What is the actual aim this season?

I keep using Sunderland because they are such a good example of what a capable manager can achieve with a decent squad. Sunderland looked like a basket case last season.
New manager carefully selected and, wow, surely they are massively over achieving ?
That’s what you get for a capable manager. I think by comparison we have a manager who is a 5/10 whereas Sunderland have a manager who is a 9/10.

Carefully selected? About three people turned them down before they settled on Regis.
 
Carefully selected? About three people turned them down before they settled on Regis.
6pts ahead of us with the likes of Roberts in their team who looked finished when with us! Massively over achieving….doesn’t it make you want to question our under achieving players guided by someone who I think is bang average but former manure player so everyone hangs on his every word….
 
In comparison to boros squad of sixth most expensive, I’m curious to know how Sunderland’s team measure up versus the rest given they are 6 points ahead of Boro with what I think an inferior set of players but well organised team with leaders, grit and a way of playing that’s uncomplicated vs Boro’s faffing about with it at the back…
Sunderland 4th most expensive squad.
 
Pre millwall, I thought we”d get 13 points…. I’m going to revise that and say we”ll get 14. We”ll also get beat by Burnley.
 
I post below a few summaries provided by Swiss Ramble who produce exhaustive financial assessments of clubs around the world.
It backs up exactly what I posted in posts, 109,114,121 and 129 re Parachute Payments and promotion.
It provides lots of other information too.

They chose to look at 10 years too - I suppose they will be being selective MidlandsBorofan...?
(See post 129 for 18 years exhaustive look at promotions and PP's).

13/30 clubs promoted in last 10 years without PP's. 28/54 clubs promoted without in 18 years of PP's.

What is strikingly clear, is that many of the clubs that were promoted without PP's, had massive wage bills, dwarfing their turnover:
Forest's wage bill 3 years ago on promotion was £58.6m (twice our £29.6m wage bill last year), on a turnover roughly the same as our £28.6m.
The year before Brentford's wage bill was £41m on a £15m turnover.
The year before that Leeds wage bill was £78m on £54m turnover. They are the only club who have income without PP's as high as those with. This year they also have PP.
The year before that Norwich wage bill was £51m on £34m turnover. Sheff U £41m on £21m turnover.
The year before Wolves was £51m wages on £26m turnover.

The pre tax losses made by promoted clubs is eye watering, with or without PP's.
It is staggering how blind eyes have been turned to the pre tax losses, which cant possibly all be explained through P&S allowable expenditure.

It does seem clear that budget wise a club needs PP's AND/OR needs owners who will gamble huge wages and part offset that through profit from player sales.
Our wage bill is unlikely to be much higher than Luton or Ipswich was and they are the two teams that have had by far the lowest wage bills of clubs promoted for some time.

The wage bills are ridiculous but real.
The turnovers are pitiful exc PP's and the losses eye watering.

Gibson I believe is backing the club very well.
Unless he goes bigger on wages (and losses) and funds it with a P&S magic wand I can't figure out, then he needs profit from player sales AND a first class coaching team to get the best out of the players we can stretch to.
The part of the strategy that is in some doubt for me is that bringing the best out of available talent. Time will tell.

What is clear to me is that with an inability to raise revenue significantly, if we don't go up this season then there will need to be high value player sales.
1734948278491.png
 
Back
Top