Amanda Staveley, the prospective new owner of West Ham United, was present at London Stadium on Tuesday evening to witness a commanding 4-2 Championship victory over Wolverhampton Wanderers — all while the battle over the club's ownership structure grows increasingly complicated.

Staveley attended as a guest of co-chair Vanessa Gold, whose decision to sell her 25.1% stake sits at the heart of a rapidly evolving situation. Gold had agreed in July to sell her entire shareholding to Staveley in a deal that placed West Ham's overall valuation at £600 million. That agreement followed an earlier, separate deal Gold had struck with fellow co-chair Daniel Kretinsky to sell a portion of the same stake.

How the ownership structure works

West Ham's pre-emption rights framework means any deal with an external buyer must first be offered to existing significant shareholders on identical terms and on a pro-rata basis. Those shareholders are given initial refusal rights and then a second window to acquire any shares that remain unclaimed.

The first 30-day deadline for shareholders to exercise that right is due to expire this week, and the outcome of the situation remains far from certain.

Sullivan, Kretinsky, and the complications ahead

West Ham's majority shareholder, David Sullivan, holds a 38.8% stake in the club. Sullivan stepped down as co-chair in June, stating his intention to contest allegations made against him in a joint investigation by BBC Panorama and The Times. Sources familiar with the matter have told BBC Sport that Sullivan is not expected to seek to increase his shareholding while the Football Regulator is assessing his suitability as a shareholder.

Kretinsky, who holds 27%, recently announced he is selling just over 2% of his stake to Czech businessman Jakub Havrlant. That transaction could prove pivotal: by reducing his holding slightly, Kretinsky would be able to purchase all of Gold's shares without crossing the 50% threshold — a level that would trigger a mandatory offer clause, obliging him to bid for the entire club under unfavourable conditions.

However, it remains unclear whether Kretinsky's share disposal could itself be subject to a legal challenge, given that it appears specifically structured to help him avoid a full takeover obligation.