• The first stage of the forum upgrades has now been completed but they remain in a degraded state and are still being worked on. Normal posting/reading should now be possible.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

Takeover talks not going great

Status
Not open for further replies.
WHD said:
We're going down this season not through lack of investment , but inept management.
Click to expand...

f***ing hell this is the stupidest post on this forum in history (and you'd set that bar low).

This year we spent 3% of what the average of clubs who went down over the last 2 years spent.

Villa £76m
Newcastle £57m
Middlesbrough £50m
Norwich £24m
Hull £18m
Sunderland £1.25m

Clubs that go down have parachute payments because inevitably, they have a bloated squad and Premier League infrastructures. In our case, we had a bunch of players who were past being effective in the Championship, let alone the Premier League. We compounded this in the summer by giving Grayson a fraction of what even the Hull manager got to try and reshape the squad.

You are completely wrong if you think we aren't going down because of a lack of investment. It dictates everything about the types of players who both stayed unnecessarily (O'Shea, Gibson, Jones etc) because Grayson needed bodies, and in turn it dictated that Coleman wasn't able to build a squad, but had to loan whoever was available for literal bodies.
 

Said it all along the takeover rumours are just that, Short will pull the plug in in the summer of 2020 when the last telly payment comes in. Why would anyone buy the club now in two years you'll be able to buy it for pennies.

We are a long way off hitting rock bottom
 
willo said:
I’ve said all along the only way we get new owners involves Administration. There is no way anyone is coming into take a league one club over with £100m of debt.
Click to expand...

The debt actually isn’t that bad. We owe c69m to SBC, but there is a 20m bond on the loan - therefore we are looking at c49m. Now given the fact we can expect to receive money for Borini and co, a slight cash injection from new ownership would mean we can refinance the debt.
 
KittenMittens said:
f***ing hell this is the stupidest post on this forum in history (and you'd set that bar low).

This year we spent 3% of what the average of clubs who went down over the last 2 years spent.

Villa £76m
Newcastle £57m
Middlesbrough £50m
Norwich £24m
Hull £18m
Sunderland £1.25m

Clubs that go down have parachute payments because inevitably, they have a bloated squad and Premier League infrastructures. In our case, we had a bunch of players who were past being effective in the Championship, let alone the Premier League. We compounded this in the summer by giving Grayson a fraction of what even the Hull manager got to try and reshape the squad.

You are completely wrong if you think we aren't going down because of a lack of investment. It dictates everything about the types of players who both stayed unnecessarily (O'Shea, Gibson, Jones etc) because Grayson needed bodies, and in turn it dictated that Coleman wasn't able to build a squad, but had to loan whoever was available for literal bodies.
Click to expand...
But why have you ignored the previous 10 year spending? The club has wasted fecking millions upon millions man, lost £20m per season for nearly a decade.
It can hardly be surprising the owner has now had enough. Good luck to the new owner(s) in trying to satisfy the expectations of the fans.
 
We won't go into administration imo. The way investments work doesn't promote triggering an administration event unless SBC can gain more from it than us being taken over in future, which is way more likely even now than staying this course and ending up in Non-league football.

It's not in Short's interest as he won't recoup anything from it. He would simply take his own cost-cutting measures to save cash before doing that.

Also worth considering that SBC would probably struggle to recoup money from the sale of assets. The AOL and SOL are worth money, but someone would need to buy them, and they aren't necessarily easy things to shift. The squad has been depleted and the better option would likely be to wait for new owners, more matchday revenue and a potential trip back to the PL, or even the top half of the Championship.
 
KittenMittens said:
f***ing hell this is the stupidest post on this forum in history (and you'd set that bar low).

This year we spent 3% of what the average of clubs who went down over the last 2 years spent.

Villa £76m
Newcastle £57m
Middlesbrough £50m
Norwich £24m
Hull £18m
Sunderland £1.25m

Clubs that go down have parachute payments because inevitably, they have a bloated squad and Premier League infrastructures. In our case, we had a bunch of players who were past being effective in the Championship, let alone the Premier League. We compounded this in the summer by giving Grayson a fraction of what even the Hull manager got to try and reshape the squad.

You are completely wrong if you think we aren't going down because of a lack of investment. It dictates everything about the types of players who both stayed unnecessarily (O'Shea, Gibson, Jones etc) because Grayson needed bodies, and in turn it dictated that Coleman wasn't able to build a squad, but had to loan whoever was available for literal bodies.
Click to expand...
Why have you listed clubs that have been relegated and not the ones who have remained in the championship or even pushed for promotion with less investment than us. What you are basically arguing is a case for us not pushing for promotion, not being bottom of the championship, below a team made up entirely of free transfers.
 
Fact Hunt said:
But why have you ignored the previous 10 year spending? The club has wasted fecking millions upon millions man, lost £20m per season for nearly a decade.
It can hardly be surprising the owner has now had enough. Good luck to the new owner(s) in trying to satisfy the expectations of the fans.
Click to expand...

I didn't ignore it? I stated a fact that is entirely in context. We spent 3% of what other clubs spent in the exact same scenario, all of whom are doing better than us. Those clubs also spent during the previous 10 seasons too. I don't want unlimited money thrown at it, but 3% is not enough, it invites problems for a Premier League squad because inevitably, you have players with no motivation who aren't suitable for the Championship. You have legacy contracts (Rodwell, Catts etc) that are unsustainable, so the best option is to ensure your squad is competitive enough to remain in the hunt for Premier League football.

There's a time to pull up the drawbridge, but Short has completely got that wrong. He needed to shore up the walls of the castle before he did it, even spending £15m would have kept us safe, and he would have made more money from the subsequent sale were we in mid-table.
 
KittenMittens said:
I didn't ignore it? I stated a fact that is entirely in context. We spent 3% of what other clubs spent in the exact same scenario, all of whom are doing better than us. Those clubs also spent during the previous 10 seasons too. I don't want unlimited money thrown at it, but 3% is not enough, it invites problems for a Premier League squad because inevitably, you have players with no motivation who aren't suitable for the Championship. You have legacy contracts (Rodwell, Catts etc) that are unsustainable, so the best option is to ensure your squad is competitive enough to remain in the hunt for Premier League football.

There's a time to pull up the drawbridge, but Short has completely got that wrong. He needed to shore up the walls of the castle before he did it, even spending £15m would have kept us safe, and he would have made more money from the subsequent sale were we in mid-table.
Click to expand...
Whilst acknowledging your argument, your previous stated zealous defence of Chris Coleman over simplifies everything you post.

We have roughly the 6th most expensively assembled squad in the division and a top 5 wage bill.

Ellis has zero football knowledge and Bain even less. They convinced themselves at the very moment David Moyes met them in London last year that they had enough in the squad without spending a penny to stabilise the club or swing an outside chance of promotion with a decent manager at the helm.

Unfortunately they chose two complete duffers.
 
WHD said:
Why have you listed clubs that have been relegated and not the ones who have remained in the championship or even pushed for promotion with less investment than us. What you are basically arguing is a case for us not pushing for promotion, not being bottom of the championship, below a team made up entirely of free transfers.
Click to expand...

Because unlike you I understand context. It matters what we did vs those clubs more than anything, as that is the best guide to what we could and should have done in the same circumstances.

It's far easier to build a team with a modicum of stability than it is to take over a failing team that hasn't had the appropriate investment to start with. Cardiff spent £10m over the last 2 years. Fulham spent £45m. It's far easier when managers have the talent to start with, than to reshape an entire squad and team with only what is there + free transfers. It's not impossible, but it's harder having come down than it is having been in the division for a while.

Hebdomad said:
Whilst acknowledging your argument, your previous stated zealous defence of Chris Coleman over simplifies everything you post.

We have roughly the 6th most expensively assembled squad in the division and a top 5 wage bill.
Click to expand...

Sometimes I read your posts and think you've had a stroke mid-sentence. That one, for example, doesn't actually make any sense in the English language.

And the irony of you then posting the second sentence after accusing me of over-simplifying. :D :D :D Absolutely no context for that expensive squad or wage bill. Of course we do, we just got relegated, but everyone knows that relying on a squad that hadn't gelled last season to miraculously gel in the next division while being injected with players who aren't of the necessary quality is insane. That's why parachute payments exist, to ease the wage bloat and squad bloat that hurts a lot of teams that go down.

It's telling that the thickest people seem to be the ones who shout loudest for CHANGE ANY CHANGE OH GOD PLEASE SACK SOMEONE SO I CAN RELEASE SOME ENDORPHINS!!!

It's not a quick fix. The sooner people get that in their head, the better.
 
Last edited:
West_Winger said:
All of that is public knowledge anyway. We’ve known our payroll is a problem. We know the losses are a problem. Any potential investor knows they’re the main issues.

None of this is news and certainly wouldn’t be a reason for any investor suddenly getting cold feet and if any investor did look at Sunderland and it came as a shock to them the financial state we were in, I wouldn’t want them anywhere near the club in the first place.
Click to expand...
I agree. That's just his tweet said.
 
KittenMittens said:
Because unlike you I understand context. It matters what we did vs those clubs more than anything, as that is the best guide to what we could and should have done in the same circumstances.

It's far easier to build a team with a modicum of stability than it is to take over a failing team that hasn't had the appropriate investment to start with. Cardiff spent £10m over the last 2 years. Fulham spent £45m. It's far easier when managers have the talent to start with, than to reshape an entire squad and team with only what is there + free transfers. It's not impossible, but it's harder having come down than it is having been in the division for a while.



Sometimes I read your posts and think you've had a stroke mid-sentence. That one, for example, doesn't actually make any sense in the English language.

And the irony of you then posting the second sentence after accusing me of over-simplifying. :D :D :D Absolutely no context for that expensive squad or wage bill. Of course we do, we just got relegated, but everyone knows that relying on a squad that hadn't gelled last season to miraculously gel in the next division while being injected with players who aren't of the necessary quality is insane. That's why parachute payments exist, to ease the wage bloat and squad bloat that hurts a lot of teams that go down.

It's telling that the thickest people seem to be the ones who shout loudest for CHANGE ANY CHANGE OH GOD PLEASE SACK SOMEONE SO I CAN RELEASE SOME ENDORPHINS!!!

It's not a quick fix. The sooner people get that in their head, the better.
Click to expand...
What a mess of a post :lol:

You're actually just really stupid aren't you.
 
Well you make a great point there. I'm pretty sure everyone else can read it and understand it, but as with most things to do with our current management and board situations, you don't seem to want to engage with it.
 
Well it's not a superior intellect, just that every other fucker on here understands what Coleman has done in context of where the club was, is and might be off the pitch. Saying we have the 6th highest wage budget is a classic example of taking a fact out of context. Yes, we have a very expensively assembled squad. Most of those players are out on loan, and even the most expensive in terms of wages doesn't play for reasons unknown, but largely of his own cause.

So when you have that 6th most expensive squad, it only helps if they're actually playing for you.

Hebdomad said:
Shut up man. Kitten Mittens the melt down the melt down queen.
Click to expand...

u wot m8 :D nobody is having a meltdown you bell. Desperation stuff here from you mate, just try actually reading and then responding, you're making a show of yourself.
 
KittenMittens said:
Well it's not a superior intellect, just that every other fucker on here understands what Coleman has done in context of where the club was, is and might be off the pitch. Saying we have the 6th highest wage budget is a classic example of taking a fact out of context. Yes, we have a very expensively assembled squad. Most of those players are out on loan, and even the most expensive in terms of wages doesn't play for reasons unknown, but largely of his own cause.

So when you have that 6th most expensive squad, it only helps if they're actually playing for you.
Click to expand...
Can you even use the reply button?

The squad as it is currently is the 6th most expensively assembled in the league.

There was an article doing the rounds last week.

And that squad is Bottom of the league.

Not 15th or 18th. Not even 20th. Its bottom.
 
Hebdomad said:
Can you even use the reply button?

The squad as it is currently is the 6th most expensively assembled in the league.

There was an article doing the rounds last week.

And that squad is Bottom of the league.

Not 15th or 18th. Not even 20th. Its bottom.
Click to expand...

I... but... you have read the post have you? The one where it says that most of the players that make up the 'most expensive' elements of that squad aren't actually playing for us? :D

Wonder how expensive our squad is if you only count the ones playing?

Imagine making the argument that Coleman has taken down the 6th moist expensively assembled squad in the league but failing to mention that most of those players aren't playing for us :D :D :D Fuck me.
 
There's 4 reasons why the 6th most expensively assembled team is bottom.

1. because the players have underperformed.

2. because we overpaid for those players in the first place

3. because the manager and coaching staff have been unable to motivate them

4. because the manager and coaching staff have been unable to fashion a tactical system to get results.

Thats how simple football is. 2 of those 4 factors are down to bad management.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top