Sunderland

[Ashley17]

How can a club get paid all that TV money and be skint?

[Pilko]

So they've spent all the money too soon... on pointless, expensive things... and left with a load of garbage?

 

 

 

[Ashley17]

So they've spent all the money too soon... on pointless, expensive things... and left with a load of garbage?

 

 

 

 

Got to love a Pilko Simpsons reference

[WarrenBartonCentrePartin]

How the fuck are they skint?

 

They haven't exactly spent megabucks. Even in 2013 when they signed about 90 new players, none of them cost that much. Can only assume they're paying a lot of them silly money.

[brummie]

I wonder if what Sunderland are going through money-wise with Ellis Short mirrors what we went through when Randy Lerner lost interest.

 

Say what you like about Abrahmovich - and there are lots of unpleasant things to be said on that score, on issues way more important than football - but he has at least remained committed both mentally and financially.

 

Lerner found something more interesting to do and just totally dropped interest. I wonder if Short is doing the same?

[xLiaaamx]

How the f*** are they skint?

 

They haven't exactly spent megabucks. Even in 2013 when they signed about 90 new players, none of them cost that much. Can only assume they're paying a lot of them silly money.

Sacking Managers and all the staff and paying new signing on fees is a costly business

[Wallsendmag]

How the f*** are they skint?

 

They haven't exactly spent megabucks. Even in 2013 when they signed about 90 new players, none of them cost that much. Can only assume they're paying a lot of them silly money.

 

They've paid off more managers in the last 4/5 years than any other club, they've signed a load of has been players on massive wages who are worthless and despite them crowing about their amazing attendances they generate the lowest revenue per seat in the league (around 15 quid iirc when most other clubs are generating twice that and more) so their big pink stadium isn't any use to them either.

[Dave]

How the fuck are they skint?

 

They haven't exactly spent megabucks. Even in 2013 when they signed about 90 new players, none of them cost that much. Can only assume they're paying a lot of them silly money.

 

You never bought anything from Interflora like?

[Beren]

They can no longer pay for trade waste to be collected from the Stadium of Light apparently, which is why there's always so much garbage flying around the pitch and trying to defend.

[Stifler]

I wonder if what Sunderland are going through money-wise with Ellis Short mirrors what we went through when Randy Lerner lost interest.

 

Say what you like about Abrahmovich - and there are lots of unpleasant things to be said on that score, on issues way more important than football - but he has at least remained committed both mentally and financially.

 

Lerner found something more interesting to do and just totally dropped interest. I wonder if Short is doing the same?

In my opinion Short never had an interest in Sunderland. He was able to pick them up fairly cheaply and knew he would make his money back pretty much straight away with minimal investment. That's all he has done, as much ash Ashley gets stick for not investing in us and pocketing the money, it seems that Short does the same with them. They have brought in loan after loan to keep them going, outlays don't generally seem to be huge when they come along and they have received decent money in the past for players, Gyan, Bent, etc.

 

Sunderland fans haven't realised this though, worryingly for them neither have the media. Ashley gets a lot of stick for how he manages us, and quite rightly, however from time to time we do spend money, yes we get bargains but we go for the right players most of the time. At Sunderland there is non of that, it's a case of bringing in loan players or signing up players who have connections to their DOF who uses to be an agent. Manager wise they have no plan at all. All they do is jump from one manager to the next, hoping they make a steady choice. This summer was a big indication of their ambition. Advocat said he never wanted to stay, then he said he would stay for 1 season. Any decent club would have turned around and went for a more long term option.

Now the club are in a position of not being able to sell the club to players who they want to bring in or already have. How can you get a player to commit when in a year's time you will have a new manager who may want different players at the club?

 

Sunderland fans need a moment like we have had, a time when they step up and realise enough is enough, the problem is though they will only point the finger to the manager and not higher up.

[Varadi]

Haven't they been losing money for years, with Short's cash injections the only reason they're still solvent?

 

the last time that the club made a profit was way back in 2006. Since then they have accumulated total losses before tax of £145 million, averaging £18 million a season.

 

Since 2007 Sunderland have made net cash payments of £144 million on players, invested £10 million in new assets and made £21 million of interest payments on loans. This has been largely funded by £132 million of borrowings either from the owner or a bank loan guaranteed by the owner. As Margaret Byrne put it: “Because we’re not producing profits, every time we buy a player, Ellis (Short) is virtually buying that player for the club himself. We’re really lucky to have his backing and support.”

 

Debt has risen by £15 million from £79 million to £94 million following a similar increase in the owner loans to £28 million. The majority of the debt is external with an overdraft of £39 million (under-written by Ellis Short) and a bank loan of £28 million (secured on the stadium, interest at LIBOR plus 3%). The bank loan was repayable on August 2014 and has since been refinanced.

 

Something needs to be done to reduce the club’s reliance on Ellis Short, who has owned the club outright since May 2009, since when he has injected nearly £130 million of free funding into Sunderland. The accounts show that he has capitalised around £100 million of loans (£48.5 million in 2009, £19.0 million in 2010 and £33.4 million in 2013) and provided a further £27.7 million of unsecured, interest free loans with no set repayment date.

 

http://swissramble.blogspot.it/2015/03/sunderland-distant-sun.html

 

No surprise if he's just got sick of pumping money in each year and they're still shite.

[sempuki]

Chances of Dick being booted out before the derby and us facing yet another new manager bounce?

[Klaus]

If he doesn't last the season man, after they begged him and his wife to stay 

[Sho Time]

Chances of Dick being booted out before the derby and us facing yet another new manager bounce?

 

Nailed on, I said it as soon as he was appointed. They're so small-time and pathetic man.

 

"It's ok to be shit marras cos if we beat the jawdees the fans will love us and forgive all" (apart from the next game when they walk out at half-time when we're 4-0 down)

[Unbelievable]

Haven't they been losing money for years, with Short's cash injections the only reason they're still solvent?

 

the last time that the club made a profit was way back in 2006. Since then they have accumulated total losses before tax of £145 million, averaging £18 million a season.

 

Since 2007 Sunderland have made net cash payments of £144 million on players, invested £10 million in new assets and made £21 million of interest payments on loans. This has been largely funded by £132 million of borrowings either from the owner or a bank loan guaranteed by the owner. As Margaret Byrne put it: “Because we’re not producing profits, every time we buy a player, Ellis (Short) is virtually buying that player for the club himself. We’re really lucky to have his backing and support.”

 

Debt has risen by £15 million from £79 million to £94 million following a similar increase in the owner loans to £28 million. The majority of the debt is external with an overdraft of £39 million (under-written by Ellis Short) and a bank loan of £28 million (secured on the stadium, interest at LIBOR plus 3%). The bank loan was repayable on August 2014 and has since been refinanced.

 

Something needs to be done to reduce the club’s reliance on Ellis Short, who has owned the club outright since May 2009, since when he has injected nearly £130 million of free funding into Sunderland. The accounts show that he has capitalised around £100 million of loans (£48.5 million in 2009, £19.0 million in 2010 and £33.4 million in 2013) and provided a further £27.7 million of unsecured, interest free loans with no set repayment date.

 

http://swissramble.blogspot.it/2015/03/sunderland-distant-sun.html

 

No surprise if he's just got sick of pumping money in each year and they're still s****.

 

 

Situation with Ashley is completely incomparable in terms of what Short has put into the club and what Ashley has taken out (in "free" advertising). They're running each other very close for cluelessness when it comes to football to be fair.

[Dokko]

They could possibly be fucked. Dick is about to walk if he doesn't get more players and not even flowers will save them this time. Defoe wants out, they've no money and their usual get out of jail card in us looks a more difficult occasion under smc.

 

It really could be the year they go.

[Ikon]

They are going down!

[Sima]

They could possibly be fucked. Dick is about to walk if he doesn't get more players and not even flowers will save them this time. Defoe wants out, they've no money and their usual get out of jail card in us looks a more difficult occasion under smc.

 

It really could be the year they go.

 

Nah, they'll still beat us home and away.

[Disco]

Selling Defoe, who is finished and on a ludicrous contract, isn't the end of the world like. Doesn't fit in the way they want to play (lone striker) anyway.

[brummie]

Selling Defoe would actually be a wise move.

 

That contract he is on is fucking absurd at his age. If they can get someone to drag them out of that particular fire by buying him, they should snap their hands off.

[lovejoy]

micky gray on talksport now, calling ellis short a liar.

 

ouch.

[xLiaaamx]

Selling Defoe, who is finished and on a ludicrous contract, isn't the end of the world like. Doesn't fit in the way they want to play (lone striker) anyway.

 

It's the fact Danny Graham is pretty much going to be starting  :mike:

[Dr Venkman]

Not surprised at all that they're skint. Bruce started the big wages for past it players and for some reason they've just kept doing it.

[Teasy]

Always thought the Defoe deal was a bit of a ridiculous one.  Still who else really offers any kind of goal threat for them?  I suppose if they can get rid of him and replace him with someone better/younger it may be a good move, but I really doubt they'll get much of a fee if any for Defoe.  He'll be 33 pretty soon.

[geordiesteve710]

Always thought the Defoe deal was a bit of a ridiculous one.  Still who else really offers any kind of goal threat for them?  I suppose if they can get rid of him and replace him with someone better/younger it may be a good move, but I really doubt they'll get much of a fee if any for Defoe.  He'll be 33 pretty soon.

 

The Defoe deal viewed in isolation is horrific, however bear in mind the context that it was a direct swap with Altidore who was fucking hopeless and cost only £20k extra a week extra, it does represent making the best of a shitty situation. Plus, the paltry amount of goals he did score were probably the difference in them stopping up (and claimed a win in their cup final vs us which is worth his weight in gold to them) and financially it's probably worked out for them. Especially if they've found some nuggets willing to take him off their wage bill now before his decline really hits.

 

The problem as stated by others above will be selling the club to the top notch striker they would need to replace him and Wickham in the squad. I've no doubt Short would find the money, but they're a shambles already, looking set for a season of struggle, manager only here for a year etc.