S got to be more original and r vendetta against Methven

But in the absence of specific detail, why do they think we would assume such a thing?

Why would they want us to? You don’t suppose the articles are written by a resentful fellow Etonian, who once had his monocle nicked by Charlie? It would explain much. Where was Private Eye when Bain and Byrne were weaving their magic?

The second article differed slightly only by mentioning his “parasites” comments, printed in the Echo months earlier, to no great controversy.

Those comments were aimed at bar owners showing illegal streams and at “fans” who prefer to spend money on booze while watching Sunderland on pub tellies, rather than on attending matches of the team they claim to support.

Those who can’t afford either were never criticised.

Nevertheless, Private Eye happily dredged up some online outrage on the matter. But online outrage is not a rare commodity and I suspect that most proper Sunderland supporters share Methven’s opinion.

Still, there was one further revelation to shock and scandalise us all.

Charlie Methven wears red trousers.

For the record, I am a longstanding subscriber to Private Eye and highly recommend it. It’s one of this country’s great fail-safes and occasionally publishes eye-opening stuff about Sunderland and South Tyneside councils.

But it isn’t flawless and they really have to do better than what they print about SAFC.