West Ham co-owner David Sullivan labelled a ‘liar’ and ‘parasite’ over William Carvalho transfer

West Ham co-owner David Sullivan has been labelled a “liar” and a “parasite” for his comments about the club’s failed move for midfielder William Carvalho on transfer deadline day.

Sullivan had claimed that a deal for the Portugal international fell through at the last minute because West Ham did not have enough time to put the player through a medical once his club, Sporting, had decided to sell.

But according to the Sporting director, those versions of events are not quite accurate: Carvalho was not for sale.

In a scathing post on Facebook, Nuno Saraiva challenged Sullivan – who made his money in the adult film industry – to provide evidence of his claims.

“David Sullivan lies. At Sporting Clube de Portugal, as has already been said by our president, no proposal was made for our player William Carvalho.

“The football industry is not the set of an adult film in which all obscenities are allowed. So the boss of a club demands a lot more than this intellectual pornography.”

Sullivan had claimed that Sporting rejected a bid for the player several weeks ago before approaching West Ham on deadline day saying they would accept the original price.

Saraiva’s outburst could therefore be seen as a face-saving exercise for the Portuguese club now that Carvalho will remain there until at least January.

Sullivan said the claims were “not true”, telling fanzine Claret & Hugh that Sporting cannot publicly admit they tried to offload the player.

“Our bid was submitted via the player’s agent and our negotiators in Portugal,” he said. “We also put in a written bid.”

David Sullivan lies. At Sporting Clube de Portugal, as has already been said by its president, no proposal has been made for the player William Carvalho.

The football industry is not the set of an adult film in which all obscenities are allowed. So the boss of a club demands a lot more than this intellectual pornography.

Mr David Sullivan has a duty to prove what he says. That is why Sporting Clube de Portugal challenges him to publicly show the proposals he claims to have been made as well as the evidence that Sporting CP received them.

One thing is certain: Sporting CP, as has already been said, does not cut the legs off its players. But we have nothing to do with the performance of entrepreneurs or relatives who live at the expense of players and who are offering them to clubs as if they were cheap supermarket merchandise.

It creates regrettable situations that have already forced the sporting club of Portugal to take drastic measures to defend itself from these characters who parasitize the lives of some players.