• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.
samaistonsrightfoot said:
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.
Click to expand...
well thats a fair enough piint. and it could be that the club appraoched catts ages ago..and negotiations have been going on for a while, my piint is simply, its no more valid to link the event of his departire to the takeover allegedly failing than it is to link it to it being the day after 30 June. Catts could say he wants both, but he wouldnt be entitled to both, legally, so his negotiaitng power is different than if he says nowt and waits until July 1.
Its all speculation/
 

kildaremackem said:
well thats a fair enough piint. and it could be that the club appraoched catts ages ago..and negotiations have been going on for a while, my piint is simply, its no more valid to link the event of his departire to the takeover allegedly failing than it is to link it to it being the day after 30 June. Catts could say he wants both, but he wouldnt be entitled to both, legally, so his negotiaitng power is different than if he says nowt and waits until July 1.
Its all speculation/
Click to expand...

I know. I'm not saying it anything other than speculation and if it was just the Cattermole contract then I wouldn't be so sceptical. It just seems, and feels like we've suddenly put the foot down in respect of taking action for the coming season where prior nothing at all was happening.

KittenMittens said:
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.
Click to expand...

I might be wrong but I'm sure it needed to be liquid cash and not assets. I don't believe everything they say verbatim but can't imagine they would highlight that so often and so specifically if it wasn't true.
 
Last edited:
samaistonsrightfoot said:
I know. I'm not saying it anything other than speculation and if it was just the Cattermole contract then I wouldn't be so sceptical. It just seems, and feels like we've suddenly put the foot down in respect of taking action for the coming season where prior nothing at all was happening.



I might be wrong but I'm sure it needed to be liquid cash and not assets. I don't believe everything they say verbatim but can't imagine they would highlight that so often and so specifically if it wasn't true.
Click to expand...
well yes it was cash and listed company shares. SD was part of an MBO of Hastings insurance-or his family were-so that myay be listed company shares component.

KittenMittens said:
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.
Click to expand...
he had to shows £50 isn liqyid assets, of which cash is just one component. Were they borrowing against this years para money? Where has that come from? Any evidence?
 
Last edited:
kildaremackem said:
he had to shows £50 isn liqyid assets, of which cash is just one component. Were they borrowing against this years para money? Where has that come from? Any evidence?
Click to expand...

Yes, a Mr S. Donald:

'We advanced the parachute payments via a short term loan for April, May, June, July to help us have financing conversations to potentially borrow vs the stadium'
 
KittenMittens said:
Yes, a Mr S. Donald:

'We advanced the parachute payments via a short term loan for April, May, June, July to help us have financing conversations to potentially borrow vs the stadium'
Click to expand...
last seasons-not this seaosns. as you say thats well known. and it didnt include april-they didnt own the club then.
 
samaistonsrightfoot said:
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.
Click to expand...
Catts is getting paid the lot, just over a longer period of time. In the meantime he's getting another wage packet from Uncle Steve

On paper Stewy paid him off but in reality Stewy hasn't paid a penny in the short term

Just like Grigg by the time it's paid off he will most likely be long gone
 
Last edited:
ilovehorswill said:
Catts is getting paid the lot, just over a longer period of time. In the meantime he's getting another wage packet from Uncle Steve

On paper Stewy paid him off but in reality Stewy hasn't paid a penny in the short term

Just like Grigg by the time it's paid off he will most likely be long gone
Click to expand...

Where this from? It doesn't really make much sense at all to allow him to leave, weaken the side and still pay him the same amount, even if it is smaller monthly payments, as he's said we have the budget to keep them.

Roker Report were saying last night they were told a while ago it would be the equivalent of one year wages as a lump and that was it. Although that could obviously change, or be complete bullshit :lol:
 
samaistonsrightfoot said:
Where this from? It doesn't really make much sense at all to allow him to leave, weaken the side and still pay him the same amount, even if it is smaller monthly payments, as he's said we have the budget to keep them.

Roker Report were saying last night they were told a while ago it would be the equivalent of one year wages as a lump and that was it. Although that could obviously change, or be complete bullshit :lol:
Click to expand...
The key words are short term

Interesting times ahead, although there more than enough bullshit flying about
 
samaistonsrightfoot said:
Where this from? It doesn't really make much sense at all to allow him to leave, weaken the side and still pay him the same amount, even if it is smaller monthly payments, as he's said we have the budget to keep them.

Roker Report were saying last night they were told a while ago it would be the equivalent of one year wages as a lump and that was it. Although that could obviously change, or be complete bullshit :lol:
Click to expand...

The only advantage would be in reducing the annual wage bill, and freeing up space under the salary cap, but even that doesn't make much sense in the context of the likely savings. A lump sum payoff makes more sense; it's clean, and there are tax/NI advantages for both sides.
 
ilovehorswill said:
Catts is getting paid the lot, just over a longer period of time. In the meantime he's getting another wage packet from Uncle Steve

On paper Stewy paid him off but in reality Stewy hasn't paid a penny in the short term

Just like Grigg by the time it's paid off he will most likely be long gone
Click to expand...

Can't see this being true. Would make zero sense.
 
Grumpy Old Man said:
The only advantage would be in reducing the annual wage bill, and freeing up space under the salary cap, but even that doesn't make much sense in the context of the likely savings. A lump sum payoff makes more sense; it's clean, and there are tax/NI advantages for both sides.
Click to expand...

Saw someone mention it on another thread an I'd forgotten about it tbh but didn't Catts wages not count towards the salary cap? Can remember somethjng said about it last year but can't remember what it was now.
 
samaistonsrightfoot said:
Saw someone mention it on another thread an I'd forgotten about it tbh but didn't Catts wages not count towards the salary cap? Can remember somethjng said about it last year but can't remember what it was now.
Click to expand...

It's only a one year exemption. All wages count from now on. A logical explanation for getting his wages off the books as well, and one I'd completely forgotten until the exemption was mentioned.
 
kildaremackem said:
why wont we?
Click to expand...
donld will want £30-50 million and there is no value for it,a squad worth about £6-8 million in total,i hate to say it but the scum are much better value at £350 million,£120 million just for being in the PL,and a squad of players worth £220-250 million maybe more,longstaff 25,perez 2o,ritchie 15 shelvy 15,lascelles 20,dummit 15,schar 15,keeper 10,almiron 20,easy another 100 for muto,joselu,yedlin,fernandes,hayden etc,iam amazed MA cannot shift it,it actually pleases me as i think 1,he doesnt want to sell or 2 the HMRC issue is still lurking
 
These are all from Donald's own words and things we know

The deal:

37m purchase
25m SBC liability paid on behalf of Short by Donald (guaranteed vs parachutes) - characterised as 'club debt', but used by Donald as 'funding' for initial deal - eg: taking away Short's obligation to pay it off in lieu of Donald paying actual cash.
12m madrox pay for club 'personally' (initially 15m, reduced to £12m upon due diligence)

The financing:

Paid £5m deposit
Remaining £7m (Madrox) secured vs parachute payments
agreed to pay balance in September £9.6m (Actual money for this was loaned to Madrox from the club, big question here about how much and what was paid off, I believe the reduction from £15m-£12m debt to Short was negotiated after this which may mean he got £2.6m 'back' effectively)
£25m SBC debt secured vs parachute payments and paid off. ('to be put back into the club' no specified timeframe or means)

The cash flow:

-£32m operating costs 18/19 ( including outstanding player costs)


+£20m revenue
+£3m from Sartori (for 20% equity)
+£?m of 19/20 parachute payments (£15m loan taken out, not all used 'bulk' still left over, he says £5m, but given the vagaries of his accounting, they could theoretically have used £7m).
+£1.5m Maja up front payment
+£? transfer fee installments from Borini, Lens, Khazri, McNair and Asoro sales (I think it's reasonable to say that £2.5-3m of the 20m total may have been available as working capital from installments).

That takes us to £31.5m of £32m, with not a penny paid by Donald yet. Did he put in the extra £500k? Maybe. Or maybe the 'running costs of £32m' were actually um... y'know... um... um... um... '31.5m')


My biggest concern is that right now, the only thing we know for a fact is that the amount Donald has outright paid for the club from his own pocket, without funding via a loan to Madrox from the club, without using parachute payments advances on next season, is somewhere between £5m to 5.5m . of a £37m deal.

Sure, he's accrued debt on behalf of madrox, but if a future buyer in turn waives that debt, they are effectively giving madrox £10m instead of the club. Given the financial means of someone buying the club today, that is not an insignificant amount. Similarly, the £25m that Donald claims he will drip-feed in over time (more likely via investment) will be turned over to the new owner as that is the club's shortfall and Donald has simply committed to getting rid of it in an unspecified time frame, with no obligation to do so.

'We did a good deal, we did a GREAT deal, yeah, we got in at the bottom'

He is too vague. You don't need to spend an hour tripping over yourself and defending the right to use those payments as you see fit if you have nothing to hide. They sued the DM not because they got it wrong in principle, but because they felt the figure (32m in parachute payments used to fund the purchase) Should have read as £25m. The rest? They loaned it to themselves.

Incredible.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top