Money has been spent by the board, but not well

The owners of West Ham have gone into defensive mode. First they forced a climbdown from Sky Sports' Sunday Supplement and an apology detailing the board's investment in the club. Then came the over-reaction of banning a fan who carried a flag on the pitch while wearing a not-very-obvious "GSB Out" t-shirt. 

Now, as the Premier League has decided to ban fans involved in violent protests from all grounds, David Gold has given quotes to media about the Burnley-match protests and defending the owners' record at the club. Though claiming they take no salary ignores the interest payments Sullivan and Gold receive on their loans, as the Guardian's Jacob Steinberg has pointed out. 

Violent protests can never be condoned, though there is certainly a place for legitimate protest as the club has made very little progress in ten years and many fans remain deeply upset by the stadium move, even if the gates are now 60,000. But it does seem to be poor planning rather than a conspiracy. Martin Samuel wrote a good piece on West Ham in the Daily Mail, pointing out that the board had certainly invested, but very badly. 

If anything Sullivan and Gold panicked after the protests at the Burnley game. If they were happy with David Moyes making slow progress they should have stuck with him. But then they recruited a Premier League-winning A-list manager on a vast salary in Manuel Pellegrini, allowing him to recruit his own director of football and backing him in the transfer market, including signing Jack Wilshere on a three-year contract and hefty wage. 

Big money was spent: £36m on Anderson, £22m on Diop, £18m on Yarmolenko, £7m on Fabianski, £3 million on Sanchez, £45m on Haller, £23m on Fornals. Another £25m has been spent in the window on Randolph and Bowen. But it's all been scattergun and few of the signings have justified their fees, bar Fabianski. Typical of the lack of planning was recruiting Roberto on a free and Jordan Hugill for £8m and then having no idea what to do with him.

West Ham might indeed benefit from having new owners who have a better grasp of strategy and planning and don't keep appointing managers with contrasting philosophies to the previous one. Although in one sense we should be careful what we wish for. For all their money, I wouldn't want Red Bull as owners (we'd probably become Red Bull Hammers) or to support a team that was purchased by, say, the rulers of Saudi Arabia with its terrible human rights record. 

Right now Sullivan and Gold aren't going anywhere and having interviewed David Gold I do think he's a genuine fan. But as he admits, they have made mistakes. Money alone won't solve the problems. Bad investments and appointments have been the club's downfall. We have to hope Moyes can get it right in the remainder of the season and then enact a long-term strategy of investing in young, hungry players. Only then will the ownership seem less of an issue.