# “Fear of a supporter backlash was one reason West Ham rejected Everton’s offer of up to £45m for Taty Castellanos”

West Ham reportedly feared the reaction from supporters if Taty Castellanos was sold and the team then struggled to score. Hammers News attributed that explanation to a senior club source, while earlier reporting supports the existence of Everton’s offer and the difficulty of finding a replacement.

Transfers · Unconfirmed
Editorial board · 2 November 2026

## Where it started

Damien Charles Lucas reported for Hammers News on 31 October that fear of supporter reaction played a part in West Ham’s decision to reject Everton’s offer for Taty Castellanos. The explanation was attributed to a leading unnamed source inside the club, who told the outlet: “Had Everton’s bid been accepted and we lacked goals this season, the West Ham board would never have heard the end of it.”

## What happened next

The financial details of Everton’s approach had been reported earlier by Graeme Bailey at TEAMtalk on 4 September. Everton made a verbal offer of around £40m plus £5m in potential add-ons, but West Ham were unwilling to lose Castellanos without a suitable replacement. The approach came with only a few hours of the transfer window remaining. Football League World revisited the rejected offer on 30 October, also referring to TEAMtalk’s reporting. Neither report independently established the supporter-backlash explanation.

## What was checked

The offer and the alleged reason for rejecting it are separate claims. TEAMtalk supports the account of Everton’s offer and West Ham’s difficulty in securing a replacement. Hammers News provides the additional explanation through its unnamed club source and publishes the quotation attributed to that source. No separate reporting was found that independently confirms the board’s alleged concern about supporter reaction.

## Verdict

Unconfirmed. The reported offer and replacement problem have supporting coverage, but the explanation involving supporter backlash rests on one unnamed source. The quotation is genuinely present in Hammers News; its underlying account has not been independently corroborated.

Claim dated 31 October 2026; verdict dated 2 November 2026.