Sick Boy
Super Moderator
The sign of a good team is winning when playing badly.
Scumberland or Shitefield ? (9 Viewers)
- Thread starter Covcraig@bury
- Start date
HuckerbyDublinWhelan
Well-Known Member
That’s why I’m relaxed. I back Lampard to find the players we need
Simpson
Active Member
The value of the Sunderland squad may be £140m but we haven't spent anywhere near that.
Patterson, Neil, Rigg and Watson are all Sunderland kids as is Jones who was a sub at Wembley.
Hume was about £150k and most of the squad are £1m PL rejects or foreign unknowns.
Sunderland are actually in profit after Clarke, Stewart and Watson left, we've just bought well and developed players.
Last edited:
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
The value of your arrivals has been more than ours the last three years. You pay high wages and get expensive loans in. Isador at £6m would be our second most expensive player ever.
Simpson
Active Member
It was £3.5m rising to a maximum of £5m on promotion and appearances.
Hardly buying our way to the PL.
The value of our arrivals now is down to good management, Isidor is now worth more than we'll have to pay.
How does our wage bill compare to Coventry's, I've no idea tbh.
shepardo01
Well-Known Member
Our highest earner/wage cap is rumoured to be 25k p/w.
You are paying Le Fee 67k p/w
Simpson
Active Member
One player doesn't represent the entire club.
A year's wages would only be £3.5m which is nothing for a player of his talent.
He was brought in to help get us to the PL and would've left if that didn't work. It was a very smart bit of business as it's earned £200m.
It's balanced by the academy lads and, in any case, we have no debt so why not.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
It would be about 20% of our wage bill. Maybe nothing for you, but out of reach for most clubs at this level without parachute payments.
Sky Blue Goblin
Well-Known Member
So fairly only way to look at this is from the 23/24 season as we don’t have any reliable information apart from this (plus wage sites are a nonsense, sorry Binks
).Sunderland latest accounts show total wages as £31.4 million. Coventrys show £23.4 Million.
Curious about your summer btw whether you’ll stick to the project or go for more experienced players
Simpson
Active Member
So fairly only way to look at this is from the 23/24 season as we don’t have any reliable information apart from this (plus wage sites are a nonsense, sorry Binks
Sunderland latest accounts show total wages as £31.4 million. Coventrys show £23.4 Million.
Curious about your summer btw whether you’ll stick to the project or go for more experienced players
That seems quite modest tbh, I think we're about mid-table in spending and much better in regards to debt.
Our starting eleven, at Wembley, cost less than Tom Cannon.
Our crowds obviously help and we get lots of TV coverage, etc.
I'm expecting a big American investment soon which will leave control in the current owner's hands.
That would probably bring in around £80/100m which would help.
The club have had a plan for the Championship and another for the PL so I'd expect changes but nothing major. The current ethos and team spirit is as good as I've seen it so wouldn't like that disrupted. Bellingham may leave but that's inevitable because his potential is enormous.
Last edited:
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
I know the argument that you will eventually return to the mean, but our purple patch occurred when we were playing a different formation and despite results being good that Lampard was looking for the first opportunity to go back to his preferred 4-3-3. After that change they dropped off a bit. May be related, may not.
I'm just hoping next season FL shows a bit more pragmatism and flexibility with the system, especially against a low block. When that happens we need to be able to have an AM who can run through the lines and consider playing two strikers.
I just fear he's going to play 4-3-3 pretty much all the time regardless.
Cally Fedora
Well-Known Member
To be honest this not able to play against the low block thing is a fallacy for me. I think it’s more that we just weren’t quite clinical enough in lots of those games. Take both Sunderland games. We created lots of chances (beating the low block) but just didn’t take them.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
You’re top four in both. Absolutely delusional.
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
We struggled against it inseveral games in the latter part of the season,mainly ly away from home.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
We had one big chance in the first game and an xG of less than two in both. Second game two shots on target in 120 minutes. Hardly battering down their door.
Simpson
Active Member
Top four in debt?
As for the rest, I already said ... 'How does our wage bill compare to Coventry's, I've no idea tbh.'
You seem to be fixated with the idea that we've bought our way to the PL, now that's what I call delusional.
Our starting eleven, at Wembley, cost less than Tom Cannon.
Simpson
Active Member
To be fair, you didn't.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
No squad value and I’d guess wages. A 30% increase is a lot. You’re a big club I’m not sure why you play it down. 40k fans each week gives you the resources to do that and you should be at worst yoyo team or a lower Prem team IMO. Same as Leeds.
Simpson
Active Member
I'm not playing anything down.
My point is that we've achieved promotion by operating within our means and not by splashing the cash.
If you think it's through financial muscle that's fair enough, just different opinions.
Last edited:
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
The best data we have suggests you have the third most valuable squad in the division and a wage bill roughly 30% higher than ours (which TBF is low). You guys like to play this woe betrodden role but you’re bigger than most Championship clubs. It’s just a bit weird most clubs at our level are pretending they’re bigger than they are. At least Leeds are cunts about it.
HuckerbyDublinWhelan
Well-Known Member
We hardly created any clear cut chances. Even the ones we scored were crosses under challenge.
we had a lot of the ball, but it predominantly ended with us crossing a ball to Dan Ballard, or a floated ball to the corner of the 6 yard box where Patterson was waiting.
we had 4 shots on target over the 2 legs. Sunderland had 6.
Cally Fedora
Well-Known Member
I must have been watching two different games. Don’t care about xg. But I can recall really good chances across the two legs for Wright, Sheaf, Rudoni, Kitching, Mason-Clark and Saka. Some multiple.
Simpson
Active Member
And?
I'm far from feeling downtrodden, we're a good club that's run well and has good support.
But I don't go around thinking we're better than anyone else, you probably wouldn't like that either.
I don't see us as bigger than Coventry, Sheff Utd, Burnley, Leeds, Sheff Wed, Boro, etc.
Simpson
Active Member
If you can recall multiple chances I'm not disputing that but I can't think of any apart from the late header at the SOL tbh.
What were your best three that you recall.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
You and Leeds are definitely bigger than us Boro or Wed IMO. Burnley are a L1 club in reality, propped up by cash. You guys haven’t dropped below upper mid table L1 pretty much ever, have more recent PL experience, and ultimately have consistent large crowds regardless.
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
Disagree. We created a very small number of chances (especially considering the possession we had). We just happen to have noticed them.
We miss chances playing against teams that are more open too. We just create more chances against those teams and therefore score more often against it.
The low block has been a huge problem all season. We failed to beat a number of teams at the bottom of the table that employed a low block as well.
It was an extravagant gamble that very few clubs in the division could afford to even think about. It looks great in hindsight thanks to a couple of stoppage time goals, but "smart business" it was not.
The extent to which people want to overhaul our playing style based off two highly-charged (and extremely close!) games is way over the top imo
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
Which ones?
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
Derby, Plymouth and even at Sheff U we had more possesion and they constantly caught us on the break.
At Hull, even though we should have won,they managed to tale advantage of our high line.
Bear in mind we won 4 of our previous 5 away with a different set up so people aren't questioning it based on 2 games, but I think you know that.
Simpson
Active Member
It only cost a couple of million, half of what you paid for Grimes ... money well spent and very smart imo.
Sheff Utd spent five times that on Cannon and he was hopeless.
If you think that's all he did there's no point discussing it tbh and, btw, stoppage time goals got you to the playoffs.
Last edited:
I agree with you, I just think a lot of the chatter in the wake of the Sunderland games (Sell Haji Wright! Sign Oli McBurnie!) is over the top considering they were two games that we were extremely unfortunate not to win, let alone get anything out of.
I am personally relaxed about the prospect of teams playing the low block against us every week, because despite the aforementioned poor performances I still think that over the course of 46 games we're more likely to win those games than lose them.
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
That's fair enough, and I think we'll be more effective against them with a bit more pace in our back line and a centre forward who can control a ball but I don't think the concerns started after the play offs, I think there were questions raised before that.
And Im talking about away from home as with at the CBS it's worked well with in the main.
Most teams in the division can't afford to spend £2 million for what will more often than not be a short-term rental. The comparisons to Grimes (here for another three years) and Cannon (parachute payments ahoy) don't apply here.
Good for you that it worked out, but don't pretend like it's a strategy that every club is going to try and replicate next season - they simply can't afford it.