Wainy316 Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 I want them to get less points than us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demitri_C Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 (edited) 38 minutes ago, Wainy316 said: I want them to get less points than us. That would be hilarious, imagine being a Sunderland fan now you was loving it when Newcastle went down and look how the roles have reversed Edited November 2, 2016 by Demitri_C Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted November 2, 2016 Moderator Share Posted November 2, 2016 22 minutes ago, Demitri_C said: That would be hilarious, imagine being a Sunderland fan now you was loving it when Newcastle went down and look how the roles have reversed It's worth pointing out that by avoiding relegation last season, Sunderland even finishing 20th this season will be £60m better off than Newcastle going into next season. That extra £60m in the right hands should help them massively. No guarantees, but I'd rather have £60m than not have it. So for the fans the roles have reversed, but not for the clubs. In 2016 Sunderland got £71.7m and Newcastle got £72.7m (they had an extra few TV games). This season Newcastle get £40m in parachute payments and Sunderland under the new Premier League deal will get ~£100m for finishing bottom. They'll also get ~55% more of a parachute going into next season which will help them even more. So not only was it the best time to stay up, they're getting the most lucrative season to go down too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demitri_C Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 4 minutes ago, BOF said: It's worth pointing out that by avoiding relegation last season, Sunderland even finishing 20th this season will be £60m better off than Newcastle going into next season. That extra £60m in the right hands should help them massively. No guarantees, but I'd rather have £60m than not have it. So for the fans the roles have reversed, but not for the clubs. In 2016 Sunderland got £71.7m and Newcastle got £72.7m (they had an extra few TV games). This season Newcastle get £40m in parachute payments and Sunderland under the new Premier League deal will get ~£100m for finishing bottom. They'll also get ~55% more of a parachute going into next season which will help them even more. So not only was it the best time to stay up, they're getting the most lucrative season to go down too. But then Newcastle will be 60m better off next season than Sunderland? but I do get your overall point. Lerner the idiot couldnt have relegated us at a worse time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted November 2, 2016 Moderator Share Posted November 2, 2016 Just now, Demitri_C said: But then Newcastle will be 60m better off next season than Sunderland? No. And no I'm not going to elaborate either 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demitri_C Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 Just now, BOF said: No. And no I'm not going to elaborate either please do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Czechlad Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 Half of their wins last season came against the clubs who were relegated. Now there are not terrible clubs to beat up on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AvfcTheObsession Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 50 minutes ago, Czechlad said: Half of their wins last season came against the clubs who were relegated. Now there are not terrible clubs to beat up on. Yep. Also as VillaChris pointed out, they normally get a win against Newcastle before Xmas which kickstarts them, and take 4-6 points off them over the season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted November 2, 2016 Moderator Share Posted November 2, 2016 56 minutes ago, Czechlad said: Half of their wins last season came against the clubs who were relegated. Now there are not terrible clubs to beat up on. That's not actually true. They won 9 games last season. Here's a little mini-league of last season's Premier League rubbish and where their points came from... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Czechlad Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 I guess Wikipedia was wrong. I count 3/7 of their wins was against us, newcastle, and Norwich so pretty much 50%. They also drew against some of the bottom 3 as well. We were basically ensured points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted November 2, 2016 Moderator Share Posted November 2, 2016 5 minutes ago, Czechlad said: I guess Wikipedia was wrong. I count 3/7 of their wins was against us, newcastle, and Norwich so pretty much 50% Yes wikipedia is wrong if it's saying 7 wins. 3/9 wins (33%) and 11/39 points (28%) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 5 hours ago, BOF said: It's worth pointing out that by avoiding relegation last season, Sunderland even finishing 20th this season will be £60m better off than Newcastle going into next season. That extra £60m in the right hands should help them massively. No guarantees, but I'd rather have £60m than not have it. So for the fans the roles have reversed, but not for the clubs. In 2016 Sunderland got £71.7m and Newcastle got £72.7m (they had an extra few TV games). This season Newcastle get £40m in parachute payments and Sunderland under the new Premier League deal will get ~£100m for finishing bottom. They'll also get ~55% more of a parachute going into next season which will help them even more. So not only was it the best time to stay up, they're getting the most lucrative season to go down too. all good on paper until you realise Ellis Short is a shitter version of Lerner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted November 2, 2016 Moderator Share Posted November 2, 2016 I figured someone would say something like that, which is why I said I'd still rather have the money than not have it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa89 Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 2 hours ago, Zatman said: all good on paper until you realise Ellis Short is a shitter version of Lerner Apparently he has spent £110m of his own money on them and that doesn't include the purchase price of the club. Another Lerner indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted November 4, 2016 Moderator Share Posted November 4, 2016 On 02/11/2016 at 12:38, BOF said: I'd rather have £60m than not have it Really! You do surprise me. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted November 4, 2016 Moderator Share Posted November 4, 2016 On 02/11/2016 at 20:48, villa89 said: Apparently he has spent £110m of his own money on them and that doesn't include the purchase price of the club. Another Lerner indeed. Spent or loaned? Massive difference between the two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted November 4, 2016 Moderator Share Posted November 4, 2016 4 minutes ago, blandy said: Really! You do surprise me. Haha. I could already see the responses if I hadn't included that blatantly obvious statement If I'd left it at "that extra £60m in the right hands should help them massively" some dangleberry would have followed up with the simplistic "money doesn't mean success blah blah...". So I pre-empted it by laying out both scenarios, which did the trick 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa89 Posted November 4, 2016 Share Posted November 4, 2016 (edited) 4 hours ago, TrentVilla said: Spent or loaned? Massive difference between the two. I'm not sure but does it matter? if it's a loan against the club then the club is essentially worthless but if he invested the money then he *should* get some of that money back when he does sell up. whatever way you dial it up he's lost a fortune (~£150m) and it has been a terrible investment. Edited November 4, 2016 by villa89 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted November 5, 2016 Moderator Share Posted November 5, 2016 11 hours ago, villa89 said: I'm not sure but does it matter? if it's a loan against the club then the club is essentially worthless but if he invested the money then he *should* get some of that money back when he does sell up. whatever way you dial it up he's lost a fortune (~£150m) and it has been a terrible investment. Absolutely it matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurtsimonw Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 Are we still in debt to Lerner then? I don't really know how it works. Surely if he 'loaned' us the £150m or whatever it was on transfers, we still owe him that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts