Phil Smith's Sunderland AFC Q&A: January planning, takeover talk, COVID-19 outbreak and the Aiden McGeady debate discussed

There nevertheless remains much to be discussed, with Aiden McGeady breaking his silence on his year-long exclusion from the Sunderland squad this weekend.

As takeover talk continues and thoughts turn towards the January window, there was much to discuss as Phil Smith took questions from readers in his weekly Q&A.

You can read his responses below...

Do you think Sunderland will rely on the loan market this January (as in players 21 & under because of the cap) & also do you think Lee Johnson will actually get Sunderland what we need (pace) when neither Ross or Parkinson did so?

I think it’s absolutely an option Sunderland will be exploring.

In terms of the cap on squad sizes, there is only space for Sunderland to add one player over the age of 21 to the current squad. It’s fair to surmise that they are fairly close to the salary cap itself in terms of their wage commitments.

Lee Johnson has already hinted in his answers around the January window that the loan market might be a good one to explore, and has already discussed his strong connections with Premier League clubs. He’s a coach with a good reputation with those academies and that could definitely be an asset for Sunderland.

When discussing his desire for a bit more pace in the squad, he has said that he is happy for that player to be raw in other areas of his squad. So it follows that bringing in a young loanee could be a good way to get some variety in the squad while staying within the restrictions.

He has also said, though, that he will give opportunities to youngsters at Sunderland if they can prove they are worthy of it. Jack Diamond’s performances have given him pause for thought and though he’s still a while away from returning, I expect he’ll take a good look at Benji Kimpioka, who is certainly raw but is also most certainly quick.

What’s the state of play on the takeover? Expect any movement before Christmas?

CEO Jim Rodwell made clear at Sincil Bank that while talks are advanced, and there has been some dialogue with the EFL, there are matters still to be settled.

He mentioned loan funding to be sorted (the FPP loan the obvious and most expensive example there), as well as matters such as property and the funding of ongoing costs.

All indications are that while Stewart Donald is likely to remain a minority shareholder, he firmly intends to become a sleeping partner and wants to bring an end to his day-to-day involvement in club matters.

The wider picture of how this deal will break down, though, remains unclear.

Kyril Louis-Dreyfus is thought to have ambitious plans for the club surrounding areas such as the academy, and has made a positive impression on those with knowledge of his ideas. After numerous failed takeover talks, though, supporters are understandably sceptical and will also be looking for concrete evidence that Louis-Dreyfus will have the scope and power required to initiate the change required after the failure of the current regime.

Most supporters have been encouraged by the recent changes made in the footballing structure, but the takeover remains the key issue to be settled and until it is, it remains very difficult for the club to move forward properly.

The expectation for some time has been for Louis-Dreyfus to arrive in some capacity, and remains so with a will on all sides to do a deal, but recent experience tells us to be cautious until definitively settled.

Do you think the AFC Wimbledon game should have been postponed?

These things are always easier to address with hindsight but yes, I think Sunderland should have postponed the game on Tuesday afternoon.

Once it became clear that there was a high chance the virus had spread beyond the initial positive test (remember two other players were displaying symptoms), then the best decision would have been to immediately call the game off and send the squad into isolation.

It remains inconceivable to me, though, that we are in a situation where the guidelines are still unclear nine months into the pandemic.

The EFL seemed unimpressed with Sunderland’s views and insisted all clubs are aware of the protocols, and what to do in the event of an outbreak. That may be true up to a point, but the lack of clarity around what an investigation will entail and what the potential consequences are puts clubs in a difficult position.

The situation around the virus may well have been improving earlier in the summer but it still seems a major error to have begun the campaign with a bailout not secured, and without an obvious system in place for what happens to games in the event of an outbreak..

With the virus growing again and cases within the EFL on the rise, I wouldn’t be surprised if testing arrangements and the like are revisited in the weeks ahead. The current procedure doesn’t seem fit for purpose.

I think Sunderland made the wrong decision around the AFC Wimbledon game, but there should never have even been a debate to begin with.

How do you think the Covid-19 outbreak will impact SAFC, longer term impact of players out possibly etc?

It has been deeply concerning to read Steve Bruce’s comments about the impact of the virus on some of the players in his squad, who are still unwell weeks after testing positive.

All our best wishes are with those players and those in the Sunderland squad who have tested positive in the last week.

As it stands, Sunderland return to training on December 27th but the squad has been staggered in terms of when they initially went into isolation (and when they can therefore return). The club were still receiving positive tests as recently as Saturday. So even if the game against Accrington Stanley went ahead, it is highly unlikely that Lee Johnson would have a complete squad to choose from.

The impact of the outbreak will be felt for at least a few weeks yet, you suspect. Hopefully the players affected can have a swift and full recovery amid what must be a very anxious and trying time for them and their families.

What did you make of Aiden McGeady’s comments on Phil Parkinson and his exclusion? He seems to be a key player under Lee Johnson now.

My view throughout McGeady’s exclusion was that Parkinson’s decision, which he hinted at being one based on team culture, had to be set against what we had seen from McGeady under the previous manager.

Then, he had twice accelerated his return to the squad after having no pre-season due to injury, and had played through a broken bone in his foot to try and get the club promoted.

Basically, then, it was a complex picture. McGeady kept his counsel as he was still contracted to the club and given the rumours he has had to live with for a year, I think he was well within his rights to put across his side of the story.

That was consistent with the little information we had from Parkinson around the decision. He always said that there had been no specific incident that had led him to make his controversial call, and had hinted that it was around what he deemed to be McGeady’s influence on the group.

As McGeady himself has identified, the reasoning then subtly shifted in the summer, when the club’s youngsters were put forward as the reason. This would go on to become a problem for Parkinson, when members of the board became increasingly frustrated with the quality of attacking play on show and the lack of real chances for those youngsters.

All managers make decisions around players in their squad and the success of it is determined by results. In the long run Parkinson didn’t get them, and McGeady’s absence became an issue as the team increasingly fell short on key markers.

My own view would be that Aiden clearly says what he thinks, and that it’s up to a manager to utilise both his quality and experience. Sunderland’s promotion chances will be better if he is firing. That third goal at Lincoln summed it up. It was a glorious finish by Jack Diamond, but McGeady produced something few players at this level can manage in the build-up, spinning away from his marker and carrying the ball all the way to the edge of the box.

What’s the latest on the EFL bailout?

The EFL have set out how they want to distribute the money after reaching an agreement with the Premier League, but the clubs themselves are still discussing the finer points.

The EFL wants to give £375,000 to each League One club, with a further £15 million distributed based on lost gate revenues.

Clubs (like Sunderland) with bigger fanbases, and therefore bigger losses in recent months, are arguing that they should be entitled to a bigger portion of the fund. Some clubs want a bigger portion of the fund to be distributed evenly, and Accrington Stanley Chairman Andy Holt was expressing that view on social media this morning.

It’s particularly contentious because the final £20 million of the bailout funds will only be given to a club who proves to a joint EFL/Premier League panel that it is in acute financial distress. They will then be subject to future restrictions on transfer and wage spending.

There has been some concern about this on Wearside, with the Red & White Army asking the club for clarification on whether this something that they might pursue. It’s interesting in the context of takeover talks because if a club breaks the restrictions that come with a loan, then they are liable to repay it. In short then, a potential new investor/owner would have to double their investment. Firstly to repay the funds, and then again to improve the squad. To be clear, though, there has been no confirmation that Sunderland will pursue a loan, and the plans are yet to be finalised with talks ongoing between clubs and the league.

It’s another matter that really should have been settled before the campaign began.

January wise, what can fans expect? Could there be any outgoings on the cards?

Lee Johnson was due to hold a transfer summit last week, with Sporting Director Kristjaan Speakman and CEO Jim Rodwell two of the key figures set to be in attendance.

Clearly, the acceleration of the COVID-19 outbreak changed the short-term picture on Wearside rapidly, but I do suspect this enforced break might be a good chance for Johnson to get a good sense of where he stands ahead of the window.

He wants to improve the squad in one or two areas, and it’s clear from his comments so far that bringing a touch of pace to the forward line is key.

He believes he has a small amount of scope in terms of the salary cap, something he will confirm at the summit. Otherwise, he has already said that moving players out could be one way to create some room.

He has also said, though, that improving talent at the club is one option and Jack Diamond, for example, is one player fast changing his view in terms one of the positions he might have looked to have recruited.

He has talked up his squad generally and the quality within it, and so for that reason I think we shouldn’t be expecting wholesale changes, particularly with the wider financial climate considered. It’ll be a case of adjusting, rather than overhauling.

Hopefully this break will also give Johnson and Speakman the chance to take a closer look at the squad situation in terms of contracts, too. Granted, there is a lot of uncertainty in football and at the club right now, but to have so many assets entering the last six months of their deal is not healthy. This seems a good chance to try and get some sort of strategy in place.

A message from the Football Clubs Editor

Our aim is to provide you with the best, most up-to-date and most informative Sunderland AFC coverage 365 days a year.

This depth of SAFC coverage costs, so to help us maintain the high-quality reporting that you are used to, please consider taking out a subscription to our new sports-only package here.

Your support is much appreciated. Richard Mennear, Football Clubs Editor