Who we want and who we actually get are 2 totally different things, I bet 99.9% didnt want Bruce until we heard he had the job, likewise I bet 99.9% didnt even contemplate Pardew, and if they did, didnt want him for you. Supporters can dream you know, its what we probably do best.
It's a wish, obviously. And do stop with the "delusional" word. I know you're trying to deflect it from NUFC, but it looks silly.
Not all of us think we could get Moyes but the majority think he is a cracking manager I also love it on here when one of our threads ends up with the mags slagging each other off lol
David Moyes might consider Sunderland to be fair. He's taken Everton as far as he can. Just think, get 3 or 4 years with a bit of cash to spend, it's a new test for him. We know he can get 100% out of his players so then we would see if he can spend wisely in the transfer market. If he passes this test, then he has proven he has good man management, is strong tactically, and can spend money wisely. Everything in place for him to move to Manchester United when Ferguson retires, could be all set up perfectly tbh.
Any PL club would be lucky to have David Moyes as a manager, he's been superb for Everton under difficult circumstances, I think he would have to be sacked from Everton rather than leave, he definitely has a deep attatchment to the club and players. He fought very hard to keep Lescott, even though Lescotts head had been turned by Man City, he gave an interview at the time and was not only outraged at Man Citys relentless persuing of Lescott, but he was hurt that Lescott wanted to go. Since then he keeps losing key players, but always manages to get them up and running again.
If and when Bruce does depart Sunderland (fingers crossed that is soon) there are managers out of work that could do a great job and would avoid Sunderland getting involved in costly compensention claims. MON would be my first choice, but I reckon the club would go for Hughes
You are right to say we wont get Moyles, think the lad has a loyalty about him that Bruce lacks, but it costs nowt to dream now does it?
You make it sound like NUFC is about to go into admin. Gee, your american sugardaddy might pack up and leave too, seeing how things are going. I'm sure he's having second thoughts about his reasons in being SAFC. You're relegation candidates to me. Might even put some money on it now. Disjointed team, no goals in the side, no leadership, poor management and no one wants to sign for you. you're going doon!
Mon was on the TV last night at Chelsea game so maybe he's getting the taste for football back. I think he's a cracking manager and would do a good job same as Moyes.
The actual club itself has MUCH healthier finances now, where we're pretty much breaking even. However, I agree in that Ashley's debt is the white elephant in the room. Stevie Taylor spoke to the press a few days ago and said that this season Llambias has kept himself out of the team. He gave the squad their bonuses right away and now just lets the players and Pardew get on with it. Just look at the result. Hopefully it will teach Ashley and Llambias a lesson, so they will be less inclined to stick their noses in in future. I hope so, as it clearly makes for a more stable environment. Sunderland is as susceptible to that as Newcastle is though. And the proof is there with Henderson, Bent and Gyan all vanishing, so if it is a negative, then it's a negative for both teams. Selling players and injuries are equal problems for both sides I reckon.
I stopped reading at this point. If you genuinely believe this, then frankly, you don't know what you're talking about.
Fair do's, but the difference is that I suspect Ashley wants to sell. We have lost players we didn't want to lose, which although in many ways leads to the same result, has a different motivating factor. The main point of my article is not to rain on your parade though, it's more of a reality check for the doom and gloom around the SoL lately. We're still a lot better off than most clubs and the grass is always greener...
I think you make some fair points. Ashley is far more likely to pull a stunt which disrupts team harmony, and gets the fans on his back than Short. And I suppose you could argue that we are prospering atm in spite of Ashley, and not because of him. Pardew, his backroom staff, and the excellent Graham Carr are working wonders for our club atm, and long may it continue. Sunderland as a club are suffering because of your manager. I think its as simple as that really. The longer Bruce stays with you, the more desperate I can see your situation becoming. There is one man out there who stands head and shoulders above everyone else as the best candidate to replace Bruce and that's Martin O'Neil. He would be an outstanding appointment for you lot. Always overachieves everywhere he goes, likes to spend abit of money, but Short would give him it, and more importantly has previous experience of working in an environment where the derby game is the be all and end all really (Old firm, Brum v Villa) Fair enough my comment on Bruce may come back to haunt me, but I think you can see that change is needed. I may be being slightly biased because I got odds on him of 9-1 to be first manager sacked so I want him out first!!
MO'N would do for me right now. If nothing else he'd sort out the tactics and get the players properly organized on the pitch. But Bruce may yet pull some irons out of the fire, although the omens are not good IMO. 9/1 odds are looking long at the moment...
You've got your accounting knowledge mixed up a bit: By converting debt into equity it means the owner will HAVE to get the higher price to pay for all the extra equity if he sells up. By leaving it as Debt, a new owner could technically purchase the equity from Ashley, and own the club, for cheaper whilst leaving the debt in there. Presumably though if this happened Ashley would then charge interest on it, or the club would refinance. So in fact keeping it as debt is a bonus for both Ashley and Toon fans as it makes an exit strategy easier for all parties.
The Mags have had a good start to their season but things have fallen nicely for them. Arsenal are a poor shadow of themselves at present and I saw that game on TV. The Mags were lucky not to concede that day. Blackburn are carp and were well beaten. I did not see the derby but reports suggest the Mags could have been a few down by half-time. I don`t know about the Villa game but a point there is a good result. In summary, they have done well but they have not really been tested yet. Their defensive record this season is impressive especially with the players that left. I would love to see the tables next March and on present form, you have to admit we will struggle to finish above them. Football is a strange game and there is a long, long way to go yet.
Bit wide of the mark there, mate. Leaving it as debt means the club owes him the money whether he sells or not. Converting it into equity (i.e. share capital) means there's no debt and he can only get back what someone is prepared to pay for his shares. In other words, he's taking his chances himself. Whilst Ashley's equity is worth what someone is prepared to pay for it, his debt is still valued at par. No incoming purchaser would buy if the debt is still on the books, unless it was converted into a security with fixed repayment terms, and who's to say if Ashley will agree. I can't see why he would when he could just call it in any time he wanted. You suggest that keeping the debt as debt gives greater flexibility, which is true. But it just means that a deal is less likely because it's not what Ashley or an incoming buyer is likely to want. It's not an accounting issue; it's a deal issue.
Mate... No offence, but I teach accountancy.. By converting debt to equity (so you have no debt) then the Equity consists of the whole value of the companies assets, so you have to pay the going rate for those assets. By keeping it as debt, it reduces the value of the Net Assets of the company and so the Equity (and therefore the ownership of the company) is reduced in value, so it's cheaper to purchase. The fact that the debt would be left in there would be up to the new owner to work out how to deal with it, but ultimately it means he could purchase the ownership of the company for cheaper in the first place.
Likewise, no offence, but I am a practising accountant! I'm not arguing the toss about the debt/equity really, I'm telling you that having the debt on the books is highly likely to be a deal-breaker when Ashley sits across the table with a potential buyer. We can argue theory all day long, but I have to roll my sleeves up and get my hands dirty every day (figuratively speaking!) and that debt is toxic. Trust me...
