West Ham – famously known for being the club that won England their only World Cup in 1966 – have found themselves at the wrong end of the table once again after a string of poor results.
The east London side are currently sitting 18th in the Premier League table which has led to unhappy Hammers fans placing the blame at the doorsteps of the owners and manager David Moyes.
But where is it all going wrong at the London Stadium and what is causing the fans' revolt at the club's current ownership? Here, Sportsmail takes a look into heavy criticism facing the West Ham hierarchy.
In January 2010, David Sullivan and David Gold acquired a 50 per cent share of West Ham, giving them overall operational and commercial control.
At the time, the Hammers sat perilously above the drop zone in 17th after 20 games played, in what were uncertain times for the club before the takeover. They did eventually beat the drop that season before relegation to the Championship was confirmed in the 2010-11 campaign.
Returning to the top flight straight away, the Hammers have finished 10th or lower in six times in their last seven seasons but did enjoy a brief campaign in the Europa League after finishing seventh in the 2015-16 season.
Now, a decade on from the takeover by Gold and Sullivan, it appears they are back to square one. West Ham currently find themselves in the relegation places a month into the new year.
While many optimistically expect West Ham to fight their way out of trouble, others are pointing out that they shouldn't be there in the first place.
An argument can be made that money has been invested by Gold and Sullivan during their tenure as club owners while others will counter that by claiming they have nothing to show for that investment.
And these aren't new issues, either.
The duo faced fierce protests from fans at a home game in 2018 when Burnley came to town, that saw several pitch invasions and objects thrown at the directors' box at the London Stadium.
Almost two years on, fans continue to protest in a bid to make their voice heard.
The arrival of Premier League-winning manager Manuel Pellegrini appeared to put West Ham on an upwards trajectory and showed that the club had an ambitious plan going forward.
It didn't quite work out and after 64 games in charge of the club, the Chilean was sacked from his post earlier this season.
The man Pellegrini succeeded, David Moyes, was brought back in to steer the ship to safer shores - but it just hasn't clicked for him yet.
Moyes got off to a flying start, winning his first two games in charge before going on to lose four out of his next six games and being dumped out of the FA Cup.
It is frustrating a fan base who have criticised the Scot's win percentage of just 28 as Hammers boss and his confusing tactics that saw the club drop even more points on Saturday.
West Ham were comfortably leading Brighton 3-1 at home this weekend before shipping two goals late on – a costly error that was blamed on Moyes.
One fan on Twitter insisted: 'If you can't defend a 3-1 lead you deserve to go down. Moyes ain't improving us defensively so what is he here for?'
Others lamented his negative tactics while the Hammers had a comfortable two-goal cushion.
'I see West Ham were 3-1 up with 15 mins to go yesterday when Moyes decided to take off his striker for a defender and go five at the back. They drew 3-3,' another tweeted.
It's clear to see that Moyes is dealing with a squad that is low on morale and low on confidence but it's hard how he can turn the season around with how things are going.
With 13 games left to play, it's no wonder West Ham supporters are pessimistic as we head into the business end of the campaign.
It's grim reading when you look at the club's upcoming fixtures - with Moyes facing the likes of Manchester City, Liverpool, Tottenham and Chelsea in his next seven games.
Throw in clashes against in-form Southampton and Wolves along with a London derby against Arsenal and you struggle to see where they will pick up the points.
One fan couldn't compare the club's current state to any season he'd seen before by saying: 'West Ham fans have seen teams struggle multiple times over the last 30 years but this feels different. Is that just me who thinks that? This feels like the worst period in which I have followed the club.'
Gold came in for criticism this week when he appeared to 'like' a tweet that called some fans 'morons' after securing forward Jarrod Bowen on Deadline Day.
The tweet from one Hammer supportive of the Gold and Sullivan regime read: 'Well done to the three Davids. Funny how the moron contingent have gone quiet tonight as yet again in a highly competitive market the board have spent big.
'Any potential signing looking at the online poison from a foul minority would keep away.'
This prompted one of the club's largest independent supporters' associations to hit out at Gold for stoking the fire, especially at a time where large sections of the West Ham support have protested recently and are planning to continue to do so.
The romanticised move from Upton Park to the Olympic Stadium promised to elevate the club to the next level.
Higher attendances meant more commercial income and in turn would generate more funds for the club.
While that may have been a big selling point for the move, it just hasn't come to fruition in the four years they've been at the London Stadium.
The 60,000-seater venue was purpose-built for the 2012 Olympic Games – a fact that has left fans disconnected to what they should be calling home.
One fan reveals how a matchday at the London Stadium feels 'soulless' and that the lack of programme sellers, food stalls and merchandise stands leaves those attending slightly empty.
They explain: 'It's a home game, but it feels like an away day, no matter how many times you have done it.'
The stadium is just another aspect that has left the fans feeling aggrieved with what's gone on in the last decade and now, the bubble's beginning to burst.
Talk of relegation has been a touchy subject for Gold and Sullivan, who have engaged in a legal dispute with Sky Sports, as revealed by Sportsmail's Matt Hughes last Thursday.
Sportsmail's Mike Keegan went on to explain in his Sports Agenda column on Sunday how a senior national newspaper football correspondent had been banned from covering West Ham matches following his criticisms on Sunday Supplement.
Keegan revealed that the Hammers' legal representatives have engaged in a bizarre debate over what 'constitutes a relegation fight', with the club's lawyers disputing that they have been battling the drop for the last three seasons.
Sky Sports were forced to issue an astonishing apology to Gold and Sullivan for 'factual inaccuracies' just a week later.
The criticisms made by the journalists on Sunday Supplement were initially met with applause from fans online before it was shortly followed by confusion over why Sky Sports would apologise for a matter of opinion.
While the argument can be made that Gold and Sullivan have put money into the club, a counterpoint that it hasn't been spent wisely is more than justified.