Aaron Hinton

It strikes me that there is not enough blame being directed towards Vanessa Gold in this boardroom debate. She seems to be getting away with derailing our transfer window, if not potentially the entire first half of our season. For the first time since the positive announcements of a few weeks ago, we're starting to see reports of a tight transfer budget. And, if West Ham media are to be believed, we're seeing signs of that in the lowball bids we've supposedly been making. If we go back to the Saturday announcements, one important factor is that Gold, crucially as joint-chair, officially put her name on the club website to an agreement to sell her shares to DK. This wasn't just a club statement; it was a personal pledge from the pair. By the way, it should not be overlooked that being joint-chair of a football club comes with enormous responsibility, particularly towards the supporters. Another important part of that statement was the promise of financial support from DK's EP Group: "As the largest Shareholder, group EP will be able to provide the additional financing the Club needs." Two days later, Staveley was widely reported to have been shown around London Stadium, supposedly by the LLDC. In an interview less than a week later, when asked about purchasing West Ham, she replied: "Maybe." It is inconceivable to me that Staveley did not begin discussions with Gold about buying her shares around this time. Don't forget, the DK/Gold statement had suggested their deal was around two weeks away from completion. If Staveley wanted in, she had to make her move before that deal went through. It is therefore common sense to surmise that this is what turned Gold's head and caused the DK deal to be delayed before she ultimately went back on it. To believe the deal was delayed because of DK, as some sections of the West Ham media like to present, is naive. This is just choosing to believe a narrative because it suits a personal preference for Staveley to own the club. As a consequence of Staveley's bid to buy Gold's shares, and the uncertainty that has followed, DK has seemingly not committed the full financial support he originally intended. Who can blame him for not putting additional money in when there is no longer any certainty of control? That is likely to have had an impact on our transfer budget. To be clear, you can't blame Staveley. It was never going to be easy to buy Sullivan's shares and, if she wanted a quick foothold in the club, she only had a small window in which to buy Gold's shares before the majority went to DK. You can't blame DK either. He had made a commitment, in writing, to support the club financially and become its largest shareholder before Gold changed course. But you can, and in my opinion should, blame Gold. Not for deciding to accept a better offer, but for going back on an agreement she had publicly made to every West Ham supporter. For shirking her responsibilities as the club's joint-chair and putting one of the most important seasons in the club's recent history in jeopardy. Not to mention her pissing on her father's legacy, which she was so keen to protect with a 10% holding until more money came along. Staveley may well prove to be a better long-term bet for the club than DK. But the truth is, I don't know that she is — and while plenty of others may claim otherwise, neither do they. We know she would be a popular and engaging figurehead for supporters. What we don't know is exactly who is behind this bid, how much financial firepower they genuinely have, or what their long-term intentions are. The only named company involved appears to be a relatively small investment set up. It isn't Staveley's money and, ultimately, money will talk. What I do know is that before Gold's about-turn, I had every confidence that we would go hard in this transfer window and get the players we needed. Now I'm not so sure. Thanks, Vanessa. Don't choke on the money.