"Sunderland ‘Til I Die" - netflix documentary

'O Zio

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2014
Messages
3,473
#61
I'm not saying it was a major reason, but talk about creating a toxic atmosphere before the season had even started. Losing a friendly is hardly a crisis, and practically rioting in the streets overs friendly lost is absolutely ridiculous.
I get what you're saying but I think it's just a case of the straw that broke the camels back or whatever you want to call it. They weren't rioting in the streets because they lost a friendly, it was because of everything all together that they've been going through over the past howver many years.

I agree though it probably doesn't really help the team.
 

dontcallme

SC Supporter
Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
14,275
#62
I'm not saying it was a major reason, but talk about creating a toxic atmosphere before the season had even started. Losing a friendly is hardly a crisis, and practically rioting in the streets overs friendly lost is absolutely ridiculous.
I agree with you both.

The Sunderland fans are clearly mostly working class. They have spent a huge amount of time and money to see their team become useless.

Seeing them get destroyed against Celtic clearly gave them that feeling that they were declining further.

Throughout the series it was so audible hearing boos after a conceded goal.

A toxic atmosphere had been created.
 

mattdefoe

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2009
Messages
2,532
#64
I'm in two minds about Rodwell to be honest. Yes he's a complete **** generally so I understand the hatred for him, but at the same time it's not really his fault he's in the situation, it's the club's fault. They're expecting him to just walk away from millions of pounds to do them a favour but why should he? Especially given that they've then left him to rot with the kids as a punishment so if he did agree to leave, he'd only get a really shit contract at another club. If he's on 60k/week at Sunderland for the next X amount of months, why on earth would he walk away from that to sign a contract for 10k/week at e.g. Southend or whoever? It just doesn't make any sense for him to do that. Yes I can understand that it's hurting the club but at the end of the day he's got himself and his family to look after first and foremost, not his employer and the mess they've created for themselves.

IMO they should've either sold him while his stock was still half-decent and agreed to pay the difference in the wages, which would at least somewhat help the situation, or if they were keeping him on, they should've played him and made him part of the team so that at least they're getting the benefit of him playing even if he was too expensive. Getting stuck paying him the money but not making him available for selection, and all the while reducing his value to other clubs even further, was about the worst possible way to handle the situation.

Like I say, he seems like a **** generally speaking, but I don't think the fact that he wouldn't bail sunderland out of their own mess at great personal expense is what makes him one. They've treated him just as badly as he's treated them to be honest and they just wanted to use him as a scapegoat when they didn't have money to spend. It was Short who decided to completely cut off the money supply and Rodwell was a convenient way to say "If only it wasn't for Rodwell we'd be buying players all over the place" when in actual fact the lack of transfer fees had very little to do with Rodwell.

EDIT Before someone points this out, yes I'm aware that he did leave the club in the end, but I'm talking about it in the context of at the time.
I completely agree with this. Sunderland should have had a relegation clause in his contract and shouldn't have been so silly to give him a 5 year deal on 70k a week initially.

The documentary shows how much money they wasted down the years, awful net spend. No wonder the owners wouldn't invest anymore.
 

Ace

Active Member
Joined
May 19, 2013
Messages
175
#65
Absolutely loved it! The camera crew is still around so there might be a season 2 about this season.

Anyone know where I can watch the city one?
 

'O Zio

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2014
Messages
3,473
#66
Absolutely loved it! The camera crew is still around so there might be a season 2 about this season.

Anyone know where I can watch the city one?
I heard from someone that they're currently filming a second season but can't remember where/who I got that from.

City one is amazon prime isn't it? Or just the usual "completely legit" sources...
 

WalkerboyUK

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2009
Messages
15,732
#67
I completely agree with this. Sunderland should have had a relegation clause in his contract and shouldn't have been so silly to give him a 5 year deal on 70k a week initially.

The documentary shows how much money they wasted down the years, awful net spend. No wonder the owners wouldn't invest anymore.
Not sure such a clause would have made any difference.
Don't they tend to be a case of "if relegated, we will sell you for £x million" or something along those lines?
The problem is that he was so injury prone that no PL club would touch him, and no Championship side would meet his wage demands, meaning Sunderland were stuck with him regardless.
Besides which, why would Sunderland have even considered relegation a possibility and put a clause in? They'd been a PL side for 6 years before they signed him.
 

Ace

Active Member
Joined
May 19, 2013
Messages
175
#68
I heard from someone that they're currently filming a second season but can't remember where/who I got that from.

City one is amazon prime isn't it? Or just the usual "completely legit" sources...
I heard the same. Would love to see a follow up.

Thanks
 

Wig

Active Member
Joined
May 23, 2018
Messages
106
#69
Absolutely loved it! The camera crew is still around so there might be a season 2 about this season.

Anyone know where I can watch the city one?
I wonder if Netflix learnt a lesson from the Jack Rodwell contract... that if they're now considering a second season they had a relegation clause that means they pay Sunderland less for the filming rights as they are now a league 1 club?!

Don't know what you guys think, but I'd love to see an equivalent Spurs series by Netflix or Amazon. Be fascinating to watch behind the scenes of the team we love, as we chase the quadruple this season!
 

mike_l

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2005
Messages
4,724
#70
I wonder if Netflix learnt a lesson from the Jack Rodwell contract... that if they're now considering a second season they had a relegation clause that means they pay Sunderland less for the filming rights as they are now a league 1 club?!

Don't know what you guys think, but I'd love to see an equivalent Spurs series by Netflix or Amazon. Be fascinating to watch behind the scenes of the team we love, as we chase the quadruple this season!
I'd like it but both Levy and Poch seem quite guarded when it comes to information getting out of the club, saying that they did allow Ballague to write his book so maybe I'm wrong.
 

Marty

Resident Nog
Joined
Mar 10, 2005
Messages
18,866
#71
Not sure such a clause would have made any difference.
Don't they tend to be a case of "if relegated, we will sell you for £x million" or something along those lines?
The problem is that he was so injury prone that no PL club would touch him, and no Championship side would meet his wage demands, meaning Sunderland were stuck with him regardless.
Besides which, why would Sunderland have even considered relegation a possibility and put a clause in? They'd been a PL side for 6 years before they signed him.
Relegation wage drop clauses are a thing. They could've pushed for a 30% wage drop if they went down. Of course there's no guarantee the player and his representatives would accept such a clause, but it's not uncommon.
 

mattdefoe

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2009
Messages
2,532
#72
Not sure such a clause would have made any difference.
Don't they tend to be a case of "if relegated, we will sell you for £x million" or something along those lines?
The problem is that he was so injury prone that no PL club would touch him, and no Championship side would meet his wage demands, meaning Sunderland were stuck with him regardless.
Besides which, why would Sunderland have even considered relegation a possibility and put a clause in? They'd been a PL side for 6 years before they signed him.
On the documentary they mentioned relegation clauses where the wages go down if there relegated and Rodwell contract didn’t have that whereas other players did
 

WalkerboyUK

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2009
Messages
15,732
#73
On the documentary they mentioned relegation clauses where the wages go down if there relegated and Rodwell contract didn’t have that whereas other players did
Yes, but those players were signed in the 18 months before the relegation, when they'd flirted with it and it needed to be a serious consideration. When Rodwell signed they were actually holding their own, hence they wouldn't put that clause in.
 
Top