The only thing missing there is the Bosman effect of watertight contracts for players. Only the likes of the elite clubs can afford to replace under performers, a classic example of which is diMaria that ManU signed from Real Madrid then sold him at a multi million pound loss to PSG when he did not fit. For me we are a club with a rich history that can possibly never be repeated compared to the likes of Stoke etc who have never aspired to much nor had the passionate support we have.
I'm not talking about replacing under-performers though. I'm talking about identifying the root cause of why so many good players come here and under perform. It suggests to me that the club are scouting and signing the wrong players and not creating the optimum conditions for those players to perform to their best. This is something that clubs much smaller than Sunderland do very effectively- Swansea, Bournemouth etc- why can't we do that when they can? Neither am I saying we don't have a rich history; we clearly do. But that history is mostly in the pre-war era and the club hasn't lived up to its potential since then. One thing I'd like to see the club do is connect more with the fans through its history. All of the 'super-clubs' play on their history and almost create myths surrounding their past- our history could be used in this way to generate interest in, and therefore revenue for, the club and ultimately funding for pushing the team to create new history. Martin Bain was right to some extent when he talked about our identity- to anyone with no Sunderland connection there's nothing to set us apart from nonentities like West Brom, Middlesbrough, Hull, Stoke. These are just two of the things I'd change about the club if I could. If I can identify these things, why can't Ellis Short or Maggie Byrne or Martin Bain?
Club history now consists of living memory only unfortunately and football is the Premier League and its success driven money rewards. Our lack of success is not down to want of trying, either through managerial appointments or player recruitment. Just as things appear to be heading in the right direction it is wrecked by events that the club has not contributed to nor control over. An E grade for success, but an A for trying in my book. Look at the other clubs that "went for it" and are now languishing in the Championship with debts they cannot possibly overcome.
Yes we are the victim of some mysterious lack of success on the pitch when everything else seems average to brilliant from managent to fans . Suttons pedigree is dubious but he has identified our under performances. If we fail to beat Hull we are certainly down - beat them and we maybe on for another lucky great escape if Jan window acquisitions hit the ground running with goals and defensive quality. I feel completely gutted but we will get over this like we always do ..... KTF
I don't think everything is average to brilliant from management to fans. I think almost every aspect of the club, apart from the academy, is run extremely poorly.
If you don't agree, that's fair enough. But when you look at how clubs like Swansea, Bournemouth, Stoke, and even Burnley- all clubs that have been in the 3rd or 4th tier for most of my life- have overtaken us you surely have to question why these clubs have managed to do this and we haven't. Its not just this season, things haven't been right for some time now.
All but Swansea have long time managers and I reckon that Swans latest appointment is a strange one that could blow up in their faces.
True, but those managers have solid foundations to build on. There is more to running a football club than appointing a manager and crossing your fingers. Swansea, for example, identified how they wanted their football club to play football and appointed a manager accordingly. Each time they replaced the manager, they appointed one that could immediately pick up the reigns and/or was familiar with the culture within the club. The appointment of Bob Bradley only deviates from that model because of the vanity of their new American investors. We don't have those solid foundations. The house is built on sand. Short has not implemented the kind of model that Swansea have (and which is similar to what West Brom have done), he's toyed with a director of football and then scrapped it and he's appointed managers who've each wanted to make big changes, rather than picking up directly from their predeccesors.
Been like this most of my life of support, since 63-64 season - positively speaking - we are enigmatic unfortunately with negative outcomes which makes me a bit too accepting of failure and very eager celebrate modest progress - a bit sad really but onwards KTF
Maybe its just our fate to suffer because of this lot, but I'd like to think one day soon someone will get it right.
We had an attempt at that with the "Udinese" model that diFanti tried three years ago. Looked good on paper but the player acquisitions and implementation were a disaster. The point about WBA is that they settled for a no frills manager in Pulis who saved them after their disastrous previous manager. Pulis was the last appointment people on here wanted pre Sam but who would settle for him now?
No we didn't. What Swansea have done and what di Fanti did are completely different. Di Fanti was a charlatan. We almost got close with Congerton but Short didn't have the patience to see it through and only appointed one manager in Advocaat that was wiling to work that way and he didn't have the stomach for the fight. The point about West Brom is that they had a technical director in Richard Garlick who oversaw the whole football side of the operation and ensured continuity when managers failed.
Not comparing us and Swansea as a continuous style of play but just pointing out that we had gone the Udinese continuity route that did not work. Swansea almost came unstuck under Laudrup then Monk and as said earlier we will see how the American appointment pans out.
Yeah, but it didn't work because it wasn't given time. And Swansea didn't go under because they had a plan in place when managers proved themselves not to be up to the task. Unlike them, we're rudderless.
