Dear Roker Report,
In response to the Daily Mail article on our owners the journalist has got to be a jealous disgruntled mag...
This looks little more than an attempt at a stitch up of two blokes trying to turn the club around. The description of Methven is particularly vitriolic for no reason. He might be a Thatcherite from Eton and polar opposite to myself but what’s that got to do with football?
Poor Tony Davidson, a respected man in football cast as the club mascot who’s taken over an important position which looks like jobs for the boys instead of because of his reputation in marketing and the fact he’s got the club at heart.
I think the Mail needs to read its own article again - they are businessmen, i.e. trying to make money, they have broken no rules. The Mail, in their own words, say they saved the club as Short was pulling the plug. The EFL agreed the deal. What’s the problem?
From the first day Donald and Methven have said payments were ringfenced to cover debt, so what’s the issue?
From the first day they have said they are not making money or taking money out of the club, but if and when they sell they will make a profit. Again, where’s the story?
Did the Glazers at Man Utd not borrow many hundreds of millions of pounds against the club and use the turnover to pay off debt?
What’s the story here, Daily Mail? Apart from to cause bother before an important cup final and try to tarnish two blokes who have put a lot of time and effort in.
I again would ask the Mail what have these two blokes done wrong, and why have you written this non-story? It must have been a slow news day.
Why not write a story on the Charlton chairman? It sounds like there’s plenty to get your teeth into there - ask any Charlton fan.
Like I say, the article has got to have been written by a jealous mag, the Daily Mail should hang its head in shame and I would call on everyone not to buy this rag in future.
An absolute disgrace, and I won’t buy that paper again.
Ed’s Note [Gav]: We’ve got Stewart Donald coming in to record a Podcast on Tuesday, and there we’ll put questions about all manner of things to him so he can answer whatever people want to hear him talk about - including this, though he’s already responded with a series of rebuttals on his Twitter timeline.
To be honest I really didn’t want to talk too much about this until after Sunday, but your email resonates with me. I couldn’t believe what I was reading - it’s a proper hatchet job. Most of that information was already made clear to supporters when the new owners arrived during their appearances in the media and on our Podcast, so for the Mail to frame their ‘investigation’ as though Donald and Methven aren’t being entirely truthful to supporters doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me.
The thing that annoyed me most was the insinuation that our former Podcast host, Connor Bromley, was given a job at the club on the back of questioning the pair on the Sunderland’s financial situation. It just isn’t fair and is, well, pretty defamatory.
We’ll explore this fully with the owner after the Play-Off Final, which of course has to be our focus going into the weekend and not this national media hatchet job from a newspaper I already had very little time or respect for. The timing is awful and has been done to try and be as destructive as possible ahead of a massive game - thankfully Sunderland supporters are largely scratching their heads wondering what the point of it all even is.