Of ****e, you make your mind up. Sunderland's American billionaire owner proved himself to be a bit of sport by taking on the Ice Bucket Challenge then nominating his Newcastle counterpart Mike Ashley, head coach Alan Pardew and two-timer Jack Colback to follow suit. Last year Ellis Short also won bounty points from fans by wearing a FTM pin badge when meeting the president of Tanzania. Whatever the depth of his allegiance to the club â and it is indeed welcoming to see his regular attendance at matches â Short if anything is an astute businessman and a billionaire to boot. Notably he recently raised â¬1.5 billion to set up a private equity fund in Ireland investing in distressed European real estate assets. But what he must be concerned with though on the banks of the Wear is the falling value in the squad of Sunderland players. According to the German-based football data website Transfermarkt, the value of the Black Cats squad has plummeted to £77m from £96m a year ago. The 20 per cent fall has pushed the market value of the club down from 10th to 17th in the Premier League. Only Crystal Palace, Leicester City and Burnley are worth less although, in contrast to Sunderland, all three have increased their squad values in the past year. The amounts are of course estimates and many could argue their own opinion about a player's value. But the sporting site, one of the largest in Germany, is comprehensive and there can be little doubt about the declining trend. The decline is made more alarming with hugely inflated transfer fees and the fact that three of Sunderland's players, Sebastian Coates, Santiago Vergini and Ricardo Alvarez, are just loans. In effect, the trio combined reduce the market value of the squad by some £15m to just £62m. One of the concerns already widely raised is the thinness of the squad, which has fallen from 37 at the end of last season to 24 being registered and even that number includes such players as Cabral and Danny Graham, who Gus Poyet has already discarded as effectively as deadwood. The figures only seem to underline the lack of progress Sunderland have made on the field since their return to the Premier League seven years ago, or what will be the sixth season under the ownership of Short. The lack of stability, direction and a vision are often cited as the main cause, which is underlined by the regular chopping and changing of managers and players staying for an average of less than two years at the club. On their books just five players, Wes Brown, John O'Shea, Connor Wickham, Lee Cattermole and Seb Larsson remain from the Steve Bruce era. Only the latter two have had their contracts renewed and extended, somewhat a rarity at the Stadium of Light. The changes in personnel deny any chance of continuity. The weakness also seems compounded with so few youngsters making the grade through the Academy of Light. Likewise, not many players have had any value added during their stay at the club. Darren Bent, Jordan Henderson and Simon Mignolet have proved to be the main exceptions to the rule. As a business, it has hardly been a model of success. In football terms, it has been virtual catastrophe. Much hope has been placed upon the shoulders of Gus Poyet to turn everything around after being given the task of rebuilding the squad that was left so depleted. Given the previous record of squandering so much on poor purchases that has resulted in Sunderland losing a lot of money when selling players, Short could be excused for giving the Uruguayan head coach such a small budget that resulted in a net outlay of around just £10m in the summer transfer window. For any successful business, there has to be a modicum of reigning in the purse strings. Poyet himself has spoken of several cases of the club being gazumped in attempted transfers. It was rightly so to reject exorbitant fees or wages, an example of which is the reported case of Fabio Borini. But when Sunderland lose out to such clubs as QPR, West Ham, Hull and Southampton, the question must be asked, why? Players are assets and have the prospect of their values being increased if purchased wisely. All four can be deemed as smaller clubs but have more valuable squads. Much to his credit, Short has cut back on the club's inflated wage bill with the latest figures (for 2012/13) showing it had fallen from £64m to £58m, the 13th highest in the Premier League. With the reduced size of the squad it will reduce even further and with the huge additional television money it should drop easily to Margaret Byrne's target figure of 60 per cent of debt-to-revenue down from over 80 per cent in the post-promotion years. Losses before taxes also shrunk to £13m in the season before last and the club should be well on its way to tackling what were £78m debts. The American owner has also clawed back £28m of loans and has frequently converted others into shares so they are not borne by the club. If anything, the books should be more than balanced with the increase in earnings of more than 30 percent to over £100m, such was the rise in the lucrative TV deal. To my mind, Sunderland are fortunate to have Poyet at the helm at this time. Much was achieved during the transfer window on such a low budget and, despite its smaller size, the squad seems more versatile than ever before, although perhaps with extra money even more could have been achieved. The depletion in number and in the value of the squad has helped to get rid of much of the deadwood and unnecessary costs albeit at a price but it is still only the first stage of the rebuilding task. Most worrisome is that the club will be left without any centre backs at the end of the season with the contracts of the team's ageing pairing due to expire while their ages relentlessly progress towards the heady heights of 69 accumulatively, already being the oldest in the league. Loan deals for Coates and Vergini would also be set to end. The January window is a notoriously difficult time to bring in new players but it is a challenge that must be met or at least set in motion to make up for the glowing deficiencies. The Uruguayan head coach is obviously very ambitious and hopes must be that he stays on to continue the development of the squad. Separately but interlinked, work at the academy is also desperately required to bring in a pool of players for the future. The longevity of Short remaining at the club also cannot be ensured, but after shooting himself in the foot a few times, perhaps too he will remain to see through sorting out the financial woes that have long burdened the club. http://www.wearewearside.com/post/2014/09/04/is-sunderland-being-short-changed.aspx
Surprise there's no mention of our ties with D.C. United and the marketing value that deal could represent
I stopped reading at German-based football data website Transfermarkt. Their valuation is based on public opinion and has no bearing on a player value in reality. All done here. http://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/market-value-analysis/detail/forum/357
for me its total ****. yes we have less players but thats only cos we have moved most of the deadwood and got them out of the club, overall there is more quality in the squad. we have players like mannoneand catts who must have added to the value with a good year. we have raised our profile in the usa and africa which will add to the coffers. our squad value might have gone down but the club is making other moves to make money with the concerts and stuff. we are nearly at the tipping point of bringing the debt down which will make us a much healthier club overall and help us build for a better future. this article doesnt seem to take into account that this is probably a good stratagy from the club to rid itself of the mismanagement of the past and make it sustainable going forward
Our squad value has plummeted by 20m - yet we have 13 less people in the squad (24 now and 37 last season) - surely that is an upturn in club player value per person i.e: 37 players value 96m = 2.59m per player 24 players value 77m = 3.2m per player Not sure what the point is of this - so now people think we have better players and the fact that we have less of them is a bad thing? So we're b etter off having 96m of ****e and the wages they will rape from the club rather than 77m of decent players? Looks like good news put over in a bad light to me!
