West Ham’s 2014/15 season was like the
proverbial game of two halves under Sam Allardyce, as a promising start took the club into the top
four at Christmas, before a wretched slump produced just three victories in the
next 21 games.
The Hammers still finished in a comfortable 12th place,
which should presumably have satisfied joint chairman David Sullivan, as he
described “retaining our Premier League status” as one of his highlights of the
season. The club also qualified for Europe for the first time since 2007,
albeit only by finishing top of the Fair Play table.
Nevertheless, they decided not to renew the manager’s
contract, bringing in former player Slaven Bilic as Big Sam’s replacement in
June. The Croatian has put together a very decent squad and already has wins
against Arsenal, Liverpool, Manchester City and Chelsea under his belt. On the
other hand, his team has also lost against Leicester City, Bournemouth and
Watford.
Be that as it may, these are exciting times at West Ham, as
the club is investing a lot of money in new players and will move to the £700
million Olympic Stadium in Stratford next season after 112 years at the Boleyn
Ground.
"Slaven to the Rhythm"
The stadium move could revolutionise the club and is an
amazingly good deal for the Hammers. The basic facts are that West Ham have a
99-year lease on the stadium starting from June 2016 and will pay just £15
million towards the conversion costs, which they can easily cover from the
proceeds of selling Upton Park to property developer Gaillard Homes.
The stadium has a 54,000 capacity, around 19,000 more than
the club’s current 35,000 seats, so will bring in substantially more money. The
financial gains will be even more impressive, considering that West Ham will
only pay annual rent of £2 to £2.5 million, while the running costs will be
covered by the taxpayer.
Unsurprisingly, many have criticised this arrangement,
though West Ham has argued that it has at least avoided the kind of “white
elephants” seen in former Olympic host cities such as Barcelona, Athens and
Beijing.
"A new royal family, a wild nobility"
Indeed, the club has mounted a vigorous defence: “Without us
the stadium would lose money. West Ham make a substantial capital contribution
towards the conversion works of a stadium on top of a multi-million pound
annual usage fee, a share of food and catering sales, plus provide extra value
to the naming rights agreement. Our presence underwrites the multi-use legacy
of the stadium and our contribution alone will pay back more than the cost of
building and converting the stadium over the course of our tenancy.”
On the other hand, it is worth noting that the deal is more
favourable to the club than the one agreed with Manchester City in similar
circumstances. They pay all the overheads on top of £4 million rent for the Etihad
Stadium, which was funded by the taxpayer for the 2002 Commonwealth Games.
Along the same lines, Chelsea and Tottenham would have to pay £10-15 million a
year for using Wembley Stadium while their grounds are being developed.
Little wonder that Chris Bryant, the Shadow Secretary of
State for Culture, Media and Sport described the deal as “astoundingly good”
for West Ham, even though it will be a jolt for many fans to leave Upton Park
with all its memories and fantastic atmosphere. The new stadium is in an
excellent location, just minutes from Canary Wharf and the City and close to the Westfield shopping centre
with very good transport links and infrastructure.
As vice-chairman Karren Brady said, “Our new home will be
one of the greatest arenas in world football and a platform to transform the
future of our great club.”
There is little doubt that this move will provide a major
boost to the club’s finances, though these have steadily improved in the last
two seasons in any case with West Ham reporting record revenue and another
profit in 2014/15, though profit was down £7 million from £10 million to £3
million.
Revenue rose 5% (£6 million) from £115 million to £121
million, largely on the back of £3.6 million more TV money, though the other
revenues streams also grew, albeit not much: commercial up 9% (£1.9 million) to
£22 million and match receipts up 2% (£0.4 million) to £20 million. Player
sales also increased by £2 million to £3 million.
On the other hand, costs grew at a faster rate: wages
increased by 14% (£9 million) from £64 million to £73 million; player
amortisation was up 20% (£4 million) to £22 million; and other expenses rose
11% (£2 million).
Of course, these days most clubs in the Premier League
should make money, given the spectacular increases in the TV deals, allied with
the restrictions on wage growth imposed by Financial Fair Play (FFP). In fact,
only five of the 20 clubs in the top flight made a loss in 2013/14, the last
season when all clubs have published their accounts.
Three of the five clubs that have so far reported their
2014/15 figures have registered lower profits, though only Manchester United
actually lost money, due to their failure to qualify for Europe. This may well
be a similar story at other clubs, as this is the second year of the current
three-year TV deal, thus restricting revenue growth, while player costs are
still rising.
A football club’s profitability can be very much influenced
by profits on player sales, as can be seen in 2014/15 with Southampton making
£44 million, manly due to the sales of Adam Lallana and Dejan Lovren to
Liverpool plus Calum Chambers to Arsenal. The previous season saw Tottenham
Hotspur make an amazing £104 million (largely due to the mega sale of Gareth
Bale to Real Madrid), Chelsea £65 million (David Luiz to Paris Saint-Germain)
and Everton £28 million (Marouane Fellaini to Manchester United).
Even though West Ham’s profit from this activity increased
in 2014/15, it was still only £3 million, which could either be considered as
implying that they are not a selling club (a good thing) or an indictment of
their player development (a bad thing).
An additional £25 million from player sales would make a big
difference to the bottom line, but it’s not going to happen in 2015/16 when the
only sale of note was Stewart Downing to Middlesbrough for £5.5 million, while
many players left on free transfers: Jussi Jaaskelainen, Modibo Maiga, Guy
Demel, Carlton Cole and Kevin Nolan.
Even so, West Ham have managed to make profits in the last
two years, which is a major improvement, considering that before 2013/14 they
lost money seven years in a row, amounting to aggregate losses of £144 million.
In fairness, the small £4 million loss in 2012/13 already
represented a step in the right direction, as the club had been averaging £23
million annual losses before then. This is a sign of the greater financial
stability that the majority owners, David Sullivan and David Gold, have brought
to the club since taking over in 2010.
To underline how little impact player sales have had on West
Ham’s figures, this activity has only contributed £37 million to West Ham’s
profits in the last nine years, i.e. less than Southampton made in the 2014/15
season alone. You have to go back as far as 2008 (£16 million) and 2009 (£22
million) for any meaningful profits from transferring players. In fact, West
Ham have only averaged £1.4 million from player sales over the last four
seasons, while actually contriving to lose £8 million in 2011.
The good news is that West Ham’s figures are no longer being
hit by exceptional charges, which have had a major adverse impact on their
accounts, adding up to £58 million since 2007.
The most notable charge was the £32 million they had to pay
for breaching Premier League rules when acquiring Carlos Tevez and Javier
Mascherano. They have also shelled out £10 million compensation for loss of
office and £6 million following the termination of Dean Ashton’s contract due
to severe injury.
It is worth exploring how football clubs account for transfers,
as it has a major impact on reported profits. The fundamental point is that
when a club purchases a player the costs are spread over a few years, but any
profit made from selling players is immediately booked to the accounts.
So, when a club buys a player, it does not show the full
transfer fee in the accounts in that year, but writes-down the cost (evenly)
over the length of the player’s contract. Therefore, if West Ham spent £25
million on a new player with a 5-year contract, the annual expense would be
only £5 million (£25 million divided by 5 years) in player amortisation (on top
of wages).
However, when that player is sold, the club reports straight
away the profit on player sales, which is essentially sales proceeds less any
remaining value in the accounts. In our example, if the player were to be sold
3 years later for £32 million, the cash profit would be £7 million (£32 million
less £25 million), but the accounting profit would be higher at £22 million, as
the club would have already booked £15 million of amortisation (3 years at £5
million).
This is all horribly tedious, but it does help explain how
clubs can spend big in the transfer market with relatively little immediate
impact on their reported profits. Even though the annual cost of purchasing
players is therefore somewhat reduced in the profit and loss account, it is
worth noting that the impact of West Ham’s increasing spend in the transfer
market has pushed up player amortisation, which has more than doubled from £10
million in 2012 to £22 million in 2015.
Obviously this is nowhere near as much as the really big
spenders like Manchester United (£100 million), Chelsea (£72 million) and
Manchester City (£70 million), but it is still worth keeping an eye on in
future years.
The other side of the coin here is that all these signings
have helped strengthen the balance sheet with player values (reported as
intangible assets) climbing to £55 million, compared to only £15 million just
four years ago. So what, you might say, but it is obviously good for any club
to have better quality “assets” on the pitch.
That said, West Ham still have net liabilities (assets less
liabilities) of £47 million, though this has improved by £4 million in the last
12 months.
Given all the accounting complexities arising from player
trading, clubs often looks at EBITDA (Earnings Before Interest, Taxation,
Depreciation and Amortisation) for a better understanding of how profitable
they are from their core business. In West Ham’s case, EBITDA has recovered
from negative £8 million in 2012 to £28 million in 2015, though it did fall
back from £33 million the previous season.
This is not too bad, but at the same time helps to outline
the challenge for clubs like West Ham, as the EBITDA at the leading clubs is
significantly higher, despite their larger wage bills: Manchester United £120
million, Manchester City £83 million, Arsenal £64 million, Liverpool £53
million and Chelsea £51 million.
Since 2009, West Ham’s revenue has grown by 59% (£45
million) from £76 million to £121 million. The majority of this growth is down
to TV money, which rose £35 million (79%) from £44 million to £79 million,
though commercial income did grow £8 million (53%) from £14 million to £22
million and match day was up £2 million (13%) from £18 million to £20 million.
The highest increase within commercial came from retail and
merchandising, which has risen 95% from £3.7 million to £7.3 million, partly
due to the decision to bring the online retail business in house in 2012.
The impact of promotion from the Championship is evident
from the £75 million increase since 2012 with all revenue streams benefiting
from being in the Premier League.
Despite this significant growth, West Ham’s revenue of £121
million is still a lot lower than the Premier League elite, e.g. the top four
clubs all earn more than £300 million: Manchester United £395 million,
Manchester City £352 million, Arsenal £329 million and Chelsea £320 million.
West Ham are very much mid-table in revenue terms in the
Premier League (10th highest the previous season) around the same level as
Everton, Aston Villa and Southampton. Although the Hammers 2014/15 revenue
growth of 5% was not as high as the previous season, this is very largely
linked to the cycle of the TV deal. As last season was only the second year of the current
three-year TV deal, it is unlikely that any club will see significant revenue
gains in 2014/15.
However, West Ham’s revenue is now the 21st highest in the
world according to the Deloitte Money League, ahead of famous clubs such as
Marseille £109 million, AS Roma £107 million and Benfica £105 million.
This is basically due to TV money, which contributes nearly
two-thirds (65%) of West Ham’s revenue. Commercial income and match receipts
account for 18% and 17% respectively.
It is therefore no surprise that Brady has stated that
retention of “our (Premier League) status in 2015/16 is an absolute necessity
for the future wellbeing of our club.”
That might sound a little worrying, but it is a very similar
story at other Premier League clubs. In fact, no fewer than 11 clubs had a
higher reliance on TV money than West Ham in the 2013/14 season with Crystal
Palace, Swansea City, Hull City and WBA all depending on TV for more than 80%
of their revenue.
Considering the significance of Premier League television
money to the Hammers, it is worth exploring how this is distributed in some
detail. In 2014/15 their share rose 4% from £74 million to £76million. This is
based on a fairly equitable distribution methodology with the top club
(Chelsea) receiving £99 million, while the bottom club (QPR) got £65 million.
Most of the money is allocated equally to each club, which
means 50% of the domestic rights (£22.0 million in 2014/15), 100% of the
overseas rights (£27.8 million) and 100% of the commercial revenue (£4.4
million). However, merit payments (25% of domestic rights) are worth £1.2
million per place in the league table and facility fees (25% of domestic
rights) depend on how many times each club is broadcast live.
In this way, West Ham were helped by climbing one place to
12th, but were held back by being broadcast live on one less occasion. However,
they were still shown live 13 times, 4 more than Stoke City, which meant that
they earned £2.2 million more (£11.0 million compared to £8.8 million), even
though the club from the Potteries finished three places higher in the league.
My estimates suggest that West Ham’s 12th place would be
worth an additional £35 million under the new contract, increasing the total
received to an incredible £111 million. This is based on the contracted 70%
increase in the domestic deal and an assumed 30% increase in the overseas deals
(though this might be a bit conservative, given some of the deals announced to
date). Of course, if West Ham could maintain their current 5th place, they
would earn even more.
West Ham would also be targeting European qualification,
which could bring in additional revenue, though their 2015/16 Europa League
adventure will not generate much money, as they crashed out early to Romanian
side Astra Giurgiu.
The Europa League is not a great money-spinner, unless you
somehow manage to win the competition, but Everton did earn €7.5 million last
season for reaching the last 16. The big money is obviously in the Champions
League with English clubs averaging €39 million in 2014/15 and is getting
higher, as the new TV deal from the 2015/16 season is worth an additional
40-50%, thanks to BT Sports paying more than Sky/ITV for live games.
This might feel like a somewhat unlikely ambition, but not
if you listen to the two Davids. Gold said, “Realistically, in the next five
years we would expect to be knocking on the door of Europe, The longer-term aim
is to frighten the big boys of Chelsea, Manchester City, Manchester United,
Arsenal and Liverpool. We want the big five to be looking over their
shoulders.”
Stirring words, but they were echoed by Sullivan: “I’d love
fourth now and we’d take our chances. I know it’s unlikely, but it really is
possible.” His optimism is admirable, but he slightly ruined the effect when he
started to talk of winning the Premier League and FA Cup double, “We’re very,
very optimistic. I’m not talking it down. I want to talk it up. I believe it’s
achievable. Look at what’s gone wrong with Chelsea – that looked an
impossibility – so why shouldn’t the opposite happen to us?”
Match receipts rose 2.3% (£0.4 million) from £19.5 million
to £19.9 million in 2014/15, even with one less home game (due to the run to
the Carling Cup semi-final the previous season), as the average attendance rose
2.5% from 34,007 to 34,874.
West Ham supporters have lamented the club’s high ticket
prices with the BBC Price of Football survey showing that 15 of the 20 Premier
League clubs offered cheaper season tickets in 2014/15, despite prices being
frozen that season. Even though the last season at Upton Park has seen a 5%
price increase, season ticket sales for 2015/16 have exceeded 25,000, another
club record.
The loyalty of the club’s fans is shown by attendances
remaining at around the 34,000 level in the top flight, however well or badly
the team has performed. The only slight blip came in the Championship in 2012,
but the Hammers still averaged more than 30,000 in the second tier.
Nevertheless, West Ham’s match day revenue of £20 million is
nowhere near Arsenal and Manchester United (both around £100 million), though a
more valid comparison might be Tottenham, whose £44 million is more than twice
as much.
This underlines the importance of the move to the Olympic
Stadium, which should significantly increase West Ham’s revenue, not just
because of the considerably larger capacity, but also the availability of more
corporate hospitality and premium seats. Brady confirmed that only 200 of the
3,700 premium seats remained available.
The good news for fans is that many tickets in the new
stadium will be sold at lower prices with thee cheapest season ticket being
reduced to £289. While Brady was keen to link this to the benefits of the new
broadcasting contract, others have pointed out that this is easier for West Ham
than most, due to their extraordinarily generous stadium deal.
Commercial revenue rose 9% (£1.8 million) from £20.0 million
to £21.8 million, comprising £14.6 million from commercial activities and £7.3
million from retail and merchandising.
Even though Brady proudly proclaimed that West Ham are
“officially recognised as one of the world’s leading football brands by
Brandfinance, placing us in the top 8 most valuable football brands in Premier
League clubs and 16th overall in the world”, the fact remains that their
commercial income pales into insignificance compared to heavyweights such as Manchester
United, who generate £196 million from this activity.
That comparison might be a little unfair, but it is worth
noting that Tottenham earned £42 million and Aston Villa and Newcastle United
£26 million (in the 2013/14 season). Growth was a little disappointing,
especially given that commercial and administrative staff rose from 136 to 164.
To be fair, the growth is sure to be better in the 2015/16
season, thanks to new sponsorship agreements. Less than a month after previous
shirt sponsor Alpari went out of business, West Ham signed a three-year deal
with online bookmaker Betway worth £20 million. This is worth £6.7 million a
year, so more than double the £3 million that Alpari were paying.
Similarly, a new five-year kit supplier deal was signed with
Umbro, which is reportedly worth twice as much as the previous deal with
Adidas, which was valued at an estimated £2 million.
Given the higher profile afforded by the Olympic Stadium,
the move should deliver plenty of commercial opportunities with the board
noting that the club is already “receiving approaches from big brands that are
desperate to be part of our exciting journey.” Furthermore, the new club
megastore with 12,000 sq ft will be three times as large as the current club
shop. In time, this should be reflected in much higher commercial income.
Wages rose 14% (£9 million) from £64 million to £73 million,
despite players, management and training staff falling from 100 to 93, leading
to the wages to turnover ratio worsening from 56% to 60%. Since the first
season back in the Premier League in 2013, wages and revenue have both grown at
a similar rate: wages by (29%) £17 million and revenue by (34%) £31 million.
The wage bill will be inflated by having four reasonably
high-profile players on loan (Alex Song, Carl Jenkinson, Victor Moses and
Manuel Lanzini), while it will also be impacted by extending the contracts of
some players (Diafra Sakho, Aaron Cresswell and Winston Reid).
The amount paid to the highest paid director, believed to be
Brady, was virtually unchanged at £646,000.
Although West Ham’s wages to turnover ratio increased, it is
still the second best the club has recorded in the last seven years and much
better than the 90% suffered in the Championship. It is also well within the standard
achieved in the Premier League with 13 of the 20 clubs grouped in a fairly
narrow range of 56-64% the previous season.
West Ham’s wage bill of £64 million was only the 13th
highest in the 2013/14 season, exactly in line with their league placing. Even
though this has increased to £73 million, to place this into context, it is
only around a third of the elite clubs, who all pay around £200 million:
Manchester United £203 million, Manchester City £194 million, Chelsea £193
million and Arsenal £192 million.
Nevertheless there is a clear bunching of clubs in the
£60-70 million range, as the traditional bigger spenders like Newcastle United,
West Ham and Aston Villa have only grown a little, while the nouveaux riches like
WBA, Stoke City, Swansea City and Southampton have all had to significantly
increase their wage bill in order to compete.
It is worth noting that West Ham’s wage bill has only risen
by 8% since 2008, while others have grown much faster, e.g. Stoke City 411%,
Southampton 362% and WBA 211%.
Sullivan did warn that the club would be restricted by FFP,
following the big spending this summer: “As a result, we are now at the maximum
wages we are allowed to pay under Premier League rules and, therefore, if we
wanted to buy again in January we would no doubt have to sell someone before we
would be allowed to make signings. It also means we expect the club to make a
loss of between £10m and £17m this year, depending on where we finish in the
Premier League and the number of games we have televised. This is indicative of
just how seriously we took this window and the signings we wanted to make.”
This has been reflected in “major investment in the first
team squad of £32.5 million (2014/15) and £42.0 million (2015/16)”. Last season
saw the arrivals of Mauro Zarate, Enner Valencia, Aaron Cresswell, Cheikou
Kouyate, Diafra Sakho, Diego Poyet and Morgan Amalfitano. Subsequent to the
latest accounts, the club invested in Pedro Obiang, Dimitri Payet, Angelo
Ogbonna, Michail Antonio, Nikica Jelavic, Stephen Hendrie and Darren Randolph.
Although reported transfer figures are notoriously
unreliable, it is clear that there has been a major ramping up of expenditure
in the four seasons following promotion. In that period, West Ham have a net
spend of £93 million, averaging £23 million a year, compared to just £3 million
in the preceding six years.
In fact, over that four-year period, West Ham were the 6th
highest net spenders in the Premier League, only beaten by the usual suspects:
Manchester United, Manchester City, Chelsea, Liverpool and Arsenal.
This is all driven by the club’s desire to maximise the
chances of staying in the Premier League until the move to the Olympic Stadium.
As Sullivan said, “I cannot remember a more exciting or successful window during
our time at the club. We brought in 12 new players at a cost of over £40m, but
that was only possible because David Gold and I made sure we dug deep to get
the players we wanted. We thought it was important this season, with the move
to the new stadium, that we bought players in every position to create the best
squad and team that has been at the club since we arrived.”
Despite this spending spree, net debt actually fell £6.8
million from £73.5 million to £66.7 million with gross debt being cut by £2.5
million to £89.1 million and cash increasing by £4.3 million to £22.4 million.
Around £49 million of the debt has put in by the owners, David Sullivan and
David Gold, as unsecured shareholder loans – unchanged from the previous year.
This represents over half of the club’s gross debt of £92 million, leaving £39
million of external debt and £0.6 million of debenture loans under the Hammers
Bond Scheme.
External debt includes secured bank loans with interest
charged at 3% to 3.75% over LIBOR, which have been refinanced until December
2016, though the club repaid £6.5 million on 31 August after the accounts were
finalised. The club has also arranged additional short-term finance of £30
million with JGF Limited, secured on future income from the Premier League
broadcasting contract, which is repayable in August 2016 and replaces the
previous loan with the Vibrac Corporation. To date, £25 million of this
facility has been drawn down.
"Diamond Smiles"
In addition to the financial debt, West Ham had £22 million of net transfer fees payable plus £9 million of contingent liabilities (dependent on the success of the football club or players making a certain number of club or international appearances). On top of that, there is a further net £37 million of transfer fees payable for players purchased after the accounts closed.
Furthermore, interest of 6-7% has been accrued on the owners’ loans, but is not paid or added to the loans until the loans are repaid, so there is another £9 million of potential debt “hidden” in accruals.
It is clear that West Ham are building up their debt in order to give themselves the best chance of success, both in terms of financial debt and transfer debt, though this is probably OK, so long as they avoid relegation.
In fairness to West Ham, there are seven clubs in the
Premier League that owe more than them with five having debt above £100
million, namely Manchester United £411 million, Arsenal £234 million, Newcastle
United £129 million, Liverpool £127 million and Aston Villa £104 million.
Moreover, the club has pledged to be free of external debt
by the time it leaves the Boleyn Ground. The hope is that the proceeds from the
sale of the Boleyn Ground to Galliard Homes will cover the Olympic Stadium £15
million conversion fee plus “some of our bank debt”.
According to the profit and loss account, West Ham’s net
interest payable of around £6 million is one of the highest in the Premier
League, albeit considerably lower than Manchester United £35 million and
Arsenal £13 million. However, the cash payment is only £2 million, as the
interest on the owners’ loans is not being paid.
West Ham’s improved finances are also reflected in the cash
flow statement. Taking 2014/15 as an example, the club generated an impressive
£43 million from operating activities, before spending £31 million on player
registrations, investing £2 million in infrastructure and making £2 million of
interest payments. They then made a net £2.5 million loan repayment, leaving a
positive cash flow of £4 million.
This is indicative of the approach that Sullivan and Gold
have taken since 2010, though they have not had to invest so much personally in
the club in the last two years. In those six years, West Ham generated £69
million of cash from operating activities, which was supplemented by £75
million of financing from the owners (£49 million from loans and £26 million
from an increase in share capital), giving £144 million of available funds.
Around two-thirds of this (£95 million) was spent on new
players, £22 million on loan and interest payments and £8 million on capital
expenditure. The remaining £20 million has served to increase the cash balance.
In line with the trend at other clubs, West Ham’s cash
increased last year from £18 million to £22 million, though this is still a
long way behind the leaders, e.g. Arsenal £228 million, Manchester United £156
million and Manchester City £75 million.
Sullivan and Gold now own 86.2% of the club and, though they
have insisted that it is not for sale, West Ham is fast becoming an attractive
investment opportunity. Indeed, last year they expressed a desire to sell some
shares, valuing the club at £400 million.
Wealthy buyers will certainly be interested in purchasing a
club of West Ham’s history in an iconic new stadium with massive potential to grow
attendances, match day income and commercial revenue. There are a lot of
parallels with Manchester City with the added advantage that the Hammers are
not only located in London, but in an area that has already received an influx
of foreign investment with Qatar purchasing the Olympic Village and China
pouring money into the Docklands.
"Handy Andy"
If the club is sold following the move to Stratford, some of
the profits would be returned to the taxpayer, but it is not clear what
proportion. The only potential fly in the ointment would be if the club had to
pay compensation if their move were deemed to contravene European state aid
laws.
The other appeal to investors is FFP, especially as UEFA
have recently relaxed the regulations for new owners, who will now be allowed
to make larger losses, as long as they can produce a business plan that will
show how they will reach break-even. This modified stance is a move from
“austerity to sustainable growth” in an effort to encourage investment into
European football.
"Don't Look Back in Anger"
West Ham are firmly in favour of FFP, according to Brady:
“FFP is the legislation which, for the next season at least, will limit the
ability of clubs to over-extend themselves on players’ costs and will likely
enable all clubs, including ourselves, to increase profitability, and we
continue to operate within the rules. We are hopeful that FFP will continue in
some form in the next broadcast deal.”
As it stands, West Ham are arguably now one of the most exciting
“projects” in European football. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the Olympic
Stadium deal, it is difficult to disagree with Brady, when she says that it
will be a “game changer for West Ham”. The challenge will be to advance into
this brave new world, while retaining the characteristics of what Slave Bilic
described as “a cult club”.
