I think the site is **** to be honest mate, they've got us selling players we've never owned. the home page tells you nothing of how they collect their data but does devote half of it's welcome message to this. The quality of the site is low budget, reeks of somebody pricing players in his bedroom from what he's read in the media. Our transfers are undisclosed, and most are structure these day meaning we don't know what the lump sum was, we don't if % is installments, we don't what % the preformance and apearance add ons are and we don't know how likely they are to be met, we don't even though the top end fee. Best of forgetting the money spent measure it all an quality. Have we brought in enough quality over the years, no, do we need and injection of quality now, yes, so get it done this window before we get ****ing relegated That's how I look at it.
Problem is there's no stats to be taken from undisclosed transfers, stats are facts, the undisclosed market is just a guessing game to anyone who can't get a look at the books. Being an 'Undisclosed' club is a ****ing nightmare to gauge what's going on, but that gives us a strong hand in the negociation process, it's all pros and cons init This how our spending this summer actually reads, and it doesn't tell us much sadly. please log in to view this image
Can't these sites just glean this information from sites like Companies House after the financial year end? They can't group together transfers, the tax man would be in for an audit every year with those type of figures just grouped together.
I can't find any mention of named players in accounts. Are you sure they publish what the tax man sees? I'm not sure it's the same, regardless, figures are published a year behind in april, how does the help a sports website get and accurate reading on undisclosed fees now?
Can't remember mate, I've got a login somewhere that gives me unlimited orders for Companies House, if I remember/find it I'll have a look. I guess it allows historical data to be accessed but nothing current, unless the agents are muttering fees.
Sick of all the excuses. Wages, too many unwanted players blah blah blah other teams are managing it so why can't sunderland ? Only one answer in my eyes ES did / does not want to. He runs the club so it's down to him. Why not let players go and we pay a percentage of there wage for a year, pains me to say it as they are money grabbing lazy tw@s but we nee actions not excuses. Could only free up 40/30k instead of the full 50/60k but if no one is willing to take them on full wages we need to end this chapter and cut our losses. I think we will buy more players but there is doubt in my head and I'm sick of hearing all the excuses. And I wonder why ES wants transfers undisclosed all the time.
Surely you've answered your own dilemma there bud - Why on earth would any lazy, money grabbing twat take a cut in wages if they didn't have to? Surely the question should be, why did we sign these players on such inflated wages - thank Mon, Brucie & Gus primarily for that (AJ, Fletch, Graham, Rodders fall into the overpaid players brigade; Bridcutt, Buckley, Mavrias and Roberge in the shouldn't be here brigade). It was a gamble that hasn't paid off long-term because our management of the squad has been consistently ****e. AJ & Fletch at least contributed in their initial spells. Congereel has done a pretty good job of re-working the squad since he's been here, the legacy left to him after 4 failed managerial reigns since 2009. These aren't excuses, this is the **** we've dropped in. The only way any wages would be paid up, will be if get in some higher quality replacements. Sure, many other things could improve, but getting a balanced squad/wages won't happen overnight. Not at our club, give it's recent history of primarily **** transfer dealings and football managment.
Our wage bill is just under £70 million. If 22 first team players were paid £50,000 each per week that would total £55 million. I'm sure that is very much an overestimate. Are directors wages and everything else included in this wage bill, I would think so. ES must be getting something as well as the rest at the top. So then, how much do you reckon our players wage bill is, including the academy. Probably less than the sky payment.
Regardless of 'Net Spend' your club makes a loss year on year, when did you last make any sort of profit? It's too simple in theory to say all this new TV money should be spent on transfers, if you go down you'd be in a world of ****, with a side that's full of high earning multi-million pound players and your money is sliced in half, maybe less. You've got to start turning a profit before you start seeing waves of top talent through the door every summer. Ideally turning over good young players who make the club money, every club apart from a select few in the world has to operate like this to raise their game.
read the recent echo article, Dick basically says we're still paying for the mistakes of other regimes: players no longer at the club. sad, but true. live with it
Man c get that embargo lifted spend a fortune and still go for de bruyne at £47 m AND with the squad they already have, Pellegrini makes me sick, he just sits there no smiles and just takes it for granted, but after watching all the premier teams they will win the title. Surely if planned over 5 years our income would be about £530 m so spend £250 m on players now, and we are bound to do well. Man u get £750 m over 10 years kit sponsors, so they should be ok.
Yeah I agree but my point was offload them to say celtic who apparently wanted fletcher but didn't want to pay his wages but we agree to pay the top up. It's not ideal and in fact this should be a last resort but I think we are at that point now tbh because I can see our luck regarding relegation running out.
Can see the July 2014 accounts at the Companies House website: https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/help/welcome Just enter the Beta Site and type "Sunderland Football" in the search box...
i think that is what continues to **** us though, pal. i can't post a lunk for some reason but Dick is wuoted in the echo as saying we're still paying for players not even with the club anymore. this kind of move would just add to that poor scenario.
http://rokerreport.sbnation.com/201...ndsopinion-is-safc-building-on-shifting-sands Great article by Roker Report.
Here is the article. My spelling is better, now I'm off the phone with me fat fingers: http://www.sunderlandecho.com/sport...ush-unwanted-stars-out-of-exit-door-1-7402559
