• 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.

Interesting stuff from Kieran Maguire….

JL1985 said:
Brentford don’t pay massive wages or transfer fees. They are the perfect example of how to do it.
Click to expand...
Also in that London which is a huge draw…. We love the coalfields of the NE…. Don’t forget however we have to pay a premium to attract millionaire footballers, unfortunate but very true
 

Mboma said:
Thats 40-50m along with the 20m already spent on Enzo, which would bring it up to 60-70m

I'm not really sure why anyone would think we'd spend 100m this summer when that's just not how the board operates. They'll bring in loans with options to buy, and then buy a couple around 10m each, which will be double of the 3/4m's we paying for a player last year.

I'm sure we'd all like them to throw more money about to get some serious quality in, but I doubt the board will change tact. They'll be planning for relegation, along with a small chance of staying up.
Click to expand...
How is it not how they operate? They have never been in a position to do so. We would sell a Clarke for 15 million and they would spend 10+ on a few players for the squad (Aleksic, Isidor, Abdullahi and so on) or they'd sell a Stewart for 8m+ and they'd spend that on more players for the squad. They've never been in this position where they have an awful lot of money coming in from the Premier League a 100% profit 10m sale of Watson coming in and good PSR wiggle room to push as much as they can.
 
Great news for Arsenal - loads of money to spend
Bad news for Arsenal - Mikel Arteta will spend it on shite. Sideways passing midfielders like him in his prime. Chelsea rejects. And non-prolific goalscorers.
Cannot wait.
 
S.Hagan said:
How is it not how they operate? They have never been in a position to do so. We would sell a Clarke for 15 million and they would spend 10+ on a few players for the squad (Aleksic, Isidor, Abdullahi and so on) or they'd sell a Stewart for 8m+ and they'd spend that on more players for the squad. They've never been in this position where they have an awful lot of money coming in from the Premier League a 100% profit 10m sale of Watson coming in and good PSR wiggle room to push as much as they can.
Click to expand...

Their dealings so far have been shrewd and I don't expect that to change. Last summer, they were paying 3/4m while other clubs spent more. They don't deal in overstretching or taking big risks. If they pay 10m for a player now, they'll see that as a healthy step up along with using the loan system to their advantage.

If you think they'll spen 100m plus, then so be it mate, I don't think they will though. They'll want to keep some of the big bucks back that's been earned with promotion.
 
CherryHenry said:
Great news for Arsenal - loads of money to spend
Bad news for Arsenal - Mikel Arteta will spend it on shite. Sideways passing midfielders like him in his prime. Chelsea rejects. And non-prolific goalscorers.
Cannot wait.
Click to expand...
It must be awful to only finish second in the premier league. Our hearts go out to you. ;)
 
Gav33 said:
I think Grumpy said it was 60 million on another thread.

I wouldn’t be surprised to see Rigg or one of the other academy players go to enable us to spend more.
Click to expand...
I cant see Rigg going but with Watson already gone, and Jobe looking likely, I don’t think we want any more of our better players to go.
Neil in the papers getting interest - I’d like him to stay unless its a huge fee that is entirely reinvested in first team players.
 
Mowgli said:
We could spend 110m like Ipswich and still go down without much fight.

Where do you draw the line?
Click to expand...
True, but we are going up with a better starting squad than they did before they started spending. Our current midfield is better, our strikers are better, our defenders are better. If we can make 5 very good additions we have half a chance. A lot of dross to move on this summer should raise £10 mill total, add that to the £10 mill Jack Clarke money we haven't been able to spend and the £80/90 mill left after buying Enzo and we should be able to acquire 4 or 5 good enough players and a couple of loans. That might be enough...and it will still be an improving squad.
 
Mowgli said:
Won't matter because the club won't be interested in being near the limit I'm guessing.

This. Let's be honest, even though we are getting big money for the PL, our wage bill now will have jumped up with clauses, never mind once the renewals kick in.

Signing PL level players comes with huge wages and we could easily end up losing £20/30m operating like we did under Short. Most clubs lose money in the PL. This regime simply won't do that imo.

We won't spend close to £100m imo.
Click to expand...
we most definitely will spend close to £100 million. Weve spent £18 million already. Unless the club is already accepting we are finishing dead last and not even trying to compete at all. Ipswich spent about £150 million, so id be surprised if we dont spend £100m. We need players in pretty much every position and they wont come cheap.
 
safcj1973 said:
we most definitely will spend close to £100 million. Weve spent £18 million already. Unless the club is already accepting we are finishing dead last and not even trying to compete at all. Ipswich spent about £150 million, so id be surprised if we dont spend £100m. We need players in pretty much every position and they wont come cheap.
Click to expand...

I’m not so sure we will. You’ve got to remember that £20m spent on a player isn’t all paid up front. Accounting wise it’s spread over the length of the contract. Actual payments are usually spread out as well, front loaded yes, but it’s rarely £20m up front. The caveat to this is the significant jump in wages though, £3m a year in wages for Le Fee for example on top of the £10m we’ve probably paid up front suddenly ramps up the spend. I think we’ll see three or four permanent deals that follow the model but that next level up and two or three deals like the Le Fee one where it’s a one year loan with an agreement to buy if we stay up with slightly more experienced players
 
im not roland rat said:
I’m not so sure we will. You’ve got to remember that £20m spent on a player isn’t all paid up front. Accounting wise it’s spread over the length of the contract. Actual payments are usually spread out as well, front loaded yes, but it’s rarely £20m up front. The caveat to this is the significant jump in wages though, £3m a year in wages for Le Fee for example on top of the £10m we’ve probably paid up front suddenly ramps up the spend. I think we’ll see three or four permanent deals that follow the model but that next level up and two or three deals like the Le Fee one where it’s a one year loan with an agreement to buy if we stay up with slightly more experienced players
Click to expand...
Loan deals could be the key to Sunderland being in the shake-up to stay up, towards the end of the season.
10 Trenches Deep said:
True, but we are going up with a better starting squad than they did before they started spending. Our current midfield is better, our strikers are better, our defenders are better. If we can make 5 very good additions we have half a chance. A lot of dross to move on this summer should raise £10 mill total, add that to the £10 mill Jack Clarke money we haven't been able to spend and the £80/90 mill left after buying Enzo and we should be able to acquire 4 or 5 good enough players and a couple of loans. That might be enough...and it will still be an improving squad.
Click to expand...
The standard of the PL is ridiculously high, considering where Spurs and Man Utd finished.
A team is only good enough as its weakest link. I think we need 9 genuinely decent outfield players to go with Mayenda, possibly 8 if Enzo performs to expectations. One or two of our current crop might not look out of place in a quality team, but sadly, they are not going to be granted that luxury. Loan players could be the key - that would imply high wages in the short term. In similar fashion to the McCarthy era, we may have to come down in order to go back up again in two years time - having said that, the financial world of the PL including restrictions in spending etc is light years away from then. I fear the worst but wouldn't swap those fantastic experiences against Coventry and Sheffield for anything - at this moment in time.
 
Last edited:
Roker Scoreboard said:
So without selling any players, how much could we spend without impacting on PSR?
Click to expand...
I think the word to use is “Enough”
(As long as it is spent in the correct way, of course….not £100million on one player, for example 😉)

Maguire’s thoughts:

“The Black Cats' return to the top flight via the play-offs comes with the knowledge they will be able to reinforce significantly for the step up in class that awaits.

Enzo le Fee's loan move from Roma in January included an obligation-to-buy clause and the French midfielder could well kick-start a recruitment drive with Sunderland in good financial shape.

"Since being relegated from the Premier League in 2017, Sunderland have not spent more than £10m in a single year on player signings, despite receiving parachute payments, and they have only made losses of £18m in the last two seasons," added Maguire.”
 
Roker Scoreboard said:
So without selling any players, how much could we spend without impacting on PSR?
Click to expand...
I'd be amazed if PSR limits were even remotely an issue for us.

PSR sets the maximum *loss* you can make, with those limits usually being covered by the owners - so they are supposed to stop rich owners pumping in too much of their own money.

I don't think we'll be looking to operate at any kind of loss at all if we can avoid it, and certainly nowhere near the PSR limit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top