West Ham head into their first Championship campaign for 14 years with fresh hope on the pitch but there remain significant questions off it, as a complex battle for control of the club continues.

Hammers fans have had plenty of good news this summer – manager Nuno Espirito Santo committed his future to the club along with captain Jarrod Bowen, while new arrivals Manor Solomon and Joel Veltman have added experience to the squad.

They have lost Mateus Fernandes to Tottenham and Crysencio Summerville to Saudi Pro League club Al Hilal, but supporters have reacted positively despite relegation, with 50,000 season tickets sold.

Yet uncertainty continues to swirl around the club’s future ownership, two months after David Sullivan resigned from his position as co-chair after seven women accused him of sexually exploitative and predatory behaviour – allegations he categorically denies.

Fellow co-chairs Vanessa Gold and Daniel Kretinsky vowed to protect the club, which appeared to be a straightforward agreement that would increase Czech billionaire Kretinsky’s stake and make him the club’s dominant shareholder.

It has since turned into a complicated corporate struggle after Gold’s decision to sell her shares to a consortium led by former Newcastle United co-owner Amanda Staveley.

Kretinsky’s subsequent move – selling 2% of his share to countryman Jakub Havrlant – raised fresh questions about how any takeover can be completed within the club’s existing shareholder agreements.

On 13 June – a week after West Ham co-chair and director Sullivan stood down to fight what he described as “false allegations” against him following a joint investigation by BBC Panorama and The Times – Gold and Kretinsky released a joint statement.

“We were deeply concerned by the revelations, and our thoughts go out to those women who have fought so hard to make their voices heard,” it said. “Any abuse of power is abhorrent, and it takes great courage and determination to speak up against it.

“Our focus is now firmly on protecting the future of this football club.”

Despite his resignation, Sullivan remains the club’s largest shareholder with 38.8%. He ignored the advice of London Stadium officials and requests from fan groups to stay away from their EFL Cup match against Portsmouth.

They won that match 3-1 in front of a crowd of 53,369 that smashed the record for the first round of the competition by over 18,000.

But the statement of reassurance from Gold and Kretinsky seems a long time ago as the Hammers prepare to begin their league season with a trip to Burnley.

Sullivan has been the subject of long-standing criticism from West Ham fans for his running of the club.

Together with former business partner and co-chair David Gold, who died in 2023, and Baroness Karren Brady, Sullivan has never been forgiven by some supporters for the decision to leave Upton Park in 2016 and move into the former Olympic Stadium.

Brady stood down as vice-chair on 21 April to focus on her other business interests.

In their June statement, Kretinsky, who owns 27%, and Gold (25.1%) said they had reached an agreement that meant the former, who also owns the Royal Mail, would become West Ham’s biggest shareholder, with 43%.

The club’s other significant shareholders – Tripp Smith, Daniel Harris and Terry Brown – were said to be in support.

But the deal was never completed.

On 1 August, Gold, who had initially put her shares up for sale in October 2023, confirmed “the original deal and other alternatives could not be brought to fruition” and announced she had agreed to sell her entire shareholding to a consortium headed by Staveley.

Kretinsky reacted with dismay, and said he was “considering his options”. Three days later, it was confirmed Havrlant had bought just over 2% of his shares.

The backdrop to Kretinsky’s move is West Ham’s complicated pre-emption rights, and also a second agreement around share purchases.

Put simply, any major shareholder at West Ham who comes to an agreement to sell their shares has to first offer them to existing shareholders for the same amount on a pro-rata basis. The offer has to be open for 30 days.

In theory, Sullivan could buy just over half of Gold’s shares – 13%. It would take him over 50% and Kretinsky could add an additional 9%.

Any sale would be scrutinised by the Independent Regulator, the introduction of which Sullivan and Brady were fiercely opposed to.

Sources close to Kretinsky think the regulator would step in to prevent Sullivan increasing his stake given the allegations against him, but that theory is yet to be tested.

Regardless, there is another key element of West Ham’s share structure that forces anyone who takes their stake above 50% to offer to buy the remainder at a significantly inflated price.

It is that rule Kretinsky would circumvent through his deal with Havrlant as, if he ends up buying Gold’s 25.1% of the club, he would still be under the 50% threshold.

However, this is also complicated.

For a start, Kretinsky’s share sale is subject to the same pre-emption rights deal as Gold’s.

Then, there is debate over whether it would be regarded, legally, as an attempt to get round a contractual obligation.

If all that wasn’t enough, there have been suggestions Staveley’s consortium has also made an offer for Sullivan’s stake, although this has not been confirmed.

There are various theories over what is going on and why but, as yet, none of Sullivan, Gold, Kretinsky or Staveley have outlined their wider strategy in public.

It is complicated, and has left many supporters confused about which side they should be on.

“We had a real opportunity this summer to draw a line under what’s been a pretty miserable period, get everyone pulling in the same direction and have a proper go at the season,” said one long-standing supporter, with detailed knowledge of the club.

“Instead, we’ve got another West Ham soap opera playing out in the boardroom. It’s like Eastenders.”