ilovehorswill
Striker
And as if by magic, his dyslexia was cured
-
The forums will be unavailable for a few hours on Saturday 6th June, when they do return they will initially be in a degraded state with some features missing, but normal posting/reading will be possible. The main website will not be affected by these updates.
New user registrations are currently disabled.
Some other features of the forum are also currently disabled.
Takeover in trouble
- Thread starter Silent
- Start date
- Status
samaistonsrightfoot
Striker
What are you blithering on about now? Aye we have the only press officer in the country on holiday. When every other club is able to update their website with signings, pre season games etc etc we can't even get Internet access.
I'd imagine that would be the hold up for the friendly yes. Now the motivation either for Catts to decide yesterday to leave (and not any other time) or the motivation by us to offer him a payoff now?
Last edited:
Grumpy Old Man
Striker
Who knows? I'd have thought conversations would have been taking place from as early as the time of the last podcast. If Catts surfaces at Wednesday, I think it would be safe to assume it was a mutual decision. Catts gets a move back to a Championship side, and we get to reduce the wage bill.
samaistonsrightfoot
Striker
Would be a bit odd saying you definitely want to make the home pre season Catts testimonial when you were planning on paying him off though. It could well have happened a week or two after that. It's very possible discussions have taken place prior and a decision by either party hinged on this extra investment, as potentially it would be needed to keep him on. It's speculation though based on so many things happening in the space of 24 hours after the report its fell through. 1 or 2 things then yes, it's a bit of a coincidence, but 4 things after weeks of nothing does raise the eyebrows somewhat, especially in that timeframe.
I know Donald has always stated investment may or may not happen, but he spoke at length about it on the podcast and sounded quite positive about it. He spoke about it last week and it sounded different, almost like he was trying to play it down (I even commented on here at the time to say so, so it's not in hindsight), then a story comes out to say it's in trouble. Whether Nixon is right or not is unknown but he was the person proposing takeover talks as early as March, the person naming Campbell and Park (who Donald pretty much admitted on the podcast was true) and has since got that player we signed yesterday hours before everyone else. He also gave the date of the 19th which I presume could easily change (so was surprised he would be able to be so specific) but Methven was up here the week before last which, considering Nixon was saying this in May, is a bit of a coincidence as well.
All circumstantial, mind. But, like I say, I don't care whether we get investment now or not provided either we don't need it, and it isn't going to make us worse off.
kildaremackem
Striker
sigh. the motivation yesterday might well have been that footballer contracts always run to June 30. Yesterday was the first working day after June 30-so he had completed another year of the contract-so he could have recieved a loyalty bonus for completing it-but if he had decided a few days before hand-wouldnt have completed the year and got the loyalty bonus.
Now can youe xplain to me how takeover discussions could impact playing a friendly? how come they re e able to organise three firendlies despite knowing they were trying to get investment-but couldnt organsie a fourth?
Culd it be that the council staff member was on holiday and came back money and signed the paper? There are a million normal, legitimate reasons, but you people need a conspiracy because your fundamental base case has been proven to be incorrect.
On the podcast he was playing it down. He literally talked about how their was a message on his phone from someone wanting to invest and he wasnt even going to get back to them!
SD didnt come upw the the testimonial thing-someone sent it in as a question-SD said the player ould have to ask-and then, probably ining it, said we could make one the friendlies that game. Thats a loing way from anything ebing pkanend by anoyone-or anything being disvussed with anyone..
well who the fuck else is going to know if the club is profitable? and no, if they were pulling a fast one they wouldnt say it was profitable and there is loads of money-because that raises questions about when they are going tp spend it on the club-instead they would talk about safc being skint..about how times are hard-and thats a justifiation for not spending. So its literally the opposite of what you said. He spent at Eastleigh, and the fans there still like him, I will take their word for his conduct over the consspiracy theriists infesting this place.
Last edited:
samaistonsrightfoot
Striker
Sigh. Due to it being possible it would be Catts testimonial as already covered.
30th June means nowt. You can still discuss with him prior to that then say he's leaving 1st July a week before if the date is so important as the date he leaves. Bit like how the mags announced Benitez was leaving prior to his contract running out for example. You don't have to wait till July the 1st then then WhatsApp him with a same day deadline.
Operating profit, we are still a horrible business remember, and not a good investment
kildaremackem
Striker
yes the club can discuss it before hadn. But if catts, whose motto is, dont leave a penny behind, approached the club before then and expressed a wish to leave, the club, who like saving the pennies, could say that by expressing a wish to break his contract, he isnt entitled to the loyaltiy payment.
Your the one attacjingh graet significance to so much happening on a set date-im the one talking about why that date is significant in a football business, it just happens not to be for the reason you want it to be,.
yep. operating profits exludes one off items such a stranfer fees..and pay offs to departing players. how much will we need to spend on transfers to get up the leagues? lets see what the operating proft looks likeat the end of that.
Grumpy Old Man
Striker
That wasn't Catts, that was Byrne.
samaistonsrightfoot
Striker
You generally find timelines and circumstantial evidence used to determine actual facts tbf and I've said all along its circumstantial.
If Catts 'don't leave a penny behind' won't leave a penny behind I presume we are still paying him his full wage while he plays for another team for time he still has on this contract. Or have paid it all off in full having the same financial impact on the club and weakening the playing squad at the same time? Or has he left a penny behind?
Black Cat Gypsy
Striker
I'll treat both sides equally. The stories are coming from somewhere. I don't see why I should take one sides version as gospel and dismiss the other. I do believe that journalists like to make every story sensational but I don't believe that it's the 'Magedia' or people with a grudge against Stewart Donald. I don't think Donald is liar. But I do think he's a spoofer and has an ego. And I think he is bending the truth a bit.
As I said, the truth will be in the middle. We aren't on the bread line but things are far from perfect. There is some issue going on at the club and like most I'm not happy.
kildaremackem
Striker
dunno the answer of course-but I supect your right. Thats why 30 June is significant. its another year of the contract complete-the signing on fee or loaylty bonus is usually spread across the years of the contract, and only payable as long as the player doesnt seek to break the contract. Asking to leave on 29 June is seeking to break it, so no loyalty payment. Asking on 1 July isnt. So maybe he left a penny behind or maybe he didnt, I dont know, but the number of pennies involved is different on 1 July than 29 June..which is why someing happened on July 1 perhaps and not 29 June? Thats my point. The facts materially change from Catts point of view on Monday compared with Friday.
SD os the one who says its in the middle-people on here say things like we havent a pot to piss in-he doesnt. The only time he said "we haver the largest budget in the league" he backed it up by spending more on fees than anyone else.
I think SD has a think skin and and also is a poor commincaotr.so is very lose with language. Loose language then gets interpetted by people to suit their agenda.
The journo naing aspecif date has no credibility-its a work of fiction..no deal of that size knows what the date is months in adcanvce. There are too many moving parts...both sides will be employing lawyers..and the other side will be employing a lot of accounatns as well. Each of those works at the pace they want, so dates are largely meaningless.
SD has only ever been "in the midde" on the takeover stuff..he is the guy saying it might happen, or might not, he might say yes or might not. Its the journos and people on herew making definitve statements, not him.
Last edited:
kildaremackem
Striker
why wont we?
Black Cat Gypsy
Striker
And why should I blindly believe Stewart Donald? He has told a few porkies in his time and comes across as a spoofer. I don't believe a journalist but why should we just dismiss every story about the club? People are now saying that every failed transfer is a lie! These stories are coming from somewhere and where there is smoke there is fire.
kildaremackem
Striker
ever seen a smoke machine? thats smoke aithout fire?
what stiries are you referring to?
There are a lot of disgurntled ex emoloyees of SAFC out there.
Which porkies has SD told? I dont like him as an owner because I think his skills are t suited to a business where SAFC is right now-doesnt work like that, and I think he is shockingly naive. But cerdit where its due..,he has admitted he failed this year, and committed to staying.
Im not saying believ the owner on everyting-but on this-he is right-so not belieivng him is denying veriifable relaity. He said he was talking to people, said he might say no. Other peopel named a date-and other people are saying the deal is off.
The only people in that dsequence to be wron gare the people who named the date, so SD isnt shown to be, so not belieivng him is denying a verifiable fact. Only people whi are crippling mentally sub normal or people with an agenda do that, I supect you are the latter.
People shouldnt believe evrythign SD says, but they shouldnt automatically believe journalist with an agenda and a poor track record, or dishonest people running other fotball clubs, or disgruntled agenst making shit up.
Last edited:
samaistonsrightfoot
Striker
Aye but if he did request it he could still do that before the first but wef the 1st so implications wouldn't be any different, but that woulkd be part of the negotiations. If he does want to leave he knows he's in a good postion anyway because we want/need higher earners off. Again speculation, mind.
kildaremackem
Striker
no, if he said it before the first-he would be expressing a desire to break the contract-the bonus on the first, would be only payable if he ddint express a desire to break the contract prior to that. SAFC could have approacjhed him prior of course.
my pint is you are linking events to a date that or event that may not be real-the takeover not happening or not happening on a set date-to subsequent events. If the dates were verifiably true (and they arent) then it would be a more valid point. But SD never said anyting was imminent.
Last edited:
KittenMittens
Midfield
I don't doubt that Donald was able to prove 50m of assets, however the two things that matter in that regard:
1) How much of his assets were in cash?
2) How much of his proposal to buy the club relied on parachute payments rather than his own money?
And the thing is this, the EFL were clearly dubious about Donald's ability to fund this, hence Short turning up at the meeting to say 'it's this way or the club goes bust'. They were put in a position where this was the only viable option because Short didnt fancy the other suitors and Donald scared off the Spanish, in fact Short turned up for that exact reason, to get it through despite their reservations.
The more this goes on, the more I think that Donald and Short had a very clear and shrewd idea of how to make the maximum amount of money from the club's finances for the minimum amount of outlay, and both extricate themselves from any financial obligations within 12 months. Short got 30m+ in parachute payments that he would never have gotten out of a buyer or from holding onto the club, Donald got control of the club for a relative pittance by funding the majority of his purchase indirectly using the parachute payments and then tried to get out for a profit before the club starts becoming a more risky proposition as this next season draws on.
The whole thing f***ing stinks, and the fact that people on here are very clearly wooed by the garbage spoken in PR and meetings where Donald and Methven do their best silver-tongued work is baffling. Hook line and f***ing sinker. They were borrowing against this year's parachute payments to stay afloat, and yet all we hear is 'it was a short term loan, it wasnt even needed and will be paid back earlier than thought' - bollocks. Simply bollocks. If we're on that kind of margin, and Donald is taking 10m+ loans out rather than funding any working capital shortfalls, then that is a significant risk. Do we know when and how the loan will be paid back, or what the repercussions are for next season? How much of next season's budget is/was reliant on the parachute payment?
If you look at the facts, rather than the spiel about how everything is great (despite this huge loan we took out against our only guaranteed income), the signs are all there. People will look back and wonder why they couldn't see it.
Last edited:
samaistonsrightfoot
Striker
Thats what I mean about negotiations though. He can just say I want me loyalty payment as well or I'll just stay and you can pay me the lot. Especially when only days in it. I don't think it would all be discussed, agreed and announced same day unless both were desperate.
- Status
