what rating would you give the owners out of 10 so far??



4/10.

Short cleared the debt, People forget this. The owners have done a good job of cost cutting, and getting the fans involved again.

If Charlie was able to think before he speaks it'd be higher to a 5.

All in all they've achieved a little bit, nowt major. All they are in this for is a quick buck. They will of expected to of been shot of the club this time next year, its backfired.
 
Last edited:
Honestly I think it could have been worse but they are not Sunderland fans and this was a quick making money project that went wrong by not getting promoted first time.
Still a wonderful football club and they won’t send you under. Any decent Manager would jump at the chance to have a budget like yours and would be confident to get you promoted to at least the Championship.
5/10 for performance.
0/10 as they are the enemy of the Swindon state.

You will be just fine and should fancy another decent season.
 
6/10

We're on a more solid financial footing, they are transparent with the fans, but they have made some silly mistakes. Don't think I can deduct marks for them having nee money.
Like being really ambiguous when being transparent

Possibly bought by someone who ported the internal debt across. Then did a sale and leaseback to another of their own companies, using the proceeds to clear the debt they ported across. Leaving them £70-80m better off, and us without a ground. You think it's an accident that Short sold to the only buyers who didn't want that debt?
But wouldn’t that potential owner need to fund the running costs of the club themselves or have the ability to finance that ?
 
Last edited:
I'm going to be generous and say a 7. I think last season they gave us a side capable of going up, they've also seemingly done well further reducing the cost base and I have liked the communication (podcasts and the likes). I think financially we won't be at risk with them here, which is a positive after what went before.

Prior to this preseason I'd probably have given an 8 or maybe a 9 though. At the minute I'm a bit pissed off by the lack of clarity about whether this £25m gets paid back to the club (sometimes they suggest it will, others that it won't), that's a major amount of money in any league but especially here. I'd be confident if we have that money available when we need it, if we don't I'll be anxious about how we can be sustainable whilst still competing. Also not happy with Donald saying that Short had security over the parachute payments just in case Donald didn't pay his installments, when seemingly that was never the case, Short only ever got £15m and the parachute payments went straight to SBC. Also frustrated that we have publicly targeted 100 points but have, thus far, done very little to improve the squad with, mainly, minor tinkering of a side who were nowhere near the automatic promotion pace after Maja left
 
7/10 debt free, fan engagement, broke league one attendance record, 2 wembley trips, 3 points lost because of Ross and his single tactic, should have sacked him

Thanks to Ellis and the parachute payments.

I'm going to be generous and say a 7. I think last season they gave us a side capable of going up, they've also seemingly done well further reducing the cost base and I have liked the communication (podcasts and the likes). I think financially we won't be at risk with them here, which is a positive after what went before.

Prior to this preseason I'd probably have given an 8 or maybe a 9 though. At the minute I'm a bit pissed off by the lack of clarity about whether this £25m gets paid back to the club (sometimes they suggest it will, others that it won't), that's a major amount of money in any league but especially here. I'd be confident if we have that money available when we need it, if we don't I'll be anxious about how we can be sustainable whilst still competing. Also not happy with Donald saying that Short had security over the parachute payments just in case Donald didn't pay his installments, when seemingly that was never the case, Short only ever got £15m and the parachute payments went straight to SBC. Also frustrated that we have publicly targeted 100 points but have, thus far, done very little to improve the squad with, mainly, minor tinkering of a side who were nowhere near the automatic promotion pace after Maja left

Spot on as always.
 
Last edited:
7/10, reconnected the fans with the club last season, just need it all to come together this coming season, need to get off to a good start....
 
Like being really ambiguous when being transparent


But wouldn’t that potential owner need to fund the running costs of the club themselves or have the ability to finance that ?

That wouldn't concern them greatly. Their primary motivation would be getting the value in the SoL out of the club for themselves. That's what asset strippers do - they don't care about the rump of their investment left behind. The scale of the internal debt left us wide open to that. Think SISU on steroids. Once the debt wasn't ported, that option went away. Because of the accumulated losses, there's simply no other easy way of getting cash out of the club. At least the current owners have the best interest of the club at heart, even if that's only because it's the only way they can come out of this with any kind of profit.
 
That wouldn't concern them greatly. Their primary motivation would be getting the value in the SoL out of the club for themselves. That's what asset strippers do - they don't care about the rump of their investment left behind. The scale of the internal debt left us wide open to that. Think SISU on steroids. Once the debt wasn't ported, that option went away. Because of the accumulated losses, there's simply no other easy way of getting cash out of the club. At least the current owners have the best interest of the club at heart, even if that's only because it's the only way they can come out of this with any kind of profit.
My point is that they would be asset strippers if they did so . Saying that they were the only deal in town who wouldn’t asset strip is saying a lot about the other interested parties especially those with SAFC connections
 
My point is that they would be asset strippers if they did so . Saying that they were the only deal in town who wouldn’t asset strip is saying a lot about the other interested parties especially those with SAFC connections

I'm not saying it would have happened, but it was a possibility. I'm pretty sure that Short would have been aware of it as well and, even though his tenure turned out badly, I believe he had the club's best interest at heart, and apparently still does. A deal which didn't port the debt eliminated any possibility of asset stripping happening. From the club's standpoint, a deal without the internal debt port was always the less risky option. As I say, I don't think it's an accident that that was the deal Short eventually accepted.
 
I can see this catching on and been added to Fantasy Football weekly ratings.

'6/10 - A solid week paying an employee to tweet inane drivel to fans showed great passion, however this is still undermined by the net spend being 5.23% under the Redbull Superprem mean figure. Nett worth continues to follow inflation. Unspectacular.'
 
2/10. Doesn't take much to pay players off or give players who want to leave free transfers, I could do that.

I could also not invest any of my own money, find no investment and call the fans parasites.
 

Back
Top