Sunderland sack Jack Ross

Here you can chat about everything and anything related to ITFC and other football issues. This forum also hosts the now Internationally famous TB.com ITFC match previews which contain insightful pre-match thoughts, previous highlights, news links relating to Town, form guides and other bits and pieces. Feel free to discuss meet ups/travel plans in here as well.

Moderators: marko69, Bluemike, Charnwood

User avatar
Mach_Polish_Blue
Posts: 956
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 1:07 pm
Location: Manchester

Sunderland sack Jack Ross

Post by Mach_Polish_Blue » Tue Oct 08, 2019 4:36 pm

We could have ended up with him last year.

Big news and relief for the majority of Sunderland fans as they have been unhappy with the results and his style of football. Too defensive at times according to them.
Given their budget and size of the club his reign will have been underwhelming and the results ought to have been better.

Their American takeover is off today too.

User avatar
Steve and Jo
Posts: 745
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2007 7:33 pm
Location: Norfolk

Re: Sunderland sack Jack Ross

Post by Steve and Jo » Tue Oct 08, 2019 4:40 pm

In hind sight its possibly the best thing to happen over past year or so we didn't go for him

Much happier with Paul Lambert, though wish Ross well, maybe there might be a change of managers at Hibs for him.. :wink:

User avatar
Shed on tour
Posts: 7111
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 10:21 pm

Re: Sunderland sack Jack Ross

Post by Shed on tour » Tue Oct 08, 2019 4:51 pm

Hurst and Ross both failed in making the step up. Nathan Jones could very well be the next on the list.

User avatar
Bluemike
Global Moderator
Posts: 20858
Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 5:26 pm
Location: Ipswich

Re: Sunderland sack Jack Ross

Post by Bluemike » Tue Oct 08, 2019 5:21 pm

Yes many were bigging him up for being successful in lower league Scottish football, he chose a job that should have been quite easy in League One and blew it. Glad we dodged this one, just wish we'd dodged my choice Hurst too !!! :lol:

User avatar
Charnwood
Global Moderator
Posts: 11858
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 5:25 pm
Location: Moraira, Spain

Re: Sunderland sack Jack Ross

Post by Charnwood » Tue Oct 08, 2019 7:23 pm

The appointments of Paul Hurst and Jack Ross underline my long standing opinion that ambitious clubs MUST appoint experienced managers with a proven track record at or above the level of the vacancy being filled. Yes there will always be exceptions but these will always be in the minority.

User avatar
marko69
Global Moderator
Posts: 16854
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 2:16 am
Location: Somewhere between here and there.

Re: Sunderland sack Jack Ross

Post by marko69 » Tue Oct 08, 2019 7:24 pm

Steve, there are Hibs fans wanting him at Easter Road! That’s how bad Heckingbottom is! :lol:

I don’t know, different game up here, (sh*te i think the proper term is)......., St Mirren to Sunderland didn’t make sense to me, regardless of their league One status. Way too big a leap.
And I may be wrong, but heard that well over 50% of the Sunderland fan base wanted him out after 10 games.

hallamblue
Posts: 24211
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 3:30 pm
Location: Ipswich Town F.C.

Re: Sunderland sack Jack Ross

Post by hallamblue » Tue Oct 08, 2019 11:26 pm

Marko, I think the main difference between SPL and English Championship/ League One is there are far more teams in the English game that can give you a tough match, whereas in SPL perhaps only 2-3 clubs? I don’t think Hurst or Ross had anywhere near the experience required to deal with the calibre of teams in these divisions week in week out. For ROSS I think it was an even bigger step up than for Hurst.

What does begged belief is Town considered both of these managers when Lambert,(my choice), I think, was available !!

User avatar
Steve and Jo
Posts: 745
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2007 7:33 pm
Location: Norfolk

Re: Sunderland sack Jack Ross

Post by Steve and Jo » Wed Oct 09, 2019 10:24 am

I didn't want Ross nor was i keen on Hurst. I am and was with Charnwood with the experienced manager logic purely because with the situation we were in a an experienced manager like Lambert would not of brought so many League 1 and 2 players in.

Let the past bad words between members here go. If you can not enjoy what is happening now after the utter dross we have seen and had to put up for years then not sure ever can

User avatar
saint jude
Posts: 8785
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2007 7:41 pm

Re: Sunderland sack Jack Ross

Post by saint jude » Wed Oct 09, 2019 10:55 am

Had to verify Ross's age, thought he was younger than he is. Point being maybe we were linked to him during the managerial changeovers here but this was a name that (for me) never aroused much or any interest regards coming in to take over matters. People in fact were against the idea also ?

Sunderland are at this time in or around the play-off zone so firing their manager seems ill-advised but chairman and directors all have their individual ways of operating. Way I see it Ross doesn't possess enough actual managerial experience or isn't equipped for a job with what you could argue one of the established names in the "football" spectrum. Will be interesting to see how quickly another club comes in for him or how long Ross remains on the inactive roster regards employment terms.

User avatar
nicscreamer
Posts: 1771
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2003 6:53 pm
Location: In front of my computer
Contact:

Re: Sunderland sack Jack Ross

Post by nicscreamer » Wed Oct 09, 2019 11:02 am

This forum is getting like twitter..... laters guys

tangfastic
Posts: 2224
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 11:52 am

Re: Sunderland sack Jack Ross

Post by tangfastic » Wed Oct 09, 2019 11:13 am

Do Sunderland have a big budget ? I thought they were trimming their budget. Posh seem to be the ones who are spending big this season. From Town’s perspective, I was hoping Ross would stay a bit longer as they’re obviously things weren’t right there.A decent new boss could galvanise the team from where they are.

Maybe for Lambert to ‘succeed’ and be accepted, he needed the Hurst fiasco. It bought him a longer honeymoon period where he could look at the club as a whole and couldnt take complete blame - or any - for relegation. I don’t think he was even available in April/May 2018 as he was still with Stoke. Pretty sure Hurst was lined up in May or even before. If he can had come in straight after Mick I don’t think he would have been accepted as the vast majority of us wanted a young up and coming manager - apart from Charnwood and a few others. Lessons learned.

User avatar
Frosty
Forum Owner
Posts: 2838
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:46 am

Re: Sunderland sack Jack Ross

Post by Frosty » Wed Oct 09, 2019 11:54 am

Unlocking this thread again after deleting some posts.

User avatar
Charnwood
Global Moderator
Posts: 11858
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 5:25 pm
Location: Moraira, Spain

Re: Sunderland sack Jack Ross

Post by Charnwood » Thu Oct 10, 2019 9:13 am

Jack Ross only lasted as long as he did was because the board were more focussed on selling the football club than they were watching results. As I’ve said before I mix with a small group of lifelong Sunderland fans one who has close connections with club. Collectively they believe that Sunderland currently play the worst football ever played by the club, and to be honest it’s unlikely to change until the club is sold.

As for Jack Ross, he’s young enough to bounce back and will probably have a successful return to his comfort zone north of the border.

tangfastic
Posts: 2224
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 11:52 am

Re: Sunderland sack Jack Ross

Post by tangfastic » Thu Oct 10, 2019 10:23 am

Charnwood wrote:
Thu Oct 10, 2019 9:13 am
Jack Ross only lasted as long as he did was because the board were more focussed on selling the football club than they were watching results. As I’ve said before I mix with a small group of lifelong Sunderland fans one who has close connections with club. Collectively they believe that Sunderland currently play the worst football ever played by the club, and to be honest it’s unlikely to change until the club is sold.

As for Jack Ross, he’s young enough to bounce back and will probably have a successful return to his comfort zone north of the border.
Out of interest, I thought that the club changed ownership less than a year and a half ago. About the time Ross came in. And now they’re loooking to sell? If so, the current owners haven’t shown any commitment.

User avatar
Frosty
Forum Owner
Posts: 2838
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:46 am

Re: Sunderland sack Jack Ross

Post by Frosty » Thu Oct 10, 2019 11:49 am

The current owners are way under capitalised Tang, funnily enough, I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s some serious financial issues behind the scenes. Believe they gambled on promotion straight back up last season which as you know ended badly.

hallamblue
Posts: 24211
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 3:30 pm
Location: Ipswich Town F.C.

Re: Sunderland sack Jack Ross

Post by hallamblue » Thu Oct 10, 2019 2:37 pm

Owning a professional football club isn't all its cracked up to be is it Dave. In many ways, we have a lot to be thankful for "our lot", not that some Town fans would agree.

User avatar
Charnwood
Global Moderator
Posts: 11858
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 5:25 pm
Location: Moraira, Spain

Re: Sunderland sack Jack Ross

Post by Charnwood » Thu Oct 10, 2019 9:56 pm

Apologies for the long read but this is what happened in April 2018 when Ellis Short the owner of Sunderland sacked Chris Coleman, wrote off £100m of debt and transferred the club to new owners. 18 months on I can’t imagine their debts are massive especially with an average home attendance in excess of 32,000. I think the latest takeover crashed when the new consortium realised that Sunderland’s assets had been excessively overstated, in particular the value of academy players. In light of this they wanted to renegotiate the price.


Sunderland lost a manager but gained new owners when Ellis Short sacked Chris Coleman before announcing he had cleared the struggling club’s debts and sold it to an international consortium headed by the chairman of non-league Eastleigh.

While Coleman paid the price for failing to prevent Sunderland from falling into League One, the outgoing Short wrote off tens of millions of pounds in liabilities, thereby facilitating the takeover spearheaded by Stewart Donald.

Once this transfer in ownership has received Football League ratification, Donald will sever his ties with Eastleigh of the National League before he and his group of “football investors” begin the task of rebuilding a club which has suffered successive relegations, entering the third tier for only the second time in its history.

Coleman had hoped to have been part of Sunderland’s rebirth and even offered to take a pay cut next season. Instead, the 47-year-old who led Wales to the Euro 2016 semi-finals was informed that the incoming owner wants a new coach.

The consensus is that Coleman, who had never spoken to Short since swapping Wales for Wearside last November, and was apparently unaware of the impending takeover, has been treated shoddily. Yet if his honesty and enthusiasm impressed, it seems Donald and friends were unconvinced by Coleman’s collection of only five wins as Sunderland were condemned to finishing bottom of the Championship.

His dismissal leaves the club seeking a 12th permanent appointment in 10 years. Early contenders include Mick McCarthy, most recently of Ipswich and a former Sunderland manager, and the former Reading coach Jaap Stam.

Although the debts are understood to have been reduced considerably since the publication of the last set of accounts – which showed that Sunderland owed £69m to Short and £68m to Security Bank Capital – Short’s decision to wipe out those arrears still represents a significant, and generous, gesture which should go at least some way to repairing his severely tarnished reputation in the north-east.

It is thought that eliminating the debt could cost him in excess of £100m, thereby lifting his total spending on Sunderland to around £250m. The club’s latest accounts are scheduled to be released this week. The Florida-domiciled American billionaire financier has made some calamitous decisions and wasted millions of pounds on signing sub-standard players during a decade in control. “It’s no secret that I’ve been trying to sell Sunderland,” Short said on Sunday. “But I’ve waited until the right group came along that have the experience, finances and plan to take this great club back where it deserves to be.”

An initially hands-on owner who used to happily interact with fans, he became increasingly disillusioned as a series of poor managerial and boardroom appointments and unwise off field ventures – most notably the ill-fated Invest in Africa project – conspired to set the team on an inexorably downward spiral.

“Overall, my chairmanship has not gone the way I would have wished; the many high points of a decade in the Premier League have been overshadowed by the low points of the last two terrible seasons,” Short said. “I was therefore determined to ensure that I leave Sunderland in the best possible hands and in the best possible state to turn the corner. To achieve this, higher offers from less qualified buyers were rejected, and I’ve paid off all debts owed by the club to leave it financially strong and debt free for the first time since years before I owned it.

“I will be a Sunderland fan for life and hope to return as a fan to watch them climb back to where they belong.”

Apart from his role with Eastleigh – which he put up for sale on Sunday – Donald has also been involved, albeit in a much lower-profile capacity, with Oxford United’s recent revival. It is unclear what price his consortium are paying for Sunderland or how a deal kept secret until its shock announcement on Sunday lunchtime is structured.

“All of us involved in this bid believe that Sunderland represents an extraordinary opportunity,” said Donald, who invested around £10m in Eastleigh and is expected to join fellow consortium members in the Stadium of Light’s directors box for the final Championship game against Wolves on Sunday. “All of us have been involved in building or rebuilding football clubs to reach their potential. We believe we have the necessary skill-set to overcome the many challenges facing us at this great club. For a club with one of the best fan bases, stadium and academies in the UK to find itself in League One is unacceptable.”

A 43-year-old millionaire businessmen, he grew up in Oxfordshire and owns Bridle Insurance, a broker specialising in the civil engineering and construction industries.

“We have a carefully thought-through plan to restructure Sunderland, make it sustainable and, with the help of the fans, restore its sense of pride and reconnect it with the local community,” the Oxford United-supporting Donald said. “We’re rolling our sleeves up to do what needs to be done to ready this club to start competing again.”




User avatar
vaalae
Posts: 5818
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2005 5:29 am
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

Re: Sunderland sack Jack Ross

Post by vaalae » Tue Oct 15, 2019 2:10 am

Thanks for that Andy, very interesting. I'll see your long Sunderland related post, and raise you an even longer one. Quite interesting this - about the impact the Salary Cost Management Protocol (if properly implemented with teeth) has on clubs.

Back in March of 2018, before Donald and Methven acquired SAFC, I penned an article discussing Salary Cost Management Protocol and how that might hamper Sunderland’s exploits in League One this coming season. The big take away worth noting was that:

Any club that has been relegated to League 1 having exceeded the £6m limit will not be subject to a transfer embargo but will be required to comply with the Salary Cost Management Protocol (SCMP) regulations in place in that division. These rules require League 1 clubs to limit their spending on players’ wages to 60% of turnover plus 100% of Football Fortune income (e.g. financial donations, transfer income, revenue from cup matches), with a club relegated from the Championship being able to operate at 75% of turnover for a transitional period of one season.

Simply put, the most important issue is that the playing budget must not amount to more than 60% of our turnover, i.e. we cannot spend 60% or more of the money we make as a club on player wages. This is the issue we currently face.

Last season we were given some leeway due to our relegation, but this season Sunderland will need to tighten their belts in order to avoid a potential transfer embargo or even fines and points deductions - a fate that could well cripple our chances of success in the long run.

Charlton Athletic v Sunderland - Sky Bet League One Play-off Final
A huge part of the reason why Lee Cattermole was allowed to leave the club this summer. Photo by Mark Fletcher/MI News/NurPhoto via Getty Images
Looking at Sunderland’s finances, the club’s projected turnover for this year, including the final parachute payment, is likely somewhere just south of £30 million - especially if a part of the final parachute payment comes in before the start of the EFL’s measurement period, meaning it would fall into last year’s calculations.

It’s also worth noting that if Sunderland come within 5% of that 60% figure then the club will be asked to explain themselves because the EFL takes the view that turnover can go down as well as up, depending on a mixture of mitigating factors.

Therefore, if you take £30 million as a general figure, then 60% of that is about £18 million. As such, Sunderland have to spend less than that amount of money on player’s wages in order to avoid issues. Take into account the 5% buffer and that would take the club down to less than £17 million. So, if Sunderland spend over £17 million on player wages they will likely be sanctioned, and if they spend around £16.5 million, the club will be asked to explain themselves.

Last year, it is believed that the club spent just over £16 million on player wages. If they had simply maintained that level of spend, then the club would have been pretty much right on the cut off line with no room for manoeuvre in January at all.

Now, many people will be thinking that the exits of Cattermole, James, Love, Matthews, and Ruiter will be enough to steady the ship, so to speak. But unfortunately that won’t be the case.


A tough balancing act. Sunderland AFC
The issue Sunderland now faces is that not only do the EFL look at the club’s current financial situation, but they also examine the club’s direction of travel in terms of their finances. Basically “where a club is trending” – and this is where Sunderland could have a real problem.

Parachute payments have helped the club steady themselves after two years of intense free-fall. But, because this is the final year of our parachute payments, next year in League One – even if matchday revenues hold up – our revenue will definitely drop below £20 million. Again, simple maths dictates that 60% of roughly £20 million equates to less than a £12 million playing wage cap.

As such, the EFL will be very interested in understanding what the club’s player contract lengths are because if we are signed up to contracts of £15 million for next year, as an example, then even if we are within the rules for this year they can then see that we are going to break the rules next year unless we get promoted.

Basing finances on the risk of the gamble of promotion is simply not an appetising prospect. This is something the EFL are determined to stop as it has cost some clubs their very existence.


Sunderland must be fiscally responsible. PA Images via Getty Images
This summer is a difficult one for the club. Although many fans want the club to splash the cash required in order to theoretically secure promotion, we would run the risk of falling foul of SCMP, and might find ourselves slapped with a transfer embargo, points deductions, and massive fines should we enter the Championship... not ideal.

So, the club face the difficult challenge of trying to manage their wage budget down to a level which not only enables the side to be compliant this season as we hunt for promotion, but also puts the club in with a chance of getting down to around £10.5 million for next season should we fail to find promotion.

Now, as already mentioned, players leaving the club does certainly have an impact on this situation, and Sunderland need to manage their actions wisely.

If a player leaves for cash or without any compensation, then great, those savings help the club.

However, if you have to pay players off then that still damages your wage bill. So, if a player leaves the club and the club pay 75% of his wages for the remainder of his contract, that only helps the club with a 25% reduction - there it is still a playing cost and that still counts for SCMP.

Lee Cattermole will likely have been in a situation not entirely different from the one outlined above. Although his wages are now gone, the club will have paid him a large percentage of the money he would have earned over the remainder of his contract - his exit does not suddenly free up bundles of money, but it does make a positive difference.


Another one who’ll likely be heading for the door. But will Sunderland be paying for his exit? Sunderland AFC via Getty images.
This doesn’t end with League One and SCMP, though. If Sunderland are promoted to the Championship, they then have to navigate FFP. There, the rule is that you can only ‘lose’ £5 million per year, or £15 million over three years. Or you can lose a maximum of £13 million a year, but the additional £8 million – over and above the £5 million - a year has to be gifted to the club by the owner with no debt... that’s a lot of money to invest year after year.

Without a parachute payment, Sunderland’s Championship turnover would be somewhere around £30 million. If you add the £5 million loss investment to that, then the club would have a turnover of around £35 million.

The club’s non-playing wages and operational expenses amount to somewhere close to £17 million, so that would allow a playing wage budget of £18 million. In theory, that would be a very competitive budget that would be somewhere close to the sixth biggest in the league if you take out parachute payments that are only ever used to fill black holes.

However, that theoretical £18 million would only actually produce a competitive Championship team if the club have not already spent £15 million a year on League One players - some of whom would also get automatic wage increases.

In reality, to enable the signing of five or more Championship-quality players, to enable us to be properly competitive in our first year back, then the club would need their wage budget on leaving League One to be somewhere around £10-11 million.

With promotion wage increases likely to add another £2-3 million, then the club would have somewhere close to £5 million worth of yearly wages to play with in order to attract much-needed reinforcements capable of allowing the club to challenge in the Championship.


Sunderland AFC via Getty Images
As you can see, the shaping of Sunderland’s wage budget is a difficult balancing act that must be carefully analysed. Sunderland need to build a squad that is capable of battling for promotion, but is also financially viable should the unthinkable happen.

As a side note - if the club had gone up at the end of last season, then we would have really struggled to sign players due to FFP. However, if the club shape their budget well this season and get promoted then they will be in a far healthier financial position - swings and roundabouts?

Sunderland, whilst searching for positive reinforcements this season, will also likely have to trim their playing squad, though, which currently stands at 27 players who have started full professional first team league or Cup games (excluding the Checkatrade).

Sunderland’s budget at this present time is suggested to be around £14 million - within this year’s limits but still a fair bit beyond what it would be need ahead of positive recruitment next year.

Some might be asking why the budget is an issue given that several well-paid players have left without any monies owed to them e.g. Matthews, Ruiter, and James as well as saving some cash on Cattermole.

Well, because the club have already signed four players this season in McLaughlin, Burge, Willis, and Sammut, and, just as relevantly, have young professionals moving from their initial contracts to proper first team contracts. As such, Denver Hume and Bali Mumba alongside Elliott Embleton and Benji Kimpioka (hopefully) have all signed proper ‘adult’ contracts in the last year - they are essentially viewed as new signings according to SCMP rules.

South Shields v Sunderland: Pre-Season Friendly
New deals for young players effectively equates to them being new signings according to the books. Photo by Ian Horrocks/Sunderland AFC via Getty Images
So, Sunderland’s apparent “one in, one out” approach is not a matter of whether the owner has any money or not. It is basically a matter of fiscal professionalism on the part of the club to fit within EFL rules as they try to create a reasonably sized squad capable of finding success.

At present, it could be argued that a squad of 27 first teamers (with around 10 young professionals as back-up) is simply too large a squad for League One in terms of financial prudence.

In theory, Sunderland’s current squad can’t even all fit in a full-sided training game. Subsequently, the club will have first-team players who not only cannot get in the matchday squad, but cannot even get into training games. It’s counter productive in terms of financial management, but also in terms of having a harmonious, productive squad.

As things stand, we could have an injury crisis of eight players being unavailable and there would still be fit first team players not making the bench. It’s quite incredible.


Sunderland AFC via Getty Images
Jack Ross will have to manage and shape his squad in order to get the right mix of attributes, ages and personalities capable of delivering promotion. He will also likely have to allow three or four players to leave in order to have a solid squad that can, if need, be augmented by Sunderland’s younger talents.

That approximately 24 man squad needs to be in accord with this season’s EFL targets, but also trending towards hitting next year’s ideal aim in order to give us the sensible costbase we need in order to add quality to the squad if we are promoted.

Furthermore, that squad will then need to be able to fulfill FFP requirements in order to avoid massive fees like QPR’s incredible £42 million settlement including a £17 million fine and transfer embargo. Or points deductions like Birmingham City, who lost 9 points due to breaching EFL profitability and sustainability rules. Make no doubt about it, there will be others suffering similar punishments, Sunderland cannot afford to be one of those victims.

The most recent figures suggest that that the highest wage bill in League One is generally around £10 million, and the lowest around £2.5 million. So taking our current numbers into account, we are not going to simply be competitive in the league, but we will have the highest available first team budget and, unlike other League One clubs, will have a host of young talent capable of supplementing the squad in the case of an injury crisis.

Being brutally honest, if we cannot get promoted with those resources being made available then that is not the fault of the club’s financial structure and planning, but the management team’s inability to create a winning side from a talented, well-paid player pool.


PA Images via Getty Images
It’s a tough task we’re facing, but good financial management here could well be the foundations required in order to develop a successful, stable future on Wearside. This might seem like an odd statement, but in reality we should acknowledge the fact that the club’s management have been active on this serious issue and are getting themselves out ahead of potential problems - this isn’t something to bemoan.

For example, back in June of last year, the club were projecting £15.5 million of turnover on top of parachute monies. In reality they managed to generate just over £20 million and also cut costs by £10 million more than was expected. The club aren’t looking to take on unstable debts in order to fund a shot at promotion, they’re living within their means and trying to implement good fiscal practices. Sure, we’d love to splurge serious cash on a host of new signings, but would the transfer embargoes, fines, and points deductions be worth the initial expenditure? I’d argue not.

What’s positive about this news is that there is a management team in place who understand the issues at hand, seemingly have a plan to develop the club, and are actively enabling a chance at real, sustainable success.

It’s frustrating that we can’t throw money around in order to guarantee success, but this dose of realism could be our best chance at a successful future. Now it’s over to Jack Ross and his men to deliver the goods on the pitch.

User avatar
marko69
Global Moderator
Posts: 16854
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 2:16 am
Location: Somewhere between here and there.

Re: Sunderland sack Jack Ross

Post by marko69 » Tue Oct 15, 2019 10:13 am

Anyone remember a forum member called N1Blue? (You lurking, buddy?)

His average posts were that ^^^ length! :lol:

Will attempt to read Charnwood’s and Vaalae’s posts regarding Sunderland next summer when I’ve got more time! :D

User avatar
barmy billy
Posts: 2573
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 6:19 pm
Location: Wherever I rest my head

Re: Sunderland sack Jack Ross

Post by barmy billy » Tue Oct 15, 2019 10:34 am

marko69 wrote:
Tue Oct 15, 2019 10:13 am
Anyone remember a forum member called N1Blue? (You lurking, buddy?)

His average posts were that ^^^ length! :lol:

Will attempt to read Charnwood’s and Vaalae’s posts regarding Sunderland next summer when I’ve got more time! :D
I well remember N1Blue's posts Marko.

As you say, lengthy but usually interesting. I exchanged PMs with him at one time & I remember him saying he had been involved in the process when ME took over. He maintained that there were other interested parties in buying the club at that time.

User avatar
Bluemike
Global Moderator
Posts: 20858
Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 5:26 pm
Location: Ipswich

Re: Sunderland sack Jack Ross

Post by Bluemike » Tue Oct 15, 2019 10:39 am

N1Blue was a very good poster

tangfastic
Posts: 2224
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 11:52 am

Re: Sunderland sack Jack Ross

Post by tangfastic » Tue Oct 15, 2019 10:43 am

Skim reading that wall of text ... Sunderland have appeared to gamble on an immediate return and since they failed ... they’ve had to tighten up their belts considerably. No more parachute payments and tighter financial restrictions in the second year in League 1. They might have a big budget, but looks like that’s been used up by the existing hefty wage bill. Long read... but that looks like it was written a few months back and it was up to Ross to do more with less. He obviously didn’t.

We might be in the similiar position next year if we don’t get promoted ie trim the squad even further, but I think we’re in a lot bettter shape than Sunderland.

User avatar
Bluemike
Global Moderator
Posts: 20858
Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 5:26 pm
Location: Ipswich

Re: Sunderland sack Jack Ross

Post by Bluemike » Tue Oct 15, 2019 11:38 am

We would have been in a even worse position if we'd splashed the cash as some wanted. Lessons to be learnt here.

User avatar
Andym
Posts: 3945
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 1:47 pm
Location: Mid Suffolk

Re: Sunderland sack Jack Ross

Post by Andym » Tue Oct 15, 2019 12:04 pm

Bluemike wrote:
Tue Oct 15, 2019 11:38 am
We would have been in a even worse position if we'd splashed the cash as some wanted. Lessons to be learnt here.
Absolutely. If we don't get promoted this season, we need to understand that the budget will need to be trimmed further.

tangfastic
Posts: 2224
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 11:52 am

Re: Sunderland sack Jack Ross

Post by tangfastic » Tue Oct 15, 2019 1:55 pm

Andym wrote:
Tue Oct 15, 2019 12:04 pm
Bluemike wrote:
Tue Oct 15, 2019 11:38 am
We would have been in a even worse position if we'd splashed the cash as some wanted. Lessons to be learnt here.
Absolutely. If we don't get promoted this season, we need to understand that the budget will need to be trimmed further.
TBH ..... eleven games in ... I think we’ve been pretty shrewd with the signings over the summer.

Norwood and Holy have done well. Garbutt has been a good loan signing with perhaps a chance to become a permanent signing. Wilson has ezceeded pretty much everyone’s expectations and KVY has been a great signing at 1/2 million. Have a feeling Georgiio won’t be here after January, but he adds depth to the squad. If Keane can stay fit he’s a class act ... big IF, but at least he’s not on a long contract if he breaks down.
I’d like to see full-back cover brought in if we have money to spend - and maybe selling Dozzell could be the way to generate some cash.

User avatar
marko69
Global Moderator
Posts: 16854
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 2:16 am
Location: Somewhere between here and there.

Re: Sunderland sack Jack Ross

Post by marko69 » Tue Oct 15, 2019 6:17 pm

Bluemike wrote:
Tue Oct 15, 2019 10:39 am
N1Blue was a very good poster
That makes me think its a boy-band on a bedroom wall.

"And now, on Top of the Pops, its the new number One; 'I think I love you but I'm not sure but if I don't will you forgive me if I promise to empty the dishwasher every night and put rinse aid in it when the wee red light comes on.' by N1Blue."

hallamblue
Posts: 24211
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 3:30 pm
Location: Ipswich Town F.C.

Re: Sunderland sack Jack Ross

Post by hallamblue » Tue Oct 15, 2019 10:20 pm

Think I’ll skip commenting in this one!

Ps I definitely remember N1Blue....he was a very good , balanced poster on the for,. Shame he no longer posts tbh.

User avatar
Bluemike
Global Moderator
Posts: 20858
Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 5:26 pm
Location: Ipswich

Re: Sunderland sack Jack Ross

Post by Bluemike » Tue Oct 15, 2019 10:23 pm

tangfastic wrote:
Tue Oct 15, 2019 1:55 pm
Andym wrote:
Tue Oct 15, 2019 12:04 pm
Bluemike wrote:
Tue Oct 15, 2019 11:38 am
We would have been in a even worse position if we'd splashed the cash as some wanted. Lessons to be learnt here.
Absolutely. If we don't get promoted this season, we need to understand that the budget will need to be trimmed further.
TBH ..... eleven games in ... I think we’ve been pretty shrewd with the signings over the summer.

Norwood and Holy have done well. Garbutt has been a good loan signing with perhaps a chance to become a permanent signing. Wilson has ezceeded pretty much everyone’s expectations and KVY has been a great signing at 1/2 million. Have a feeling Georgiio won’t be here after January, but he adds depth to the squad. If Keane can stay fit he’s a class act ... big IF, but at least he’s not on a long contract if he breaks down.
I’d like to see full-back cover brought in if we have money to spend - and maybe selling Dozzell could be the way to generate some cash.
I think our signings have been excellent given that we had no budget, KVY is the signing of the season in League One I would think while Holy,Garbutt and Wilson have been very good, not to mention Norwood, superb business really.

User avatar
Andym
Posts: 3945
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 1:47 pm
Location: Mid Suffolk

Re: Sunderland sack Jack Ross

Post by Andym » Tue Oct 15, 2019 11:12 pm

Bluemike wrote:
Tue Oct 15, 2019 10:23 pm
tangfastic wrote:
Tue Oct 15, 2019 1:55 pm
Andym wrote:
Tue Oct 15, 2019 12:04 pm


Absolutely. If we don't get promoted this season, we need to understand that the budget will need to be trimmed further.
TBH ..... eleven games in ... I think we’ve been pretty shrewd with the signings over the summer.

Norwood and Holy have done well. Garbutt has been a good loan signing with perhaps a chance to become a permanent signing. Wilson has ezceeded pretty much everyone’s expectations and KVY has been a great signing at 1/2 million. Have a feeling Georgiio won’t be here after January, but he adds depth to the squad. If Keane can stay fit he’s a class act ... big IF, but at least he’s not on a long contract if he breaks down.
I’d like to see full-back cover brought in if we have money to spend - and maybe selling Dozzell could be the way to generate some cash.
I think our signings have been excellent given that we had no budget, KVY is the signing of the season in League One I would think while Holy,Garbutt and Wilson have been very good, not to mention Norwood, superb business really.
I agree. What I meant was our wage bill would have to drop form 75% of turnover to 60% if we don't get promoted. And unless we are already that low, we would need to reduce the wage bill. So the supporters need to accept that.

User avatar
Bluemike
Global Moderator
Posts: 20858
Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 5:26 pm
Location: Ipswich

Re: Sunderland sack Jack Ross

Post by Bluemike » Wed Oct 16, 2019 5:24 am

Yes they do but I'm not sure they will. Thankfully we'll be out of this division.

Post Reply