sunderland

[Kid Icarus]

5 minutes ago, RS said:

One mackem joins and this forum drops into RTG levels of patter. Tragic. 
 

Aye, it's mad watching these interactions in real time and seeing some people start from a point of disdain towards someone and then work from there, rather than how you would in real life and just taking people as they come.

 

 

Edited January 9, 2023 by Kid Icarus

[TeddySAFC]

1 minute ago, Wandy said:

 

He still didn't have to write that debt off. He could have truly "let you rot" in the lower leagues for a generation but instead he accepted that he had fucked up and just cut his losses to get out of town, but also let you recover more quickly. Do you think Mike Ashley would have wrote off £200m+ plus in debt if he owned you?

 

Short was a poor owner in terms of making some rotten footballing decisions but financially he was incredibly generous. The trouble with SAFC fans is they paint Short as an appalling owner and pin all of the club's failures from 2017 onwards directly onto him, when the truth is that the fanbase played a massive part in the malaise by demanding a manager should be sacked every 9 months. And 6 years on that same fanbase are still doing that shit. It's never about them though.

What an absolute load of rubbish man.

 

Ellis Short got bored of the club and admitted defeat in looking to spend his way to success. He lost complete control and shifted all footballing and financial decisions to a variety of different chief executives to the point he hadn't even spoke to Chris Coleman when he was appointed manager or throughout his entire tenure.

 

I think most Sunderland fans understand Short had the best intentions of the club from the off but it turned sour as he gave up all interest. 

 

Your last paragraph is utter garbage by the way and an assumption that gets tossed around by numerous Newcastle fans about previous managers.

[GWN]

[Lazarus]

6 minutes ago, TeddySAFC said:

It's not about how much you spend but how you spend it though isn't it?

 

Thats very true but you wouldstill be looking at a considerable outlay.

[GWN]

1 minute ago, TeddySAFC said:

What an absolute load of rubbish man.

 

Ellis Short got bored of the club and admitted defeat in looking to spend his way to success. He lost complete control and shifted all footballing and financial decisions to a variety of different chief executives to the point he hadn't even spoke to Chris Coleman when he was appointed manager or throughout his entire tenure.

 

I think most Sunderland fans understand Short had the best intentions of the club from the off but it turned sour as he gave up all interest. 

 

Your last paragraph is utter garbage by the way and an assumption that gets tossed around by numerous Newcastle fans about previous managers.

 

Go look on RTG , the hounding was strong .

[Conjo]

13 minutes ago, Lazarus said:

My worry for champo clubs is the spending needed as the gulf in quality between that and the PL is huge.

 

Forest spent what was it?? £150m plus on 20+ players but theyre only 3 points from 2nd bottom.

 

Weve spent more than double that but the game against sheff weds has highlighted that our options outside of the 1st team are poor.

 

If you look at the current bottom 3, do any champo clubs have better squads?

 

Don't know enough to say who has the best squad, but Burnley looked like the PL team against Bournemouth who played their first team in the FA cup this weekend.

[TeddySAFC]

4 minutes ago, GWN said:

to a degree, until you need quality. You can’t go on hoping to squeezing into a play  off place with loanees and kids . Whilst I agree the model is an admiral way of doing it money talks as ever and you lot will  be years off being able to compete in the PL. 

 

Glad you won at the weekend by the way . 

We only now have two loanees and one hardly plays by the way..

 

We have a blueprint of signing younger players (I think there's a cap of signing anyone over 25) by purchasing them from clubs where they are finding it difficult for regular first team game time. I guess the hope then is we develop them to be able to sell them on for big fees which we can then reinvest and continue to build the club.

 

It will take a while but I have no doubt we have already acquired some players who will go for big money in the next 3-5 years.

[TeddySAFC]

2 minutes ago, GWN said:

 

Go look on RTG , the hounding was strong .

Ah, RTG, The voice of reason for all of Sunderland. It's full of absolute knackers that probably don't even go to the games man.

[Wandy]

2 minutes ago, TeddySAFC said:

What an absolute load of rubbish man.

 

Ellis Short got bored of the club and admitted defeat in looking to spend his way to success. He lost complete control and shifted all footballing and financial decisions to a variety of different chief executives to the point he hadn't even spoke to Chris Coleman when he was appointed manager or throughout his entire tenure.

 

I think most Sunderland fans understand Short had the best intentions of the club from the off but it turned sour as he gave up all interest. 

 

Your last paragraph is utter garbage by the way and an assumption that gets tossed around by numerous Newcastle fans about previous managers.

 

The truth hurts doesn't it. 

 

Short didn't "get bored". He realised that he couldn't keep pissing money away on a lost cause so stopped propping SAFC up. Once the club had to start standing on it's own two feet the decline quickly kicked in.

 

Your fans are still demanding a manager gets sacked as soon as a bad run of results happens. Seven managers in less than six seasons since May 2017 speaks for itself.

[TeddySAFC]

4 minutes ago, Wandy said:

 

The truth hurts doesn't it. 

 

Short didn't "get bored". He realised that he couldn't keep pissing money away on a lost cause so stopped propping SAFC up. Once the club had to start standing on it's own two feet the decline quickly kicked in.

 

Your fans are still demanding a manager gets sacked as soon as a bad run of results happens. Seven managers in less than six seasons since May 2017 speaks for itself.

Oh and who's faults that then, the tea ladies? 

 

As for the managers, take a look at the return on the managers results and you will see exactly why they were sacked.

 

You are talking complete bollocks.

 

 

 

Edited January 9, 2023 by TeddySAFC

[SEMTEX]

10 minutes ago, Conjo said:

 

Don't know enough to say who has the best squad, but Burnley looked like the PL team against Bournemouth who played their first team in the FA cup this weekend.

 

Aye, all I saw was MOTD highlights but they looked pretty class.

 

Also, not sure we can use Forest's spending as an example of how much you need to spend to stay up. I think spending a few quid is generally required, but there is far more to it than the amount you spend.

[Conjo]

3 minutes ago, Wandy said:

Your fans are still demanding a manager gets sacked as soon as a bad run of results happens. Seven managers in less than six seasons since May 2017 speaks for itself.

 

Just look at some of the comments to Howe's team selection against Sheffield Wednesday.  Guarantee you a sizable portion of our fan base will be calling for him to be sacked if we finish below 6th this season. We also had, counting from Souness until Pardew, 5 managers hounded out and 5 caretakers in a 5 year period as well.

[pinkeye]

6 minutes ago, TeddySAFC said:

We only now have two loanees and one hardly plays by the way..

 

We have a blueprint of signing younger players (I think there's a cap of signing anyone over 25) by purchasing them from clubs where they are finding it difficult for regular first team game time. I guess the hope then is we develop them to be able to sell them on for big fees which we can then reinvest and continue to build the club.

 

It will take a while but I have no doubt we have already acquired some players who will go for big money in the next 3-5 years.

 

 

This Blueprint feels familiar....  very similar to the Mike Ashley school of owning and operating a football club, buy low sell high.  That sounds like it should be the perfect solution to developing a solid and financially sound football club but, the truth of it was that it was a disaster.  All the time your club is out searching for undiscovered gems and young players with huge prospects the rest of the league is buying established players who can hit the ground running and take that club forwards.  For every one gem that is found there are many duds that do not work out.

 

We also both suffer from a geographical disadvantage, no matter how you dress it up the North East is not as attractive as London, the South in general and the North West.  This will always be the case, maybe we can compensate this with a nice financial package to potential players but, there is no way to do this on the cheap!

[Lazarus]

Ill shurrup then

[Wandy]

1 minute ago, TeddySAFC said:

Oh and who's faults that then, the tea ladies? 

 

As for the managers, take a look at the return on the managers results and you will see exactly why they were sacked.

 

You are talking complete bollocks.

 

Like I say, the truth hurts.  How many other clubs have such a high managerial turnover then?

 

Blame Short all you want, but the managers he appointed were all approved by the fanbase at the time. Same with the players bought too.

 

And the "fault" lies partially with SAFC fans themselves. The simple fact is that a proportion of Sunderland's support don't seem to want to pay for tickets. And it's still a problem, as the club continues to artificially hike up attendance numbers.

 

 

[GWN]

14 minutes ago, TeddySAFC said:

Ah, RTG, The voice of reason for all of Sunderland. It's full of absolute knackers that probably don't even go to the games man.

 

Fair enough. 

[TeddySAFC]

Just now, Conjo said:

 

Just look at some of the comments to Howe's team selection against Sheffield Wednesday.  Guarantee you a sizable portion of our fan base will be calling for him to be sacked if we finish below 6th this season. We also had, counting from Souness until Pardew, 5 managers hounded out and 5 caretakers in a 5 year period as well.

I would be interested to see who he would have kept had positions been reversed by the way.

 

Moyes left after relegation

Grayson won 3 games out of 18 in the new Championship season

Coleman was let go after relegation again where he won 5 games in 29

Ross was probably the best we had in L1 until Neil but ultimately didn't get promoted in two seasons and lost both games he had at Wembley

Johnson played canny football but we were never going up with him which coincided with a 6-0 drubbing off Bolton in League One and left us well outside any chance of automatics, Neil came in and got us up so the decision to get rid was justified by KLD.

Neil left on his own accord

 

Not sure how that is hounding managers out 

[GWN]

4 minutes ago, Wandy said:

 

Like I say, the truth hurts.  How many other clubs have such a high managerial turnover then?

 

Blame Short all you want, but the managers he appointed were all approved by the fanbase at the time. Same with the players bought too.

 

And the "fault" lies partially with SAFC fans themselves. The simple fact is that a proportion of Sunderland's support don't seem to want to pay for tickets. And it's still a problem, as the club continues to artificially hike up attendance numbers.

 

 

 

TBF they report ticket sales as we all do mate 

[Wandy]

3 minutes ago, Conjo said:

 

Just look at some of the comments to Howe's team selection against Sheffield Wednesday.  Guarantee you a sizable portion of our fan base will be calling for him to be sacked if we finish below 6th this season. We also had, counting from Souness until Pardew, 5 managers hounded out and 5 caretakers in a 5 year period as well.

 

The only managers that NUFC fans have hounded out in the last 20 years have been Allardyce, Pardew & Bruce. 

[TeddySAFC]

8 minutes ago, pinkeye said:

 

 

This Blueprint feels familiar....  very similar to the Mike Ashley school of owning and operating a football club, buy low sell high.  That sounds like it should be the perfect solution to developing a solid and financially sound football club but, the truth of it was that it was a disaster.  All the time your club is out searching for undiscovered gems and young players with huge prospects the rest of the league is buying established players who can hit the ground running and take that club forwards.  For every one gem that is found there are many duds that do not work out.

 

We also both suffer from a geographical disadvantage, no matter how you dress it up the North East is not as attractive as London, the South in general and the North West.  This will always be the case, maybe we can compensate this with a nice financial package to potential players but, there is no way to do this on the cheap!

Maybe so, my concern is also flogging every player we receive decent money for, So the proof will the in the pudding, As I said earlier in the thread, the new ownership structure and appointments are positive and they have done nothing wrong so far, so for me they get a thumbs up to keep cracking on as they are.

 

 

Edited January 9, 2023 by TeddySAFC

[TeddySAFC]

7 minutes ago, Wandy said:

 

Like I say, the truth hurts.  How many other clubs have such a high managerial turnover then?

 

Blame Short all you want, but the managers he appointed were all approved by the fanbase at the time. Same with the players bought too.

 

And the "fault" lies partially with SAFC fans themselves. The simple fact is that a proportion of Sunderland's support don't seem to want to pay for tickets. And it's still a problem, as the club continues to artificially hike up attendance numbers.

 

 

What a bizarre take on things, You really do have some weird agenda.

 

 

Edited January 9, 2023 by TeddySAFC

[Conjo]

1 minute ago, pinkeye said:

This Blueprint feels familiar....  very similar to the Mike Ashley school of owning and operating a football club, buy low sell high.  That sounds like it should be the perfect solution to developing a solid and financially sound football club but, the truth of it was that it was a disaster.  All the time your club is out searching for undiscovered gems and young players with huge prospects the rest of the league is buying established players who can hit the ground running and take that club forwards.  For every one gem that is found there are many duds that do not work out.

 

Buy low sell high is something most clubs do. Works for some, not for others. Again it comes down to management, scouting, training etc. to make sure you have the best opportunity possible to replace a valuable asset with someone with the potential to be as good or better. You won't achieve that with how Ashley ran the club with basically one scout & Charnley running the show. Look at Benfica, Porto, Brentford, Brighton as successful examples. Difference from them to us under Ashley is that they are willing to spend more than a pack of gum and a few pennies on the back room staff.

[RUHRLYASLEEVESUP]

2 minutes ago, Wandy said:

 

The only managers that NUFC fans have hounded out in the last 20 years have been Allardyce, Pardew & Bruce. 

All of which were warranted 

[Wallsendmag]

54 minutes ago, madras said:

Prepared fair enough but  FFP means we can only spend what we create and right now we are nowhere near Chelsea, the Manchester clubs, Liverpool so we could be potentially the richest for all we have the richest owners.

 

The Ashley bit was just to say rich owners don't necessarily mean rich clubs.

 

 

 

 

There are certain ways around it. For example the prize money we reportedly won for winning that tournament in Saudi was just obscene, but clearly we won't be able to do what Man City have done, or Chelsea before them.

[Wandy]

Just now, TeddySAFC said:

What a bizarre take on things, You really have some weird agenda.

 

It's not an agenda at all, it's looking at plain facts. If you can't see that going through so many managers in such a short space of time is not a worrying statistic then there's nothing more that I can say.