Daily WHUFC News - 20th December 2017

Hammers out of Carabao Cup after Arsenal defeat
WHUFC.com

West Ham United fell out of the Carabao Cup after a 1-0 quarter final defeat
to Arsenal. A scrappy finish by Danny Welbeck just a few moments before
half-time was the only thing that separated the two sides in a contest void
of quality. The Hammers best chances came down the flanks with Arthur
Masuaku playing well, but it wasn't enough for David Moyes's side to grab
the necessary goal. It was the home side that dominated the majority of
possession in the opening period, although a resolute Hammers back-line kept
the Gunners from creating clear-cut chances. West Ham's first flurry forward
came from the in-form Masuaku, who continued to threaten down the left
flank. A free-kick won by the 23-year-old handed the Hammers their best
chance of the first half, with Aaron Cresswell whipping in the set-piece on
38 minutes, which was headed into David Ospina's hands. Sead Kolasinac fired
an effort over from distance for Arsenal, while captain Theo Walcott headed
wide from a cross by the Bosnian, despite being unmarked in the West Ham
penalty area. However, three minutes before the break, Arsenal had the lead.
Mathieu Debuchy headed Francis Coquelin's diagonal ball back across goal,
and Welbeck poked home the loose ball past Hart. Once again it was thanks to
a powerful Masuaku run that West Ham had a chance on goal on 64 minutes. He
was brought down for a free-kick, which Cresswell sent just wide of the far
post. The double introduction of Andy Carroll and Diafra Sakho gave West Ham
more attacking intent as Moyes sent his side in search of an equaliser. The
presence of the two strikers gave the home side something to worry about,
with Carroll in particular looking strong in the penalty area, before Hart
was booked for a foul on Welbeck just outside the penalty area. But despite
the substitutions it was not enough for the Hammers to beat Arsenal and were
eliminated from the Carabao Cup at the quarter-final stage for a second
consecutive season.

West Ham United: Hart; Reid, Collins, Ogbonna; Cresswell (Carroll 65'),
Obiang, Quina (Arnautovic 83'), Rice, Masuaku; Ayew, Chicharito (Sakho 65')
Subs not used: Adrian, Zabaleta, Haksabanovic, Makasi

Arsenal: Ospina; Debuchy, Chambers, Holding, Kolasinac; Coquelin (Dasilva
90'), Elneny, Willock (Sheaf 84'), Walcott, Welbeck, Giroud (Nelson 78')
Subs not used: Macey, Reine-Adelaide, Akpom, Nketiah

Goals: Welbeck 42',

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Manuel Lanzini: West Ham forward given two-game ban for diving
BBC.co.uk

West Ham's Manuel Lanzini has been given a two-match ban for diving in
Saturday's Premier League win at Stoke. The Argentine playmaker, 24, fell to
the ground as he was challenged by defender Erik Pieters and the Hammers
were awarded a penalty, which put them 1-0 up in a 3-0 victory. Lanzini's
denial of the charge was rejected by the Football Association. He will miss
Tuesday night's Carabao Cup game with Arsenal and Saturday's Premier League
visit of Newcastle. West Ham face the Gunners in their quarter-final tie at
Emirates Stadium at 19:45 GMT. The incident was referred to an independent
three-person FA panel who deemed Lanzini had deceived the referee. The panel
includes one former match official, one ex-manager and one ex-player, and
all three had to agree for a ban to be enforced. West Ham manager David
Moyes said the panel were "going against" referee Graham Scott in their
decision. "The referee was 10 yards from the ball with nothing blocking his
vision," said Moyes, speaking after the initial charge. "It is clear to see
the defender makes an attempt to go for the ball and doesn't get it."
Speaking after the match, Stoke counterpart Mark Hughes said Lanzini had
"clearly dived". Everton forward Oumar Niasse was the first Premier League
player to be banned for diving after the introduction of new FA laws to
punish simulation were introduced in May. He was banned for two games after
winning a controversial penalty, under pressure from Scott Dann, in a draw
at Crystal Palace on 18 November.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Karren Brady: Don't cast us as villains… we'll help make West Ham stadium a
jewel in London's crown
KARREN BRADY
ES Sport

It is now just over a year since West Ham left our spiritual home, the
Boleyn Ground, to start a new, exciting and long-term future at London
Stadium. Our commitment to building that future, however, goes back to 2010,
when my chairmen David Sullivan and David Gold stated their intention to
take the momentous step of moving to Stratford. We originally put forward
a plan for outright purchase of the venue, a solution that would have seen
West Ham take responsibility for the post-Olympic conversion, while still
guaranteeing a legacy for the benefit of the local community. But that route
was blocked, so we entered into a fair and transparent tendering process —
open to any organisation in the world, on virtually a 'take-it-or-leave-it'
basis. We successfully bid for the right to be the primary user of the
stadium and secured the best terms we could. The 99-year concession
agreement was signed with absolute good faith. As a professional football
club, in the unique position of having our fortunes largely governed by the
results and performances of 11 men on a pitch, the risk was ours. The recent
publication of the Moore Stephens report has led to the headlines focusing
on West Ham. That's understandable. But for those not familiar with the
complex and convoluted structures in place in terms of the stadium's
ownership and operations, it is West Ham's presence that generates interest.
The reality is when the deal was signed, LLDC's (London Legacy Development
Corporation) business plan showed that, with a Premier League club as anchor
tenant paying an annual fee for 25 days' usage, the stadium would make a
profit. The way the contract was put to us, West Ham had to rely upon our
landlord to secure a naming rights partner and to operate the stadium within
budget.
A naming rights partner has not yet been signed up. It is a fantastic
commercial opportunity and I am surprised the stadium is not already linked
to a market-leading brand. The global audience of three billion tuning into
Premier League football — by far the most powerful attraction for naming
rights — should have brought in an additional £4million a year. E20, the
management company, repeatedly refused our help to secure that revenue, so
only they can explain why that has yet to materialise. The stadium operator,
LS185, record a £4.9m gross profit in their published accounts. Our
landlord, on the other hand, is not yet turning a profit according to its
accounts. The stadium is multi-purpose and has so much more to offer. We
want our home ground to be a success and profitable for both our landlord
and ourselves. It can be.
I want to be clear, though - no one is subsidising our use of the stadium.
Our long-term financial commitment to this stadium is there for all to see.
The annual rent alone will see us pay hundreds of millions when you consider
inflation over the course of the 99-year contract. That is before we take
into account the hundreds of thousands we generate each year playing
additional matches or hiring areas for club events.
It is also West Ham's presence that has provided a clear benefit for the
local community, with 2,000 full or part-time staff employed on the London
Living Wage, £6m invested in community projects in Newham and surrounding
boroughs by the end of the 2017-18 season and 1.5million people visiting the
Olympic Park each year from our matchdays alone. However, our primary focus
always will be our supporters. In 2013, we signed a deal that was completely
mindful of their requirement that the stadium at all times should look and
feel like the home of West Ham. We firmly believe the stadium move remains
in the best interests of our supporters. It has helped us to increase
attendances and, therefore, the revenue that we are able to invest in the
global stars who may not have been attracted to the club previously.
It has allowed us to grow our fanbase and offer the most affordable Premier
League tickets in London — with 10,000 under-16s paying £99 for a season
ticket — meaning that thousands of supporters who might otherwise have not
been able to attend every match with their families can now come. There is
one point I feel it is essential to clarify. First and foremost, West Ham
never had any involvement in the choice of a retractable seating solution.
Our only requirement has always been that the seats be brought as close as
possible to the pitch.
In 2013, LLDC proposed a retractable seating model akin to that at the Stade
de France and, indeed, produced a video showing this at that time. This
solution would have cost in the region of £20m. West Ham paid a capital
contribution of £15m towards delivering this but had no say in the
appointment of various contractors, managing those contractors or
negotiating costs. The opportunity to enter into the deal we made, with all
of the risks of moving from one stadium to another, was open to every club
in the area, but I suppose that has made West Ham an easy target. Very few
former Olympic stadia boast a 99-year legacy and without us the stadium
would have a very different future. Football allegiance or political
advantage has meant West Ham have faced unfair criticism, yet nobody has
identified any step that we have made as being wrong. I feel for our
supporters. We value their views and we understand their frustrations. We
are focused on making progress at our new home and casting us as the villain
of the piece is undeserving.
The Moore Stephens report acknowledged two very important matters. The first
is that a Premier League club is the only sporting organisation that will
provide the revenue required to make the stadium financially successful. The
second is that there is scope for improvement. We are open to helping make
those improvements, provided there is a clear benefit for our fans: greater
rights and greater controls. We will continue to devote time, effort and
money, but what the stadium needs is strong leadership and I have every
faith that the Mayor of London will now use the findings of the report as a
catalyst to deliver it. I am very much looking forward to meeting with him
and his new chair when they are able to do so. I am certain that as soon as
this happens, the Mayor will quickly see the way forward to a more seamless
operation and be able to make quick changes that will reduce costs and
increase the opportunity, appeal and, ultimately, the revenue of the
stadium.
There is a clear opportunity to make this stunning, iconic stadium the jewel
in London's crown by adding a year-round programme of world-class events and
vibrant content to the magnetic pull of the Premier League. Now is the time
for us to work in harmony, to ensure that London Stadium delivers the
long-term legacy that the people of our great city deserve.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

http://vyperz.blogspot.com