Just going through all the increasingly frustrated posts regarding contracts and the lack of any significant spending by the club despite 3 years in a row survining within the last 2 games of the season. Here's a question though.... In the last 3 years the kit, shirt and TV deals have increased by well in excess of £100million per season all told. Then there are the concerts every summer. Where the **** is the money going? It certainly isn't going back into the team. There have been no new buildings or costs taken on board by the club, where is the money? Over to you Ellis...
We are talking a couple hundred million here though lads, the club has to be heamoraging money somewhere. Yes, we've had players on big money, so has everyone else. What many clubs don't have, bar the top few, is a kit & shirt deal the size of ours, the concerts, and the crowds. There's also Premier League prize money, matchday sponsors, corporate eventing etc I can't work it out.
It was hardly pennies before though mate, it was in excess of £70million anyway. And didn't Ellis convert the debt to shares? If he did, the black hole is even bigger.
Maggie reckons we've also spent deep into the overdraft and pay interest on it apparently. It's got to be the wage bill fella, it has to be worse than we thought. Weren't we running at 87% at one stage?
I can't buy that tough, even if every player was on a ridiculous contract, look at sides similar income, Swansea, West Ham, Everton, Mags. All are performing better financially and all have some massive earners on their books. Is the club over staffed behind the scenes or something? We forget that these folk come under wages as well. Summats a clip in the background for sure.
Well Short does like to buy really nice houses. His one in Hawaii is worth nearly 40 million dollars, and years ago he bought Skibo castle for 23 million quid.
Ellis Short is not at Sunderland to make friends and give us a team we are proud of. He is here to MAKE money. As the chairman he will be drawing a huge salary. He is great at making money out of debt. He will be creaming in money from us. He owns us so do profits not go to him, if we make debts he can write of taxes. That is what all these billionaire owners come to do. When he doesn't make money from us or takes too much **** he will leave the club. Look at how much stick Ashley takes the money must be worth it. We need to get to the German league model of fan ownership. Cheaper matches for the fans. I don't care if it's the best league in the world. It will always be the top league we can play in.
That's my personal thought mate, and my resoning behind the article. There's a great debate to be had in there.
100% with Cement Anthony on this one. We need more open management. Where has all the money gone? Not on Messi, Suarez, etc. Not even on Colback. Where is it? x
A lot of money also goes to the leeches of the game, solicitors, directors, agents. Football is such a bloated business and far too many parasites feed on it.
1) What is the running loss per annum of your club? Newcastle are one of two I believe I read that break even, so some money will be going purely on operating costs. 2) Before the last 1-2 years, Sunderland were in the premier league's top 5 spenders for about 5 years running (net). At a guess I would say Short wants some of that back before he looks to sell up. It's fair enough really, he ploughed money in and the club made no progress, so he's taking it back. Like an interest free loan, really.
I thought he`d converted his personal imput to a club bank loan. (£30m?). If that`s the case he`s got his money back.
This is from the Mirror Mar 17, 2014 08:32 By Simon Bird Simon Bird takes a look at the Black Cats' latest figures and they're not too pretty Gus Poyet is facing a financial meltdown unless he saves Sunderland from relegation. Sunderland have posted another big loss in their annual accounts - of £23 million - that has increased the pressure on Poyet and his side to stay in the Premier League. The Wearsiders slipped out their financial figures unannounced this weekend, and they show the club will have a black hole in their finances if they fail to climb out of the bottom three in the next 11 games. But if they do survive they could be in a healthy near-break even position by this time next year allowing Poyet to build a stronger side. Those are the make-or-break stakes being played for on Wearside in the next two months. Sunderland cost £95 million to run in the year to July 31 last year, down from £104 million in the previous 12 months. But turnover fell £5 million to £72 million, meaning the club fell further into debt and have a bank overdraft that has more than trebled to £39 million. The latest accounts show TV income for last season was £44 million. That will increase to at least £63 million this season, effectively wiping out Sunderland's losses, all other things being equal. But if they go down, TV income will be a parachute payment of £26 million for the first season in the Championship, meaning around £40 million of income is dependent on success in the next 11 games. Sunderland have made progress cutting their wage bill, with players pocketed £56 million, down from £63 million. But that does not include the sacking and pay-off for Paolo Di Canio and his coaching staff, who departed in September. The accounts show Sunderland made a profit of pds 11 million on player sales. But that does not include deals including selling James McClean, Stephane Sessegnon and Jo Dong Won, or buying Liam Bridcutt, Ignacio Scocco and Oscar Ustari. Or a host of costly loan deals. Sunderland's gate receipts fell from £14 million to £12.6 million. Conference and banqueting income halved to £2.3 million. Gus Poyet's squad is valued at £62 million. Some £12.2 million is owed by other clubs in transfer fees from players sold by Sunderland. Likewise £25 million is owed on players bought by Sunderland and being paid for in instalments. Ellis Short has pledged to continue supporting Sunderland and the accounts state: "The directors consider the major risk of the business to be a significant period of absence from the Premier League. Ongoing investment in the playing squad aims to reduce this risk. "The directors consider the main market risk to the business to be the interest rates on the bank loan and the banking facilities." The club's team of five directors were paid a total of £1.2 million with the highest paid getting £534,000. http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/footb...cial-meltdown-relegated-3251341#ixzz37YWGhry5
So, by that, and with several more big contracts gone, plus increased income, if we don't buy NOW, we never will. If we don't, those revenue streams will remain static, the team will suffer, and eventually we will drop off, simple as that. Ellis is a multi-billionaire, pay off the bank debt and take it back as a low interest loan, thus still makiing himself money but saving the club millions.
Things could be far worse http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/28194124 I very much doubt that Ellis Short is making money from his ownership of Sunderland. I think back to where we were before the Drumaville takeover and am pretty happy with the way the club is currently being run.
