Often whenever we cover matters pertaining to ownership and club funding, there are negative comments from readers who seem to have an anti-West Ham Board agenda: I usually take all of the detractors’ comments with a pinch of salt, especially those decrying the investment of the current board. It is after all easy to spend “other people’s money” and I have never met a supporter who thinks their club has spent enough on players.
However I confess that the report just published today from the NYtimes.com/athletic has made me reconsider my own viewpoint, coming as it does from a pretty ‘unbiased’ source with no obvious agenda. Listed today in full is the eye watering amount of money each of the 20 Premier League owners have invested in their football clubs.
I have listed the top six and also highlighted West Ham’s position in the ‘spending league table’: Fourth and fifth spots will surprise you, with the almost £1.8 billion having been poured in by two clubs alone proving no guarantee of success on the pitch:
1. Chelsea – takeover price £2.5 billion 2022 – owner investment £146 million – total £2.65 billion
2. Manchester City takeover price in 2008 £200 million, owner funding £1.3 billion, total £1.32 billion
3. Arsenal Purchase price £1 billion. Owner investment £259 million – total £1.25 billion
4. Fulham Purchase price 2013 £150 million, owner investment £788 million – total £938 million
5. Everton Purchase price 2016 £128 million funding since £750 million. Total £878 million
6. Manchester Utd Purchase Price 2005 £800 million (27% buyout this year @ £1.25 billion) £158 million funding since, total £845 million
15. West Ham United Purchase Price 2010 50% £50 million. Owner funding £156 million. (27% share sold to Kretinsky 2021 for £180 million ) total £206 million -Much of the Kretinsky payment went on paying back directors loans according to the report.
Kretinsky’s 27% share cost him £180 million at West Ham
The take out then – would seem to be that spending billions doesn’t guarantee success so those forever knocking the West Ham board for not spending are missing one point: The club is so far steering clear of any points deductions or relegation penalties which many of the others are about to face (unless your name is Manchester City in which case a determination just never gets any nearer).
So, by todays ‘billions’, yes the Hammers suffer from under investment – but being well run financially, whether supporters agree or not, the club also steers clear from penalties owing to financial irregularities. You only have to look to Everton’s problems or – most recently to France and see Olympic Lyonnais’ forced relegation to tier 2- as a salutary tale.
And Spurs owners have spent less than West Ham, just for the record, occupying 16th place with owner Daniel Levy overseeing £194 million of investment. And remember, I didn’t create the figures before you take issue. Phillip Buckingham at nytimes.com/athletic is the author.
That league table in full:1/Chelsea, 2/ Man City, 3/Arsenal, 4/Fulham, 5/ Everton, 6/ Man U, 7/Aston Villa, 8/Newcastle, 9/Brighton, 10/Leicester, 11/Liverpool, 12/Crystal Palace, 13/Wolves, 14/ Bournemouth, 15/West Ham, 16/Tottenham, 17/Southampton, 18/Nottingham Forest,19/Brentford, 20/Ipswich
