly believe that it does not make any sense to either buy or sell the club after the transfer window, I cannot help but to worry about the fact that the moratorium is past Feb. 2nd.
I don't feel totally at ease quite yet.

EDIT:
The information from the court hearing has forced BG to send out his spokesperson - Asgeir Fridgeirsson – to give us his take on the situation.
Fridgeirsson says that BG is looking at offers (what else is new…) and he doesn’t miss the opportunity to tell us that there is a lot of interest in the Club.
He also said that "We are reviewing the asset, looking at what might be the value of the club''.
But fortunately, he doesn’t decide on the value of the Club. The value will be what is agreed upon between him and a buyer.
And I don’t think it’s all aces in BG's hand.

Fridgeirsson also tries “We don’t have to sell…” but I think that depends on what time frame you are talking about.
Come March (if the Court will not grant another extention of the moratorium) BG will actually have to sell, or at least give up his control of Hansa ehf and West Ham holding.
.

Long contracts - a bad thing?

Cole seems to be my theme of late, but this post is not about him really...

The topic of this post is a wide open door, but it has been spotted closed recently, so I figure I could use some cyberspace to violently try to kick it open.

It's not exactly a hot topic but the 5 year deal we handed Cole a few weeks ago can be used as an example, as it is in this context long term deals has been discussed lately.

Cole is a player I think is below starting XI quality, his first touch has improved but is still below par, his dribbling is non existent, his in the box abilities are questionable and he doesn't score on a regular basis but...

Signing Cole, as well as most other players, on a long term, is good business.

This gives us some much needed security, not constantly finding ourselves in a "blackmail" position when players (or at least their agent) demand a pay rise or threatens to quit since the contract runs out in less than a year. But even in a not so "blackmaily" situation, Who is in the best spot to renegotiate his contract, a player with 4 years or one with 2 years left on his contract?
The contract, nowadays, is more like options really. By having long term deals we are giving our selves some control over the player situation. We are still, most of the time, able to sell the player if finding him surplus to requirements, not risking him going on a Bosman. It's not like everyone in the PL stays the duration of his contract, is it?

We have to many under par first team players at the club at the moment, we pay their rather high salaries every week, and we are unable to find buyers for them. This could be an argument for shorter deals but the wage bill problem we find ourselves in at the moment has it's roots in the desperate situation 2 years ago. With the spending happy Eggert Magnússon at charge of the wallet we did some lousy business, but this shouldn't be taken as a sign that most long contracts are evil.

Obviously there are players that shouldn't be handed long contracts. Players past their best or known injury prone ones can be exceptions but as a rule handing a decent player a long term contact should be applauded.


Next topic: Signing players on long term deals if the PL bubble bursts can be a catastrophe...

The squad will not be worse in February!

The latest wave of posts and articles on the theme " Zola threatens to quit Hammers if players are sold" seems to have been started by the Mail this time around. It is a catchy theme and gives people, especially the not so informed, the feeling that something has happened (=readers/clicks).

Fortunately nothing has happened, there is no new signal from the board and it still doesn't make any sense to sell players that will be needed for staying up.

BG, more than anybody, needs this club to stay up or at least or at least look like it has a good chance of staying up.
We seem to agree that BG is not selling the club at the moment because he is hanging on for a better bid than the one (ones) that he has seen so far.
If that is the case, do you think that he will get more or less for the club if key players are sold?

A new owner wants to buy a PL club, not a championship club, so they realize that they need to invest in the club, just as BG and Eggs did 2 years ago. This makes it likely that the squad will be as good or even better after the transfer window than before it opens.

The only reason for a sale of players that we consider important to the team is that Zola makes another evaluation.
For example, he may be inclined to bring in a prolific striker and sell one of our midfielders.
I may not necessarily agree with his judgement, but that's another post.

A blow in the right direction?

According to the Icelandic info-site newsfrettir Björgolfur Guðmundsson is finally losing control over the sale of West Ham.

A brief brush up:
Hansa holdings ehf, the company through which BG owns West Ham, is under the threat of liquidation and as a result of that BG in November asked for Hansa to be put in a one month "moratorium".
This means that the legal system gives the company some time to sort out its business before the company that wants their money from Hansa can force Hansa to sell its assets to come up with the money it owes.
The moratorium expired yesterday and BG of course tried to renew the moratorium to give him even more time "on the ball".


And here is the real news: MP bank, as I understand it one of the claim owners, objects to a renewal of the moratorium, wanting to get what Hansa owes them. This would mean that BG loses the control over Hansa and Hansa will request bankruptcy, go into liquidation.

Now a judge of the district court of Reykjavik have 7 days to rule in this matter, but a similar request to extend a moratorium was turned down when BG's other holding company - Samson - went through the same process.

The odds are therefore decent that BG will lose control over Hansa, meaning he will no longer be deciding what will happen with the West Ham shares that Hansa owns.

Does this mean the claim owners want as much money as possible and are willing to wait, or some money as soon as possible?
As BG, the administrators of the bankruptcy will weigh pros and cons of a deal, trying to get as good a deal as possible. But since at least one claim owner is not willing to give BG more time to sort it out, one can speculate that these claim owners are more inclined to cash in as soon as possible. They may well be in a desperate situation themselves.

My bet is that if the application for extension of the moratorium fails, we will be sold as soon as any even close to decent bid comes along.

I can't wait!

For once I'm not worried

The story that has been reappearing since more or less the day after the appointment of Zola has now reared its ugly head again.
I'm talking about "West Ham need to sell during the January transfer window" and clones thereof.

It didn’t take that many days on the job until Zola realized that there would be no transfer funds to his disposal. He acted as most new managers do and said what the owner wanted him to – “The squad is too big and it would be better if it could be trimmed”. Making a case for quality over quantity. That’s when it took off, “Zola will have to sell” was the headlines two months ago, and we can observe that it unfortunately still is.
We can also establish that there is nothing new in this latest version of the story, it’s still “West Ham needs money so they will off load players” + speculations on who will leave.

Zola has repeatedly stated that he is not obligated to sell any players that he want to keep. He has said this so many times that he has invested a fair amount of his credibility in this statement. So much in fact that I think he believes it to be true. And I choose to believe he is right, mainly because it makes no sense to sell players that are needed to keep us up.

The latest repackaging of this story uses Ashton as eye-catcher. The Mirror seems to be in the center of the rings on the water this time around. Their take is that Ashton will leave together with Quashie, Bowyer, LBM, Davenport, Gabbidon and Spector.

Apart from the fact that there is nothing new in this story, I dare them to come up with buyers for these players at the moment. If there are any buyers out there the headline would in my view be “West Ham happy to cash in on the surplus”. Take Gabbidon for an example, who would like to buy a player that has been out for that long and with no return date set ?Now, Dean Ashton may not be surplus to requirements, especially with the present striker situation, but to find a buyer for him today, that is willing to offer him anything close to his present pay and also gamble on his abilities and fitness, seems like an impossible task.
Should we worry that these players will leave in January? – with the possible exception of one or at best two of these, unfortunately not.

Out of Court Settlement - Yes Please!

The Daily Mail yesterday reported that an out of court settlement with Sheffield could be in the making.


I've been waiting for that story to emerge for some time since it makes perfect sense that both parties, at this time, would like to have this settled and to stop the uncertainty.
There is no doubt in my mind that talks like these are ongoing, but to keep the pressure on the other team and to cover for a "no deal scenario" the other, official, routes must be proceeded.

Here are some reasons for Sheffield to go for an out of court settlement:

1. West Ham will drag this "case" to every legal body thinkable and then some, we've shown our determination to do so already. The new Tribunals verdict (the amount to be payed) will of course also be appealed against to all instances, dragging this painful story into and maybe beyond the summer transfer window. If Sheffield are promoted, money would be a great boost for their bid to stay in the premiership. A decent sum now may also enable them to bolster their squad already in the January transfer window, increasing the chances of a promotion.

2. There is still an outside chance that this can be taken to CAS and that possibility may persuade Sheffield to accept a lower "payoff", instead of risking it all.

3. There is the chance/risk that the new Tribunal will come up with a very low sum for West Ham to pay, and that may also be a reason for Sheffield to settle for something less than their original bid, just to secure as much as possible. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.


A knee jerk reflex would be to say that "we owe those **** nothing so we should pay them nothing"! But let's look at some reasons for West Ham to take a lesser blow now:

1. The uncertainty of this issue is most likely a big stumbling block for the sale of the club. Any potential buyer would like this sorted before agreeing on a takeover price, and I want this club sold as much as BG does!

2. A potential payoff would be reflected in the price of the Club, so the money is gone for BG any way you see it. To let this affect the takeover now, for a profit in the summer when he is not around is just not in his interest.

3. In analogy to the Sheffield point number 2 and 3 above, there is good a chance that CAS will never handle this and that the Tribunal will come to the conclusion that the absurd £50 m claim is justified. I mean this bunch have come to some mind boggling conclusions already, do we really want this in their hands?

4. To drag this around the legal system costs us money! If this would drag on until the summer, the fees for Maurice and his lot will not be counted in thousands...

5. The players need to be reassured that there is a financially viable future at the club, otherwise those we would like to stay may start to jump ship at first chance.

But what is the amount that is the highest amount West Ham would find agreeable, and what is the lowest Sheffield would consider?

Let's hope they overlap!

It has been said quite often during the speculations on future owners of West Ham United that "English Premiere League clubs are attractive business propositions for investors".
Usually the TV-money is then presented as a fountain of wealth, implying that this is a completely safe investment.

Nowadays “a club as a safe investment” has a positive ring to it. This was not always the case.
There was a lot of turmoil when Malcolm Glazer took over Manchester United. Here was this foreigner who had no connections with real football and just saw this as a way to make money, how did he dare? Glazer was met by the slogan "For the love, not for the money".

But then along came a totally different brand of owners. Abramovich was not primarily seeing the takeover of Chelsea as a business opportunity, but as a project he could enjoy in his spare time, and get to hang with footballers and football decision makers at the same time.
Abramovich paved the way and now we have also seen Shinawatra and the new owners of ManC - Abu Dhabi United Group.

Today this seems to be the normal profile of people being linked with club takeovers. They are not investors that sees the club as good business, nor are they connected to the particular club they are buying, but rather they are filthy-rich people wanting a football club as a cute accessory, or as Keith Harris calls it “a trophy asset", to match their filthy-rich lifestyle.
And Keith Harris should know. He is the deal maker behind the Icelandic takeover of our Club, and has also been instrumental in three other PL club takeovers the last two years.

I have always considered BG and Eggs to be “Abramovich lights”. They had no previous connections with the club and it was by no means within their core business (and it was sometimes embarrassingly obvious that Eggs enjoyed his time with the footballers), but at the same time they (or at least BG) needed the club to be a decent investment.

West Ham have been linked with a few potential buyers of late, and it seems like filthy-rich people are over represented.

Now, if filthy-rich people really want just about any club, how come several clubs are up for sale, and have been for some time?
Keith Harris says "...people are wondering: 'Should we?' Is now the time to spend the money? Should I be buying what are essentially trophy assets today?"

And if the ones that not really care about the money says this, you can imagine the hesitation of proper investors.

I'm not saying there is no buyer for West Ham, but all potential buyers will be very aware of the costs and, unfortunately, additional costs that may appear down the road.

Sheffield will get nothing! (At least not until mid-March)

First a small recapitulation on the basics of this never ending story:
A Tribunal, also called “Football Association Arbitration Hearing”, headed by Lord Griffiths, ruled that West Ham were to compensate Sheffield for using Carlos Tevez even though he was owned by a third party during the 06/07 campaign. (Please don’t get on my back for the simplification)

Now, at a directors hearing yesterday it was concluded that the process of determining the amount of this compensation, should start. This new group made up by the original members of the tribunal plus and representatives for the clubs, are to present a conclusion, or a verdict if you wish, in mid-March.

How this is to proceed and undertaken is still unsettled and are to be discussed by the clubs.

One of the things that did come out of this hearing was that West Ham are awarded the right to go through the books of Sheffield United. This of course to enable West Ham to challenge the claim of £30 or £50 million pounds Sheffield has presented.

Thanks to "Bml04" on the KUMB forum for turning my attention to the article!

More waiting, more uncertainty!

Today a verdict on whether the Sheffield attempt to stop West Ham from appealing to CAS was to be presented.
However, according to BBC, the Judge in charge of the hearing, Mr Justice Teare, will consider the evidence presented by the parties and will hand down a judgement at some time before Christmas.

The interesting thing is that this can be settled allready in November when CAS is due to present their own view on if this is a question were they think they have jurisdiction.
Have I lost you yet? Can’t blame you if I have, see the summary below.

Also expected today was the release of the reasons behind the Arbitration Panels conclusion on the Tevez matter (see previous posts labeled CAS). This would obviously have an impact on whether CAS wants to handle this issue or not. I’m confused about whether this ruling is also due “before Christmas” and if that is the case I can't see CAS wanting to jump to any conclusions.

In parallel to the CAS and High Court considerations, separate hearings will now take place were the guidelines for how to determine the damages that should be awarded Sheffield, if they end up winning all this. Representatives from the clubs as well as the 3 original members (OG’s?) from the arbitration panel will be involved in these hearings.

To sum it up: CAS will say if they want to handle the feud between West Ham and Sheffield over the Tevez deal by end of November, but even if they want to, we will still have to wait until some time before Christmas before the High Court will say that it’s OK for CAS to have a go at it.
In the meantime another group will set up the rules for how to determine how much money West Ham should pay Sheffield, if it comes to that.

This is good news in the sense that it's by no means clear that Sheffield have won this latest fight, however, it also keeps us in limbo land and I doubt that any Club buyers would like to have a £50 million uncertainty to come with the purchase.
I was hoping that today's hearing would give some kind of hint on were this was going.

Is common sense too much to ask?

Two cases of £30M+ importance are being heard in the High Court today.

West Ham will try to get the the Football Association Arbitration Hearing (that ruled against us on the Tevez Saga) to present the reasons and background for their decision.
This sounds like a reasonable request in a western democracy, but I don't have much hope.

The second case is on the so called injunction Sheffield filed.
That is, whether we have the right to take this issue to the Court of Arbitration for Sports (CAS) or not.

This is yet another question of turning and twisting the wordings in rules, regulations and laws, to make them fit your purpose.

Time for high profile solicitor Maurice Watkins, leader of our legal side, to step up and show that he is worth our trust and money!
Click HERE for some more on Watkins.

It's so sad to be as naive as I am, hoping for common sense to prevail.

EDIT:

Hearing will continue Tuesday.

Ready to sell, but who is ready to buy?

As I've said before, it sounds like BG will let all of his financial interests in West Ham go and focus on what he considers his core business, as soon as a reasonable bid is tabled.

However, since the financial situation of the Club is at best uncertain, I have a hard time seeing anyone coming in for the club before the Sheffield business is sorted, if not offered at a extremely favourable price.

The Club is under an outrageous but nevertheless real threat of having to part with £30+ million! That is 35% of what BG once paid for us, or if you wish, 22% of a recently published evaluation done by BG related people.

So, the sale of the Club is depending on if anyone is willing to gamble with this kind of money, or if BG needs to cash in whatever he can as soon as possible accepting the reasonable demand by a future owner to cut the price to reflect this uncertainty – or possibly a mix thereof.

I think there is no doubt that there is a seller, but is there a buyer under these conditions?
I think not, so the sale will take place when there is a reasonable possibility to predict the outcome of the Sheffield soap. That is NOT before the end of this coming transfer window, I'm afraid.

A first wisper from the horses mouth

Today one additional step towards the inevitable sale of West Ham was taken.

According to BBC, Ásgeir Friðgeirsson, our vice president and spokesperson for the Guðmundsson family, said that " [Björgolfur Guðmundsson] is evaluating all of his business interests, including West Ham".

Even though the fact that West Ham most likely is for sale hardly is news, this is the first time we have heard this from someone inside the club and so close to our owner.

There is something that does surprise me in all this though. We knew that BG would need to concentrate what financial muscle he still has in his core business and a sale of West Ham thus makes sense.

But I was fairly certain that we would be presented with a done or a almost done deal. Why is that not the case?
There have been several rumours that potential buyers have been courting BG but that BG was not happy about what he was offered. The Kremlinologist in me senses that a message is being sent here. A - "I want more bidders since I'm not happy with how this auction is going" - kind of a message.

So is the sale actually getting any closer?
Well, since it will ultimately take place, every day is one day closer, but apart from that, the fact that this story is printed (and not denied) tells us that BG is more inclined than ever to take an offer for the club, and that should be good news for all of us that wants this deal done as quick as possible.
I have heard myself saying that I would embrace any new owner just to get out of this "panta rei" situation. However, there are plenty of lousy club owners, so please, for once send us the right one!
EDIT:
Mike Lee, heavily associated with the icelandic takeover is resigning as non-executive director.

P.S. Every faithful Bubbleview reader already know the background to this story and the rest of you I urge to click on the label "financial" in the label list to the left of this post to read my previous entries on this topic.
.

Samson and Denial

Samson, the holding company used by Björgolfur Guðmundsson to purchase West Ham has been under voluntary administration for some time but today the application for an extension of this administration was contested by the German Commerzbank.

The consequence of the administration was that as long as it was on, no one could claim whatever assets were still in Samson.
Now, however, when the administrative protection is lifted, the sale of Samson assets (us for example) can be forced by the beneficiaries, who are now trying to reclaim some of the 23 billions in loans that are upset.

In plain language: The company through which BG owns us is just about to go bankrupt and will probably be forced to sell West Ham, to pay back some of the money it owes!

Now, the last word is not yet said about this since all the intricacies of the ownership of the club is still to be unfolded. There could still be some ingenious way that let's BG hold on to the club.

Are there any risk that the Club will be stripped and its priced assets sold?

Without knowing much about how these things work, I doubt that there are any financial gains to be made by doing so.
Anyone that owns us knows that the price of a club doomed for the gloom of the championship would be so much lower than one still in the EPL, and can not be compensated by the sale of a few players during the January transfer window.

What I fear in my worst night mares is that the real estate now owned by the Club is something that could be stripped from us,

CAS: We got the letter...

The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has said that it might consider West Ham United's appeal.The court said, however, that it would first have to decide if it had jurisdiction to intervene in the matter.

So what they basically said, in a less dramatic, less catchy way was “We got their letter but we haven’t really looked at it yet...”

Arbitration and financial crisis

Things seems to conspire against our beloved club at the moment. It looks like we´re going from bad to worse. Not only do we have the whole Tevez-saga looming over the club since a year and a half. Now we also have to deal with the crise that´s hit the western world were it hurts the most, in the wallet. Iceland seems to be the worst hit country of them all and ofcourse that´s our owners origin. Rumours have it that Mr Gudmundsson will be forced to sell all his non-domestic interests in order to reduce the losses incurred by the collapse of his bank. This might happen sooner rather than later.

Regarding the Sheffield United claim vs. West Ham. The latest twist to the saga seems to be that Sheffield United refused West Hams wish to take it to the CAS to once and for all get a verdict (maybe they´re affraid of something?). Now the CAS have given Sheffield United until today to come up with reasons why this shouldn´t be examined by them. West Ham have allready supplied the CAS with their documentation regarding why they should get the opportunity to a hearing. The strongest claim Sheffield United seems to come up with is that it´s not an FA-matter and what if it´s not?

I read a little piece regarding this written by a fellow supporter this morning. A piece that makes perfect sense to me.

"If - as they claim - the CAS have no jurisdiction because it is not an FA matter, then surely we are free to just let this run through the legalsystem? We could let them take us to court for failure to pay and then we can challenge the judgement through the courts. Clearly if it's not an FA matter as Sheffield United state, then the FA shouldn't care? And if the FA do care, it becomes an FA matter and so the CAS is the correct body to deal with it."

Landsbanki bust!

According to DI http://di.se/ (2008-10-08), Landsbanki is facing bancruptcy. The English government is freezing Landsbankis English assets.
Please see posts below to appreciate the impact for West Ham United.