summerof69 Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 I will admit that i think he has done well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cp40 Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 Steve Bruce has a face like a ball sack. < < < < < Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeyt Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 I will admit that i think he has done well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 Sure he was on close to £50k a week before this, should be on a pretty penny now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sicko2ndbest Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 Sure he was on close to £50k a week before this, should be on a pretty penny now. Def not. I reckon 10k max Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 Sure he was on close to £50k a week before this, should be on a pretty penny now. Def not. I reckon 10k max Yeah, sure he is. It cost them £3m or something daft to buy him out of Wigan ffs. Whelan said: "Talks are in progression and I've asked for a compensation fee because I think its only fair that they buy out his contract. I paid Birmingham £3m so Im asking for the same amount back. Read more: http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/news/Steve-Bruce-cleared-to-join-Sunderland-as-Wigan-agree-compensation-deal-article26753.html#ixzz1F0OKFU5W Sign up for MirrorFootball's Morning Spy newsletter Register here Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 Bruce has done shit for the amount of money he's spent. A lot better than Keane but tbf it wasn't hard not to. Sunderland literally have no money to spend even after Short's cashflow into the club. They'll be lucky to make top 10 next season. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thespence Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 X-Newcastle United chief exec & current SAFC chief exec on those numbers: Sunderland's chief executive Steve Walton has shed more light on the club's financial situation following the recent publication of accounts for the year ending 31st July 2010. The most recent accounts show an operating loss of £5m, increasing to £25.5m including player trading, with the club adding ten additional players to the squad on a full-time basis, plus three loan signings. Club owner Mr Ellis Short also converted £19m of loans into shares. An expert in football finance, Walton ran Barclays Bank's football division before joining Sunderland in 2009 and says the club are in healthy financial position and are continuing to reduce external debt. He told safc.com: "I'm really pleased with where the club is at this moment in time. "The headline figures reflect the investment we've made in the squad over the last few years. "Businesses don't get into difficulties because they don't make profits; they get into trouble because they run out of cash, which is a really important distinction that has to be made. "We've been able to sustain this because we've been investing in the squad thanks to our owner investing in us, in terms of giving us the cash to support the purchase of players. "We have a stable position in terms of our ownership and our key management people which is also important from a financial perspective. "Our external term debt is now less than it's been at any time since the takeover by the Drumaville Consortium and is coming down year on year." Walton says the headline figure is misleading as much of the loss is attributed to the process of 'amortisation' of transfer fees. The outlay to acquire a player is spread each year across the term of the player's contract, after which it has zero value in the club's accounts. If the club renews a contract then it gets spread out even longer. For example, a player purchased for £4m on a four-year contract would be recorded in the accounts as costing £1m per year even though the club's may have paid all the £4m in one amount on signing. In addition, home-grown players like Jordan Henderson don't appear in the balance sheet at all! Walton explained: "When you look at the amount which is actually lost in the accounts, most of that is a result of amortisation of players. "There's a big disconnect between cash and profit. The transfer fees of many of our players appear in the last published accounts even though we paid out the cash for them some years ago" He added: "It's also important to remember when we buy players we are also buying assets. If we buy wisely then there is a good chance that they will appreciate in value. This is particularly true with a young squad. "If you look at the most recent accounts the net book value of our players was just over £50m and that was before we spent nearly £20m on Gyan and Sessegnon. By most people's reckoning, our current squad is worth substantially more than that. "You could probably get something near that figure from two or three players, never mind the entire 25-man squad." Meanwhile Walton also says that the club's income levels should ensure that the percentage of turnover taken up by wages falls in the current financial year. That marks part of a planned progression to turn a profit at the operating level and continue the encouraging trend of further reducing external debts. The continued progression of the club on the commercial side is also important to Walton, who already has a good impression of the financial picture for the next set of accounts. "The reason I'm comfortable is because I'm aware of what our figures are going to be for this financial year," he said. "The majority of the numbers are more or less cast in stone. We will be turning over more money this year because the TV deal was better and we've been doing well on the pitch. "Our wages have gone up again, but crucially the percentage of wages to turnover will decrease. "We've received some criticism for the figure being above 80% that certainly won't be the case this time. "We are going to see a journey where we've peaked in terms of the losses and are going forward reducing that loss each year. "I'm not going to say we're not going to make a loss this year because that's not practical in terms of where we are and our development. "Times are tough out there. It's important to keep the business in good health and income streams like this summer's pop concerts will help us." Sunderland are currently seventh in the Barclays Premier League, with Walton and the board working towards establishing the club as a major player in tandem with the efforts of manager Steve Bruce and his coaching staff. Chairman Niall Quinn has highlighted the importance of increased attendances; something the chief executive says would be a "great statement" to the rest of the division exemplifying the positive strides being made by the club in all areas. "I personally believe we're a top-ten club now," he said. "We've played some great football. "Our gates are marginally down, which in my mind is due to the economic climate we're all currently operating in. "They've certainly been affected less than at some of our fellow clubs and we're still seventh in the batting order of attendances in the Premier League. "Niall has been very vocal about more people coming to watch us in the stadium, and he's doing that largely from a footballing point of view because he feels passionately the team have a bigger chance of winning games with a big crowd behind them. "But from a progress point of view, a few more people coming to watch us each week will mean we'll average gates in excess of clubs like Liverpool, which would be a great statement to the football world that Sunderland is a big club which is here to stay in the upper echelons of the division. "I'm a lifelong Sunderland supporter and we all feel the same way. We never want to dream too much because we've had so many false dawns. Well I think it's time to start dreaming." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 Converting debt/loans into shares = Devaluation of the club and pissing off other shareholders. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anderson Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 Converting debt/loans into shares = Devaluation of the club and pissing off other shareholders. Does Short not have 100% ownership? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 Converting debt/loans into shares = Devaluation of the club and pissing off other shareholders. Does Short not have 100% ownership? He does, but converting loans into shares is always a show of a company performing shit as it shows the club had no chance of paying them back and does devalue the club long term. Also he's done this as well to comply with UEFA financial rules as well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anderson Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 How does converting loans to shares actually work? If Short has 100% control does it not just mean he's paying the loans off himself in a similar way to how Ashley has paid off our debts with a 'personal loan' to the club only it's been worded differently to show Short in a better light? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RiverWear Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 Bruce has done s*** for the amount of money he's spent. A lot better than Keane but tbf it wasn't hard not to. Sunderland literally have no money to spend even after Short's cashflow into the club. They'll be lucky to make top 10 next season. My first post on here, and I've got to say I disagree with you completely. Bruce has done an excellent job for us so far. The season before Bruce took over we were poor enough to be relegated in most Prem seasons, since Bruce has come in he's totally changed the club. Gone are the days when the club bough journeymen and crocks, we've got a young squad who DO play good football (bottled it against your lot twice though). I'd like to know why you think we've got nothing to spend in the summer too Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 How does converting loans to shares actually work? If Short has 100% control does it not just mean he's paying the loans off himself in a similar way to how Ashley has paid off our debts with a 'personal loan' to the club only it's been worded differently to show Short in a better light? Your right, but your issuing more and more shares to a club that is still worth £60m for example. It's a bit like qualitative easing, the Bank of England has been printing money into the economy which makes every note you earn less worthy. If sunderland continue like this they are on the road to ruin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RupertCommunicator Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 The unwashed have spent an absolute fortune to get to the midtable under Agent bruce. Now the money has dried up and they are tied to that buffoon financially, surely they are destined to plummet. I can see a return to their record breaking glory days, I really can! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
midds Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 Bruce has done s*** for the amount of money he's spent. A lot better than Keane but tbf it wasn't hard not to. Sunderland literally have no money to spend even after Short's cashflow into the club. They'll be lucky to make top 10 next season. My first post on here, and I've got to say I disagree with you completely. Bruce has done an excellent job for us so far. The season before Bruce took over we were poor enough to be relegated in most Prem seasons, since Bruce has come in he's totally changed the club. Gone are the days when the club bough journeymen and crocks, we've got a young squad who DO play good football (bottled it against your lot twice though). I'd like to know why you think we've got nothing to spend in the summer too neesy, you're getting a reputation. edit: Bruce's record P73 W24 D22 L27. Just on SSN now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest elbee909 Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 Can we make this thread a sticky that goes at the BOTTOM of the football chat page please? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Superior Acuña Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 Warning... NSFW http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3430028/Steve-Bruce-lets-it-all-hang-out-in-Barbados.html Amazing he was so recently a pro. I'd well rather shag Pardew. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anderson Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 How does converting loans to shares actually work? If Short has 100% control does it not just mean he's paying the loans off himself in a similar way to how Ashley has paid off our debts with a 'personal loan' to the club only it's been worded differently to show Short in a better light? Your right, but your issuing more and more shares to a club that is still worth £60m for example. It's a bit like qualitative easing, the Bank of England has been printing money into the economy which makes every note you earn less worthy. If sunderland continue like this they are on the road to ruin. So because Sunderland aren't a PLC and have one owner who assumes 100% control it is put simply, a personal loan that has been worded in a more fancy manner than the way Ashley does it? And the mackems fall for it as they fail to see past this fancy wording. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Wearside Posted February 26, 2011 Share Posted February 26, 2011 Bruce has done s*** for the amount of money he's spent. A lot better than Keane but tbf it wasn't hard not to. Sunderland literally have no money to spend even after Short's cashflow into the club. They'll be lucky to make top 10 next season. Honestly mate,take a look back at what you've just written and have another go,this is just embarrassing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heron Posted February 26, 2011 Share Posted February 26, 2011 Bruce has done s*** for the amount of money he's spent. A lot better than Keane but tbf it wasn't hard not to. Sunderland literally have no money to spend even after Short's cashflow into the club. They'll be lucky to make top 10 next season. Honestly mate,take a look back at what you've just written and have another go,this is just embarrassing. :lol: Not you again.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Wearside Posted February 26, 2011 Share Posted February 26, 2011 How does converting loans to shares actually work? If Short has 100% control does it not just mean he's paying the loans off himself in a similar way to how Ashley has paid off our debts with a 'personal loan' to the club only it's been worded differently to show Short in a better light? Your right, but your issuing more and more shares to a club that is still worth £60m for example. It's a bit like qualitative easing, the Bank of England has been printing money into the economy which makes every note you earn less worthy. If sunderland continue like this they are on the road to ruin. So because Sunderland aren't a PLC and have one owner who assumes 100% control it is put simply, a personal loan that has been worded in a more fancy manner than the way Ashley does it? And the mackems fall for it as they fail to see past this fancy wording. Totally and completely, utterly wrong. The money Short has written off(close to £60m at last estimates) cannot be recovered by Short,I will repeat this again,THEY CANNOT BE RECOVERED BY SHORT,this is the facts. I love the fact you are comparing Ashley to Short,it's incredible in all honesty.Mike Ashley, still at last accounts had a £111m loan that needs repaying to him from NUFC at some point,that is not just going to disappear you know and Short has no loan at all like that at SAFC. Ashley or Short...hmmmmmm it's a no brainer mate. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco Posted February 26, 2011 Share Posted February 26, 2011 If our management had an ounce of nous about them they'd have gotten Bruce in to us before the whole relegation shenanigans IMO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest VegasToon Posted February 26, 2011 Share Posted February 26, 2011 How does converting loans to shares actually work? If Short has 100% control does it not just mean he's paying the loans off himself in a similar way to how Ashley has paid off our debts with a 'personal loan' to the club only it's been worded differently to show Short in a better light? Your right, but your issuing more and more shares to a club that is still worth £60m for example. It's a bit like qualitative easing, the Bank of England has been printing money into the economy which makes every note you earn less worthy. If sunderland continue like this they are on the road to ruin. So because Sunderland aren't a PLC and have one owner who assumes 100% control it is put simply, a personal loan that has been worded in a more fancy manner than the way Ashley does it? And the mackems fall for it as they fail to see past this fancy wording. Totally and completely, utterly wrong. The money Short has written off(close to £60m at last estimates) cannot be recovered by Short,I will repeat this again,THEY CANNOT BE RECOVERED BY SHORT,this is the facts. I love the fact you are comparing Ashley to Short,it's incredible in all honesty.Mike Ashley, still at last accounts had a £111m loan that needs repaying to him from NUFC at some point,that is not just going to disappear you know and Short has no loan at all like that at SAFC. Ashley or Short...hmmmmmm it's a no brainer mate. So Short has not intention of ever getting his money back? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thespence Posted February 26, 2011 Share Posted February 26, 2011 If our management had an ounce of nous about them they'd have gotten Bruce in to us before the whole relegation shenanigans IMO. Dave Whelan may have put Brucie off Whelan — who is renaming Wigan’s ground the DW Stadium from next season after his new business venture, through which he has bought the fitness clubs from JJB, his former company — is angered by the behaviour of Ashley, who is a stakeholder in JJB and runs Sports Direct. “I don’t trust him as far as I could throw him,” Whelan said of Ashley. “He’s got what he deserved at Newcastle. Newcastle are a very big club and you don’t go in there and lower all the standards. He turns up wearing a replica top in the boardroom. No class whatsoever. The minute he arrived there and turned up in the boardroom in a replica shirt and jeans and a pair of trainers, the club was gone.” Whelan maintains that there is no chance of Bruce working for Ashley at Newcastle. “I don’t think you will ever get Steve Bruce going to a club that is run the way Mike Ashley runs it,” Whelan said. “He knows he could go and he knows he could go to Newcastle. Would he go? No chance. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts