He IS the first manager that I've ever wanted that Sunderland has actually signed. This is not the reason why I feel he should be backed though. In his first 5 games he has shown more tactical nouse than I've seen from a Sunderland manager in a long time. He has lifted players to perform better. His arm around Catts at the end of the game, nice touch yet in interview he said Cattermole has a good way to go to convince him that his reckless days are over. I just feel he is the right man and after so many pretenders this is the right man to back to put us up there into rhe top half of the league. You may say honeymoon period. It's too early to tell but I'm convinced MON and SAFC were made for each other. Mr short allow him the backing of Bruce and you will not be dissappointed.
sell to buy policy then? yes Bruce spent about 70 million ish but he got back in 65 million ish (maybe slightly wrong too late to look it up, but its about that). We need turnover up, only way to do that is to beat teams like Man City on live TV, rise up the table, to make it big though you have to get into the CL, but its catch 22 for me, to get into it you have to spend, but you cant spend what you havnt got, so how are you going to get into it, to get the revenue to buy the players to get into it. I would like nothing better than Short to give MON 20-50 million for Jan and the summer, If Bent goes to Liverpool, he might, because they should pay us everything then, but if Bent stays, i just cant see that much getting spent, it wont be 0 but it wont be silly money i feel.
Bruce ****in joke, always at every club, spent loads,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,to what end result? if Short dont give ST MARTIN the dosh, he has lost the plot.
Short did appoint St Martin of Sunderland in the first place. He showed he had the balls, and his mind focused on the plot to know in Jan if Martin needs a few players, he will let him have some cash. He should be already able to see that the crowds are up (isnt it like the 3rd home game of attendances up above 40,000?) and the atmosphere at the SoL is being talked about... he will see this as a way to raise capital. Bums on seats and all that. If the crowds continue the way they are going, there is no end to what can be achieved at Sunderland.
First things first. We played Man. City yesterday with a makeshift team - and won. So what's wrong with the squad MON already has? I agree with Steve (above) that we can't just spend what we haven't got, and perhaps we don't need to. A few weeks ago, we were talking about extra cover at CD and a left winger. But I read somewhere on here earlier today that MON's already signed two new star players - McClean and Kilgallon. And that's right, because those two weren't going anywhere with Bruce and now they're smack in the frame. Two former problems solved. We do need an out-and-out striker. Steve (again) reckons we might get some money if Bent goes to Liverpool. But with all due respect, Steve, can you see Bent wanting to rotate with Suarez and Carroll. He likes playing week in, week out, so I can't see that deal coming off. (The ideal situation is for Bent to come back here, because he's good at the job and it would involve very little cash changing hands, but I doubt it will happen). I'm very skeptical about throwing millions at a January window. I really wonder if O'Neill needs a lot.
TBH I'm past caring, I just feel its right and the right things will be done. If MON want cash he will get it but I think he likes finding unknowns and making them stars. Dont worry about cash and big names, if MON wants to sign Hesky right now I will back him 100% because in a few short weeks he has shown me he knows more about how to make my team successful than I ever will.
@ cutey I just cant see Bent coming back here, like i said in another thread we have Bendtner (not ours i know but might be), Ji, Whickam, Campbell, Noble and Gyan due back next year, that is 6 strikers we have, Yes Bent would walk back into our team, but then Carrol hasnt exactly set the world alight at Liverpool and its what all the transfer gossip is saying, Bent to Liverpool, I was just following along for the sake of brevity tbh, I havnt got a clue where he will go, if indeed he will go anywhere. But if he does go somewhere, wherever he goes he will score goals (well everywhere apart from here, i just have a feeling him coming back would be a disaster for some reason. So the best we can hope for is he goes to a top 6 side, they pay 30+ million for him, we have a sell on clause of 20% we get the 18 million they owe us, and 6 million for the clause, 24 million in 1 lump sum, we have the 6 million from Gyan so thats 30 million to spend, and maybe Short puts in 20 million, 50 million warchest for Jan and the summer. Obviously those numbers are just from looking in from the outside and what i think AV still owe us and what the contract might entail, but i do think Bent going somewhere else (for as much cash as possible), rather than back to us, would be the best for Sunderland Football Club and MON.
Strikers Strikers Strikers Strikers Strikers Strikers Strikers Strikers Strikers Strikers Strikers Strikers Strikers Strikers Strikers Strikers You might guess I think we need one or two good strikers, I just hope Mr Short backs MoN and that St Naill is out there somewhere sorting out an outstanding deal!
Sorry yeah i knew it was wrong when i typed it but just woke up (watched the NFL till 5am) so thats my excuse.
Steve, the Bent deal isn't as simple as that. When he went to Villa we used the down payment from Villa to pay the installments to Spurs off as well as the sell on fee they had included in the original deal. Quinn said at one of those roadshows we made a tidy profit on him but we certainly didn't make £24m from Darren Bent.
Thank goodness for that Steve. For a horrible moment I thought you may have heard on the grapevine that we were in transfer talks with WHU.
I thought we got 6 million off Villa, we owed 6 million to spurs, that went to spurs, one clause was if he kept them up we get extra, as Quinn said he hoped AV would stay up because we would get more money from the deal, which i presumed would rise to 24 million (or thats what the gossip was at the time). So we got 6 million - 24 million as they stayed up = 18 million sell on clause = 6 million (if we have one anyway) = 24 million, if they sell him they will have to pay us what they owe us in 1 payment (i would presume). Like i said though i am not ITK, its just what was bandied about at the time. But even if its 12 million we get, its better than 0 or another 4-6 million installment.
With you on that Cyprus, all I can say is let him do the job his way, give him what he asks for & we can sit back & enjoy the trnsformation
