Once again, one is left bemused by the utter stupidity and mendacity of our owners. I seem to remember Ba being quoted as evidence of the Board's commitment to preserving our Premier League status. The figure of £6million was banded around as a transfer fee - and that was absolute cobblers. I expressed concern at the time that Ba could break down at any point and that was obviously the reason why a deal based on appearances was finally agreed. The downside of that appears to be that we did not tie Ba to the club in any way. Like Keane and Bridge, he was effectively on loan.
So, staring down the barrel of the drop, Sullivan and Gold bought just one player in January - the smokescreen O'Neil, in case any of those texts sent about Martin had been saved! Commitment? It looks more and more like they were committed to the drop as a way of reducing the ludicrous wage bill.
Is Ba off to Newcastle? God only knows. One thing is clear, however; we didn't BUY him in January, we signed him on a Never Never deal which became a Never In A Million Years deal should we go down.
19 comments:
There's no winning with you... if we'd signed him on a five year deal and his knee had broken down like you predicted, you wouldn't have stopped going on about al a Kieron Dyer.
youve summed it up brilliantly the dildo brothers fcukd up again trying to do things on the cheap also they tried to save face by offering a big pay rise to stay the he couldnt f off free of charge how the f did either gold or sulivan earn a living as there so incompetent and by the way anon he wasnt injured we got him fit he fcuks off nothing like dyer great piece hf pity know one else is questioning yet another f up at our club
Ba humbug
Look at all the wonderful things Gollivan have done for us Moving to the OS where as long as you have a decent pair of binoculars you should enjoy the kick and rush spoiling game being played but hey at least we'll be mid table with a lot of journeymen on reasonable wages rather than talented players costing a fortune and we'll rent the stadium rather than own one but we only need to pay a percentage of the gate receipts so we'll be able to plough all that extra money money back into the pockets of our illustrious chairmen who saved us by ploughing huge amounts of their personal fortunes into the club to save us from administration and certain relegation
Thanks for nothing Gollivan Fans my arse they know nothing about West Ham and care not a jot about the fans oh no sorry they do care a jot that jot being our wallets and emptying them
You always have to remember that the club is broke, and what is a great deal for the club is not always a great deal and agreeable to the player and his agent, thus contracts often fall far short of what we would consider astute.
What a ridiculous post.
How can you possibly criticise the owners for this piece of business?
You either pay a transfer fee &
commit to wages for a player with an injury prone player which means if they get injured you are commited to paying those wages.
Or you do the sensible thing and sign them on an appearance basis so its mostly based on how much they are on the pitch.
You can't have it both ways ie. tie them in for a long period and at the same time be able to terminate the contract etc. (for example the Dyer situation).
Demba Ba was signed to score goals and he did that with 7 and 12 games. He owes us nothing
If Dem Baa-Baa, our current black sheep, has a release clause in his contract were we to be relegated, paving the way for a potential free agent signing fee of £3 million, did that not provide a financial incentive to be relegated??!
I thought our board were supposed to be shrewd business men/woman. WTF????
Kevin in Manchester writes..
No conspiracy here HF. It seems to me it suited Ba to come to us to prove his knee and scoring ability in the Prem .. we needed his goals. In the event of relegation he'd be free to go- if we survived he'd think about signing. You are right to ask the question of G&S dealings because after what's happened to the club we don't want to be fooled again. But my view is their hearts are in the right place and they are wheeling and dealing for all their worth- sure they may have taken a few risks based upon our survival in the Prem but they'd have been foolish not to. As previously stated their only really big howler was hiring and then dithering over Grant.
Here here anon 07.23 come on fanno listen to what you're saying. We needed a goal scorer, someone proven, we were bottom of the league, did you expect all deals to be tied up to a winning conclusion for west ham? We were desperate and it was go for broke time. What would you have said if there was a clause stipulating he remains with us if we go down and then he pulled up lame and missed the majority of next year on the treatment table? You'd be on his and the owners back like a rash. As it stands they took a punt on him scoring goals and he delivered, the rest of the team didn't that's not his fault or the owners that's the managers fault. When your dicing with death you've got to take a risk how would you have reacted if the owners would have come out and said 'we've tried to sign a proven international striker to help us beat the drop but he insisted in a get out clause in the event of relegation so we've decided against it as it's a bit of a risk?' you'd have been on here slating them for that. Come on mate, you can't have it all ways!!!
Bloody right! one trick pony, always has been always will be - he had the depth of a puddle.
God you can just imagine him squealing if they had of signed him and his knee had gone - we'd have never have heard the last of it.
They way he has gone on and on about Parker, Dyer and Ashton - it makes you want to weep, which I suspect is the sole purposes of this blog as that what makes him happiest.
it was a good deal if you ask me, would you rather we paid 6 million and had to let him go for free? this should be good news, it is 6 million less we need to find to survive. we would all love to sign a player for 500k and sell for 15 million 3 months later. but as we are skint, is this such a shock? you seem to expect to much in every situation, instead of being glad the reality isn't as bad as it first seemed, thats a win right there
am in complete dismay by this one...i dont like our board but i never thought they were naive when it came to business matters, however to not have a min (even if small) sell on fee on relegation is utter utter stupidity.
We take ALL the risk (player breaks down 1 week after signing we foot the bill), we put him in the premiership shop window and that alone should deserve SOME pay back.
A deal of this stupidly really gets under my skin, BA was desperate to play in the prem and prove he can cut it in our league and we pulled our pants down and let him shove it all the way home.
Ive said before and i maintain...anyone stupid enough to take all the risk and receive NONE of the reward if that risk pays off quite frankly should be sacked.
Total joke, just like our board.. "the saviours of West Ham" bollocks, the demise of West Ham more like, culminating in the sale of our history and ground. The sooner they "see a chance to sell us off and make a quick few quid" the better in my opinion.
true 07:23 but you would expect it to be a pay as you play deal on a 5 year contract, not pay as you play and choose your next club in the summer deal that seems to be the case.
Actually, Im getting tired of this Ba nonsense. I dont know why he is pissing me off so much but he is. He has played 13 games in England and he is being treated like a superstar.
As I said earlier. If he stays, fine. If he goes, I reckon Big Sam will sort it out.
you funny little man - with the emphasis on the little. what would you prefer that we signed him with his dodgy knees? - I thought you were dead against us signing him in light of the failed medicals - but, no it turns out that's not what you meant at all. it is any wonder that vast majority of messages on here share one thing, a dislike of you?
HF,
I just read a great piece on Allardyce. This is not meant as a comment but rather wanted to share this. Its really good.
http://jlmd.blogspot.com/2011/05/hard-route.html
I'm with the Lord of the Flies and 1423 on this one. There is a middle ground! You sign him on a pay as he plays basis but tie up his contract without release clauses to suit him. He was a nobody when we signed him, effectively on the rubbish heap after Stoke called off the deal to buy him. We were in the box seat, able to DICTATE terms, but we didn't. It seems to me that we allow player's agents to shaft us as they please!
18:23 so what deal would you have offered or great one?
Pay as he plays to the club holding his contract, up to maximum of £6million spread over 120 games (3 full seasons including cup games at £50,000 per game.) £45k per week to Ba. Both deals terminated in event of recurrence of knee injury. Three year contract to Ba with no exit clauses for him. I would have added a £2million bonus if we stay up! Would he have accepted that contract? Nobody else wanted him!
A West Ham executive said: "He was offered £50,000 a-week wages and a half a million pound signing on fee. But he decided to walk away. We think he may now sign for Everton."
Thank god that didn't happen! A, HF?
Post a Comment