Neil Farringdon's column in the Sunday Scum? Grrr.....


aj

What did he say?

Dave

It was all about the club's 'financial plight'. While he quotes Fat Bob's
perfectly reasonable explanations of why the PFA is in, and what measures
they have left to prevent them going under (all of it sounds perfectly
acceptable), Farringdon just kept undermining and dismissing everything. You
have to read it:( Wonder if it's online..

aj

Found it:

We journalists are often accused of imparting as much spin on our stories as
Alastair Campbell.

But there are times when Britain's sporting Press and the Government's
director of communications are matched in the news manipulation stakes by
our football clubs.

Take Sunderland's stab at putting a positive slant on the news that they
have been unable to meet their players' wage bill.

There was simply no denying the facts of the story.

But the Black Cats' media machine went into overdrive to make the very best
of the latest results of a bad job.

In so many words, chairman Bob Murray issued his now customary "don't panic"
dispatch.

"We are different to some other clubs that have faced difficulties in recent
times in that we currently only have short-term and medium-term debt, which
means longer term financing is still a future option," he said.

"The financial restructuring we are undertaking at present is a matter of
managing our cost base and cash flow as we re-adjust to life in the First
Division.

"We have also not undergone a securitisation, which is still one of several
further options for re-financing the business that we can consider if
necessary.

"Securitisation basically involves borrowing money over the long-term using
future revenue streams as security."

If Bob was trying to blind us with economic science there, it may have
worked for some people.

But Sunderland's PR staff clearly recognised the need for some plainer
positive talking, and got it from the PFA's Mick McGuire.

"Sunderland is not a disastrous picture," said the deputy chief executive of
the players' union, in a statement released by the Black Cats.

"The club will have some hardships but I feel very positive that Sunderland
will bounce back and that they will come back stronger for it."

Now there was plenty within Murray's latest missive to question.

For example, what are the "future revenue streams" he describes and how,
given Sunderland's predicament, can he bank on them?

On an associated topic, why does he not consider the club's debt -
conservatively estimated at £30 million - to be long-term?

Because, if all else fails, Sunderland's stadium and training ground is
theirs to sell, perhaps?

But it was the selective use of McGuire's comments which was most indicative
of a PR crisis management team at work.

None of his following observations were included within Sunderland's
official pronouncements . . .

"It takes 12 months to two years for clubs like Sunderland, like Leicester,
like Ipswich," said McGuire, referring to the financial recovery process
facing clubs relegated from the Premiership.

"It won't be done in six months, it won't be a quick fix. It will take two
years' hard work.

"When a club's income goes from in excess of £25 million down to £5 million,
it's not easy to make that re-adjustment, particularly in a depressed
market.

"Sunderland, a bit like Derby County did last year, do not want to go into
administration. They can see a way forward, but that needs support from a
lot of areas.

"They need to get the wage bill down, they need to get money in from
transfers, they need support from creditors and support from players.

"But it's not like Leicester City, they're not dealing with £70 million
debts and not dealing with £28 million owed on the ground. They (Sunderland)
own the ground and they own the training ground."

As I hinted at earlier, the suggestion that the ability to sell their own
stadium is safeguarding Sunderland's future will not exactly gladden
Wearside hearts.

But more alarming is McGuire's assertion that slashing its wage bill and
raising transfer revenues are every bit as vital to the club's hopes of
avoiding administration as the salary deferrals already agreed.

It paints a rather grimmer picture than that depicted by whoever cut and
pasted McGuire's more optimistic comments together with Murray's to produce
an official Press release.

Of course, even the frenzied efforts of the Stadium of Light PR team could
not prevent one or two particularly crass pronouncements tumbling forth from
the lips of a chairman whose word is already discredited.

"The financial issue is not one for season ticket holders or corporate
sponsors to be concerned about, but their support is greatly valued and we
do need it more than ever," he insisted.

Now why would season ticket holders be concerned about an issue which
prompts the club to try selling its best players for a pittance?

Better still, Murray added: "We are just in the wrong place at the wrong
time."

Yeah, but who got "us" there?

The suggestion that Sunderland are mere victims of circumstance is as
astonishingly patronising as it is false.

Right now, the club has very little to lose by telling it like it is.

But you wouldn't know it from the chairman's propagandistic polemic and the
condescending tone of the club" latest clarion calls to supporters.

One season ticket advert asks them: "This is a proper football club with
real fans - are you for real?"

As 40,000-odd of them were still turning up at the Stadium of Light a month
after Sunderland were relegated, I very much think so.

It is the fans who should be asking of the club: are you for real?

For much of what Sunderland have said in recent times suggests they are
dangerously detatched from reality.

**Farringdon - Sunday Sun**


aj

All he seems to be saying is that were in trouble, the board don't want to
accept it, certainly won't take the blame for it and are taking the piss out
of the fans....is he not right?
--
DoctorMick

Mebbe. My judgement may have been impaired by my loathing of what he writes.
However, reading it through again, Bob Murray seems to be saying that we can
easily get loans to get out of trouble, but they are unwilling to do so -
which is fair enough. Farringdon just seems to stirring the pot to me...

Well, that's my opinion anyway.;)

And why didn't we go for Zamora? A brace in his first game...sheesh.

aj

Summing else... I don't reckon Murray's taking the piss - I just think he's
unwilling to borrow anymore than the bare minimum to stay afloat - whereas
the likes of Newcastle and Chelsea borrowed huge amounts. Looking at the
conrasting fortunes of the clubs, however, which is the right strategy?

aj

out

I don't think they can be accused of taking the piss really. They came out
months ago with the fact that we'd have to sell players and cut costs. They
[CENSORED] up but at least they were as honest as they probably could be about
the situation. They also came out about the financial situation months ago
so for this journalist to say the club are burying their head in the sand is
crap, especially when you look at all of the cost cutting measures they've
taken. Though I agree that they haven't accepted their part of the blame.

The heirarchy have brought a large chunk of the current situation on
themselves but as always they're damned if they do and they're damned if
they don't. It seems to me they are dealing with the situation in the only
sensible way they can. In fact people keep on talking about administration
but we're more or less in self imposed administration (the accountant in
Murray coming out!). All the administrators would do is cut costs, sell
players, defer wagest etc. and that's what they're doing (although not
giving players away to cut the wage bill as real administrators might). Any
player sales should at least offset the losses made over the summer while
we've had no income, leaving the debt at around £25-30m. Not too bad
considering that in the past five or six years we've spent £25m on building
the ground, extending it, then wasting god knows how muuch on certain
players and paying the extra costs of the academy over and above the money
allegedly earmarked from SKY for that project.

It's a big "If" I know, but if we can cut most of the large wage earners out
and be in the top half of the division next season then we should have no
problem pulling in enough money to cover our costs. If we do worse we'll be
in trouble if the crowds desert us, and if we do better (promotion) then the
only problem we'll face is getting players in who will sign contracts that
contain relegation clauses (have the Premier League/FS/PFA not done
something about this yet to make it compulsory?). A debt at our level would
be acceptable in Premier League terms and the lower cost of players should
mean not breaking the bank again in the future.

As for this drop in turnover to £5m, that's absolute bull. (I'm doing my
bit, moving to the Black Cats and bought the new top!)

Just my opinion.
-----------------------------------------------------
Michael Dixon

Andy - why the [CENSORED] would anyone in their right mind want to do something
that stupid?
I've not read that shite for about 20 years - and I doubt it's got any less
pathetic and puerile. ? Grrr.....

Canny player - Earnshaw's better though.

he's


Chelsea were on the brink of going bust before they became Chelski.
Frankly the whole thing disgusts me. No matter what I may have said about
the Skunk's financial affairs I would never want to see them go bust.
Chelsea - different matter. They SHOULD go bust. Football would be much
better off without that 'scam' polluting the 'gaewm'.
Roman Abramovich - frankly deserves to be the most hated man in sport for
pulling that scum out of the mire. He obviously has a mad desire to be the
most hated man in the UK - 'cos let's be honest - everyone hates
Chewssseeaaaa. There management are scum - their supporters are scum - they
are scum.
I have never met a Chewsee suporter who did not deserve to die a slow and
painful death within 10 minutes - and , frankly, being retarded is no
excuse.
But - happily - God hates Chewweraeaggrghh too. So once he's spent enough
to cover the free hold (£165 million) he'll get bored and ship out and bin
the [CENSORED] lot and bung a hotel on the site. And fair play to him too.

Is your Dad called Maurice and where did he go to school?

And Ellington is even better!
--
DoctorMick

Totally agree with that I hope it all goes [CENSORED] up soon

Colin

Think you are wrong about the training ground, the facilities are excellent

Colin

Do we need a pianist though?

Well - to be fair - Fat Bob has put up his hands and accepted that they were
wrong, Reidy should have gone earlier and the board [CENSORED] up. Oh aye -
then they appointed Wanko. There's no point in him trotting it out on a weekly basis, is there?

True - but then again, ignoring it is not an acceptable option

All the administrators would do is cut costs, sell

Hmm - good point, how much was the overspend on the Academy again? 10-12
million, and largely because someone forgot to read the regulations
properly? £8 million for Flo, plus about 1 1/2 million for his salary.
Chuck in what Laslandes cost us and that covers a huge chunk of that £25 mill.


I don't think that you can make it compulsory. I agree that it's sensible
to start looking at that though.

I agree that I it seems unlikely that our entire turnover is likely to be
about a million quid less than out parachute payment for the season.

May buy one for the Nephews next season when we're not being supplied by
N*ke

in article bfhe5q$ejba0$1 (AT) ID-36697 (DOT) news.uni-berlin.de, Colin at

After a game at Wimbledon, We once walked through Victoria Station (about 10
of us, including girls) singing SAFC songs, when a heavy menu blackboard
came flying off the balcony, narrowly missing civilians standing on the
concourse (it would have easily killed someone). Out of the pub came a load
of denim clad skinheads giving it the "WE'RE CHEWSEEAAAA - YOU WANT SOME?".
Err, no thanks mate. They chased us onto the tube platform but, strangely,
didn't follow us down when we were cornered.
Funny thing is, this was in the early 90's - not the Skinheed Hooly 70's.
Just shows what kind of pricks they have as 'fans'.

10

load

SOME?".


Hmm - Smart Casual (ie - dress like a twat and pay a fortune, 'cos you're
stupid) 80's was worse IIRC - more tools and more attacking civilians.


Sweethearts and angels compared to some of the contacts of the new owner -
and the new owner himself - if his own comments are anything to go by, let
alone some of the rumours.

Still - Chelsea have always been [CENSORED] shit - always will be [CENSORED] shit
and the sooner he tires of it and moves on and closes them down the better
IMO.