Few Premier League owners and executives are as outspoken and engaging as those at West Ham. From relentless activity on social media to earnest discussions and guest columns with national radio stations and newspapers, David Gold, David Sullivan and Karren Brady are more proactive than most in making their voices heard.

While that’s incredibly refreshing amid an era in which there’s greater disparity between footballers and fan bases than ever before, it inevitably opens them up to greater criticism than their many more silent counterparts at other Premier League clubs – especially when the narratives they offer don’t quite stack up to reality, coming across as mere propaganda to protect the decision-makers at the London Stadium.

Perhaps the greatest example came at the end of the summer, when Slaven Bilic was publicly blamed for West Ham failing to sign a defensive midfielder on deadline day despite being proposed some talented potential additions in Grzegorz Krychowiak and Renato Sanches. Bilic immediately refuted those claims – in fact, he literally laughed them off – while Sporting Lisbon director Nuno Saraiva insisted there were no deadline day talks over William Carvalho.

And the Croatian’s departure from east London after suffering a 4-1 humiliation at the hands of Liverpool has provided another telling case study. Karren Brady turned to The Sun to air her thoughts on what she describes as ‘one of the hardest’ decisions the board has made during their 25 years in football.

Part explanation and part justification of why Gold, Sullivan and herself had no choice, Brady claims West Ham have spent £100million on players since Bilic took charge of the team in summer 2015 – more than any club outside the Premier League’s top six.

But some simple research suggests those figures are wide of the mark. It’s not clear whether she’s discussing total spend or net spend, and whether things like agent fees, signing-on bonuses and other clauses are included in that sum as well. However, according to Transfermarkt, at least four Premier League clubs have produced a greater net spend than West Ham during that time, and at least two have committed to a greater total spend.

What will infuriate West Ham most is that the clubs to have outspent them are the calibre of team the Hammers should be competing with for a spot between the top six and the bottom half – Watford, Everton, Crystal Palace and Bournemouth.

Of course, the current positions of the latter three clubs highlights how spending isn’t everything – it’s a question of buying the right players at the right price – but the mini-table clearly challenges Brady’s claim that West Ham have been the Premier League’s most competitive non-top six outfit in the transfer market. In fact, their net spending averages out at just £27million per season under Bilic – about the amount West Ham paid for Marko Arnautovic a few months ago and Andre Ayew in summer 2016.

And unfortunately for Brady, Sullivan and Gold, it also defies the promise that the London Stadium would bring European football and all the trimmings. It’s never as simple as spending your way into the top six – Manchester City forked out £1billion to win the Premier League title – but the fact a club with such modest aims as Bournemouth has outspent them since 2015 inevitably questions whether the West Ham board really believe in the ambitions they once fuelled amongst the fan base.

Inevitably too, Brady’s motivation for her latest claims must be questioned. Has she been fed false information, does she have a different interpretation of the facts, do her facts differ to those in the public domain, or is she trying to mislead disillusioned West Ham supporters – many who fear the club has been taken in the wrong direction by the current board? We’ll leave that for you to decide.