I see the disappointment of a reported 12 mil for Fletcher is there, we could have got, he only cost so let me try and put a case for the club, BTW, the opinion of anyone but a Sunderland fan is worthless to me so by all means comment but forgive me if I ignore that comment. I have been critical of Fletcher but never his price because I see it like this. The managers job is to build a team that will take us to a top ten finish, he will live or die by that team. We have known for some time that we need strikers and the managers job is to find those strikers, we will all have opinions on is he the right striker for us but in the end its the managers opinion that counts, he has said Fletcher. Now its over to Short who must decide how much, in consultation with MON and can we afford. The right striker can be priceless, we would have finished top 8 last season on chances created, if we had had that striker, how much would that have made us extra? I would have liked a Fletcher plus and could still get that but, if Fletcher comes he will get my total support regardless of price or opinion and if he scores or helps or both and brings success he will be worth every penny. If not the manger could do a Dagliesh and get the sack for his judgement, cant see that happening TBH. Lets not get hung up on cost, its irrelevant to us, we have to back MON and his judgement, not always easy then back Short and Byrne and their business skills, its their job. Top 10 or even top 8 and its MON is god and god bless Short, how much was Fletcher, who cares. Bottom 6 or relegation and its MON out and sack the board with what a waste of money. Right now, if I'm honest, I'm just pleased to hear signs of movement.
I’ve always believed that “The monetary outlay in business is irrelevant if the desired result is achieved”. Opinions are just that but many have questioned the value of a player with their only experience being Monopoly or Football Manager. Syd, take the detractors with a grain of salt as it’s up to Mr Short to decide upon how much to spend. Those whom have never put their own money on the line to build a business are called employees. From my experience as with fans of sporting clubs, their full of well meaning opinions but often wide of the mark due to a lack of knowledge as a result of not being privy to all the facts.
Fletchers goals per game ratio is probably on a par with Andy Carroll and we all know he was not worth his price tag, but 12 million is pea nuts in comparison, like you Syd if he comes and delivers then who cares what he cost, he is proven in the PL and that comes with a heavy price tag, I could name several foreigners bought to excite the fans who have never delivered because they can't hack it in our league, so MoN gets a thumbs up from me.
If Ellis Short thinks he can afford it then it's good enough for me, it's like when you were a kid and you wanted a pair of trainers, did you really give a toss how much your parents paid for them? Sign him up Ellis!
Although Fletcher will not be a marque signing I think that he'll be a great addition;lets get a pacy winger in and together with our very good dead ball specialists I can see Fletcher getting 15+ goals. Value is very difficult to assess-many of us think that clubs get ripped off in the transfer market-we get ripped off even more if we buy Gillette/Wilkinson shaving products. I'm not someone who thinks MON can do no wrong but I trust his judgement;lets get behind the team and look for progress.
Oh Murray, look what you have done, when I was a boy we could not afford trainers.............................................violin music
If we pay £12million , and he scores, say £15 goals, and we finish maybe 6 places higher in 7th (a realistic target) as a result, then that's 800k x 6 back. If he scores a few in a cup run, racking up additional prize/tv money, then that's a few more bob. If he does this over the course of a 3-4year deal, then he's wiped out the fee. He scores goals, we need a goalscorer, and I think, importantly, he'll appreciate being at a club of our size (not massive, but better than average). I'm all for the lad, no, I ain't pissing myself with excitement, but I'm CERTAIN he'll get 12 minimum. That's a good start.
Manchester United have today announced that Chevrolet will be their new shirt sponsor, with the American car giant set to be on the front of the famous red kit from the 2014/15 season onwards. How much the General Motors-owned company has paid for the seven-year deal remains undisclosed, but it’s expected to be in excess of the £20 million-a-year that insurance specialist Aon currently pay for the privilege at Old Trafford. Liverpool’s deal with Standard Chartered and Manchester City’s with Etihad are also in the £20m bracket, whilst Sunderland are also now in the big leagues after signing a lucrative contract with Invest in Africa. However, Spanish all-stars Barcelona – a club who previously resisted the lure of shirt sponsors in favour of tradition in Catalonia – have the most lucrative deal in world football, earning £25 million-a-year in shirt sponsorship. German giants Bayern Munich are next on the list with a Deutche Telekom mega-deal, whilst Real Madrid languish behind their major European rivals with a £16.8 million deal with betting partner Bwin. Chelsea’s £13.8m-a-year deal with Samsung means they remain firmly in the top ten, whilst Spurs and Newcastle are joined by AC Milan in equal ninth position, with the Rossoneri the only representative from Serie ‘A’. It all shows that the Premier League remains the place to be, for sponsors at least, and that’s a point proved by the struggles of some of the lesser teams in Spain, who can’t get anyone to sponsor them at any price. In England, total sponsorship is up to £147 million for the 2012/13 season, with many of the mid-table teams signing improved deals ahead of the new campaign. Top Ten: Shirt Sponsorship Deals: 1. Barcelona - £25m-a-year (Qatar Foundation) 2. Bayern Munich - £23.6m-a-year (Deutche Telekom) 3. Manchester United - £20m-a-year (Aon) 3. Liverpool - £20m-a-year (Standard Chartered) 3. Manchester City - £20m-a-year (Etihad Airways) 3. Sunderland - £20m-a-year (Invest in Africa) 7. Real Madrid - £16.8m-a-year (Bwin) 8. Chelsea - £13.8m-a-year (Samsung) 9. Tottenham Hotspur - £10m-a-year (Autonomy & Investec) 9. AC Milan - £10m-a-year (Emirates) 9. Newcastle United - £10m-a-year (Virgin Money)
Ha ha ha. What a ****ing EPIC bit of business, I hope it's a 10 year deal! Look at Madrid and their pissy little deal, Ellis wouldn't even answer the phone for that pittance!
[h=1]Wolves stand firm over transfer bids for Steven Fletcher and Michael Kightly[/h] [h=2]Wolverhampton Wanderers are facing a battle to keep their leading players after rejecting bids for Steven Fletcher and Michael Kightly.[/h] please log in to view this image In demand: Wolves have turned down Sunderland £10m bid for Scotland international striker Steven Fletcher Photo: PA By John Percy 6:12PM BST 30 Jul 2012 please log in to view this image Comment Wolves have turned down a £10 million offer from Sunderland for Fletcher, after Martin O’Neill finally made his move for the Scotland international over the weekend. O’Neill is also understood to have offered Connor Wickham on loan for the season as part of the deal but Wolves are not prepared to accept less than £15 million. Sunderland are reluctant to increase their offer but Fletcher, 25, could now hand in a transfer request in a bid to push through a move to the Stadium of Light. Stoke’s £2 million bid for Kightly has been rejected by the Championship club. Kightly, 26, has one year remaining on his contract and Tony Pulis is keen to bring in the winger to provide competition for Jermaine Pennant and Matthew Etherington. But Wolves have turned down the bid and Stoke are unlikely to return with an improved offer. Wolves also rejected a £4 million bid from West Ham for Matt Jarvis in June and Jez Moxey, the chief executive, insists no players will be leaving Molineux
