• The forum upgrades are now largely complete.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

Looks like SBC have been paid off

Status
Not open for further replies.
Stuff

Stuff

Central Defender
Contributor
For the Stadium at least.

You must be logged on to see external links


Is this significant ? @Grumpy Old Man

Charge code 0318 9630 0005
Created 27 August 2014
Delivered 2 September 2014
Status Satisfied on 28 August 2018
Transaction Filed
Registration of a charge (MR01)
Persons entitled
  • Security Benefit Corporation
Brief description

F/H property being the stadium of light sunderland t/no. TY340536.
Contains fixed charge.
Contains floating charge.
Contains negative pledge.
 

Short held security over parachute payments so likelihood was that new ownership always owed him money this month (as a chunk of parachute money was due in this month). Donald confirmed last month that short was paying off SBC as Donald paid Short.

So seems like Donald has paid a portion of the £40m to Short and in turn Short has cleared the debt off.
 
janey said:
I’ve always said I’m a football supporter not an account, so this is probably a daft question @Grumpy Old Man but when SD says he has got the debt down from £35 to £5m is that the same or a different debt to the SBC one?
Either way if it’s a different debt to be only £5m in debt compared to where we were is bloody brilliant, imo, in just over 4 months since the take over
Click to expand...

Not to steal GOM's role here (kind of am, sorry) but when Donald referred to getting it down to £5m he meant the club's deficit rather than its debt. Essentially, he means the club should now only lose £5m per annum from its operations rather than heftier figures earlier (not sure where the £35m if from mind, seems high).

Should be said that he confirmed that figure is the budgeted loss when we ignore parachute payments. In reality the club might well turn a profit this year. Donald was just pointing out that if they keep losses to £5m p/a, he can fund them for a wee while
 
JimmyQuinn said:
Not to steal GOM's role here (kind of am, sorry) but when Donald referred to getting it down to £5m he meant the club's deficit rather than its debt. Essentially, he means the club should now only lose £5m per annum from its operations rather than heftier figures earlier (not sure where the £35m if from mind, seems high).

Should be said that he confirmed that figure is the budgeted loss when we ignore parachute payments. In reality the club might well turn a profit this year. Donald was just pointing out that if they keep losses to £5m p/a, he can fund them for a wee while
Click to expand...
Arghh right, cheers for that, it makes total sense x
 
janey said:
I’ve always said I’m a football supporter not an account, so this is probably a daft question @Grumpy Old Man but when SD says he has got the debt down from £35 to £5m is that the same or a different debt to the SBC one?
Either way if it’s a different debt to be only £5m in debt compared to where we were is bloody brilliant, imo, in just over 4 months since the take over
Click to expand...
As I understand it was talking about loss per year not debt Janey, just means that the debt is not growing as fast as it was

Looks like @JimmyQuinn beat me to it
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top