raven_5
Striker
They didn't abuse anything. They bought the club on the cheap and Short was making sure the debt is paid with that condition. That's why I said he was the one making sure the club is stable.realistically yes, that's exactly what a good proportion of the supporters are going to want.I'm not in that boat but we clearly have a decent number on this forum who don't give a fuck about how to run a stable club and basically just want success, even if that means we need a sugar daddy who is personally bank rolling the club like Ellis.
And to try and be fair, that is exactly how Chelsea and Man City are run, so you can't blame them entirely for not living in the real world as some clubs are incredibly lucky and get exactly that. Realistically the chance Sunderland will get another Ellis who also happens to be incredibly good at running a football club is surely pretty f***ing small so it would make far more sense to run the club sustainably even if it means it takes a long time to get back to the premier league...but hey
So in one sentence you say Short left us debt free, do you also think that Donald stole the parachute payments? As the 25m parachute payment to SBC was a condition of Short selling the club, so either Short left us debt free by using the parachute payment to clear those debts or Donald took the 25m and 'abused' it in someway? You can't really have it both ways.
Not their superb handling of the club made us stable financially.
They're signing 4m strikers to sit on the bench and can't get us out of League One.