Thread by @chrislepkowski

🧵Trying to make sense of all that's gone wrong with #WBA off-the-field since the change of ownership in 2016. A thread of sorts.

The sale of the club for £200m (I believe the exact figure was nearer £210m, overall) was always going to be about JP getting the best deal. 1/

That's no surprise...of course he'd want the best deal. Who wouldn't? Forget the notion he wanted to sell with the club's best interest at heart. I knew him and his sale was all about legacy - a chance to say: 'You wanted me out...this is what you've won - serves you right.' 2/

And then comes the problem. The new controlling shareholder (please can we stop calling him the owner...I'll come back to why later) made an initial promise to run the club as it had been run. This was the first major red flag. 3/

Why? Because Lai didn't notice JP ran WBA to within a penny of its life. Every coin accounted for. There was absolutely ZERO margin for error. Peace needed every major strategic decision to be right, every bit of luck to go his way & the wind to blow the right way. It did. 4/

And because the new owners didn't get those decisions right, because they had no 'luck' and because all they've touched has generally gone wrong, then it rendered duplication of the JP model of self-sustainability completely pointless. Those margins of error were blown away. 5/

What WBA needed in 2016, was an owner who could at least attempt to grow the club or consolidate and build. They got neither. They inherited a copycat, who wanted to do little to grow the club - only his own portfolio. 6/

More so, they then bad some horrific calls. Gambling 6-figure weekly wages on Krychowiak and Sturridge in the relegation season, Burke, giving Hammond too much sway, listening to JP's recommendations about who comes in as CEO/chairman (remember stuff about legacy?) and then... 7/

...reappointing Jenkins who - on the face of it a steadying influence as an accountant - made two massive mistakes in terms of recruitment/retention - one was not sacking Pardew when he had the chance to after Barca-gate (just after he returned as CEO) and then... 8/

...appointing Dowling as a TD, when he'd reached the end of his line at Forest and when no other club wanted him. That decision to hand over too much influence to Dowling was costly as contract management went south. Badly. 9/

LD (after hammond has set the ball rolling) started handing out too many deals that suited players, rather than the club. It's why the club are saddled with some players of no value that are costing the club too much in wages. And why loanees became prevalent. 10/

It's also why there were big alarms in the failed play-off season when LD gambled on a clutch of loanees taking the club up. It left the club owning players of depreciating value on big wages. Fast forward to now and all decisions since have been a result of... 11/

...the poor decisions made in the past. It's reactive. It's like trying to stick a plaster over several wounds. These loans need no further explanation - you know the background. We're going to be losing money big time because of our predicament (if we don't go up). 12/

Re Lai, investigating him requires time/resources. He's down as 'controlling shareholder'.
In effect we're a mongrel, made up of many entities that are supporting him/his companies.
It isn't as simple as saying 'Lai Out' - our structure is piecemeal. And a big mess. 13/

Best hope for now is #WBA go up under Corberán and a year in PL (+ more?) brings some financial stability. It may even lead to a place where the club is sold - and to better owners. That's the best case scenario. It's also like staking your last £1 on a roulette wheel.
Ends/