We haven't replaced them. We won't own a single full back at the end of this season, it's an unbelievable situation.
-
The forums will be unavailable for a few hours on Saturday 6th June, when they do return they will initially be in a degraded state with some features missing, but normal posting/reading will be possible. The main website will not be affected by these updates.
New user registrations are currently disabled.
Some other features of the forum are also currently disabled.
Short Is Failing Us
- Thread starter gipetto
- Start date
- Status
We should never question anything, be content with every poor decision and everyone that has an opinion that isn't your own has an agenda...got it. Agenda ffs
Who said anything about questioning - you simply criticise without having an alternative. You didn't answer the question about what you would do so in that case a more simple question - who in your opinion should Short get in to advise him on football matters that is available.
Baring in mind that Short didn't come in with a clean slate, Drummavile were bailing and Keane had spent a fortune and he was being advised by Quinn to appoint (Shopping at Harrods) Bruce as the manager - two supposedly respected football people. Bruce was given the funds to build a team with Cattermole, Bent, Gyan, and loan signings in , Wellbeck and Onouha. However when these went and Zenden/Malbranque retired Bruce replaced them with the players who have had lucrative contracts and only now are about to leave the club. Short did get rid of Bruce who was taking us down but too late in my opinion and then he listened to football people and made a poor decision to appoint O'Neill - some of use criticied that appointment as he had turned us down previously and had been out of football too long. After that Yes agreed he makes a bizarre appointment in Di Cannio but at least he was trying something different after the advice from Quinn, Bruce and O'Neill backfired - no I'm not happy about the way things have gone and Short is in part culpable if we get relegated but he has been helped in a big way by those so-called football people who spend a lot of time on the television telling everyone how to do the job but fcuk things up themselves.
gipetto
Striker
I think you are giving Short far too much credit. You have brushed off the Bent/Gyan sales as though it was Bruce's decision. No manager in their right mind would want to get rid of these two players unless forced to by the owner or promises were made to grant him funds to reinvest. The funds were not reinvested. We sold Gyan after the transfer window which was a major kick in the teeth to the fans therefore we had to rely solely on Bendtner. That was not good enough and this is where I feel for Bruce. I wasn't a great Bruce supporter but it was clear as day that he had not been sufficiently supported in the summer following the sales of Bent and Henderson. The club knew Gyan was leaving and they failed to replace him too. The whole episode is one major mess.
Short has ultimately overseen yet another relegation. His appointments, the buck stops with him as the owner.
Perryqhill
Striker
They were though. The Bent sale stinks of Bruce wanting funding for the midfield having Gyan here and Welbeck, signing Sess and having money put aside for Muntari.
gipetto
Striker
Bent was £26m, Henderson £16m and Gyan went on a season long loan for £6m. Where were these funds reinvested around that time?
Cana was also sold for £5/6m.
T
the streaker
Guest
You post all that as if its all monies available for transfers when the reality is..
Bent was sold for £24 million but 25% of that was dependent on contract clauses at Villa.We paid £16 million for him in the first place
We broke even on Cana
We broke even on Gyan but as you post only got 50% of it when he first went
Henderson yes that's the only one that is all new money.........
Perryqhill
Striker
Bent was £24m that likely will never be reached. We still owed Spurs a shitload on him at the time too, which made his fee being £16m overall which the initial payment went to pay off. Sess came in for £6m and Muntari came in on loan with a fee attached to it and a potential £6m transfer, which at the time the AOL barn was put on hold for, which tells you we weren't exactly cash rich.
Gyan went after the window had closed, Bruce had no chance to spend it, but O'Neill at the end of that season spent £10m on Johnson and £12m on Fletcher.
It's not as simple as transfer fees though, look at the amount of players Bruce signed in his last window. Larsson was wanted by Arsenal and had turned down Newcastle the January before, he'll have got a decent wedge to sign here even if he didn't cost a fee. Wickham at £8.2m rising to £12m, Gardner £6m, O'shea approx £5m, Brown £1.5m, McClean 350k, Ji £2m, Elmo £2m, Westwood Bosman, Vaughan Bosman, Bendtner loan fee. Add in Sess at £6m and you're up to £31m rising to about £35m without taking into account loan fees or singing on fees for Bosmans.
Cana went at the start of that season, with Waghorn going for £2m rising to £3m too and Jones going for £8 (though £2m to pay him off) but then we signed Gyan for over £13m, Mig for £2m, Angeleri for £2m and Bramble for £1m.
The facts are in the club accounts, over the years we've spent more than we've had coming in.
gipetto
Striker
Quinn suggested that Bent was sold for more than £25m. Yes we broke even on Cana and Gyan but why was that money not reinvested?! It makes you wonder why we bought them in the first place.
We paid £10m for Bent and no doubt that too will have been dependent on clauses, perhaps it was rising to £16m all in but we initially paid £10m.[DOUBLEPOST=1396788670][/DOUBLEPOST]
And yet he was being linked with a move away all summer. The club knew he was leaving, they knew they wouldn't have to replace him if the transfer window was closed. It was a big kick in the teeth for the fans. I remember learning about it around an hour or so before our home game against Stoke.
T
the streaker
Guest
I would take whats reported all over the place than what Quinn supposedly suggested ( never seen it myself to be honest) as a PR exercise if he did,and that's the £24 million of which 25% was dependent on clauses which may well have never been reached given Bents performance at Villa..............
gipetto
Striker
True. It's difficult talking transfer fees as we're not always privy such information.
T
the streaker
Guest
Indeed...........its more complicated again anyway when most of the fees are piad and received over a period of seasons and also thanks to amortisation you cant quantify any of them in a set of accounts
Last edited by a moderator:
Perryqhill
Striker
Quinn didn't necessarily say that. If you listen to the interview the Irish bird asking him questions asked him about the fee and the profit and at the same time Quinn was talking about what they owed Spurs/had to pay in total, so it wasn't clear if he was saying "a little bit more than that" about the fee received or the overall fee and money we owed Spurs. At the time I took it to mean the fee had climbed to more than £10m, which we know was the case anyway, many on here assumed we'd got more than £24m.
It was re invested ffs I've just shown you where.
We signed Bentdner on loan and had paid £8.2m for Wickham, also paying £2m for Ji. Bendtner was obviously the temporary replacement, we then shelled out £22m on two players the following summer, then another £8m in January. Obviously the Gyan money was spent there.
Last edited:
gipetto
Striker
Gyan was here when Bent was here. You suggested he was signed afterwards. As you said, Jones was sold for £8m prior to this and no doubt that money will have gone towards the Gyan deal but with rising TV revenue and the Henderson thrown in to boot the money wasn't completely reinvested. That's fine if we were bringing in quality players but we weren't, we were making large savings on wages and therefore the quality was being replaced with budget basement/risky players.
T
the streaker
Guest
We weren't mate...........the last set of accounts to July 2013 are the first for eons where the wage bill hasn't gone up on the previous year......
gipetto
Striker
Well that's even more worrying considering how poor the players were we were bringing in.
E
Erwin Rommel
Guest
Yes he is failing us. Look at the leauge table, look at state of the team compared to 3 seasons ago, thats 3 seasons of decline on his watch. Unfortunately it looks like he is here for the long haul.
T
the streaker
Guest
Indeed.............I have posted umpteen that the wage bills approximated to something like 38 Bardsleys( as his is the only wage we know for fact) which means there must be some here on silly silly money..........
Raffs
Midfield
Haway, are you seriously suggesting that Bruce wanted to get rid of one of the league's best strikers who was winning game after game for us? For me, the decline started when we sold Bent and at the time I was all for blaming Bent for wanting more money but having seen the pattern since, it's far more likely to have been a case of cashing in while we could and not wanting to give him a wage increase - short term benefit, long term loss.
Watching Everton here - why can't we have aspired to be like them? A club that seems to have built gradually and successfully., and when a top player, or great manager leave, they carry on like business as usual. We have their equal in support, facilities and a billionaire owner - why not? Because there has never been a strategy in place to get us there - just one poor, knee-jerk, key decision after another and the only constant is that every top class Sunderland player has his price.
D
Deleted member 26022
Guest
in that case, field marshal, god knows what sort of state the club will be in a few years from now stuck in the championship or like Southampton decisions decisions
T
the streaker
Guest
I would hope he is as the club would be fucked totally without the cash hes had to provide in spades from day one thanks to the over spending on shite that started under Drumaville and we have struggled to get under control since...............
I am sure he would go if a buyer came in but the levels of personal wealth involved these days means these sorts of folk are few and far between.........
- Status
