Roker Report's latest rant..

[Sinner]

.. is tedious at best.

It attempts to pick holes in Rodwell's statement, but comes across as a biased rant. Are they just going to criticise and whinge on about everything?

I could pick many holes in their article from dubious use of 'vivaciousness' to a lack of understanding of player's s contracts (win bonus, appearance money etc.). It also ignores the fact that all parties are trying to have sensible discussions and an approach to the easing of the lock down, which the article does not acknowledge.

I really respect the fanzines, but this constant griping is getting tedious. If Roker Report know something that we don't know, just tell us.

 

[wearside wanderer II]

The Owner/club has loads of positives about them, I just can’t name any.

 

[John 11:35]

Written by “rastrent”, who proposed Watmore get the sack for being injured

https://rokerreport.sbnation.com/20...her-tough-task-for-sunderland-to-contend-with

 

[Sinner]

Written by “rastrent”, who proposed Watmore get the sack for being injured

https://rokerreport.sbnation.com/20...her-tough-task-for-sunderland-to-contend-with

Dear me. Do they have editors?

 

[Billy Batts]

Prefer WMS.

 

[Bigmackem]

Since when did they gain the right to become the mouthpiece of SAFC supporters in general. They are entitled to express an opinion in the same way as all of us but ever since they decided to give their vote of no confidence in Stewart Donald continue to give the impression that they are backed by all and sundry. I have my opinion about things and express them quite often, and they do not have the right to speak on my behalf. They rush in to print without any consultation or an organised poll seeking opinions, which I regard as being an insult to the supporters who have their own opinions. As far as I am concerned they should just shut up until they know what the support in general decide what they want them to say .