Gus Poyet blames under-strength squad for Black Cats' struggles

Status
Not open for further replies.


weak as piss squad, very little quality - we need a mirayacle :confused:
 
wish he'd just shut the fuck up and get on with it or just resign. He will have known that we won't be tossing money around and knew the setup before hand
 
Gus you've had the largest transfer net spend of any manager since Roy Keane in 2007 - 2008. If you're squad is too thin you've only yourself to blame. You shouldn't have sanctioned the sale of Roberge, Diakite, Laing and Egan, all of whom will have been on small wages no doubt, relatively speaking. You also got the previous Director of Football the sack so you could get your own players in.

As someone above points out, you're quick to take the credit and just as quick to pass the blame.

In fact you sacked Diakite! It cost us to get rid of a defender we now so badly need!
 
Guinness Guzzler said:
What was it that @Captain_Fishpaste said after Stoke? Oh aye, that Poyet isn't easy to like and that he quickly goes into self preservation mode when things go against him. Now, I agree that the timing of the article wasn't great (since we'd just won) but at least it avoids claims of knee-jerking, after the Southampton game I think we've seen exactly why people think like that. I don't dislike Poyet, but I can't really warm to him either and he is about as bad as bruce for passing the buck (albeit all managers do it to an extent). For the record I'm glad we've got him and we should give him time, but it is a shame to see this side of him come out again
Click to expand...

Pretty much spot on mate. Stand by my assertion that Poyet is tough to like at times (that's not the same as easy to dislike, btw), and this is one of them. He can't on the one hand, complain about not being given enough defenders this summer and absolving himself from responsibility for it whilst, on the other hand, dismissing the injury to the defender he obsessed over getting, Coates, as 'unfortunate'.

I very much doubt that Lee Congerton was the one insisting we banged down Brighton's door for Buckley and Bridcutt either. No one expects him to take full responsibility and in fairness to him the Director of Football model exists to protect him more than undermine him, but it's not unreasonable to expect him to take his share.
 
the streaker said:
And on the subject of Manure it was the debt the Glazers accrued borrowing the cash to buy the club that they were able to then physically place on the clubs books once the takeover was completed.It was around £520 million but such were the interest rates that they actually rolled up debt on a couple of years onto the loan and it did reach about £700 million,you are correct in that its now come down and is about £350 million.

However they turn over monster amounts of money ( north of £400 million) have dozens upon dozens of sponsorship deals,were able to sell Ronaldo at a crucial time for £80 million and also float 10% of the club on the NY stock exchange and use some of that to pay debts off...........

Different animal to us with far more resource to sort out what were massive debts at one point..........
Click to expand...

I agree they are a different animal just the fact that they reduced the debt rather than it rising.

I just cannot accept until shown otherwise Short is losing money hand over fist, I am not bothered if he is making millions good luck to him as long as that success can be mirrored on the pitch and we can see some ambition not hear the blah blah but see the ambition.
 
Captain_Fishpaste said:
Pretty much spot on mate. Stand by my assertion that Poyet is tough to like at times (that's not the same as easy to dislike, btw), and this is one of them. He can't on the one hand, complain about not being given enough defenders this summer and absolving himself from responsibility for it whilst, on the other hand, dismissing the injury to the defender he obsessed over getting, Coates, as 'unfortunate'.

I very much doubt that Lee Congerton was the one insisting we banged down Brighton's door for Buckley and Bridcutt either. No one expects him to take full responsibility and in fairness to him the Director of Football model exists to protect him more than undermine him, but it's not unreasonable to expect him to take his share.
Click to expand...

So do I as Bridcutt was signed before Congerton joined the club ;)
 
To be fair he should embrace the situation at the club and be a leader. It will reflect positively on the team IMO.
 
Hesfords Hero said:
I agree they are a different animal just the fact that they reduced the debt rather than it rising.

I just cannot accept until shown otherwise Short is losing money hand over fist, I am not bothered if he is making millions good luck to him as long as that success can be mirrored on the pitch and we can see some ambition not hear the blah blah but see the ambition.
Click to expand...

They did let it rise at first they went a couple of years adding the interest onto the loan.......

And if post 187 doesn't show you exactly how hes been losing money hand over fist then its impossible as you must be blind mate......#


The clubs accounts show consistent losses year on year as well as the cash Short paid to acquire the club/pay off Drumavilles Debts/loans to prop it up which hes since converted into equity.............

Its extremely easy to see how hes been "losing money"

2009/10 loss £26 million (includes profit on player trading of £5.6 million)
2010/11 loss £6.2 million ( includes profit on player trading of £25.5 million)
2011/12 loss £32.3 million ( includes loss on player trading of £3 million)
2012/13 loss £13 million ( includes profit on player trading of £11 million)

And since hes been here hes put a shitload into the club http://swissramble.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/Sunderland
"Step forward, Ellis Short, the Texan billionaire president of US investment firm Lone Star Funds, who has owned the club outright since May 2009. Short cannot be accused of not putting his money where his mouth is, as by my reckoning he has injected well over £100 million into Sunderland. The accounts show that he has capitalised £67.5 million of loans (£48.5 million in 2009 and £19 million in 2010) and provided a further £28.4 million of unsecured, interest free loans with no set repayment date. That gives a total of £95.9 million of free funding, on top of the money that Short paid to acquire the club, which has not been publicly divulged, but is estimated to be in the region of £10-20 million, as well as clearing the debts of the previous owners, Drumaville2 Limited.

Bear in mind that article is three years old and I bet hes put more in since then.........

Read more: http://www.readytogo.net/smb/thread...k-cats-struggles.982495/page-10#ixzz3Gxgs6Upp
 
MKF said:
For years we've sold our best players to fund purchases of slightly worse players. It's as if the club is trying to find the minimum baseline cost for staying in the Prem. There is no ambition beyond that from what I can see. I think rather than trying to lay the blame on Congerton, Poyet is simply stating that with the funds and wage structure we have, there's a limited amount that can be done in terms of squad depth, and we will certainly never rise much above our current status because of this.
Click to expand...


Post Of The Year.

smoker said:
With some other clownshoe signing the players.
Click to expand...

I personally dont believe for one second that Bridcutt, Coates and Scocco (off the top of my head) were forced on him.

shepherd88 said:
Undermine the positive PR? the useless f***ing wankers had just been beat 8-0 and seemingly gave up. That nice bit of PR has done fuck all to wipe that performance from the record books.
Click to expand...

Well said Shep son. I wasnt there but if I was I wouldnt accept the refund. I wouldnt let them buy their shame back at any price.
 
Last edited:
the streaker said:
They did let it rise at first they went a couple of years adding the interest onto the loan.......

And if post 187 doesn't show you exactly how hes been losing money hand over fist then its impossible as you must be blind mate......#


The clubs accounts show consistent losses year on year as well as the cash Short paid to acquire the club/pay off Drumavilles Debts/loans to prop it up which hes since converted into equity.............

Its extremely easy to see how hes been "losing money"

2009/10 loss £26 million (includes profit on player trading of £5.6 million)
2010/11 loss £6.2 million ( includes profit on player trading of £25.5 million)
2011/12 loss £32.3 million ( includes loss on player trading of £3 million)
2012/13 loss £13 million ( includes profit on player trading of £11 million)

And since hes been here hes put a shitload into the club http://swissramble.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/Sunderland
"Step forward, Ellis Short, the Texan billionaire president of US investment firm Lone Star Funds, who has owned the club outright since May 2009. Short cannot be accused of not putting his money where his mouth is, as by my reckoning he has injected well over £100 million into Sunderland. The accounts show that he has capitalised £67.5 million of loans (£48.5 million in 2009 and £19 million in 2010) and provided a further £28.4 million of unsecured, interest free loans with no set repayment date. That gives a total of £95.9 million of free funding, on top of the money that Short paid to acquire the club, which has not been publicly divulged, but is estimated to be in the region of £10-20 million, as well as clearing the debts of the previous owners, Drumaville2 Limited.

Bear in mind that article is three years old and I bet hes put more in since then.........

Read more: http://www.readytogo.net/smb/thread...k-cats-struggles.982495/page-10#ixzz3Gxgs6Upp
Click to expand...

Apologies I never saw the post 187 for some reason.

I cannot argue with the accounts that show a loss so on the face of it the club is losing money which Short is a director of, but is Short losing money.

He has a few investment companies and while we we never see or know I would like to know what he has paid himself from the club, what his expenses were claimed and if the club had been dealing with any of his companies as this would then give you a good indication of what has been taken out of the club by Short and you can really determine what is happening as I would struggle to believe he that he is running the club for free.

The club reporting a loss of a controlled amount of money does not necessarily mean Short is losing money.
 
Hesfords Hero said:
Apologies I never saw the post 187 for some reason.

I cannot argue with the accounts that show a loss so on the face of it the club is losing money which Short is a director of, but is Short losing money.

He has a few investment companies and while we we never see or know I would like to know what he has paid himself from the club, what his expenses were claimed and if the club had been dealing with any of his companies as this would then give you a good indication of what has been taken out of the club by Short and you can really determine what is happening as I would struggle to believe he that he is running the club for free.

The club reporting a loss of a controlled amount of money does not necessarily mean Short is losing money.
Click to expand...

Short is more than a Director he is the sole owner so who do you thinks been putting the cash in..............and he pays himself bugger all for the priviledge..........

Hes taken sod all out of the club and the accounts state quite clearly that the Directors of Safc consider it to be viable as on ongoing business thanks to the support of the parent Sunderland ltd of which Short is sole shareholder and director...........
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top