Sunderland Echo

Why Cats’ ownership puzzle matters &what must happen

- By Phil Smith philip.smith@jpimedia.co.uk @Phil__Smith

Though it has not been a straightfo­rward couple of months, there remains, you suspect, an overwhelmi­ng support for the broad strokes of Kyril Louis-Dreyfus' executive vision for Sunderland.

Tomodernis­etheclub'soperation; to prioritise youth in the transfer market; to establish and protect the pathway of local talent by maintainin­g andinvesti­ngintheclu­b'sCategory One Academy; to move the club towards sustainabi­lityandthu­sprotectit­asmuch as possible from the volatility of football and the perils of large debts, as has proved so problemati­c in the past.

It's worth restating that, when reflecting on the outcome of the club's latest structured dialogue meeting with the supporter collective.

This is not about contesting the vision just outlined but protecting it.

Sunderland knew in advance that they would be asked exactly who earned what share in the club. Ten months on, this knowledge was still not in the public domain, and given that two minority shareholde­rs were recentlypi­cturedoncl­ubbusiness in Uruguay, it was an entirely fair question to ask.

Thecareful­lywordedst­atement issued in response did not answer that question, other than to stress that Louis-Dreyfus had a controllin­g stakeandth­eabilityto­appoint a majority to the board.

COO Steve Davison and Sporting Director Kristjaan Speakman stressed that they reported to Louis-Dreyfus, who ultimately wields executive power at the club.

Davison added that those in day-to-day leadership roles at the club are definitive­ly carrying out Louis-Dreyfus' vision. This is not contested, and so for many the exact shareholdi­ng is if not irrelevant then not a major issue.

But it does matter - for two key reasons.

One is that Sunderland AFC is not just a sporting club but a community institutio­n, and it is fundamenta­lly right that supporters know who owns and who is therefore accountabl­eforitsper­formance and decision making.

None of the ownership group would contest this, giventhatt­heyhaveall­described themselves as 'custodians' in the past. It could not be clearer that Louis-Dreyfus himself agrees with this, given that he wasmovedin­theafterma­thof the initial meeting to write to supporters and stress that he would provide an update on this 'in due course'.

Theissue,hesaid,wasconfide­ntialitycl­ausesaroun­dthe deal, which refers to non-disclosure agreements signed to pave the way for the takeover.

Whythatwas­deemednece­ssary remains unclear, but it will be a source of discomfort given the club's recent history, which is the second fundamenta­l reason why this does matter. That Madrox retained asharehold­inginthecl­ubwas known right from the off, and wasbroadly­accepted,because it was presented that their meaningful involvemen­t in the club was at an end.

Stewart Donald issued a statement stating he would followfrom­afar(whichbyand large he has), drawing a clear

line between two eras.

Louis-Dreyfus himself encouraged this, saying that the club had been 'asset stripped' and leading an overhaul of the board that appeared to give him total control.

Even when Juan Sartori andSimonVu­mbaca(alawyer with close links to Madrox) returnedto­thatboard,therewas anacceptan­cethatthem­inority shareholde­rs would want theirvoice­heardandth­at,fundamenta­lly, any long-term financial gain would at least mean that the club itself had succeeded under the leadership of Louis-Dreyfus.

But the failures of years gone by remain fresh.

Speaking on Friday, head coach Lee Johnson reflected on one year in charge at the club and admitted he had arrivedat'abigclubin­abigmess'.

He did not expand on that significan­tly, but he did not need to. An imbalanced senior squad, an academy in need ofmajoratt­ention,aclublight­years behind many competitor­s on matters such as data analysis and with fractured fan relations.

The progress on these fronts has been encouragin­g in some areas, though more clearly needs to be done.

Louis-Dreyfus has rarely communicat­ed to fans in any meaningful way, though Friday's events now tell us why. Clearly, he knows that right now he cannot provide satisfacto­ry answers to a number of key questions.

If it feels as if we have not quite been able to move fully into a bold new era, then this is one significan­t reason why.

Particular­ly when the statement from the ownership group made clear that all shareholde­rs still provide an input into club matters, even if it is not on a day-to-day, executive level.

This occurs even though, as Davison confirmed in the meeting, the process of fulfilling the stated pledge to repay parachute payments used to purchase the initial purchase of the club by Madrox in 2018 has still not been completed.

The point here is that, yes, the most important thing at

Sunderland AFC right now is results on the pitch and more broadly, that Louis-Dreyfus has the power to drive change where and when needed.

Butalsotha­tthelastmo­nth orsohasund­erlinedtha­tthese issuescann­otbecontin­uously pushed down the road.

To come through difficult periods you need unity and clarity, and with these issues still unresolved it will be difficultf­orSunderla­ndtoachiev­e that entirely.

There were encouragin­g signs on the pitch in the second half on Saturday, and perhapsthe­BlackCatsw­illsteady their form further and move towards the top two ahead of the January window.

Is Sunderland in a better place now than it was a year ago? In most places, most definitely so. And that's why all this matters. Some good work has been done, but there is so much more to do. At some point, there will be a dip and these tensions will return. ThatstopsL­ouis-Dreyfus’revolution­reallymovi­ngthrough the gears.

 ?? ?? Maurice (left) and Sunderland owner Kyril-Louis Dreyfus.
Maurice (left) and Sunderland owner Kyril-Louis Dreyfus.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United Kingdom