We clearly agree with each other however I strongly suspect that we are quite simply going through the motions awaiting the inevitable at this point in time as supporters of SAFC. It's going to take a miracle to reignite my passion under Bruce and I guess there are about 10,000 supporters who feel the same, some of which are drowning their sorrows in the pub on a matchday afternoon. Although he isn't everybodys favourite choice, I would be absolutely thrilled if Martin O'Neill was appointed.
Two wins wouldn't remove the doubt that has built up in my mind since January... Even IF we win the next two games we will have won 4 and lost 5. I'm not so sure that is a great cause for celebration which would be the catalyst to open my bottle of Midleton Very Rare! Mind you, appoint Martin O'Neill and I'd be on the phone to KWM wines and spirits ordering another 5 bottles!
Ive been going for 36 years mate and to be honest, I had had enough after the 15 points season. Could have easily walked away after that. However, the lure of the legend that is Niall Quinn got me all goosebumpy again and excited. That has well and truly gone now as well and much of that has to do with Bruces last 12 months. We are going backwards imo and relegation is as much a part of my SAFC supporting agenda today, as it has been over the past 4 decades. Far from stabilising the club, I think he is undermining its future with his lack of planning and squad building. We are rebuilding the same foundation transfer window after transfer window and after 5 of them, we are no closer to having a settled team, fornmation or tactical plan than we were 2.5 years ago. Throw in the worst derby resuly in my lifetime and a complete shambles in the other 2 games and I have enough gripes to want his head asap. Martn O Neill would be my overwhelming choice but with the resignation of Gus Hiddink yeasterday, I think I'd even take him over MoN, as I believe Hiddink would even get the support of current Bruce supporters, which MoN may not. Someone like Gus Hiddink would have the real gravitas to give us a profile we crave and would have contacts that mean something. I'm sure Short would have more confidence in someone like Hiddink and would top players be ready to walk away from his management? My real fear of course is that bugger all will be done about Bruce until its far too late and far from a Hiddink type of appointment, we will be forced to appoint a Mick Buxton/Sbragia sort of care-manager, just to try and save a desperate situation that is already ****ed. Hopefully, one way or the other (I'd be quite happy if Bruce wins the next 3 games and draws one tbh) things will sort themselves out by the time we have entertained Balckburn in 3 weeks time. Anything less than 9 points and I think we should let all hell break loose.
Wrong 100% mate. Like most people, you mis-understand my motives. All I want is for SAFC to be successful. My gripe is that I dont think Bruce can deliver this and we are as likely to finish bottom 5 or 6 (or worse) than we are top 10. However, if we win the next 2 games that will be fine with me so long as we dont then lose the next 3 or 4. 1 step forward and 2 steps backwards is what I am most pissed off about Bruce. In reality, even the staunchest Bruce supporters must surely have to concede that if we cant beat Fulham, Wigan and Blackburn at home, he is finished? These are not top sides are they? Wigan and Blackburn are fellow relegation threatened clubs and they are also very, very poor football teams and Fulham are one of the worst travellers in the EPL. Even a point at Wolves should be the order of the day. With a very tricky December to come, failure to get these points will leave us struggling going into the new year. My argument to you is how long would you leave it as it is and what would you expect the minimum return to be over the next 4 games? Time is fast running out for Bruce. I dont think he can pull off 9 or 10 points we need and have predicted between 5 and 7 as the most we will get, giving us the paltry return of 16 or 17 points after 16 games (almost half the season gone) and on course for about 38/39 points maximum for the season. Is that going gto be enough? In trouble at that point? We are in trouble now, so by then we will be totally knackered.
Cest, I know you havent said that the wage structure is broken or want rid. Which is why i said "then you agree"... I was trying to seperate the Bruce and SHort debate. In all honestly, I think you were using your comments about Short in order to force an agreement about Bruce... very clever, but I aint having it!! Can we now say that Short isnt to blame for our situation? and say your original comments about Short were wrong, and that we agree that Short, and the way he is handling our club as an owner, is the best way forward? YOur argument against short even got newtonlee to say Short is M Ashely n2 - which we can all say is a load of bollocks.. WHo says Sess wants away, the daily mail? and if he wants away, as the mail suggests, because his family wont settle, then is Bruce to blame for that?? Though believing anything the mail says is.. well I'll let you complete that sentence I said we were over reliant on Bent, and that is true. We are now making progress on that front - our midfield is scoring goals, and our defence might start chipping in with one or two as well. Why have we made progress? Cause Bruce recognised that was a weakness, and has tried to remedy it (Larsson, Gardner etc). if you are willing to blame bruce for everything, you should give him credit where credit is due as well. clockwork, you say Villa bought Bent so my argument about them is wrong. I dont agree with that. I never said you could not have a 20+ goal striker, and have the midfield and defence scoring goals as well. When we still had Bent playing for us, we only had him scoring goals - that was the problem. In an ideal world we would have both Bent here now, and the midfield scoring goals --> We couldnt meet Bents wage demands, so he left. Villa did meet his demands, and were willing to blow 24 million on one player. The rest is history. Neither Shane Long nor Danny Graham would have replaced Bent like for like, and neither of them have a brilliant goals per game ratio. You think they would have done a job, but surely that is up to our scouts and manager to decide? We can always "what if" but Long and Graham might have been flops for us, just as much as they could have been a success. Our scouts and manager decided they wouldnt work out for us. And even if you think Bruce cant keep the good players (or is to blame in some way for us not being able to keep them), you have to agree he has an eye for seeing who the good ones are (Bent, Gyan, Larsson, Sess etc etc). If he can see who the good ones are, then you have to concede that he will be able to tell who wouldnt work out for us as well? (I know not all Bruce's buys have worked out, but the ones he took a gamble on and didnt work out, cost us peanuts - and no manager has ever bought zero flops in his career). We have suffered some sucker punches, and yes, we could say that Bruce was left standing in those cases. But I dont see that safc has played "terrible football" under Bruce. In fact, our football has been bloody good at times. I restate: The 1st half of last season was ****ing excellent, we were playing good football and were having good results, injuries hit and Bent left (for $$ imo) and suddenly we were struggling. Bruce has remedied one weakness from that part of the season - our ability to score goals from other parts of the pitch - but so far we have been unable to replace Bent, probably cos no player could replace him (for less than 30 million based on the current market). We bought 11 players over the summer, gyan ****ed off (another one of the sucker punches) so we have had a slow start. The last couple of games, imo, have shown that the squad has what it takes to recover and I believe we will do that --> however if we havent done so after the next 4 games, then Short has a a decision to make. Yes, it would have been in our best interest to buy one more striker over the summer (even if it was only a 10 goal a season striker), but we dont know if the club did make an approach for such a player or not, or if they did but we were turned down. You decide to blame bruce for that, fair enough - that your opinion and you are entitled to it. I dont cos I dont know the whole picture (what the club did or did not do) so cannot, or dont want to, judge him on that. As far as I am aware, Bruce hands over a list of transfer targets to Quinn, and Quinn goes out and tries to get them. WIth Bruce having a chat with them once the negotiations with the other club have reached a certain point. You cannot deny that Bruce has improved the other areas of the squad, and you cannot say that our form 1st half of last season was anything short of excellent under Bruce.
I'd very much doubt that we could attract Hiddink to the club... I believe that at one point Sir Niall tried to appoint Mancini however his wage demands were something in the order of 10 million per year... not sure if that is true but it was all the talk at one point in time. I have a strong belief that the natural choice is always the best choice and for me, Martin O'Neill just stands out as the natural choice. Only time will reveal if it ever happens... If you were the chairman of Sunderland and you were looking to appoint a manager assuming you had just sacked Bruce, who would be the most natural choice? Thats an open question to BiBs and BoBs alike. On the topic of Ellis Short. I believe he is an excellent owner and chairman at this point in time. I also realise that a chairman must be seen to give more time to a manager than your average supporter. However I also believe that when Short took the role of chairman from Sir Niall the microscope was firmly placed into position. No facts or evidence to back that up, just a hunch.
Dans - its certainly Short that will either release funds he pocketed from the sale of Henderson, Bent and the loan deal for Gyan, so he is to blame. Also, you say Graham and Long could have flopped but fail to address my point then about blowing the budget on Wickham and Ji who have hardly set the world on fire either. If I am not mistaken, Long has about 4 or 5 goals this season and Graham 4. You say thats a flop? I say it would be a huge improvement on what we have as striking options currently. Like i have said, youre entrenched in the Bruce can do no worng camp and I in the he can no longer do right. For all your points of praise, I can offer equally credible points of condmenation. We are not going to change our stance are we. Only time and results on the pitch can decide who is right and who is wrong. I hope and pray for the sake of the club that I am completely wrong and you and CyprusMackem are 100% right because if I am right, then the club are buggered and thats not going to impress me at all. Just out of interest, what would your points return target be over the next 4 games, Fulham, Wigan and Blackburn at home and Wolves away? If you say less than 9 then its an admission that Bruce cant deliver because if we cant beat them 3 at home, we may as well go back to the championship after all.
I realise that you never said that we cannot have a 20+ goals striker without goals coming from midfield too. I never said that you didn't say that. What I asked you was. Is it not the responsibility of the manager to ensure that we have a sound mode of continuity in the event that one player leaves the club? We had a great start last season but thats no good if you only finish 8 points clear of relegation... We have a problem here... We have continued in exactly the same fashion that we ended the second half of last season... Don't you see a trend occuring here? Why should we assume that we are going to have a great second half to the season? We have two fit strikers (although Ji's international manager would disagree) and yet only one of them has started a premier league game. Bruce blamed injuries for last season and yet the man who advised him as to the cause of those injuries is no longer on the staff of SAFC and on and on we go.... The clock is ticking... and I strongly suspect that it is only a matter of time before the BiBs begin to doubt their position on the subject of Bruce.
Short is to blame for what, balancing the books by using the sale of Bent and Henderson to do so? Isnt that a good thing though? (that our books are balanced) I dont think Bruce can do no wrong, I just think the amount of blame being put on him is too much, not that he shouldnt take any blame at all. I thought I just agreed with you when I said we have been left a striker short this summer? I am pretty sure he would have had a target or 2, but the club were unable to pull it off. However, I also agree that Bruce (and the club) got caught out, with regards to Bent and Gyan, and that maybe we shouldnt have been caught out (fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice...). Being caught out meant we didnt have enough time to get a replacement in (Bent in Jan, Gyan in summer) - We should have been aiming to replace Bent in the summer (maybe that was the role of Bendtner, though he is a different style of player?), and Gyan could not be replaced after the window was shut (Gyan was the "fool me twice"). I just think that Bruce has made improvements as well (like getting the team scoring from other areas), and that we were playing good footie 1st half of last season so it is harsh to say we have never played good football under Bruce.
Yes I agree, it was stupid to rely so heavily on one player, but I dont think it was Bruce's plan to do so. If Bruce could have sorted out all our problems in one swoop (get in 20+ goal striker, get the midfield scoring goals, get a rock solid defence.... etc) , then that would have been brilliant. But that is very difficult to do, which is why you have long term plans, over a few transfer windows. Bruce's dont quite seem to be working out (bent and gyan leaving), but no plans ever work 100%. We now have a good midfield which can score goals and be creative, unfortunately our top strikers left, but hopefully we will get at least one in this January and another next summer. We also need cover for larsson imo.
Being fooled twice is enough for me to arrive at an accurate assessment. Either perfection from this point, or a 3rd fool me situation? Fooled twice in 2.5 years? The long-term future doesn't look bright based upon the evidence thus far. However I also suggest that the issue isn't quite so simplistic and that there are underlying reasons for why these players come and go within 12-24 months. It's a topic we have attempted to share common ground upon before. The next 4 games ought to reveal 1 of 2 scenarios. Either Bruce gets more time to fool us a 3rd time or the time has come to wave goodbye.
There can be no doubt that up to and including January of this year Bruce had improved the club but you cannot deny that since February 1st 2011 we have been simply awful Dans. The football is tragic to watch and the results have been as poor as the 15 and 19 point lads but the players are far better than that. I can only therefore look at the manager for thise decent players not performing? If not, then why bother with a manager at all? I dont buy the thiought that Bendtner was a target at all until Gyan did his maigic disappearing act and Bruce then **** himself realising he was now left with 2 lads he blew the budget on (you have now failed twice to address that blunder by the way in replies) for whom he had no intention or couldnt play for months. That is 100% Bruces choice to go for Wickham and Ji and not use the limited money on players that would have supported Gyan and replaced Bent. neither Connor or Ji are replacements for Bent either but the whole wad was blown without any thought abiut the here and now. If its Shorts intention to balance the books then fine but that balancing of the books is the money he invested put back in his pocket which is exactly what Ashley is doing and getting pelters for over at NE1. Shorts filling his pockets has gone under the radar but fill them he most certaily has over the past 12 months. Look at our outlay since January 2011 and our sales column and my 6 year old understands the maths are good for the newly appointed Chairman on that one. Now, I dont deny its his money and his club to do what he likes with but lets stop tip toeing about here and cut to the chase. Lets stop the horse ****ting about us being an ambitious club, that we will break the bank and lets stop the speculating about who we may get in come January becasue lets face it, Short aint spending a penny is he? I just want some down to earth honesty form the club regarding transfers, spending and ambition. If all we have is the money to stay up every year in the bottom half aka Wolves, Wigan etc then lets say so. We are promised jam tomorrow all the time and thats what leads to the unrest. I hat ebeing lied to or taken for a mug and at the minute I feel that Short, Quinn and Bruce have taken me for a mug - or more to the point they haven't because I've been kicking off for 8 or 9 months since the January transfer ended and Bents replacement hadn't been brought in. Until I hear an honest statement from the Chairman, manager or the departed former Chairman I will keep demanding they come good on their promises and that means big investment, in big players (from harrods not Aldi) as they told us the magic carpet would provide. Bruce takes 75% of the blame - its his team, his tactics, his training regime and his players; Short and Quinn can sahe the other 25% for this failure.
Lets stop the horse ****ting about us being an ambitious club, that we will break the bank and lets stop the speculating about who we may get in come January becasue lets face it, Short aint spending a penny is he? The club have already confirmed they are working to comply with the new regulations, under the new regulations the owner isn't allowed to spend a penny. If they can get the club self sufficient in the next 18 months then we could be in a brilliant position to move up the table over the next 5 years (Providing we don't get relegated in this time) So I think the answer to all of this pointless tit-for-tat arguing will be clear in the next 5 years or so as to how Ellis Short has done for the club.
If we win the next 3 games out of 4 SB will be getting a lot longer as manager. If we lose them all then I would hope all the BiBs and Ellis Short realise his time is up. I think I have already said elsewhere in this thread we need to know the business plan re, total/individual wage cap and what capital outlay is. If the club is ambitious and want to start filling the SoL we need to pay attractive winning football, to do that we need better players, at least signing Bentdner plus ano striker in Jan and a fast winger will need to pay better wages. Now if this upsets some idiots in FIFA/UEFA rules then ES who was pretty good at dodging regulations in S Korea in his company Lone Star, needs to get round them here also.
I think Bruce is on his last chance now. I really like the guy, and want him to do well - but equally football is a results based business, and Short is first and foremost a business man so I would expect him to have analysed all the angles, got contingencies in place, and behind the scenes things are under control. If anything the sales of Bent and Henderson will show Ellis that you can make decent money in PL, and hopefully encourage him to escalate his interest.
