I don't agree mate. Clubs have been penalised and relegated, Everton may yet go down, 6 points is a hefty punishment. And let's not forget Leicester, and Southampton, went bust recently ... ... lawyers are only keen until they think their invoice may not be paid
Here's another model we could follow if people want more money spending. Spurs seem to have decided pensioners, who've supported the club all their lives, now have to pay £856 when the OAP discount is scrapped. The club know that touts will always buy the SCs as the tourists will buy match tickets ... ... it's become Madame Tussauds in the morning, match in the afternoon and Les Miserables in the evening. The Tottenham Hotspur Supporters' Trust says it is "hugely disappointed" that season ticket prices will increase by 6% for the 2024-25 season. Spurs are also removing the concession for new senior season ticket holders - those aged 65 and above - from 2025-26. It means the most affordable adult season ticket will be £856, up from this season's price of £807. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/68499071
I'm not sure they are many if any on here that want tonnes of cash spending Even otr most want sensible spending and not risking the clubs future
You could argue we are already spending sensible money, what people want is more money spending ... ... although they'll never say how much, no matter how many times they're asked. Words like 'tweak' or 'flex' are used which are absolutely meaningless.
Depends on your take on the words and the context. Like i said I don't see any posts on here and very very few otr suggesting spending loads and to be honest of we are to progress then we will have to increase fees or be incredibly lucky with recruitment
Of course not, that's my point, people will do anything to avoid saying that. They won't give figures, ever. They'll inevitably say what you've said, 'just a little' ... ... in reality, if we increase it a little, people will say it's not enough imo.
Most posts i see seem to suggest it all depends on sales as to what sensible spending looks like. Guess it's one of the issues with words on a forum that you can't really expand on a point or debate it like a conversation in real-time does.
No offence mate, but I think you might be overly optimistic when it comes to this. Chelsea have shown how to bend rules, so rules changed but their commitment made and set. Man City tying up the premier league in knots to avoid any penalty. Everton lawyers showing they are better than regulators lawyers. The penalties in no way fit the crime. Until the penalty meets the crime, and by that I mean claw back of revenues earned and erasing of trophies won, owners who want to will always gamble. They would be daft not to to be honest. If we sanction clubs properly I will have hope, at the moment it remains protectionist of premier league owners.
Yeah, you got me there tbf Couple of things though. If a club get into massive debt, but avoid sanctions, they're still in massive debt. Second, I just watched East Midlands News and a girl from the Liverpool media, who's apparently the 'go to source' on sanctions was saying she'd guess Forest will receive a similar points deduction to Everton. That would put them in real bother although, ironically, helping Everton
I mentioned the 1957 scandal earlier as a bit of a joke but there were serious and meaningful sanctions handed out then. We were arguably one of the biggest clubs in the country at the time, even if we'd won won nowt for 20 years, -it was the Bank of England Club era- so why don't today's administrators have the balls to do something similar? Money, I suppose.
I did not say that you said that I said if he was planning that to buy Marseilles then he would be hawking the club around to raise cash for a purchase as was alluded to by a couple of posters not just you.
This hints at a purchase of Marseilles and using Sunderland as a vehicle to achieve that or is this not what you were inferring.
It was not too many pages back that a poster was asking to buy 4 10 million pound player if we sold Clarke, Ballard and Ekwah. 40 Million would be a huge outlay in Championship terms so TBH even though you may say that you don't think many have been asking as soon as we sell a player for a good amount they immediately ask for the money to be re-invested in a player of similar value to that of the sale.
Is that not sensible spending or how the model works? Spending what you generate? Yes it is loads for a championship club, but it's not putting us into debt or relying on the owner to fund it Edit. I'm not expecting all the money any sales bring in to be spent on players, I'm expecting some to be used for infrastructure and running costs. That would make the club fully self sustainable with no debt or owner financial input. To explain, 40 million in, 20 on new players, 20 on running costs and infrastructure, would probably see us break even or even make a profit
That's how I imagine it working, although income from other aspects of the business can obviously be used for running costs and infrastructure too. The only thing with the four players at £10m each example is that, for the 'model' to work, you have to have at least some players in the squad that you're going to make a profit on. How much profit are you going to make on a £10m player? Probably not a lot as, if you're paying that much, most Championship players at least, will be at or close to their peak.
I totally agree mate my point was not really aimed at you personally but a reflection of some posters who think when we sell a player for say 20 million that money goes straight in the bank but the truth is all of the deals can become complicated and a lot of them spread the cost over the term of the contract EG 10 million for Stewart may only bring in 2 million a year over 5 years (this is not always the case) however we can also structure deals this way. The problem comes with buying 4 10 million pound players as they then want commensurate wages which would drive the wage bill up. I guess what I am trying to say is that we still need to be cautious but can expand our searches to more experienced (maybe established is a better word) players. The club has to build after all and I for one think that we may well be looking a lot better in 2 years time than we do now but I am a vey optimistic supporter and tend to wear (not sure if that should be wear as in I wear y coat or wear as in river wear but either way it is how I feel) my heart on my sleeve. Things have not been great lately and I am not blind to that but I do love the fact there seems a real plan in place and as a club we finally seem to have some direction and a sense of what Sunderland are trying to be. I hope the vision is achieved but if not then i am sure we will be in a better state than we were 3 years ago
I would rather be in the championship than have us going about business like that. I really like the way we are going about things.
That's not what I'm inferring at all I'll have to outline my position later on in the name of healthy debate
I hope we value our academy really highly. That is the way to make real income. If Dan Neil goes for £20m then that is really £20m to us. Clarke for £25m is probably less than £20m to us due to sell ons. Where I think we are sitting on a real goldmine is our academy talent. Neil and Patterson current value players. Rigg and Watson next. More to follow. We could realistically be sitting on £100m of income in the next 3 to 4 years of homegrown talent. Add that to the profit on players like Clarke and Hume and Ballard. We really should have huge scope to invest in the first team squad under any ffp rules. We need to ensure we are really smart with academy contracts and who is ensuring we are recruiting the best talent across all age groups. I have said this before but a club like ours should male the academy the crown jewel. KLD has invested heavily in that so far and long may it continue. Take 5% of every transfer sale and direct to academy we wont go far wrong.
