The big story on the horizon in the Premier League is the possible departure of Gianfranco Zola from West Ham.

It appears the Italian has decided to stay on for the time being, despite a sixth successive defeat at the hands of Stoke on Saturday, but tensions behind the scenes have been evident for some time, particularly with co-owner David Sullivan.

Writing in the Mail, Martin Samuel makes the point that if Sullivan has no faith in Zola, he should have made a change in leadership upon buying the club earlier in the season. That indecision could cost the club, and Sullivan, dearly, according to Samuel:

“David Sullivan made one mistake with Gianfranco Zola. He should have sacked him when he had the chance in January.

“Not because Zola necessarily deserved it then, but because it was what Sullivan’s gut instinct told him to do. Then, if West Ham went down at the end of the season, Sullivan would have only himself to blame. Instead, right now what is coming through from his increasingly outspoken comments is not just his frustration and fear of relegation, but his resentment.

“He resents not having been the ruthless boss. He resents not backing his judgement. He resents sticking by Zola primarily to keep the crowd happy. He is an angry man, because he did not do what he wanted to do, and now it may be too late.

“In every utterance these days it is plain he thinks not only that he has the wrong manager for the job, but that he knew as much from the start. If West Ham drop, the only way the business remains solvent is if the owners put in more money, so this may prove a very expensive indulgence.”

Samuel concludes:

“Sullivan should have risked a few brickbats and axed Zola immediately, right or wrong. If he was not prepared to do that, he needed to put all reservations aside and back him with stoic silence. This slow death, in which it is plain a parting is merely a matter of time, with Sullivan existing in a permanent snit because he blames others for his failure to act, is what has really harmed the club.”