Form would suggest Liverpool will take it, but I reckon you'll be more resolute and gritty than a few of their previous opponents... 2:0/2:1 seems likely but I kept shake this feeling you'll grind out a 1:1!
Surely we are doing exactly the same in players, we have the youngest squad in the premiership (that can be detrimental at times as well though), its not like we are buying old hasbeens (kuqi anyone) with no sell on value, only one i can think of is Bramble but for the most part he has been a rock this season. Short isnt throwing silly money away either, i think Bruce has spent just 3-5 million, when you tke away what he has sold, and that doesnt include the bent transfer so we will have a 20million profit on players in/out at the end of this season (from what Bruce has done at the time with the club) so i relly cant see how short is any worse off than when he came to the club (Ok wages but we have a wage cap, and wont break it, so that shouldnt really be a problem either).
In a few years your football club will have to totally support itself by the money it makes from match days and advertising/spondership/merchandise etc. etc. If you boys don't start getting some crowds in your club won't be able to afford top quality players or perhaps more imporantly the massive wage bill. There cant be any more ã20m losses as there will be no money from Short to level your books at the end of the year
As I said in the original post, I think both clubs are very similar, we've a lot of relative youngsters in and around the first team who a lot of 'bigger' clubs will/have been looking at. I wasn't suggesting you won't be self-sustainable, simply that just because our owner has made unpopular decision in the past, doesn't mean we will be in financial trouble in the future.
Why do toon fans keep bringing gates into this, lets say its ã30 a ticket (some will be dearer though) ã30 * 48900 (our capacity) = ã1,4670,000 * 18 home games = ã26,406,000 a season (and season tickets will be cheaper as well, so it probably wont even be that much) now lets say we average 42,000 = ã22,680,000 so its only 4mil less and according to Quinn its 1.8million less (obviously with # of season tickets sold taken into the equation). and 4mil in football these days may be for 1 player and his wages for a year (if that) so i really dont see your point, and like i said we are in profit anyway (club balance sheet doesnt say that, but again thats before the bent sale but i believe with the bent buy). We will be fine, just worry about your own club, and we will concern ourselves with ours. PS: that was never a bloody penalty. PPS: i was replying to FTMWN in my previous reply.
I don't think Sunderland's position is as rosy as you all like to think, Your average attendances this year are around 36000 You're spending money like it's going out of fashion without making any real progress: http://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/en/sunderland-afc/transferbilanz/verein_289.html An incredible 4 of your first team 11 don't belong to you Your wage bill is increasing year by year
I do think the loan signings is a fair point to raise...Are any of the deals, 'with a view to buy' at the end?
All foreign loan deals are done "with a view to buy" . The sale price is agreed at the start of the loan. That's how we picked up Elmo for ã2.5m
You are a plonker though. 1: Thats transfer revenue only, not total clubs revenue. 2: The 56 million deficit was Keane and Drumaville, short had nothing to do with that season. Just like your -50mil + season in the table was probably not ashley but the previous owner. 3: as for the loans, most teams have loan deals in and out, and you wouldnt loan them in if they were not good enough to get into your first team to begin with. 4: isnt everyone`s wage bill increasing year by year, not just football but everyones, its called inflation. I really dont see your point in all this, Obviously short has spent some money, but he isnt spending it like keane and Drumaville did, its a lot more steady playing field with Short and Bruce.
