http://www.sunderlandecho.com/sport...column/quinn_sunderland_need_to_buy_1_3328267 Reading Quinns comments i think we can expect 8-10 signings this summer & a few players leaving. I know everyone always asks who do you think we should sign this summer and alot of names have been mentioned. But who do you think will leave or who we should get rid of. For me Angeleri (Not really had a chance but he pissed off SB so i think he is gone anyway) Riveros (Not really had a chance but looked better in the WC) Zenden (Wants first team football and we can`t give it to him) Noz (Not good enough) Killgallon (Not good enough) McCartney (Not good enough) I`m not sure if SB will sign Mensah or Muntari but i hope we get Ned & Elmo
How the hell did you come up with the figure of '8-10 signings' from that article? You wont sign 8-10 - unless they're ****e. We have a ã35million warchest in the summer, and we're only signing 5 or 6, so where will you get the money to buy 8-10 decent players? Short isn't a bottomless money pit. Quinn said there that you guys NEED to buy players, but he didn't say that you guys would. I really can't see Short being particularly lavish with his money this time around.
5 players at our club at the minute are loan players & Quinn says we are not strong enough so if them 5 players return to their parent clubs we are way short thats why i think 8-10 signings http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11661_6901561,00.html Ellis might not be a bottomless money pit But he must ready to see how deep it is
Once Enrique and Barton go to Liverpool I don't think ã35 million is going to be enough to replace those players. IMHO. As for ourselves....I think Ellis will splash the cash again this year. Not based on anything else than he will not settle for our lack of success. Our loan player policy this year has worked to a degree but we need to BUY the players who wear the shirt.
Well that sure would be nice, but an awful lot of cash is needed for that if you want a bunch of decent players. This is why all those loan signings were an awful choice. It's put you guys in somewhat of a false position. You've brought in a load of squad depth in loanee's and achieved a mid-table position, but once those loans run out and the squad thins out again, you either have to spend a fortune to make up for those lost players PLUS more signings (which isn't always possible) or you have to take out yet another bunch of loans which (in my view) is bad for the squad. It's an endless loop which is pretty hard to get out of. The link between Barton and Liverpool is lame at best, and it's been reported that he's already agreed a new contract with us (shortly after Nolan did), so he isn't going anywhere. As for Enrique, we can spend the cash we get from his sale (if he's sold) on a new defender. That's another problem with all of these loanee's you have. If we get rid of any of our players, we'll get cash for them (possibly a lot in the case of Enrique). Once you guys send your loan players back, you won't get a penny. Bad bad choice by Bruce in my opinion. Has it really?
You wont sign 8-10 - unless they're ****e. We have a ã35million warchest in the summer, and we're only signing 5 or 6, so where will you get the money to buy 8-10 decent players? I believe that since Brucie took over we are something like ã13 million surplus in the transfer market so couple that with the sky/gate/merchandising money and we should have a healthy transfer kitty. Add to that any monies received from the sale of many players going. I'll admit I don't know the exact surplus figure but someone out there could possibly enlighten me. I know Short paid out a lot during Keane's reign but for the last couple of years I reckon it hasn't cost anything ('cos we're in surplus) so there should be a big pile of dosh waiting to be spent Correct me if I'm wrong.
There might be ã13 mill. Might be ã15mill+. Could be considered realistic. However, these days that doesn't get you very far if you want to buy quality players. Definitely won't get you anywhere near 8-10. If the squad depth gets too thin, then Bruce might be forced to pay less per player for a higher number of players, as opposed to, say, ã5mill each on 2-4 decent signings.
Of course it's been a success to a degree...we are sitting on forty one points despite a horrendous run of results. If it were not for the loan players our squad would have been wafer thin. One loan has been poor - I'm not denying it. Can you honestly say Welbeck and Onuoha haven't been a sucess? Of the five loanees...four have had positive impacts when fit. Muntari's a different story....
You're right Chappaz when you say ã13m. won't buy much in the way of a few quality players but what I was getting at was we effectively haven't cost Ellis Short anything for the last couple of years and we appear to be making a profit. It's true we have 5 on loan players which cost no fee and that we get nothing for them but it also means that we haven't spent any transfer money on them. I'm probably over optimistic in the amount I reckon we should have but if Short was to put in about ã15m. plus our surplus and the other profits(sale of players/sky etc) I think we could be talking about ã40m or so. There again, your lot should really get ã35m. from the sale of Carroll and possibly 10-14 for Enrique but do you think you'll get it (all?) As supporters we can all come up with our guesses but who really knows the real state our clubs finances are in?
I'm comparing it to signing permanent players though. In my opinion, the amount of loanee's has been a reason for the big slump. When the going gets tough they're the people who are the least likely to put up a fight. It isn't even their club, so the same mentality won't be there. If the lone players were permanent signings in a long-term stable team, then it could have been a different story. I'm not saying it's the whole reason, but it might be a factor. See below. But it also means that once they leave, you'll be back to where you were before the season. Signing so many loan players just delays the inevitable. Unless you just want to keep getting a third of your squad on loan every year, there comes a time when you have to buy a permanent long-term squad who plays for the club. You can't dodge that initial cost forever. We won't get it all. Most of it though, hopefully. The same goes for you guys though. You've mentioned gate income and Sky, but the club costs money. When have you ever seen stadium revenues and TV money be a big chunk of a transfer budget for any club bar those in the Champions League? NUFC will have stadium income, Sky and merchandise money too, but I doubt we'll see any of that being spent on players. If it was, I can't see where the money would come from to actually run the club. Teams announce their finances every year, so lets take a look: http://www.safc.com/news/20110216/safc-announce-financial-results_2256213_2294695 And that was before you guys splashed out on Gyan. So, from that, I'd say the only chance of any decent transfer budget depends on how much Short is willing to put into the club yet again.
I think I'm right in saying that over the last 3-4 years Sunderland have been one of the biggest spenders in the premiership. After all that, and with a manager 2 years down the line in his "re-building" its a sad reflection of the state of the team that you are looking to bring in another 10 players next season. In general Bruce's signings are poor and it doesn't bear thinking about how much you've paid to rent Welbeck, Onuaha and the others. That will run into millions as well. Maybe if you'd kept one the 6 world class strikers Stoke have, instead of selling him to them you wouldn't be looking so sick today. Its really time for old Quinn to stop putting his foot in his mouth now isn't it. What a mess.
I think you may be getting the wrong idea about the 8-10, they sure wont all be regular first teamers. If you look at what Quinn says about strikers he thinks we need 6 and it sure wont be 6 top buys, Bothroyd on a free, sqaud player so for me it will be Gyan who is here and Campbell who will be out then 1 top buy and a few back up. I top midfield and a LB back up. 1 good RB then maybe back up but if we can keep Anton, I hope we can, he can cover along the back line.
You guys have spent a completely ****ing ridiculous amount of money with precious little to show for it... More of the same next season I'm guessing
I wonder if the Mags manager will see any of the ã35 million as Ashley has already given ã40 million.
Fans and the press are always speculating about "war-chest" spending and to be fair - it's bollocks. No one really knows how much teams have to spend.
I think its funny how the mags say we waste money Albert Luque Jean Alain Boumsong Carl Cort Hugo Viana Christian bassedas Alain Goma Duncan Ferguson Stephane Guivarc'h Xisco Marcelino Alan Smith Michael Owen Just to mention a few I`m not saying we have not signed a few flops over the years but **** me
We were once a Champions League team, and up until a few years ago, we've spent big for decades. The more you buy, the more flops you inevitably have. You guys have only started spending decent cash these last few years, and as that goes on (IF that goes on) you'll see more flops appear. Just a part of football. In the case of you guys though, this point is quite prevalent. You guys HAVE spent big, but something has went very wrong as you've ended up with an average table position and a thread-bare squad. I think Bruce is to blame for most of it to tell you the truth - perhaps with a little bit of genuine bad luck sprinkled in.
http://www.transferleague.co.uk/premiership-transfers/sunderland-transfers.html season 2008-09 was Keane and Drummaville. Bruce has literally had to build his own team, and sold most of the ones Keane bought/were already here before Keane. and we are still in a profit. (on transfers). Season 10/11 Bruce Total IN ã22,200,000 Out ã36,300,000 Net -ã14,100,000 Season 09/10 Bruce Total IN ã24,500,000 OUT ã18,750,000 Net ã5,750,000 Season 08/09 Keane Total IN ã24,650,000 OUT ã4,500,000 NET ã20,150,000 Season 07/08 Keane Total IN ã40,300,000 Out ã0 net ã40,300,000 personally I dont think bruce has done to bad, and tbh has done better than i could do (i would have spent millions if i had the chance lol)
