Off the field operations

[Smug in Boots]

Few points from the accounts,

Cash was bad for the year, probably why there are rumours of a loan incoming

The balance sheet is completely propped up by a huge revaluation of the SoL. Not entirely sure what the triggering event in 2023/2024 that warrants a 70m quid increase in its value in last year is.

That move also you would suggest would make the loan more likely, given the increased collateral to borrow off

The rest of it is fine

With permission from Grumpy ...

... "Overall, this is a fairly reassuring set of statements, showing the club ticking over in a reasonably sustainable manner. Certainly, it’s a world away from the turmoil of the later Short tenure."

Income

Turnover rose from £35.6m to £38.2m ((+7.3%). After allowing for general rates of inflation during the financial year, this is more or less static .An outlier is sponsorship, which rose from £1.6m to £2.4m, a clear reflection of increased efforts in this area by the club. I suspect that the conference, etc figure would have been higher, but for the fact that there was only one concert last summer (Springsteen), compared to the previous summer which had a total of five nights of Elton John and Ed Sheeran.

It should be noted that the merchandise numbers will have only a minimal impact from the transition to Hummel, as the 24/25 kits only launched on 25 July. I’d expect this to show a significant increase in the next accounts.

Operating costs

These rose to £47.9m from £41.0m (+16.8%). Breaking this down a bit, we have staff costs at £30.6m vs £25.6m (+19.5%), and non-wage costs of £17.3m vs 15.4m (+12.3%). While we have added some admin/ops staff (271 vs 229), and playing staff has reduced from 92 to 78, I suspect the majority of the increase relates to higher average player wages, plus the cost of terminating the contracts of Mowbray and Beale.

The overall non-wage costs indicate the difficulties of running what is essentially a Premier League infrastructure with Championship income. Until we are able to get promoted, it’s always going to be more or less impossible for us to break even at the operational level.

Player transfers

Because of the way the accounting works it’s always a bit of a pain getting at the underlying fee numbers. It’s also complicated by our year end straddling the transfer window, so that any transfers in August 24 are excluded, but signings in July 24 are. All avoidable if, like most clubs, we had a 30 June year end, but there you go. So, as far as I can make out, the accounts should include the following:

In:
Bellingham
Seelt
Aouchiche
Dack
Pembelé
Rusyn
Hjelde
Browne
Poveda

Out
Stewart
Gooch
Pritchard

Free transfers are included because signing on and agents fees are included in the intangible assets figure

The underlying figures suggest that we added £6.9m in new contract costs. Fees receivable are harder to get at, but adding together the net book value of disposals to the profit on players gives £8.9m.

Addon fees aren’t included until triggered. It’s possible that the incoming costs include some triggered addons, but there’s no way of knowing.

What is interesting is the disclosure in contingent liabilities that the current squad have potential addon fees of £29.6m (23/24 £24.5m) linked to them. It’s more than likely that most of this will never be triggered, but it’s clear that we are getting players in on low fees, but dangling the carrot to selling clubs of a lot more potentially.

Fixed assets

In 23/24, the SoL underwent one of it periodic revaluations. As the club treat it as an investment property (justified by Sunderland Ltd charging a rent to SAFC Ltd), it’s actually valued at what it would cost to rebuild the ground, less depreciation of that amount for the period since it was built. The result of this is an increase in net book value of £60m to £157.8m.

Other assets and liabilities

The only real thing of note Is the flip from cash in hand to an overdraft, indicating that the club has been run over the period from internal resources, rather than fully by owner input. The subsequent clearance of this referred to on the website isn’t mentioned in the accounts, indicating it’s happened since the accounts were signed off in December. It’s worth pointing out that there are no mentions of this at Companies House. Either it’s so new that the filings haven’t come through (the accounts aren’t on there yet either), or this facility is unsecured.

Conclusion

Overall, this is a fairly reassuring set of statements, showing the club ticking over in a reasonably sustainable manner. Certainly, it’s a world away from the turmoil of the later Short tenure.

 

[Prehab26]

With permission from Grumpy ...

... "Overall, this is a fairly reassuring set of statements, showing the club ticking over in a reasonably sustainable manner. Certainly, it’s a world away from the turmoil of the later Short tenure."

Income

Turnover rose from £35.6m to £38.2m ((+7.3%). After allowing for general rates of inflation during the financial year, this is more or less static .An outlier is sponsorship, which rose from £1.6m to £2.4m, a clear reflection of increased efforts in this area by the club. I suspect that the conference, etc figure would have been higher, but for the fact that there was only one concert last summer (Springsteen), compared to the previous summer which had a total of five nights of Elton John and Ed Sheeran.

It should be noted that the merchandise numbers will have only a minimal impact from the transition to Hummel, as the 24/25 kits only launched on 25 July. I’d expect this to show a significant increase in the next accounts.

Operating costs

These rose to £47.9m from £41.0m (+16.8%). Breaking this down a bit, we have staff costs at £30.6m vs £25.6m (+19.5%), and non-wage costs of £17.3m vs 15.4m (+12.3%). While we have added some admin/ops staff (271 vs 229), and playing staff has reduced from 92 to 78, I suspect the majority of the increase relates to higher average player wages, plus the cost of terminating the contracts of Mowbray and Beale.

The overall non-wage costs indicate the difficulties of running what is essentially a Premier League infrastructure with Championship income. Until we are able to get promoted, it’s always going to be more or less impossible for us to break even at the operational level.

Player transfers

Because of the way the accounting works it’s always a bit of a pain getting at the underlying fee numbers. It’s also complicated by our year end straddling the transfer window, so that any transfers in August 24 are excluded, but signings in July 24 are. All avoidable if, like most clubs, we had a 30 June year end, but there you go. So, as far as I can make out, the accounts should include the following:

In:
Bellingham
Seelt
Aouchiche
Dack
Pembelé
Rusyn
Hjelde
Browne
Poveda

Out
Stewart
Gooch
Pritchard

Free transfers are included because signing on and agents fees are included in the intangible assets figure

The underlying figures suggest that we added £6.9m in new contract costs. Fees receivable are harder to get at, but adding together the net book value of disposals to the profit on players gives £8.9m.

Addon fees aren’t included until triggered. It’s possible that the incoming costs include some triggered addons, but there’s no way of knowing.

What is interesting is the disclosure in contingent liabilities that the current squad have potential addon fees of £29.6m (23/24 £24.5m) linked to them. It’s more than likely that most of this will never be triggered, but it’s clear that we are getting players in on low fees, but dangling the carrot to selling clubs of a lot more potentially.

Fixed assets

In 23/24, the SoL underwent one of it periodic revaluations. As the club treat it as an investment property (justified by Sunderland Ltd charging a rent to SAFC Ltd), it’s actually valued at what it would cost to rebuild the ground, less depreciation of that amount for the period since it was built. The result of this is an increase in net book value of £60m to £157.8m.

Other assets and liabilities

The only real thing of note Is the flip from cash in hand to an overdraft, indicating that the club has been run over the period from internal resources, rather than fully by owner input. The subsequent clearance of this referred to on the website isn’t mentioned in the accounts, indicating it’s happened since the accounts were signed off in December. It’s worth pointing out that there are no mentions of this at Companies House. Either it’s so new that the filings haven’t come through (the accounts aren’t on there yet either), or this facility is unsecured.

Conclusion

Overall, this is a fairly reassuring set of statements, showing the club ticking over in a reasonably sustainable manner. Certainly, it’s a world away from the turmoil of the later Short tenure.

Cheers for sharing that. Useful.

 

[DH4]

With permission from Grumpy ...

... "Overall, this is a fairly reassuring set of statements, showing the club ticking over in a reasonably sustainable manner. Certainly, it’s a world away from the turmoil of the later Short tenure."

Income

Turnover rose from £35.6m to £38.2m ((+7.3%). After allowing for general rates of inflation during the financial year, this is more or less static .An outlier is sponsorship, which rose from £1.6m to £2.4m, a clear reflection of increased efforts in this area by the club. I suspect that the conference, etc figure would have been higher, but for the fact that there was only one concert last summer (Springsteen), compared to the previous summer which had a total of five nights of Elton John and Ed Sheeran.

It should be noted that the merchandise numbers will have only a minimal impact from the transition to Hummel, as the 24/25 kits only launched on 25 July. I’d expect this to show a significant increase in the next accounts.

Operating costs

These rose to £47.9m from £41.0m (+16.8%). Breaking this down a bit, we have staff costs at £30.6m vs £25.6m (+19.5%), and non-wage costs of £17.3m vs 15.4m (+12.3%). While we have added some admin/ops staff (271 vs 229), and playing staff has reduced from 92 to 78, I suspect the majority of the increase relates to higher average player wages, plus the cost of terminating the contracts of Mowbray and Beale.

The overall non-wage costs indicate the difficulties of running what is essentially a Premier League infrastructure with Championship income. Until we are able to get promoted, it’s always going to be more or less impossible for us to break even at the operational level.

Player transfers

Because of the way the accounting works it’s always a bit of a pain getting at the underlying fee numbers. It’s also complicated by our year end straddling the transfer window, so that any transfers in August 24 are excluded, but signings in July 24 are. All avoidable if, like most clubs, we had a 30 June year end, but there you go. So, as far as I can make out, the accounts should include the following:

In:
Bellingham
Seelt
Aouchiche
Dack
Pembelé
Rusyn
Hjelde
Browne
Poveda

Out
Stewart
Gooch
Pritchard

Free transfers are included because signing on and agents fees are included in the intangible assets figure

The underlying figures suggest that we added £6.9m in new contract costs. Fees receivable are harder to get at, but adding together the net book value of disposals to the profit on players gives £8.9m.

Addon fees aren’t included until triggered. It’s possible that the incoming costs include some triggered addons, but there’s no way of knowing.

What is interesting is the disclosure in contingent liabilities that the current squad have potential addon fees of £29.6m (23/24 £24.5m) linked to them. It’s more than likely that most of this will never be triggered, but it’s clear that we are getting players in on low fees, but dangling the carrot to selling clubs of a lot more potentially.

Fixed assets

In 23/24, the SoL underwent one of it periodic revaluations. As the club treat it as an investment property (justified by Sunderland Ltd charging a rent to SAFC Ltd), it’s actually valued at what it would cost to rebuild the ground, less depreciation of that amount for the period since it was built. The result of this is an increase in net book value of £60m to £157.8m.

Other assets and liabilities

The only real thing of note Is the flip from cash in hand to an overdraft, indicating that the club has been run over the period from internal resources, rather than fully by owner input. The subsequent clearance of this referred to on the website isn’t mentioned in the accounts, indicating it’s happened since the accounts were signed off in December. It’s worth pointing out that there are no mentions of this at Companies House. Either it’s so new that the filings haven’t come through (the accounts aren’t on there yet either), or this facility is unsecured.

Conclusion

Overall, this is a fairly reassuring set of statements, showing the club ticking over in a reasonably sustainable manner. Certainly, it’s a world away from the turmoil of the later Short tenure.

Nice to see it in layman's term for us non accountants.

 

[Robertson]

With permission from Grumpy ...

... "Overall, this is a fairly reassuring set of statements, showing the club ticking over in a reasonably sustainable manner. Certainly, it’s a world away from the turmoil of the later Short tenure."

Income

Turnover rose from £35.6m to £38.2m ((+7.3%). After allowing for general rates of inflation during the financial year, this is more or less static .An outlier is sponsorship, which rose from £1.6m to £2.4m, a clear reflection of increased efforts in this area by the club. I suspect that the conference, etc figure would have been higher, but for the fact that there was only one concert last summer (Springsteen), compared to the previous summer which had a total of five nights of Elton John and Ed Sheeran.

It should be noted that the merchandise numbers will have only a minimal impact from the transition to Hummel, as the 24/25 kits only launched on 25 July. I’d expect this to show a significant increase in the next accounts.

Operating costs

These rose to £47.9m from £41.0m (+16.8%). Breaking this down a bit, we have staff costs at £30.6m vs £25.6m (+19.5%), and non-wage costs of £17.3m vs 15.4m (+12.3%). While we have added some admin/ops staff (271 vs 229), and playing staff has reduced from 92 to 78, I suspect the majority of the increase relates to higher average player wages, plus the cost of terminating the contracts of Mowbray and Beale.

The overall non-wage costs indicate the difficulties of running what is essentially a Premier League infrastructure with Championship income. Until we are able to get promoted, it’s always going to be more or less impossible for us to break even at the operational level.

Player transfers

Because of the way the accounting works it’s always a bit of a pain getting at the underlying fee numbers. It’s also complicated by our year end straddling the transfer window, so that any transfers in August 24 are excluded, but signings in July 24 are. All avoidable if, like most clubs, we had a 30 June year end, but there you go. So, as far as I can make out, the accounts should include the following:

In:
Bellingham
Seelt
Aouchiche
Dack
Pembelé
Rusyn
Hjelde
Browne
Poveda

Out
Stewart
Gooch
Pritchard

Free transfers are included because signing on and agents fees are included in the intangible assets figure

The underlying figures suggest that we added £6.9m in new contract costs. Fees receivable are harder to get at, but adding together the net book value of disposals to the profit on players gives £8.9m.

Addon fees aren’t included until triggered. It’s possible that the incoming costs include some triggered addons, but there’s no way of knowing.

What is interesting is the disclosure in contingent liabilities that the current squad have potential addon fees of £29.6m (23/24 £24.5m) linked to them. It’s more than likely that most of this will never be triggered, but it’s clear that we are getting players in on low fees, but dangling the carrot to selling clubs of a lot more potentially.

Fixed assets

In 23/24, the SoL underwent one of it periodic revaluations. As the club treat it as an investment property (justified by Sunderland Ltd charging a rent to SAFC Ltd), it’s actually valued at what it would cost to rebuild the ground, less depreciation of that amount for the period since it was built. The result of this is an increase in net book value of £60m to £157.8m.

Other assets and liabilities

The only real thing of note Is the flip from cash in hand to an overdraft, indicating that the club has been run over the period from internal resources, rather than fully by owner input. The subsequent clearance of this referred to on the website isn’t mentioned in the accounts, indicating it’s happened since the accounts were signed off in December. It’s worth pointing out that there are no mentions of this at Companies House. Either it’s so new that the filings haven’t come through (the accounts aren’t on there yet either), or this facility is unsecured.

Conclusion

Overall, this is a fairly reassuring set of statements, showing the club ticking over in a reasonably sustainable manner. Certainly, it’s a world away from the turmoil of the later Short tenure.

Appreciated Smug, always an insightful read. Please pass our thanks on to Grumpy.

 

[Wayne the Punk]

Cancelled my DD yesterday, I cant cope with the cold at night games, and 12:30 kick offs piss me off.

 

[DH4]

You must log in or register to see images

Slightly amended ship badge returning for tomorrow to highlight climate change.

 

[Montysoptician]

With permission from Grumpy ...

... "Overall, this is a fairly reassuring set of statements, showing the club ticking over in a reasonably sustainable manner. Certainly, it’s a world away from the turmoil of the later Short tenure."

Income

Turnover rose from £35.6m to £38.2m ((+7.3%). After allowing for general rates of inflation during the financial year, this is more or less static .An outlier is sponsorship, which rose from £1.6m to £2.4m, a clear reflection of increased efforts in this area by the club. I suspect that the conference, etc figure would have been higher, but for the fact that there was only one concert last summer (Springsteen), compared to the previous summer which had a total of five nights of Elton John and Ed Sheeran.

It should be noted that the merchandise numbers will have only a minimal impact from the transition to Hummel, as the 24/25 kits only launched on 25 July. I’d expect this to show a significant increase in the next accounts.

Operating costs

These rose to £47.9m from £41.0m (+16.8%). Breaking this down a bit, we have staff costs at £30.6m vs £25.6m (+19.5%), and non-wage costs of £17.3m vs 15.4m (+12.3%). While we have added some admin/ops staff (271 vs 229), and playing staff has reduced from 92 to 78, I suspect the majority of the increase relates to higher average player wages, plus the cost of terminating the contracts of Mowbray and Beale.

The overall non-wage costs indicate the difficulties of running what is essentially a Premier League infrastructure with Championship income. Until we are able to get promoted, it’s always going to be more or less impossible for us to break even at the operational level.

Player transfers

Because of the way the accounting works it’s always a bit of a pain getting at the underlying fee numbers. It’s also complicated by our year end straddling the transfer window, so that any transfers in August 24 are excluded, but signings in July 24 are. All avoidable if, like most clubs, we had a 30 June year end, but there you go. So, as far as I can make out, the accounts should include the following:

In:
Bellingham
Seelt
Aouchiche
Dack
Pembelé
Rusyn
Hjelde
Browne
Poveda

Out
Stewart
Gooch
Pritchard

Free transfers are included because signing on and agents fees are included in the intangible assets figure

The underlying figures suggest that we added £6.9m in new contract costs. Fees receivable are harder to get at, but adding together the net book value of disposals to the profit on players gives £8.9m.

Addon fees aren’t included until triggered. It’s possible that the incoming costs include some triggered addons, but there’s no way of knowing.

What is interesting is the disclosure in contingent liabilities that the current squad have potential addon fees of £29.6m (23/24 £24.5m) linked to them. It’s more than likely that most of this will never be triggered, but it’s clear that we are getting players in on low fees, but dangling the carrot to selling clubs of a lot more potentially.

Fixed assets

In 23/24, the SoL underwent one of it periodic revaluations. As the club treat it as an investment property (justified by Sunderland Ltd charging a rent to SAFC Ltd), it’s actually valued at what it would cost to rebuild the ground, less depreciation of that amount for the period since it was built. The result of this is an increase in net book value of £60m to £157.8m.

Other assets and liabilities

The only real thing of note Is the flip from cash in hand to an overdraft, indicating that the club has been run over the period from internal resources, rather than fully by owner input. The subsequent clearance of this referred to on the website isn’t mentioned in the accounts, indicating it’s happened since the accounts were signed off in December. It’s worth pointing out that there are no mentions of this at Companies House. Either it’s so new that the filings haven’t come through (the accounts aren’t on there yet either), or this facility is unsecured.

Conclusion

Overall, this is a fairly reassuring set of statements, showing the club ticking over in a reasonably sustainable manner. Certainly, it’s a world away from the turmoil of the later Short tenure.

Cheers Smug

 

[Snaggey]

With permission from Grumpy ...

... "Overall, this is a fairly reassuring set of statements, showing the club ticking over in a reasonably sustainable manner. Certainly, it’s a world away from the turmoil of the later Short tenure."

Income

Turnover rose from £35.6m to £38.2m ((+7.3%). After allowing for general rates of inflation during the financial year, this is more or less static .An outlier is sponsorship, which rose from £1.6m to £2.4m, a clear reflection of increased efforts in this area by the club. I suspect that the conference, etc figure would have been higher, but for the fact that there was only one concert last summer (Springsteen), compared to the previous summer which had a total of five nights of Elton John and Ed Sheeran.

It should be noted that the merchandise numbers will have only a minimal impact from the transition to Hummel, as the 24/25 kits only launched on 25 July. I’d expect this to show a significant increase in the next accounts.

Operating costs

These rose to £47.9m from £41.0m (+16.8%). Breaking this down a bit, we have staff costs at £30.6m vs £25.6m (+19.5%), and non-wage costs of £17.3m vs 15.4m (+12.3%). While we have added some admin/ops staff (271 vs 229), and playing staff has reduced from 92 to 78, I suspect the majority of the increase relates to higher average player wages, plus the cost of terminating the contracts of Mowbray and Beale.

The overall non-wage costs indicate the difficulties of running what is essentially a Premier League infrastructure with Championship income. Until we are able to get promoted, it’s always going to be more or less impossible for us to break even at the operational level.

Player transfers

Because of the way the accounting works it’s always a bit of a pain getting at the underlying fee numbers. It’s also complicated by our year end straddling the transfer window, so that any transfers in August 24 are excluded, but signings in July 24 are. All avoidable if, like most clubs, we had a 30 June year end, but there you go. So, as far as I can make out, the accounts should include the following:

In:
Bellingham
Seelt
Aouchiche
Dack
Pembelé
Rusyn
Hjelde
Browne
Poveda

Out
Stewart
Gooch
Pritchard

Free transfers are included because signing on and agents fees are included in the intangible assets figure

The underlying figures suggest that we added £6.9m in new contract costs. Fees receivable are harder to get at, but adding together the net book value of disposals to the profit on players gives £8.9m.

Addon fees aren’t included until triggered. It’s possible that the incoming costs include some triggered addons, but there’s no way of knowing.

What is interesting is the disclosure in contingent liabilities that the current squad have potential addon fees of £29.6m (23/24 £24.5m) linked to them. It’s more than likely that most of this will never be triggered, but it’s clear that we are getting players in on low fees, but dangling the carrot to selling clubs of a lot more potentially.

Fixed assets

In 23/24, the SoL underwent one of it periodic revaluations. As the club treat it as an investment property (justified by Sunderland Ltd charging a rent to SAFC Ltd), it’s actually valued at what it would cost to rebuild the ground, less depreciation of that amount for the period since it was built. The result of this is an increase in net book value of £60m to £157.8m.

Other assets and liabilities

The only real thing of note Is the flip from cash in hand to an overdraft, indicating that the club has been run over the period from internal resources, rather than fully by owner input. The subsequent clearance of this referred to on the website isn’t mentioned in the accounts, indicating it’s happened since the accounts were signed off in December. It’s worth pointing out that there are no mentions of this at Companies House. Either it’s so new that the filings haven’t come through (the accounts aren’t on there yet either), or this facility is unsecured.

Conclusion

Overall, this is a fairly reassuring set of statements, showing the club ticking over in a reasonably sustainable manner. Certainly, it’s a world away from the turmoil of the later Short tenure.

Cheers Smug, appreciate that.
Grumpy is class at doing this, breaks it down and explains in a manner even I can understand.

 

[Smug in Boots]

Few points from the accounts,

Cash was bad for the year, probably why there are rumours of a loan incoming
The balance sheet is completely propped up by a huge revaluation of the SoL. Not entirely sure what the triggering event in 2023/2024 that warrants a 70m quid increase in its value in last year is.

That move also you would suggest would make the loan more likely, given the increased collateral to borrow off

The rest of it is fine

Grumpy ...

"It gets revalued every few years as a matter of course. Standard practice for investment properties. The last one was in 2021, and 2016 before that. The numbers are put together by independent chartered surveyors."

 

[Robertson]

https://inews.co.uk/sport/football/serious-sunderland-new-badge-3584611

'We're deadly serious': Why Sunderland have a new badge

By Mark Douglas

Sunderland have unveiled a new club crest, creating history with a striking one-off design that makes a strident show of their environmental credentials.

In a first in world football, the Black Cats have revived their iconic ship badge from 30 years ago but added rising sea water over the word Sunderland to drive home the “urgency” around climate change. It is part of Green Football’s Great Save initiative.

Sunderland’s chief business officer David Bruce told The i Paper the club had not taken the decision to tinker with the “iconic” club crest lightly.

“This is something we’re really, really serious about – a football club can’t just be known for playing football,” he says.

“It has to be known for the work that it does in the community, how it unites audiences and how it takes advantage of its elevated role in society and that’s what this is about.

“No club has done something like this before but this is about much more than a piece of marketing buzz. Of course we want to get people talking about it but it’s authentic and as a club we’re deadly serious about it. This is not a ‘one and done’ thing.”

Sunderland’s kit makers Hummel have commissioned shirts embroidered with the new badge for Saturday’s crunch promotion clash at Coventry. After that they will be auctioned, with the money raised going to local environmental charities.

We should expect nothing less from the Championship’s disruptors-in-chief. A club prepared to be bold in its recruitment – and rewarded for their daring with a fine young team in the thick of a promotion push – is equally forthright about doing the right things for their local community.

The club’s green credentials are flawless: among them a solar farm being planned for the training ground, shirts made from recycled plastic and the fact 50 per cent of their energy comes from renewable sources. The badge re-design wants to draw attention to that.

“The point we’re making is: if we don’t make the right choices we’re going to be in a tough spot here,” he says.

“We’re a coastal club, sitting by the ocean so if we don’t make good conscious choices and are smart about how we operate we run the risk of this city that we love being underwater or, at the very least, water slowly creeping into places we enjoy.”

You must log in or register to see images

Sunderland are in the midst of a promotion push (Photo: PA)

Sunderland sit fourth in the Championship and this week released their latest annual accounts that showed an £8.6m loss. Despite some missteps there is a feeling at the Stadium of Light that the club is moving in the right direction under the ownership of Kyril Louis-Dreyfus.

It falls to Bruce, the most senior non-football executive at the club, to drive revenues to support their bid to return to English football’s top table.

“Sustainability isn’t just about the environment, it’s financial as well and we’ve gone on the record as saying we want to be run sustainably,” he says.

“It’s really hard to do that in the modern game but we’re trying to do that, we’re trying to drive revenues but we know we’ve got a long way to go.

“Even in the Championship – taking the Premier League aside because it’s well documented what happens to your revenue when you go into the Premier League – we’ve got a long way to go.

“We’re trying to be smart with our costs, like every club has to be, and we’ve got a trading model in place.

“When you think about our players, look at Jack Clarke and Ross Stewart, they’re transfers that show you bring people in for a price, sell them on but Jack left and we’ve got a ready-made replacement in Romaine Mundle and Tommy Watson. You’ve got the next generation as a fan, the next generation to be excited about.

“That’s a model football has to adopt. It doesn’t matter whether you’re Manchester United, Chelsea or you’re Sunderland in the Championship.

“Overall the numbers are going in the right direction and when we look around at our peers in the Championship we’re reasonably sustainable as it relates to the economics that underpin how we run the football club.

“We want to continue along that path for as long as we can.”

Would the club be ready for the Premier League if promoted? Bruce feels it would be.

“I think that on and off the pitch we’re trying to build a world class organisation,” he says.

“The Championship is a phenomenal league and fantastic product but if you’re in football you want to be in the top flight, which is where all the opportunities come.

“We want to build a world class organisation that does things slightly differently on and off the pitch. From a mindset point of view we’re there.

“There’s a lot to do if you get to the Premier League but we feel like we know what those things are and we’d be ready to turn them on quickly when that time happens, which is hopefully sooner rather than later.”

Sunderland are part of Green Football’s Great Save initiative, which runs to April 2nd. An estimated 100,000 tonnes of sportswear end up in landfill and fans are being urged to pass on, sell or reuse their kit. To find out how visit www.greenfootball.org

 

[ned_werby]

Yes. This is what was added after the backlash with their first announcement and change to terms.

I am happy that they have been forced to add this.

So a bit of clarity was all that was required to stop people going off the deep end. Glad we got that resolved.

 

[Smug in Boots]

So a bit of clarity was all that was required to stop people going off the deep end. Glad we got that resolved.

Absolutely nothing has changed, from the initial message, in reality.

The club retain the right to rescind the SC of people abusing the entry regulations. It was never meant as an automatic cancellation, at sub-70% usage, just a warning to anyone attempting to defraud the club, especially regarding junior tickets.

It sits alongside the other recent warning regarding ticket checks at turnstiles.

The majority of those with junior SCs attend more than 70% of games so the problem is quite small in any case. It’s obvious that the message from the club is only a deterrent and never likely to affect any genuine supporters.

Even if there ever was this mythical ‘contact from the club’ it’s blatantly clear that the answer would be ‘Sorry our Darren’s not been well enough to attend’.

It's not like the club will be asking for a sick note from the doctor

 

[The Professor]

Has everyone had a renewal email? Ive still got nothing, but on Gmail so presume problems still exist..... although still dont understand how a system can only have a problem with Gmail

Will be renewing mine with 2 lads regardless of where we are

On subject of the 70% carry on, i get the concerns of some, but my understanding is this is common practice with clubs now & agree with those saying club are planning for the future & its last resort to remove a ticket, basically to stop unused where kids basically went to a couple, dont like, wont go again & any absolute piss taking - those who buy tickets to manipulate the system, however that maybe

Think Man Utd do something similar, however is disgusting how they apply, as in you have to buy cup, including euro tickets & attend as well as league. Sure you cant transfer tickets if you cant go & can only give back to club, who sell & make double profit, as they give nothing back in your direction. Shocking in my opinion

Ive never missed so many home games as i have this season (SC since 90/91), however not by choice & due to the lads doing other sport, whenever we've not gone ive given the tickets to friends, dont want anything for them as basically id rather others go, get hooked & then buy tickets. Scenario club have setup means (from my understanding), we wouldn't have had issues as the tickets were used, has been some occasions they haven't.

Hopefully the 70% of 3pm's has sorted it for all, as when none attendance occurs, the tickets can be sent on & used

Id rather Saturday 3pm (when football should be), however the changed kickoff times have helped this season & Saturday 3pm's are the main ones ive missed!

Sadly none 3pm's will become more & more as broadcasting becomes more & more important for revenue (for our growth)/tv demand. We dont have a choice if the club is to grow & complete unfortunately & its sad to read people pack in, for reasons i understand as in age, shift work, kids being up late etc.

The club are gearing up for the PL from all angles for whenever it is we get there, hopefully as many as possible can stick with any changes

 

[Smug in Boots]

Despite all the fuss it just looks like Sunderland are simply trying to do what's best for the club and supporters …

… exactly what you’d suspect of course and, in fact what Sunderland are doing, seems very mild compared to some clubs

At Chelsea more than 1,000 people are said to have been stopped entering the stadium, 1,500 membership accounts cancelled and four arrests made last season, the highest of any Premier League club.

Chelsea are trying to address the same issue, ‘ … the increasingly tepid atmosphere at Stamford Bridge, which has been highlighted by both the previous manager Mauricio Pochettino and current boss Enzo Maresca.‘

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/c9vy3xx8xxyo

 

[Blond Bombshell]

Despite all the fuss it just looks like Sunderland are simply trying to do what's best for the club and supporters …

… exactly what you’d suspect of course and, in fact what Sunderland are doing, seems very mild compared to some clubs

At Chelsea more than 1,000 people are said to have been stopped entering the stadium, 1,500 membership accounts cancelled and four arrests made last season, the highest of any Premier League club.

Chelsea are trying to address the same issue, ‘ … the increasingly tepid atmosphere at Stamford Bridge, which has been highlighted by both the previous manager Mauricio Pochettino and current boss Enzo Maresca.‘

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/c9vy3xx8xxyo

Cannot wait for the Early Leavers Snatch Squads to pounce next home game, end of seasons gonna be great

 

[DH4]

Cannot wait for the Early Leavers Snatch Squads to pounce next home game, end of seasons gonna be great

Vee hev vays of making you watch zee football

 

[OldNewtown]

Vee hev vays of making you watch zee football

We do actually, we've played some lovely stuff in the last few seasons

 

[C Montgomery Burns]

Vee hev vays of making you watch zee football

You must log in or register to see images

"Last time you leave early..."

 

[Prehab26]

What are they doing with the founders stuff man. Total joke. Get relocated to the PC. Why would anyone do that. Half time will be fine before you get to use the facility.

The cost of it is a joke too. It's literally just a bar.

 

[Smug in Boots]

What are they doing with the founders stuff man. Total joke. Get relocated to the PC. Why would anyone do that. Half time will be fine before you get to use the facility.

The cost of it is a joke too. It's literally just a bar.

Serious question, is there anything at all about SAFC that you do like?