• The first stage of the forum upgrades has now been completed but they remain in a degraded state and are still being worked on.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

WMS Who Owns Sunderland AFC?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Red and white TID said:
You back them up at every turn, then make out you are against them, “I am pleased they aren’t running the club anymore” a total bluffer, reminds me of someone that, who could it be, he can’t lie straight in bed either, I can remember that much, No can’t remember who it is, he must be a total loser, whoever he is though.
Click to expand...
ive criticsed them frequently from day one, though not as uch as i should have in retrospect, but there is a difference between saying some is incompetent and a liar, my view, and saying someone is a thief, which is the view of some idiots on here and which is demonstrably not true.
 
kildaremackem said:
ive criticsed them frequently from day one, though not as uch as i should have in retrospect, but there is a difference between saying some is incompetent and a liar, my view, and saying someone is a thief, which is the view of some idiots on here and which is demonstrably not true.
Click to expand...
So tell me, was it the previous owners intention to buy us and then sell us to make money asap yes or no.
 
Hep said:
They owned the club at the time, you cannot steal from yourself.

The young players were sold because our revenues were not high enough to retain them.

I don't believe the loan was a personal loan either.
Click to expand...

Who is they? We were talking about owners in general. You said you would be happy with anyone as it doesn't make a difference. Steve Dale being on par with Leicesters owner. Suggesting all owners perform the same. I asked if you would be happy with owners that did things on that list bearing in mind you have been speaking in hypotheticals the entire time.

And you can steal from a ltd company btw irrespective of how many shares you have in it.
 
Last edited:
Red and white TID said:
So tell me, was it the previous owners intention to buy us and then sell us to make money asap yes or no.
Click to expand...
well i dont know about the ASAP bit as thats a very inprecise term..but i think they bought with profit in mind...and a combination of vast off the scale incompetence and Donalds vanity-his desire to be seen as a big man, as demonstrated by the Grigg deal-scuppered their plans. I also think they very niave about what it means to own a business with the profile and support base of SAFC-its not like owning any other business..even businesses bigger in size..from day one I said donalds record at eastleigh pointed to him being incompetent at running football clubs...but i didnt anticipate he would be as bad at it as it subsequently proved he was at safc..i mostly see donald as a petulant bufoonish character-rather than a malevolent, sinister one as often is protrayed on here-whereas i think methven, while also bufoonish, was more malovent.
 
Grumpy Old Man said:
When I worked in retail, it was drummed in that the three most important things were location, location and location. And the location of the club shop is about as bad as it gets. If it was open, say, 6 days a week, then for at least four of them it wouldn't get sufficient footfall to generate takings let alone gross profit) that would cover the wages and overheads for that day. The ground is inconvenient for a casual trip, and the shop is in the least convenient part of the ground. This is the conumdrum/
Click to expand...
Totally agree. Maybe a match day shop at the SOL with a bigger store in the Bridges would work better??
 
22 Pages and nobody is entirely sure and the the 'le grand plan' is the same plan we had before, except the recruitment is data driven.
 
samaistonsrightfoot said:
Who is they? We were talking about owners in general. You said you would be happy with anyone as it doesn't make a difference. Steve Dale being on par with Leicesters owner. Suggesting all owners perform the same. I asked if you would be happy with owners that did things on that list bearing in mind you have been speaking in hypotheticals the entire time.

And you can steal from a ltd company btw irrespective of how many shares you have in it.
Click to expand...
But there was no theft was there. Everything that was done, was legal. As I said before, it made no difference.

The point I'm making is that fans demanding to know who owns the club changes nothing, it's just curiosity so fans can pretend they have an insight into how things will turn out.

The club was completely finished when Short was looking to sell. It could have quite easily gone into administration. What happened was, SD took it over and as part of that deal negotiated with Short to wipe the debt. If paying Short with the parachute money is the price we paid, it is well worth it. There wasn't a big queue of buyers waiting to invest money.
 
safccfas said:
If there’s nobody going into the shop then what’s the point of being open ? Shops don’t open for free.
Whatever happened to combining the ticket off and the club shop to one and the same thing ... one of the only sensible ideas to come from the fuckwit brothers
Click to expand...
I remember fans gannin on about it when the SOL was built.
 
Nelson! said:
Given the current climate I am sure they could probably get a small space in the city center for next to nowt in terms of rent. Would easily make money in the lead up to Xmas, and open the stadium one in match days, assuming they have stock to sell of course.

The current situation is shoddy at best.
Click to expand...
High St West or Fawcett St would be the best bet. As near to the bridge as possible. Fans are funnelled ower the bridge by necessity and having em walk past a club shop out of necessity would hopefully drag a few in.
 
Hep said:
They owned the club at the time, you cannot steal from yourself.

The young players were sold because our revenues were not high enough to retain them.

I don't believe the loan was a personal loan either.
Click to expand...
I really hope you're on a wind up. I suspect you are tbf.
Hep said:
But there was no theft was there. Everything that was done, was legal. As I said before, it made no difference.

The point I'm making is that fans demanding to know who owns the club changes nothing, it's just curiosity so fans can pretend they have an insight into how things will turn out.

The club was completely finished when Short was looking to sell. It could have quite easily gone into administration. What happened was, SD took it over and as part of that deal negotiated with Short to wipe the debt. If paying Short with the parachute money is the price we paid, it is well worth it. There wasn't a big queue of buyers waiting to invest money.
Click to expand...
Let's no rewrite history here. They weren't the only ones interested in the club. They may, however, been the only ones willing to use the parachute money the way they did.
 
Last edited:
Emcon said:
22 Pages and nobody is entirely sure and the the 'le grand plan' is the same plan we had before, except the recruitment is data driven.
Click to expand...

Smoke and mirrors mate. Labelling a strategy as a “long term project” just encourages the fans to be more accepting of failures by making them believe it’s all for the greater good. Because at some point in the future it will be worth it. It’s just the same failures and disappointments but just with a reason for happening.

No club that had a long term project at the start of a growth period ever amounted to anything.
 
Hep said:
But there was no theft was there. Everything that was done, was legal. As I said before, it made no difference.

The point I'm making is that fans demanding to know who owns the club changes nothing, it's just curiosity so fans can pretend they have an insight into how things will turn out.

The club was completely finished when Short was looking to sell. It could have quite easily gone into administration. What happened was, SD took it over and as part of that deal negotiated with Short to wipe the debt. If paying Short with the parachute money is the price we paid, it is well worth it. There wasn't a big queue of buyers waiting to invest money.
Click to expand...

It's absolutely necessary to know who owns the club. Not sure why so many people are so desperate not to know tbh.
 
North Yorks Mackem said:
I really hope you're on a wind up. I suspect you are tbf.

Let's no rewrite history here. They weren't the only ones interested in the club. They may, however, been the only ones willing to use the parachute money the way they did.
Click to expand...
short said the opposite..other buyers had something worse in mind for the club, which involved making the club owe the new buyers the £25m...and donald et al were the only ones who wouldnt do this so they got the deal.
North Yorks Mackem said:
I really hope you're on a wind up. I suspect you are tbf.

Let's no rewrite history here. They weren't the only ones interested in the club. They may, however, been the only ones willing to use the parachute money the way they did.
Click to expand...
short was trying to sell for a very long time before a buyer was found..indiicating there was not a huge queue of credible people..same as when KLD came in..before him it was a lot of waifs and strays like Mark Campbell and that fella who was all over the press.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top