KLD speaks-promotion is "an absolute nescessity"



kildaremackem said:
if he did it in the mail people on here would whine about him being interviwed in a "right wing" newspaper and how out of touch with SAFC fan base that is because SAFC is located in a left wing region or some gubbins..

the FT is very anti-brexit and sunderland voted for brexit..so I can see why its not the most read paper in sunderland..but the article isnt for the fans..its for KLD to send his mam to show he is doing soemthing with his life,..an dto have somehting high up on google if he decides to get a job in future...
Click to expand...

Yep pretty much really, and then if he done a left wing paper he'd be 'woke'. It's just not worth it, not to mention he'll accidently blurt something out like we'll get 100 points next season and then it'll be used against him constantly. Must admit, if I was the owner of a football club, I'd never engage with the fans bar the odd statement if we got promoted, got relegated or won a cup or something important - just not worth the hassle.
 
Football Dinosaur said:
Thats not true. All you can do as a club is make sure your as strong as you can possibly be. Let others worry about themselves. We've seen first hand that not all teams coming down do well.

We're not going up due to the deficiencies in our own side.
Click to expand...
but we knew that three teams had budgets this season of multiples not just of sunderlands budget but of sunderlands asset value as a club
 
Football Dinosaur said:
We had by far the biggest budget in league one, and scraped up via the play offs after 4 years. Theres a list of teams who've blown their budgets in Championship. SAFC being one of them.
Click to expand...
ys but it was very unlikely that all three that came down-because of the sqauds they had when coming down..were going to have a lot of money..
 
kildaremackem said:
ys but it was very unlikely that all three that came down-because of the sqauds they had when coming down..were going to have a lot of money..
Click to expand...
They came down as they weren't good enough. They've made changes, all three of them and been successful That could easily have gone the other way, see Norwich and Watford as most recent examples. A team doesn't go up as its not good enough, can't blame Leicester for our transfer policy.
 
Football Dinosaur said:
They came down as they weren't good enough. They've made changes, all three of them and been successful That could easily have gone the other way, see Norwich and Watford as most recent examples. A team doesn't go up as its not good enough, can't blame Leicester for our transfer policy.
Click to expand...
leicester and southampton in particualr, had far far better sqauds than nprwhich or watford..
when they knew they were coming down...Leicester knew they could sell maddison for big money and that tielmas-a very high earner-would be leaving..that immediately gave them huge head room financially almost regardless of what else happened..and every other club knew that..

southampton knew they could sell the full back livremento? and ward prowse for good money and thats their funding sorted..
and everyone knew that..

of copurse they could then have squandered their huge stash of cash..but the chances of noth of those and leeds all doing it were remote..
 
kildaremackem said:
leicester and southampton in particualr, had far far better sqauds than nprwhich or watford..
when they knew they were coming down...Leicester knew they could sell maddison for big money and that tielmas-a very high earner-would be leaving..that immediately gave them huge head room financially almost regardless of what else happened..and every other club knew that..

southampton knew they could sell the full back livremento? and ward prowse for good money and thats their funding sorted..
and everyone knew that..

of copurse they could then have squandered their huge stash of cash..but the chances of noth of those and leeds all doing it were remote..
Click to expand...
That gave them money, not players. They still needed to spend it, I've just shown how teams with money don't always succeed. Explain how these clubs are to blame for SAFC not having experienced central midfielder or any competent Strikers. We're nit going up as we've nit done enough.
 
Football Dinosaur said:
That gave them money, not players. They still needed to spend it, I've just shown how teams with money don't always succeed. Explain how these clubs are to blame for SAFC not having experienced central midfielder or any competent Strikers. We're nit going up as we've nit done enough.
Click to expand...
oh of course safc made a rod for their own back by not signing a better striker..
but the point is we couldnt have signed as good a striker as leicester or leeds or southampton did..mostly because in the case of two of thsoe..leicester and southampton,..they already had superb championshp level ones in house..
while leeds could use the money from a player sale to buy prioe who is bvery proven and who SAFC couldnt compete for..

so while SAFC could have signed better players..they couldnt have signed better than what those three had..to a large extent because those three already employed much better players at this level than SAFC could have..
 
kildaremackem said:
oh of course safc made a rod for their own back by not signing a better striker..
but the point is we couldnt have signed as good a striker as leicester or leeds or southampton did..mostly because in the case of two of thsoe..leicester and southampton,..they already had superb championshp level ones in house..
while leeds could use the money from a player sale to buy prioe who is bvery proven and who SAFC couldnt compete for..

so while SAFC could have signed better players..they couldnt have signed better than what those three had..to a large extent because those three already employed much better players at this level than SAFC could have..
Click to expand...
Again none of this explains our transfer policy. Because a side is good on paper doesn't translate to a match day. If people give up before a ball is kicked the game is done for. We had premier league players in league one and didn't walk the division. Your argument is flawed.
MurtonMark said:
Buying shares isn’t investing in the club. That money didn’t go in to the clubs bank account. It went to Stewart Donald and Charlie Methven.
Click to expand...
Think he was investing in Donald. As all world class business people are minded to do ;)
 
Football Dinosaur said:
Again none of this explains our transfer policy. Because a side is good on paper doesn't translate to a match day. If people give up before a ball is kicked the game is done for. We had premier league players in league one and didn't walk the division. Your argument is flawed.
Click to expand...
but the difference is not simply that southampton looked "good on paper" as you say that can be meianingless in a new league..its that they have players experienced in the championship and successful in it..
and sold a few who werent that..
MurtonMark said:
Buying shares isn’t investing in the club. That money didn’t go in to the clubs bank account. It went to Stewart Donald and Charlie Methven.
Click to expand...
it is investing in the club in the sense that the money is being staked on the club..yeah the money doesnt go to the club..but it is an investment..he bought the club to get a return in future,...and has spunked millions into it since..
 
Last edited:
kildaremackem said:
but the difference is not simply that southampton looked "good on paper" as you say that can be meianingless in a new league..its that they have players experienced in the championship and successful in it..
and sold a few who werent that..

it is investing in the club in the sense that the money is being staked on the club..yeah the money doesnt go to the club..but it is an investment..he bought the club to get a return in future,...and has spunked millions into it since..
Click to expand...
You've chosen the wrong example. Southampton have some experience in this league but its not filled with Championship players. Its a mix, much as our was. They arent' certain for promotion and a properly resourced SAFC is tough to stop once it gets going.
 
Football Dinosaur said:
You've chosen the wrong example. Southampton have some experience in this league but its not filled with Championship players. Its a mix, much as our was. They arent' certain for promotion and a properly resourced SAFC is tough to stop once it gets going.
Click to expand...
a properly resourced SAFC would be much much less recourcefd than a properly resourced southampton with parachute money and £100mn of players to sell..
OK lets use the other example..Leiester...they had both championship experince..and non championship experience..they also had money from player sales and parachute money..
so even if safc idenitfied the same players as leciester or southampton..there is no way to compete with them financially..BUT deeper than that...southampton didnt really need to idenifty many new players for this league..in armstrong and adams they havee two of the better strikers in this league before they go anywhere else..and they werent selling themt o us..

Leeds had laods of players with championship experience and still do..they identified the player they meeded piroe..but agian because they were not spending the owners money but rather the clubs own money from player sales..SAFC had no chance to compete for that player..
 
kildaremackem said:
a properly resourced SAFC would be much much less recourcefd than a properly resourced southampton with parachute money and £100mn of players to sell..
OK lets use the other example..Leiester...they had both championship experince..and non championship experience..they also had money from player sales and parachute money..
so even if safc idenitfied the same players as leciester or southampton..there is no way to compete with them financially..BUT deeper than that...southampton didnt really need to idenifty many new players for this league..in armstrong and adams they havee two of the better strikers in this league before they go anywhere else..and they werent selling themt o us..

Leeds had laods of players with championship experience and still do..they identified the player they meeded piroe..but agian because they were not spending the owners money but rather the clubs own money from player sales..SAFC had no chance to compete for that player..
Click to expand...
Please show me where I've posted £100 millions need to be spent. According to transfer market website none of the relegated sides have paid more than £44 million this summer. We didn't need those sums, we did need to spend more on wages that we;re doing but we'll not do that as it breaks the player farm model.
 
Football Dinosaur said:
Please show me where I've posted £100 millions need to be spent. According to transfer market website none of the relegated sides have paid more than £44 million this summer. We didn't need those sums, we did need to spend more on wages that we;re doing but we'll not do that as it breaks the player farm model.
Click to expand...
thats my point,,they didnt need to spend £100mn in most cases because they already had proven championship players and were able to keep them and pay their wages (theres the parachute money being spent)
For SAFC to compete would have requied spending to get a team as good as the opne southampton would have had if they jsut sold players and didnt buy any..for example,,if they had sold those they sold but kept armstrong..
Or if leeds had not signed piroe but kept somervile..
they could spend to enhance already good sqauds..SAFC didnt come into the season with a good sqaud..because two of the nest players we had last season..stewart and amad were gone..
 

Back
Top