Roker Report

Be fair pal, I like roker report, especially as they give a lot of good articles for free, but they’ve stood behind the regime for too long. Let’s be honest, on this basis we’re closer to getting relegated to league two than we are promoted to the championship. The whole regime, Donald, Parkinson the lot needs to go. This is literally worse than under Short.

Ah so you have.

I still don't understand your original post. As many others have pointed out, you're uncalled for here.
 


We were given the heads up about the fact they were announcing the potential takeover in the Times that night. That's pretty much it!
I'm sure you stated previously there was no tip off and the lad who announced the takeover on the podcast and then did the whole podcast as if we had already been taken over, did that off his own back and hadn't been tipped off.

Is that no longer correct?
 
Both RR and WMS podcasts have had the difficulty of access v independence. I think WMS have handled it a little better, perhaps a wee bit older and cynical, but RR have a lot of different voices writing for them and provide a platform for unfiltered viewpoints. As with every other ownership regime "getting onside with the fans", as things have deteriorated, contrary to how SD etc said they would be, they have scuttled off and there is no mileage in either podcast sticking up for what is fast appearing to be a busted flush ownership. The various fan groups, websites and podcasts aren't the reason our team is so shit so I see no point in making personal or general attacks on fans, like us all, with too much interest in our football team.

SD is last man standing from Methven and Davison (sp) from the takeover optimism and has decamped into his own head (no excuse for personal vitriol threatening illegal action by some of our nutcase fans) rather than keeping contact with fans who want to believe him. Appointing Parkinson was massively underwhelming and is proving suicidal, he did this in the full knowledge of fan feeling (he gets on here to view whatever he says otherwise, he's only human). He should have shown more faith in fans who have stood by the club but has decided to hide. Fair play to RR and WMS for bothering their arses
 
It’s understandable from a human nature perspective that they were a bit soft on Donald. They’d met him after all and he’s a decent fella by all accounts. That being said the equivocation on his behalf (whether intentional or not) was incredibly frustrating at times. Had to ragequit a podcast when one of the lads said Will Griggs failure wasn’t SDs fault when it was literally his unilateral action to push for his signing.
 
I was asked by RR on here a couple of months back to state why i thought Donald was wrong for the club and my reasoning was dismissed.....I wonder if there stance is still the same now.
 
I really wonder what the plan is now for SD. Methven is out but keeping his stake (unlikely he could sell it for what he'd want) and Juan put a bit of cash in but isn't involved.

TD moved on sharpish, could possibly see the writing on the wall?
 
I'm sure you stated previously there was no tip off and the lad who announced the takeover on the podcast and then did the whole podcast as if we had already been taken over, did that off his own back and hadn't been tipped off.

Is that no longer correct?

You're confusing two separate things.
 
There was a tip off (as one of your lads suggested in his rant recently) then?

I've just explained - we were tipped off that there would be a story in the Times the night that they announced the Americans were potentially taking over (though at that stage the rumour mill had already been swirling and it was on here and twitter etc for days before they leaked it to the press, so it was hardly a secret).

The Podcast discussing what a takeover could mean was weeks after that. The lad is confusing two separate things.
 
I've just explained - we were tipped off that there would be a story in the Times the night that they announced the Americans were potentially taking over (though at that stage the rumour mill had already been swirling and it was on here and twitter etc for days before they leaked it to the press, so it was hardly a secret).

The Podcast discussing what a takeover could mean was weeks after that. The lad is confusing two separate things.

Then it is perfectly acceptable to be pissed off with who we all probably know tipped you off.
Del and Rodney played you lads like a fiddle and I don't blame you at all for going along with it as the vast majority believed their shite from day one.
 
I've just explained - we were tipped off that there would be a story in the Times the night that they announced the Americans were potentially taking over (though at that stage the rumour mill had already been swirling and it was on here and twitter etc for days before they leaked it to the press, so it was hardly a secret).

The Podcast discussing what a takeover could mean was weeks after that. The lad is confusing two separate things.

Is there a feeling amongst the group that you've been used (or maybe taken advantage of if used is too strong a term) in the last 18 months or so?
 
Is there a feeling amongst the group that you've been used (or maybe taken advantage of if used is too strong a term) in the last 18 months or so?

Couldn't possibly speak for other people but I'm sure that there's a range of views on it, aye. Personally I don't feel used, I feel that the early pods in particular were very useful. The post-play offs podcast was cathartic, everything after that has felt like a wasted exercise but mainly because the lads who hosted the shows were battered for it and I felt bad for them.

What I think is often forgotten is that the owners haven't just spoken to us. They've had massive interviews in ALS, columns in the ALS magazines, they've done interviews with Salut and WMS, they've done a tonne of talk ins with various branches and at the SOL, they've appeared in the fanzone, they've attended supporter group meetings, they've been on local radio, they've done interviews with the Echo and Chronicle - Roker Report aren't the only outlet who they've spoken to regularly since they came. I think that gets forgotten because perhaps more attention and notoriety has been placed upon their appearances on our Podcast, but I could be wrong. The point I'm making is that while people generally associate interaction between the owners and fans to our Podcasts, they've been just as open and visible via a tonne of other channels too.
 
Is there a feeling amongst the group that you've been used (or maybe taken advantage of if used is too strong a term) in the last 18 months or so?

I know this isn't aimed at me but there has to be. Those two used them to spread the "got our club back", "we're canny lads, just like you" rhetoric and everyone lapped it up. Their podcasts were hugely popular and people had a feel good factor, despite it very much being a case of The Emperor's New Clothes and nothing tangible actually being produced.
As soon as it goes a bit sour, there's convenient stories of safety issues and they toddle off
 
I think Roker Report were taken in - but they were hardly alone in that. I think most of us liked the way in which after years of no information or communication they appeared to be very open and honest. It was understandable that we fell for it, and that they did too (which I think is what happened).

Alarm bells should have set in, looking back, when they made such a big deal of courting those podcasts / fan sites From the outset. I’m not aware of any serious club owner that operates in that way.

I think we all had moments, looking back, where we realised our support and our desperation for good news had been used to string us along. For me it was the Daily Mail article about the purchase of the club (even though people on here were queuing up to criticise it without knowing the facts). When the accounts came out, and their story about the parachute payments unravelled, they were pretty much exposed in their true colours at that point IMO.

Personally I’m not bothered if Roker Report or anyone else interviews the owner - I‘m not remotely interested in a word that he has to say tbh until the day he leaves.

What I dont understand is the ‘decent bloke’ narrative that still persists. In 18 months here, he has taken tens of millions of pounds in parachute payments out of the club (which wasn’t the story when he took over), he has organised multiple social media pile ons when people questioned him, he has tried to cash in on Wembley Cup runs by linking them to Walsall tickets before changing his mind after selling them, he has gone into hiding on three occasions when bad news emerged and blamed it on ‘abuse’ which nobody had witnessed (and then changed his story), he has broken his word on releasing the story of a managerial sacking before a family had been informed because bad news broke, and gone missing as soon as he has been questioned. Where the integrity in that is, I haven’t a clue.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The podcasts were really good (bar the last one with Methven). Granted, SD never really followed up with anything he promised, but I enjoyed them and they were exactly what they needed to be.

The first time I started to think 'hang on' was this Interview (Part One): Charlie Methven lays Sunderland’s finances bare - past, present & future. Methven, who'd been here 2 minutes, lecturing us about Bob Murray 20 years ago, waxing lyrical about him for not spending and criticising Drumaville, when ironically Murray put us on the verge of administration and in an arguably worse position than Short.
 
I think Roker Report were taken in - but they were hardly alone in that. I think most of us liked the way in which after years of no information or communication they appeared to be very open and honest. It was understandable that we fell for it, and that they did too (which I think is what happened).

Alarm bells should have set in, looking back, when they made such a big deal of courting those podcasts / fan sites From the outset. I’m not aware of any serious club owner that operates in that way.

I think we all had moments, looking back, where we realised our support and our desperation for good news had been used to string us along. For me it was the Daily Mail article about the purchase of the club (even though people on here were queuing up to criticise it without knowing the facts). When the accounts came out, and their story about the parachute payments unravelled, they were pretty much exposed in their true colours at that point IMO.

Personally I’m not bothered if Roker Report or anyone else interviews the owner - I‘m not remotely interested in a word that he has to say tbh until the day he leaves.

What I dont understand is the ‘decent bloke’ narrative that still persists. In 18 months here, he has taken tens of millions of pounds in parachute payments out of the club (which wasn’t the story when he took over), he has organised multiple social media pile ons when people questioned him, he has tried to cash in on Wembley Cup runs by linking them to Walsall tickets before changing his mind after selling them, he has gone into hiding on three occasions when bad news emerged and blamed it on ‘abuse’ which nobody had witnessed (and then changed his story), he has broken his word on releasing the story of a managerial sacking before a family had been informed because bad news broke, and gone missing as soon as he has been questioned. Where the integrity in that is, I haven’t a clue.

After the absence of information of any substance in the Short years I think the point I have highlighted above was a positive - though Twitter always seemed wrong - doing things differently is no bad thing but it has to considered. (Some of the statements about agents and players ending their contracts were idealistically welcome but were naive and backfired with Maja and no doubt others)
 

Back
Top