“Sunderland are a lower league club”
- Thread starter Hawyatt Earp
- Start date
D
Deleted member 35923
Guest
it’s a chicken and egg situation. Supporters may be more encouraged to actually organise if journalists scrutinise and utilise their contacts to find out exactly what is going on at a club. I think it is their duty to report what is going at a club and if results are shockingly bad both on and off the field (particularly in finance - Michael Martin scrutinised our finances in more depth than any local journo) then they should be investigating why it’s happening. That’s what happens at Newcastle and elsewhere.
The top and bottom of it is that the majority of local journos (certainly the most prominent ones) in the nationals are Newcastle supporters and are more willing to dedicate their time to scrutinising Ashley than any of Sunderland’s owners. That’s only natural but it’s a kick in the balls when they pay it lip service and pat us on the head with a ‘there there’ before quickly getting back to write about how bad Ashley is.
I completely agree with your point on our fanbase though. We are very passive and when sections of our support actually do question things or arrange anything that resembles discontent, they’re shut down internally. It’s particularly been the case over the last five years, we’ve become less militant than we were, and we weren’t militant to start with. There’s a new generation that are all about listing things we’ve learned, bowing down in expediency to whoever is at the helm and engaging in witty bantz about pink slices and McGangbangs with the owners. Anyway, rant owa on this. I’ve exhausted what I’ve to say
it’s a chicken and egg situation. Supporters may be more encouraged to actually organise if journalists scrutinise and utilise their contacts to find out exactly what is going on at a club. I think it is their duty to report what is going at a club and if results are shockingly bad both on and off the field (particularly in finance - Michael Martin scrutinised our finances in more depth than any local journo) then they should be investigating why it’s happening. That’s what happens at Newcastle and elsewhere.
The top and bottom of it is that the majority of local journos (certainly the most prominent ones) in the nationals are Newcastle supporters and are more willing to dedicate their time to scrutinising Ashley than any of Sunderland’s owners. That’s only natural but it’s a kick in the balls when they pay it lip service and pat us on the head with a ‘there there’ before quickly getting back to write about how bad Ashley is.
I completely agree with your point on our fanbase though. We are very passive and when sections of our support actually do question things or arrange anything that resembles discontent, they’re shut down internally. It’s particularly been the case over the last five years, we’ve become less militant than we were, and we weren’t militant to start with. There’s a new generation that are all about listing things we’ve learned, bowing down in expediency to whoever is at the helm and engaging in witty bantz about pink slices and McGangbangs with the owners. Anyway, rant owa on this. I’ve exhausted what I’ve to say
With regards your first point, I think it's up to the supporters to push the agenda rather than have the less-willing given the content by spoon-feeding by the media. Your supporters need to drive this information on their own platforms, that's more likely to get a journalist motivated to write about you than the journalist starting from a 'zero base'. Yes, some of our protests are a bit daft but at least they are in the public eye which forces the media to take note.
You're probably right on some of the journalists being Newcastle fans but possibly not as many as this place in particular would have you believe. Caulkin's output suggests that he is more willing to write about Newcastle and as you say, it's human nature as he has a more vested interest but he's still writing about you and him putting these articles out alongside with a possible organised supporter show of discontent will give you more exposure. For what it's worth the article he has put up today isn't patronising at all, he's very balanced when it comes to discussing Sunderland as any reasonable adult would be.
Mark E Smith
Striker
This 100%. Ian Wright, Sutton et al were on 5Live Monday evening bemoaning the plight of the Mags and the “disgraceful way the owner runs the club”. Not saying that we deserve (or want or need) the sympathies of cerebrally challenged ex-players, but a sense of perspective would be refreshing.
At one point in his career, Caulkin was a journalist with a reputation . One with which he might even have been happy.
He is now utterly predictable and prone to lazy assumptions, and not just in this fairly absurd and third form attempt at an allegorical flourish. For example, If it can be suffered, a read of any article he has written on that lot up there will show constant references to "unlimited potential", "burning passion" , "packed houses" and any other of the off the shelf cliches so often used by similar hacks to describe them. It beats looking at things squarely and thoroughly.
Incredibly, this man wrote for the same newspaper as did Hugh Mcllvanney.
Quite so. The man has regressed from a promising start to a poor cliche pedlar.
He is now utterly predictable and prone to lazy assumptions, and not just in this fairly absurd and third form attempt at an allegorical flourish. For example, If it can be suffered, a read of any article he has written on that lot up there will show constant references to "unlimited potential", "burning passion" , "packed houses" and any other of the off the shelf cliches so often used by similar hacks to describe them. It beats looking at things squarely and thoroughly.
Incredibly, this man wrote for the same newspaper as did Hugh Mcllvanney.
Quite so. The man has regressed from a promising start to a poor cliche pedlar.
Last edited:
nowtgoodeverhappens
Striker
Which are all positives, but bottom line is the playing staff. They aren’t good enough to be walking this division.
pfceggchaser
Full Back
Read the article as I subscribe to the Athletic. Unfortunately it’s not wrong from your perspective.
As an outsider, and as a club who have suffered an utter collapse that cannot be matched in the same time span as well as ownership changes.
This season is looking like our first year of regression in 5 years. That’s down almost solely to our manager. But prior to that, I look at you in this league much like us in L2. Resources many could only dream of, but it doesn’t relate to performances on the pitch. Ultimately, that is almost always down to quality of the squad.
Our CEO has been on record to say that salaries in L1 and 2 don’t quite correlate to league position as strongly as in the PL and Championship - that is often due to a greater degree in the variability in recruitment. The issue has always been getting value for your money. Better wages will get you so far, but loads of sides use the loan system well, and recruit gems out of non-league for peanuts.
No disrespect, but I look at Oxford’s team and yours, and there is very little difference in quality. If anything, theirs is a better side. Yet you had a clear penalty denied 2 mins from the end, and actually were better on the night.
As further evidence, we’ve spent the most money in the league on transfer fees this summer (3.5m on 3 players), and look at where we are...
As an outsider, and as a club who have suffered an utter collapse that cannot be matched in the same time span as well as ownership changes.
This season is looking like our first year of regression in 5 years. That’s down almost solely to our manager. But prior to that, I look at you in this league much like us in L2. Resources many could only dream of, but it doesn’t relate to performances on the pitch. Ultimately, that is almost always down to quality of the squad.
Our CEO has been on record to say that salaries in L1 and 2 don’t quite correlate to league position as strongly as in the PL and Championship - that is often due to a greater degree in the variability in recruitment. The issue has always been getting value for your money. Better wages will get you so far, but loads of sides use the loan system well, and recruit gems out of non-league for peanuts.
No disrespect, but I look at Oxford’s team and yours, and there is very little difference in quality. If anything, theirs is a better side. Yet you had a clear penalty denied 2 mins from the end, and actually were better on the night.
As further evidence, we’ve spent the most money in the league on transfer fees this summer (3.5m on 3 players), and look at where we are...
Last edited:
citybythesea
Winger
People wanted Short out. ....
ilovehorswill
Striker
Let's say it is.
If you're going to spend that much money in League One, you think you'd do a bit of research first. I've spent more time looking for a paint colour than Stewie seems to have spent buying an entire first team.
You can spend as much money as you want, but unless you have a strategy, the foresight or the attention to detail it truly doesn't matter.
shadowplay
Winger
Short wanted himself out, that's why he wrote off the debt
What do you mean funded by Donald?
Zinedine Kilbane
Midfield
cant argue with that mind
East Riding Mackem
Winger
Caulkin is a legend in his own head and that is it.
danbob
Striker
It’s hard to argue with.
The Fish
Winger
100% not on the wind up, but from my admittedly biased view there are differnces between the two clubs' owners that explain why one gets/got more coverage.
Short had the right idea, but executed it poorly. He then wiped off your debt. From the outside it didn't look like you had a particularly shady owner, just one who was unlucky or had poor judgement?
Ashley's faults are legion and not just employing the wrong men as Short did, or failing to invest at the right time as it was sometimes with Short. He's a court-proven liar, he couldn't care less about the histroy or future of Newcastle United beyond it's role as a vehicle for his tat store.
To put it more succinctly, Short was well meaning but a bit shit, Ashley is a mendacious vindictive arsehole. The latter makes for more compelling articles.
Your current owner were chancers who bought a Championship club for buttons in the hope they could immediately sell it for a huge profit, but are they risking your financial security like the Oyston or Dale or Anderson? Again, well meaning, but a bit shit, rather than malicious.
D
Deleted member 35923
Guest
you pose some canny questions at the end. Would be canny if journalists were asking similar ones
Nil desperandum
Striker
Maybe you'e confusing him with McGeady.
Have we?
List em bonny lad.
