Sunday 10 January 2010

The Duxbury Telegraph Airbrushing History


What an amazing article in the Telegraph. It opens with the revelation,

"Executives at West Ham knew there was something wrong when they tried to sign Adriano from Inter Milan. It was August 2007 and they travelled to Italy, met with Inter and were presented with a copy of the Brazilian's contract which showed he earned the equivalent of £110,000 a week. The West Ham representatives thanked Inter for their time – and called chairman Eggert Magnusson to inform him that the striker wouldn't countenance a pay cut and his contract was therefore prohibitive. Time to go home.

"Give me two hours," Magnusson said. He called back and said he had consulted with owner Bjorgolfur Gudmundsson. "Go for it," Magnusson pronounced. Everyone was astounded; not least Inter. Could West Ham really afford such wages? Was Adriano worth it? Was Gudmundsson prepared to pay such a salary plus a £15 million transfer fee? What a coup.

In the end, Adriano decided he did not want to go for the move and the deal, talks over which were confirmed on the club's website just as manager Alan Curbishley went on television to claim it was pure speculation, inevitably collapsed.

It was an episode which summed up the precipice over which West Ham were unwittingly staring – and have subsequently fought tooth and nail to keep themselves from spiralling down into."


Now what do you notice about that opening? What I notice is that the journalist names names and attributes quotes to Gudmundsson and Magnusson, and has a dig at Curbishley, yet strangely does not identify the "Executives" at West Ham or the "representatives" in Milan who had more sense than their masters. Why? Well to blow the Duxbury trumpet too early in the article would give the game away. When you are airbrushing history, and applying a revisionist "touch up", a degree of subtlety is required. Keep you cards hidden at first, then play them for maximum effect!

For now, I pose two questions: Where is this information coming from do you think? And why is it being released now?

After suggesting an imminent resolution to the takeover (the answer prehaps to the second question), the article continues,

"What has been remarkable is the fact that West Ham, following the meltdown of the Icelandic economy and the collapse of Gudmundsson's business empire, have managed to avoid administration, have traded with relative stability and have survived Рand in some, counter-intuitive, ways thrived Рthrough a series of dramas and crises not all of their own making: from the Carlos T̩vez saga to the premature retirement of Dean Ashton."

Bloody hell, how's that for revisionism? How exactly have West Ham "thrived" since the collapse of Gudmundsson's business empire? Is sitting level on points with the club second from bottom in the Prem "thriving"? Is stripping your squad down to the barest of bones "thriving"? Is finding yourself without a first choice right back "thriving"? Does having to play a raw 18 year old as your sole striker respresent "thriving"? Is relying on a free transfer to provide your only attacking cover "thriving"? Is selling your first choice centre back one month into the season evidence of a club that is thriving? Does a thriving club allow two members of the England squad to run down their contracts because they can't afford to pay them more? Does a "thriving club" need a loan from its sponsor to complete the purchase of a player from the second tier of the Italian league? When Gudmundsson took over, we were supposed to be challenging to become the third biggest club in London. Now we are hopelessly adrift of Chelsea, Arsenal and Tottenham and well behind Fulham too. Thriving? Funny, it has felt like we have been close to dying for the last 9 months!

And tell me, how was the Tevez affair not of our own making? Who forced us to sign Tevez? Who held a gun to our head when we entered into a third party agreement that broke the rules? And who made Duxbury provide "oral cuddles" to Ikea and his lawyers? That all seems to be very much of our own making to me...and who was at the heart of it all...hang on, that would Scott Duxbury wouldn't it? The executives at West Ham were apparently alarmed by the attempt to sign Adriano but did not have the slightest whiff of a rat when two current Argentinian superstars agreed to join us. Funny that! If we are talking "counter intuitive", that seems a reasonable definition to me!

The article says that alarm bells started ringing with the signing of Dyer, Parker Bellamy and Ljungberg. No they did not! They started ringing when we signed Tevez and Mascherano, BEFORE the Icelandic takeover, and were clanging away when Neill was offered higher wages than Liverpool could afford to pay him. Upson, Davenport, Neill, Boa-Morte and Quashie were all signed that January and only Neill contributed positively to our Great Escape. I remember Alan Green describing Curbishley as like a little boy in a sweet shop that January, the following summer simply continued a trend.

It's funny how the article focuses on the failings of the Icelanders but doesn't mention the cock ups before or since. The article talks about the signing of Bellamy but overlooks his sale and the disastrous use of the funds to sign Savio. The Tevez affair merits no more than five words, but most would accept that this was the starting point of the crisis we find ourselves in. But Duxbury was heavily involved in this so, of course, the article skips over it.

The killer paragraph reads,

"West Ham have, certainly, been indebted to some shrewd husbandry from chief executive Scott Duxbury who, throughout all of this, has stuck as much as he could to a business plan – The Football Project – he drew up and presented to Gudmundsson as a way forward and a move away from the "haphazard way of spending money". Duxbury has craved stability and wants to turn West Ham, as much as possible, into a self-sustaining entity."

Now, why do I have this picture of the journalist, Jason Burt, asking, "Is that exactly how you would like it worded Scott, or would you like to tweak it in any way?"


And what might Mr Burt get in return for this excellent piece of propaganda? Well, apart from a very good dinner, maybe a tasty exclusive on the take over may appear in The Telegraph shortly. Cynical, mois?

23 comments:

Anonymous said...

The telegraph article is spot on in my view in many many ways. This utter rubbish is just your view which has very little grounding let alone evidence. I think the mgmt and bd (including Duxbury) have done a great job with all their arms tied behind their backs for the past year.

I urge all read WestHamtilIdie it is a proper blog with intellectual comment not this junk.

Tom said...

Comment above ... I read both blogs ... but why is this any different to listening to Celtic or OLAS ... just differently put .. the author has merit in 'HIS OPINION' the situation ... Jason Burt is a friend of Duxbury's, and I have no doubt the two and the article are linked ... my view was 'is Duxbury trying to secure himself a job' cos as the author states ... it paints over some serious flaws .. that all centre around the current CEO.

However i do believe Duxbury has pulled off a major regain in balancing the books, satisfying the board and keeping our key assets, I too thank him for Zola and Clark ... time to judge Duxbury is ahead of us ... if Zola doesn't get the TV monies in the summer transfer window I believe the fans in their entirety will turn on him ... thats if the new owners don't offload them first ...

may I also say ... why slate the author and stay anomynous ...

Dave D said...

HF, I think your take on this is spot on.

Very deep rooted problems & for a very long time as well.

Sound like a man trying to keep his job.

Hammersfan said...

2025, I'm sure Iain Dale will endorse the Telegraph article. After all, it was Dale's searching interview with Duxbury that revealed we could all expect Ashton back for the start of the season. THIS blog was predicting that Ashton would never play again at the time. But then, if that was common knowledge, the pressure would have been on to buy somebody wouldn't it? So Duxbury fed his poodle! Read the propaganda if you like - more fool you!

Deane said...

Mr Anonymous? how naive are you?The problem with westhamtilidie is that Iain sucks up the Duxbury bullshit. He is a liar and covers his own arse at the expense of everything The proof of the pudding is in the eating and I see no delivery on "the project" but I do see the effects of the monumental cock up when signing Tevez and Mascherano and surrounding nonsense designed to push up the price paid to the thief that is Terry Brown The "project", anyway, is also a legacy from the obscene amount of money TB made when West Ham where relegated in 2003 as we were umm forced to sell a golden generation Somebody obviously saw the potential in that and decided it would be a great model to work to. TB and Duxbury and generations of Cearns's have fleeced the club and the fans for all it's worth and the best thing for West Ham would be for any new owner to get rid of anyone in any position of influence that has any connection with TB and that would definitely put Duxbury and the 2 Davids head of the list
History is thing that teaches and from which we should learn not the unfulfilled future and the West Ham model should be judged by the Greenwood model which was so far ahead of Shankly at Liverpool and then check how each club has fared since then

Anonymous said...

Quite simple and you have hit the nail on the head it is all "HIS OPINION" very little fact. westhamtilidie publish news not views in MY VIEW. It is a real sharing of factblog that is written well and when it is views/opinions they state just that.

This blog seems to think that its views are facts!

That said the stuff about friendship between Duxbury and Burt is completely conjecture, to my knowledge Duxbury doesn't have many friends at all :) In addition if you think the Telegraph sports editor (who I do happen to know well) will let friendships dictate content you might as well go and read the NOTW.

Having said that Tim, your comments are better and more fact based than the original blog.

Regarding return on the project, you try running a business and stop laying bricks and you might realise when all your variable spend is pulled you can not implement a business plan. Fools!

Hammersfan said...

So Mr Anonymous, explain exactly how we have thrived! Love to hear your explanation! And how was the Tevez affair not of our making exactly? And why isn't Duxbury criticised for the oral cuddles that have cost us £25m? I don't need facts, your OPINIONS on these points should be highly illuminating!

TBI said...

Sorry Anonymous you lost me after you said

'I urge all read WestHamtilIdie it is a proper blog'

BWHAHAHAHAHA.

You know the essence of a blog is to write whatever the F you want! Funny enough WHTID forbids that with it's ridiculous moderating rules and an editor who tries to throw politics down your throat on a FOOTBALL BLOG!

Spudsareajoke said...

Well I neither know anyone at the Telegraph or am a major conspiracy theorist but what I will say as a new arrival to this article is:

1) The original post is incredibly anti any progress and anti anything positive that might be being done. There is no doubt that the club has been in a mess for a long time and that Duxbury can not be without blame. I urge anyone either named or annonymous to refute that. However I also agree that the current mgmt team (Zola, Clark and Duxbury) have done a good job with no investment, no bd behind them and many hinderences from the past.

2) The bulk of the blame can not lie with the current mgmt team. The Magnusson and Gudmunsson era is what pushed through things like Tevez, over inflated wages etc etc. The three left trying to dig the club out of it have done well with this inheretence. If you really think Tevezgate was not driven buy the incoming Icelandics you are folling yourself HF

3)Journalists will report news and views. Unlike Anonymous, I know you get both in most papers and blogs. Having said that the HF original seems to think that a sports journalist would be that biased and put his name and rep on the line to such a degree is slightly silly.

So in my opinion and I will state this is an opinion for all readers, the club has been mis managed, Duxbury has to shoulder some of the blame, but the bulk sits outside of him and the three guys in charge at the moment are doing a decent job under the circumstances. So to answer your question HF Cynical mois - yes totally and to a silly extent.

Hammersfan said...

Welcome Graeme. You are new here and so have not been a party to a series of articles I have run on how Duxbury has managed the media and controlled expectations, always presenting in a way to secure his own position. Over that time, I have been able to make a series of predictions which have come to fruition - in spite of what Duxbury was claiming.

Of course BG and EM were not behind the Tevez affair - IKEA was trying to get a stake in the club at the time of the signings and BG was a rival bidder. Indeed a major part of our defence was that the previous Board had agreed the deal. The only "bridge" over the last disatrous three years - from Brown to BG to C&B Holdings - is Duxbury. He was personally fingered for the oral cuddles so why didn't he lose his job then? I suspect he knew, and knows, too much and with friends in the press is regarded as a ticking time bomb.

Of course journalists cultivate friendships, that's how they get exclusives. And of course journalists are biased - to believe otherwise is incredibly naive. I give you, "Will the last person to leave Upton Park please switch off the lights"!

Spudsareajoke said...

Yes i am new here and sorry will not be sticking around HF (so you can say what you want post this quote and feel happy with it as i am sure you will).

I have just been reading through some of the older posts like "Wenger After Cole and "The great british press". I also read some of the other Duxbury stuff.

You do come across as a very bitter anti press type of man and feel they all have an agenda that is againts the real WHUFC fans. I am sure the truth is many have bigger and better things to do. You also seem to make many many claims about Duxbury that have very very little evidence. The IKEA stuff driving the Tevezgate affair is completely conjecture and to my mind becoming a self fulfilling prophecy in your myopic world. But i am sure your sources are not papers or press??

Hypocracy - reading so much of the stuff you seem to hate!

I, as a real west ham fan, must say that I hope we do get taken over quickly and thus rid of the rubbish that was caused by Mag and Gud in the main and i also think the three guys in charge are given a fair shout with proper backing.

I think the blog should be named "I've gone crazy".

I think you may be able to find some reality counselling out there somewhere if you do want to enter the real world.

pajowa said...

It should also be noted that SD has fronted two legal cases in 2009,the Tevez (last 3 games arrangement) and the Curbs. "unfair dismissal" case (which also involved the sales of Mcartney and Ferdinand). Despite the various assurances published in advance of the cases being heard, on both counts judgement went against the club and SD. Should the fans (or new owners) believe what the judge's didn't?

The compensation payable on these two cases is very significant and has added to the cost cutting problems.

Hopefully there will be some positive news re new ownership this week. We can only hope the interests of the club are put first.

Hammersfan said...

Quite Pajowa.

Graeme, if you feel like looking in and redressing the balance, feel free. No censorship here, apart from racism and obscenities.

Anonymous said...

The first comment on this blog is spot on....whoever writes the utter rubbish on this blog please give it a rest.....the Hammers are going through a very tight spot yet your whole life seems to be consumed with a personal tirade against Scott Duxbury and compunding Hammers fans misery....its just so tediuous to read and if there was a way I could get newsnow excellent summary of West ham articles to remove you from their search engine I would. You come across someone who has never run anything - except a bath but even that would be a stretch, your lack of any commercial experience and expertise is evidenced by much of your utter drivel - and your views have very little if any factual comment.

Fonzie's Bald Patch said...

Like Aristotle's Mean the truth lies neither in Burt, Dale or Hammersfans articles...
All have an agenda, all have an opinion it depends whether you want an overly 'Company' friendly statement or an overtly negative opinion.

Ultimately if you want to live in the negative that is your entitlement, what I find amusing is your oft repeated mantra of 'predictions' as if because you write it here it becomes a prophecy of the future, what you are very good at is reading a number of sources (admittedly with the ability to look beyond the club spin merchants) and see between the lines. You then write what any well read and intelligent Hammers fan is able to deduce but with your own slant of negativity.
Advanced... I seem to remember going from escaping on the last day of the 06/07 season to 10th the next year and 9th last year, yes this year is different but not even you could predict BG losing his fortune.
But it's about the way you spin it isn't it...?

apache said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
apache said...

Duxbury is dodgy as hell and the master of spin. This Telegraph article made me want to puke in the same way as when you overhear your best mate to his new found squeeze like a lovestruck teenager on the phone saying "... no you hang up first, no you hang up first" ... ad nauseum.

HOWEVER...

Whatever the reason for 'The Project', I desperately want it to succeed.

I have always been proud of supporting West Ham, and in these days where we have NOTHING to currently be proud of (you're welcome to challenge me on that, I want to hold my head up high and say to supporters of the Spuds and the Gooners and the Liverfools and the Chelskis and the Manures of this world;

"at least we are self financing and not trying to buy glory with debt"

So, don't trust him as far as I can throw him, but paradoxically, relying on him to take us forward!

PC said...

Apache - I agree, these are dark days, even in the troubled history of WH. Having claret and blue blood certainly seems like an affliction at times.

That said, there are 'some' positives of late that we can find solace in. Some of our new crop of academy players have real potential. Particularly Collison and Hines, they've really impressed me anyway.

Hammersfan said...

0736, nobody makes you read the articles. Why do you want them removed from News Now? Do you support a society where opposing views are censored? If so, Iain Dale will welcome you with open arms. Elect him and his Tory brethren and, in time, I suspect nobody in Britain will be allowed opposing views on anything!

Hammersfan said...

Fair points Fonzie. But if you have one extreme, it provokes the other. Anybody who thinks the original article is balanced is in serious need of education. It is because people believe what they read, without asking, 'is that believable' that we live inside a spin dryer of a society. Blair's Spin merchants hit upon the fact that you write the news rather than respond to it and Duxbury is of the same school.

0736 You are welcome to your opinion. Why am I not welcome to my own? Write your own blog to redress the balance or set out arguments here. Do try to address the issues though.

None of the critics of this article have addressed the issues. In what way is the club "thriving"? Why isn't the Tevez issue explored? Why is there no mention of Duxbury's role in the Tevez affair? Those who wish to defend the origninal article and criticise my response need to answer those three questions. If you can, you may have a case! Anybody up to the challenge?

Billy said...

It was the Tevez/Mash saga that blew West Ham away and into this vortex of hate and derision from everyone but loyal Hammers. Unfortunately, whatever good that can be found in Duxbury's actions since it is this unacceptable episode and should require his sacking.
For a lawyer to have got away with such poor advice and dodgy practice is unacceptable. For him still being able to practice law is an indictment on the English legal system.
Duxbury is the WH equivalent of Peter Storrie and almost as slimy. They are both unsackable because they know all the sh*t inside their clubs, much of it being their own creation. Welcome to modern Britain and the great EPL!
When all said and done I was born a hammer will die a hammer and my beloved club employed some sh*ts. Oi mrs shut up about Ince. Now don’t get me started...

Hammersfan said...

Spot on Billy. Chilling to think that even Moore tried to walk out on us and join Tottenham in 1966!

Paul Mackenzie Ross said...

OK, so the club's been sold today, so where does that leave Duxbury? Is he on his way?

Whatever we wanted to believe about "The Project" it was ultimately a nice piece of public relations from Duxbury who we must not forget was Terry Brown's number two (read that however you wish). The words coming out of Duxbury's mouth were all rather sweet as he had and Iain Dale had their candlelit dinner a while back, but Dale's a politico and Duxbury wants to protect his own hide & wallet. A nice dose of scepticism is always healthy in situations like these.

Whilst there are a few positives at the club there have mostly been negatives and I'm shocked that anybody dares to pretend we were "thriving"; Where on earth did that term come from?

The Tevez affair ended with Joorabchian staying on in some sort of advisory capacity; that was a bit odd to say the least - more of a retainer for keeping his trap shut IMO.

Don't forget that Savio was our record signing and was about as effective as Marco Boogers; that record fee was paid to Brescia who are owned by one of Gianluca Nani's relatives, Luigi Corioni.

Anyone smell a rat here?

Sure we've got no hard evidence of wrongdoing going on but people would be naive to pretend these things don't happen just because we're not party to the detail.

And anonymous posters defending Duxbury? Funny. Why hide?

So today, Sullivan & Gold admitted that there was no way the club was commercially viable, especially with £100M+ of debts. I think Jason Burt confused "thriving" with "diving".

Onwards and upwards now. COYI