Stoke have far less debt I'd say, plus a lot of things aren't mentioned on there, like how much it costs you to sack managers and staff every 60 days, how your previous transfers are structured to be repaid, how much you're paying agents... probably a lot more too. Stoke seem a fairly well run club, backed by generous and ambitious owners, there's your main reason, they're clued up. Southampton's profits will have all come from player sales, Shaw £30m, Lallana £25m, Lovren £20m, Morgs £25m, Clyne £13m, £15m Chambers, £5m Lambert, Wanyama, Mane... the last couple won't have been included in those figures but still, that's how to make a profit.
Yep, trusty scousers will hoover up all your ****. Shaw looks every bit the £30m we paid for him, Schneiderlin maybe not, he's barely done anything. I wouldn't take any of them players Liverpool signed.
Big fish don't look as big when the pool gets bigger!! Agree totally - I'd probably have Clyne at the moment but mainly because we've got Donald Love at RB - canny young 'un but struggling at the moment and needs more time in a more confident side. The players the dippers signed would probably do well for us - Lallana & Clyne definitely but not for you guys. Luke Shaw is looking the player we was before that "tackle"
I thought I read on here last week that we're now £139m in debt. If that was true, from £39m to £139m in 2 years?
Sacked a lot of managers, back room teams, DoF and their scouts. Next accounts will show the first big step up in tv money, one would hope it shows a massive chunk of the debt paid off.
One certainly would! (One would also be amazed!! Nothing seems to happen at our club that we all know SHOULD!)
Don't worry, I've been shouting at myself for the last few weeks cos no one can explain to me how we are in this mess. I can only assume that our overheads are bigger and we carry a lot of redundant debt from players that are no longer at the club.
FFS, it just gets worse, how is this even possible? Even still, £139m is a manageable debt and shouldn't stop us from competing for players.
If money bags Short truly wanted Sunderland to do well then why doesn't he just wipe the debt off? 139m is a lot of money granted, but what is the point in having billions of pounds and not using it. I am sure if he wiped the debt off he would still have enough to get by on. His money may well be tied up in investments etc. hence him not having the cash to splash. Really don't know what is happening at Sunderland but i am right in the dumps about the place and struggling to remain positive about the whole scenario.
