West ham meltdown

The allegations are serious. At the moment.
But actually, the timing of this is really very good for Sullivan. Rather than having to deal with bankrolling a (an uncertain) bounce out of the Championship, and the potential (financial) risk involved in failing, He is now only exposed to the risk of perhaps paying off some glamour models. Other celebrities have been jailed for historic sexual offences, but because of the time-frames involved (and lack of physical evidence), they are very difficult to substantiate.
Innocent until proven otherwise, and all that, but the bigger financial hit was bankrolling a football club.
 
Forest Hillbilly said:
The allegations are serious. At the moment.
But actually, the timing of this is really very good for Sullivan. Rather than having to deal with bankrolling a (an uncertain) bounce out of the Championship, and the potential (financial) risk involved in failing, He is now only exposed to the risk of perhaps paying off some glamour models. Other celebrities have been jailed for historic sexual offences, but because of the time-frames involved (and lack of physical evidence), they are very difficult to substantiate.
Innocent until proven otherwise, and all that, but the bigger financial hit was bankrolling a football club.
Click to expand...
Only if your wallet is big enough.
 
Forest Hillbilly said:
The allegations are serious. At the moment.
But actually, the timing of this is really very good for Sullivan. Rather than having to deal with bankrolling a (an uncertain) bounce out of the Championship, and the potential (financial) risk involved in failing, He is now only exposed to the risk of perhaps paying off some glamour models. Other celebrities have been jailed for historic sexual offences, but because of the time-frames involved (and lack of physical evidence), they are very difficult to substantiate.
Innocent until proven otherwise, and all that, but the bigger financial hit was bankrolling a football club.
Click to expand...
Also the directors of the club have legal and ethical code of conduct responsibilities.
 
Forest Hillbilly said:
The allegations are serious. At the moment.
But actually, the timing of this is really very good for Sullivan. Rather than having to deal with bankrolling a (an uncertain) bounce out of the Championship, and the potential (financial) risk involved in failing, He is now only exposed to the risk of perhaps paying off some glamour models. Other celebrities have been jailed for historic sexual offences, but because of the time-frames involved (and lack of physical evidence), they are very difficult to substantiate.
Innocent until proven otherwise, and all that, but the bigger financial hit was bankrolling a football club.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure trashing your repuation is.

it is good timing for the other major shareholder who it has been rumoured is trying to take full control.

Daniel Křetínský is a Czech and has a major interest in Sparta Prague, expect him to make a bid for Sullivan's shares.
 
I read a particularly pious article in (gasp) the guardian by the guy who covers West Ham for them. The gist was that Sullivan had been using West Ham to sports wash his own seedy image, and that the good honest down to earth supporters of this noble working class institution had suffered from seeing the clubs, and by extension their, reputation sullied. This, you understand, they had worn with a heavy heart, but they had never accepted Sullivan and Gold. On moral grounds.

Bollocks. They have been grumpy all these years because the team hasn't often been good enough to satisfy their inflated sense of importance and, like so many supporters, they hold the man in charge responsible for not getting them the moon on a stick. Sullivan's business interests are nothing to do with their dissatisfaction towards him.

Even if he's guilty of all these allegations, I'd be surprised if he's even in the top ten of dubious club owners in this country, even if we only start the survey 20 years or so ago.
 
TheBigToePunt said:
I read a particularly pious article in (gasp) the guardian by the guy who covers West Ham for them. The gist was that Sullivan had been using West Ham to sports wash his own seedy image, and that the good honest down to earth supporters of this noble working class institution had suffered from seeing the clubs, and by extension their, reputation sullied. This, you understand, they had worn with a heavy heart, but they had never accepted Sullivan and Gold. On moral grounds.

Bollocks. They have been grumpy all these years because the team hasn't often been good enough to satisfy their inflated sense of importance and, like so many supporters, they hold the man in charge responsible for not getting them the moon on a stick. Sullivan's business interests are nothing to do with their dissatisfaction towards him.

Even if he's guilty of all these allegations, I'd be surprised if he's even in the top ten of dubious club owners in this country, even if we only start the survey 20 years or so ago.
Click to expand...
That’s about tha size of it, no football fan gives a monkeys about who owns a club and where the money comes from if their teams winning. Do Chelsea fans care that they won all their trophies with Russian mafia money? Of course they don’t
 
Anyone see the Panorama programme about him last night? It was as sadly predictable as could be expected - man who runs a p*rn business expects "favours" in exchange for allowing young women to appear in his publications.
The only surprise is that none of this was reported when Harvey Weinstein was being investigated for the same sort of thing and that no one has been implicated so far.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top