I find this a really interesting point because to me it seems demonstrably true but also symptomatic of why the West Ham board are never going to turn around their reputation without a sea change in their thinking. (Thread, mute as appropriate)

“Win more” is the footballing solution of taking a painkiller for toothache. The pain goes away for a bit but ultimately you still need a painful root canal. And West Ham have needed that for a long time. This current limited success is *despite* the Board, not because of them.
Lest we forget, Moyes did a fine job first time around and was let go so we could pursue a bigger name, waste tens of millions and undo his good work. They’re lucky he was still available and willing to work for them again. They don’t deserve him.
But winning is helpful because a lot of the time, fans struggle to articulate what needs changing. So if the team is doing well it’s easy for the media to say “You’re fourth - what more do these West Ham fans want!” and for fans not to have an easily digestible answer.
But we know that a losing streak will arrive, we’ll suffer some bad luck and some injuries and then it won’t seem so rosy. And at that point we’ll be accused of being fickle, when the reality is that the underlying problems have been present for the entirety of the GSB reign:
- underinvestment in the infrastructure of the club (Academy, scouting)
- disregard for modernization (using a single agent over an analytics department who don’t personally profit from player moves, no true Director of Football)
- the relatively subpar training facilities
- the long, interminable struggle to get the Club to engage with our supporter representatives rather than forcing us to engage with theirs
- the continued failure of a transfer policy driven by ageing, big name players on long, eye watering contracts
- the Sun column
Some of this has stopped with Moyes (eg: transfers) but do we have any faith this would carry on if he left? What structural change has happened to drive this change? Nothing - it’s just that Moyes is good. If he goes what would stop us signing the next Wilshere? Nothing
If Moyes left tomorrow, they’d hire Benitez and maybe we’d carry on being successful and maybe we wouldn’t but we still wouldn’t have had that root canal we needed. And eventually, it will flare up again and there will be more unrest because nothing material has changed.
This season is highly unusual. We have a chance at something, just as in 15/16. They blew their chance then and might again. I hope they don’t and I hope we miraculously make the CL/win the cup. But I’d still want that material change because the structure of WHU is still wrong
I’m not so vehemently #GSBOUT out as others, because you do have to be careful what you wish for. I’d characterize my position more as #properstructuralchangein I appreciate this is less catchy but it might have a more immediate chance of happening.
To be clear - of course I want new, wealthy, progressive, decent owners of West Ham - I just think that’s a very unlikely combination so maybe trying to inch the current board closer to competency is also a good interim strategy. Also, win games! As Lee said - it works. For a bit
#properstructuralchangein

More from For later read

Hi @EdinburghUni @EHRC @EHRCChair @KishwerFalkner @RJHilsenrath @trussliz @GEOgovuk

The DIVERSITY INFORMATION section in yr job application mentions 'legal equality duties'. You then ask "What is your gender identity?" with options

Female
Male
Non-binary
Not-listed
Other

1/13


'Gender identity' is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 and is not defined in the Act.

https://t.co/qisFhCiV1u

2/13


Sex is the protected characteristic and the only two possible options for sex are 'Female' and 'Male' as defined in the Act and consistent with biology - 'non-binary' and 'other' are not valid options.

https://t.co/CEJ0gkr6nF

'Gender identity' is not a synonym for sex.

3/13


You then ask "Does your gender identity match your sex registered at birth?"

4/13


Again, 'gender identity' is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 and is not defined in the Act.

https://t.co/qisFhCiV1u

5/13

You May Also Like

"I lied about my basic beliefs in order to keep a prestigious job. Now that it will be zero-cost to me, I have a few things to say."


We know that elite institutions like the one Flier was in (partial) charge of rely on irrelevant status markers like private school education, whiteness, legacy, and ability to charm an old white guy at an interview.

Harvard's discriminatory policies are becoming increasingly well known, across the political spectrum (see, e.g., the recent lawsuit on discrimination against East Asian applications.)

It's refreshing to hear a senior administrator admits to personally opposing policies that attempt to remedy these basic flaws. These are flaws that harm his institution's ability to do cutting-edge research and to serve the public.

Harvard is being eclipsed by institutions that have different ideas about how to run a 21st Century institution. Stanford, for one; the UC system; the "public Ivys".