‘The real story of the takeover’

Status
Not open for further replies.


seanwharton said:
The way the deal has been structured then a number of groups could have done exactly the same . Perhaps other consortia would have wanted to pay Short in instalments rather than use PP
Click to expand...
eh? this group paid short in installments? and didnt use PP

prehab26 said:
Never ever seen that clearly described like that.

Also, since when did we take 11m loan out !
Click to expand...
did we take an £1mm loan out? or did madrox? iere is the loan stewrats to worry about-its not the clubs loan..
 
The Rat said:
If he makes 37 million after spending as little as he has then its sly as fuck like. They are being made out to be heroes, and I am not sure why
Click to expand...

We hugely outspent all our rivals in this league, spending way above the previous winners of L1. What do you expect??

Blackburn only spent about 1m last year and went up, we spent 3m on Grigg alone. They’ve helped change our fortunes around which is hopefully complete with promotion come Sunday.

If they did go or sold the majority of the club I wouldn’t begrudge them one bit, they’re businessmen. As long as we’re left with good owners.
 
As was commented upon right at the start of this thread a good many people were likely not to click on the link simply because the origin of the story was the Daily Mail and who could blame them. To expect accuracy and balance from any sort of Mail journalist is I am afraid expecting far too much.

The Mail has peddled nothing but half truths and downright lies for the 120 years that it has been published. There hasn't been a story in it that wasn't concocted out the very minimum number of facts laced with a lot of innuendo and pure exaggeration. It can also be needlessly cruel and vindictive towards those who find themselves unfortunate enough to feature in its columns. In my opinion it has surpassed the Sun in recent years as being the very worst tabloid newspaper published in the UK. And all that effort simply to flog a few more copies of a rapidly shrinking circulation.

Whatever the real picture of the SAFC takeover by Stewart Donald might be the very last place you will find it is in the pages of the Daily Mail.

It's also fair to ask "why has this story come out now?" The takeover took place almost a year ago - its "old news". In my view our success at Wembley could be the precursor to SAFC receiving the backing of new investors who we will need in order to succeed in the Championship. Spiteful little articles like the Mail's can undermine the confidence of prospective new investors in SAFC and I am sure that it is partly intended to do so.
 
This is why Donald wants investment into the club. He has enough dollar to buy the club, but he can’t fund it himself without spending his own fortune overnight.
 
The Sheepfolds End said:
The entire nation’s sports journalists are garbage? That isn’t true at all. There’s a good one involved in that article on us
Click to expand...
Come now Sheepy, I didn't say that for starters. George Caulkin has talent and integrity, a rose amongst the thorns in North East sports journalism

Nationwide there are good sports journalists, it's just unfortunate the basic ones get dumped here

It's no mystery why they gravitate towards the mags because the vast majority of them are thick as fuck
 
Last edited:
Non story ..businessmen use financial engineering to buy a distressed company to turnaround and sometime in the future gain a return on their efforts.. We've had 50 years of Businessmen trying this. Some disasters amongst them ( all were MLF as well ) ..
 
The Rat said:
If he makes 37 million after spending as little as he has then its sly as fuck like. They are being made out to be heroes, and I am not sure why
Click to expand...
It was a deal between two parties. If Don got it cheap, well done sand cheers Ellis. We could have been sold for £1, it doesn’t matter. I hope he makes a fortune from us. It’s not sly at all.

He’s been transparent all the way through. People are desperate to be hard done by.
 
The Rat said:
eh? :confused:

Thats why I said if, the very definition of the word if doesn't make at true, thats why I said it.
Click to expand...

So why try and fight everyone on here and choose to believe the article was true?

You picked a shitty reporter and story over the owners who have turned this club around but this isn't just a one off.
Anyone can look thru your history on here and see that you've had a problem from the day they set foot in the club.

I'm sure Donald will rectify this and show that this story is bollocks, like he's had to do many times over the 12 month he's been here already.

You don't like the owners, we all know that on here but it's time to give it a rest.
 
Rizla said:
It is just disappointing that it's taken the Daily Mail to tease out the truth from them.

He originally said the parachute payments were a guarantee and not the source of the payments to Short which obviously was not the case.
Click to expand...
np you see that is the case...the para money was ringfenced..but they found another way to pay the ring fenced thing..so gave short the para money..and covered the ring fenced thing themselves intead..

The Sheepfolds End said:
Plenty people said similar when Short was in charge; I even agreed with them in the early days of his tenure. But if these questions aren’t asked by people who can in the early stages and they aren’t properly held to account then history could repeat itself. We shouldn’t treat owners like messiahs or see them as ‘the club’. They’re temporary custodians with business interests. They should be commended for good work they do, challenged on bad work they do and always held to account.
Click to expand...
and by going on podcasts and doing interviews they have shiwn they are open to being challneged..
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top