Significant investment by FPP has been made

[flanny1]

from a rfans point of view badly yes..from an investors point of view very well indeed..because depsite the hyeteria from some on here..fans and investors prioritse different things..

Not sure what point you’re trying to make there.
It’s Donald and his team’s poor track record that makes me sceptical, they’ve completely wasted the parachute payments and unless he gets better people in I fear they’ll do it again.
I understand they won’t overspend and are willing to be ruthless, which as investors mitigates your risk but personally I care more about how we do as a football club.

 

[BumbleBee]

I mean I’ve had a drink, but I’m not chucking typos in every post like

Aye but I nearly fell off my chair due to vertigo reading that.

 

[kildaremackem]

This wasnt newspapers- this was a story broken by fanzines- obviously having been fed by the club.

right..and whats that got to do with the owners? club has a lot of employees? the
fanmzine people could just have read it off here..kin fact one the phrases they used..rischest club in the world..was used on here before anywhere else..

and things change.workd economy is fucked..safc is, like all footbsll clubs a cyclical business, and the economic cycle has gone into reverse..maybe they just changed their mind about the level of risk they want to take right now?

 

[Linus]

I've been a fan of this club since 1973 when my dad took me to my first game, age 7.

I have never disliked my club, I've always loved it.

Just let that sink in.

Amen, brother Davyred.

 

[kildaremackem]

Not sure what point you’re trying to make there.
It’s Donald and his team’s poor track record that makes me sceptical, they’ve completely wasted the parachute payments and unless he gets better people in I fear they’ll do it again.
I understand they won’t overspend and are willing to be ruthless, which as investors mitigates your risk but personally I care more about how we do as a football club.

of ocurse you care personally about that..and i wouldnt criticose that..your a fan.
the inevstors arent fans though,,they are investors..they want different thimngs to you..or at least phave a higher priority on stuffcompared to you..

SD didnt easte the para mponey..it paid off a club debt that was costsing millions a year in interest..seems like a smart thing to do like..

 

[Chizno1]

of ocurse you care personally about that..and i wouldnt criticose that..your a fan.
the inevstors arent fans though,,they are investors..they want different thimngs to you..or at least phave a higher priority on stuffcompared to you..

SD didnt easte the para mponey..it paid off a club debt that was costsing millions a year in interest..seems like a smart thing to do like..

Again, the SBC debt was not a club debt after the takeover went through. The final portion was taken over by Ellis Short, and he, not the club was liable for the interest. I’ve already linked you once on this thread to the interview where there is a quote from Donald confirming this.

 

[Roker Mackem]

right..and whats that got to do with the owners? club has a lot of employees? the
fanmzine people could just have read it off here..kin fact one the phrases they used..rischest club in the world..was used on here before anywhere else..

and things change.workd economy is fucked..safc is, like all footbsll clubs a cyclical business, and the economic cycle has gone into reverse..maybe they just changed their mind about the level of risk they want to take right now?

First bit- RR and ALS wouldnt have gone ahead without a very good source.
Second bit- absolutely fine... im sure that did happen- things changed at some point.

 

[kildaremackem]

Again, the SBC debt was not a club debt after the takeover went through. The final portion was taken over by Ellis Short with him, not the club liable for the interest. I’ve already linked you once on this thread to the interview where there is a quote from Donald confirming this.

but elkllis only took it over for a technical reaosn and wanted repayment..he woudknt have done it otherwise..if paying off sbc is something he wanted to do he would have done it much earlier..safc owed sbc..they wanyed paying quickly so ellis used his own cash and got reinbursed..he wouldnt have done it othwerwise..and we would have been left with the debt..safc benefitted from how the para money was spoent..these owners didnt.its that simple..depsite the torrent odf lies and slanders on here,..

First bit- RR and ALS wouldnt have gone ahead without a very good source.
Second bit- absolutely fine... im sure that did happen- things changed at some point.

depends who RR regard as a very good source..im sure tbey have more than the owners they considet ot be good sources..

 

[scott934]

right..and whats that got to do with the owners? club has a lot of employees? the
fanmzine people could just have read it off here..kin fact one the phrases they used..rischest club in the world..was used on here before anywhere else..

and things change.workd economy is fucked..safc is, like all footbsll clubs a cyclical business, and the economic cycle has gone into reverse..maybe they just changed their mind about the level of risk they want to take right now?

Why can't you type?

 

[Chewit]

Investment is good news. It just needs to be managed correctly with the right people making the calls at the AOL and recrutiment areas. Not sure I am so optimistic with Reid, Cotton and Donald himself making all the big boss calls.

Seriously what do you know about their capabilities? Iam fascinated

 

[The Cabbage]

well you people care about the CVs of the people who do the jonb-otr you pretend to when you talk about richard hill's CV-and citins is just about fine for the job..the people who came before him were much much moworse thamn he..and corrupt as well..so he is an improvemmnt..even of he is no good..while hill is an improvemtn on the disaste r ellis short appointed to the role-its that diastrous appointment that srtil;l holds safc back..

Stop peddling this specious nonsense. You continually refer to Ryan Sachs because him and hill had similar job titles but completely wash over the fact that their roles were completely different. Sachs didn’t have a fraction of the involvement in football matters that Hill has - and you know it.

If there’s still a book on who you’re linked to at the club, it’s not methven, it’s Hill.

 

[Secret Visage]

Not all 55 critical, I’ve read the forum for years but I’ve never really wanted to voice my opinion before as the club hasn’t been this bad in my lifetime, and most of the stuff about the takeover was getting posted on here so i wanted to be able to ask questions as everyone seemed to know something. Is that ok? And you will see most of my posts have probably been in the last two/three days.

The read the forum for years but never posted stuff is unquantifiable one way or another.

However you're posting date and post contents are.

I've had a look. Critical and agenda driven are their content. That is quantifiable.

 

[Chizno1]

but elkllis only took it over for a technical reaosn and wanted repayment..he woudknt have done it otherwise..if paying off sbc is something he wanted to do he would have done it much earlier..safc owed sbc..they wanyed paying quickly so ellis used his own cash and got reinbursed..he wouldnt have done it othwerwise..and we would have been left with the debt..safc benefitted from how the para money was spoent..these owners didnt.its that simple..depsite the torrent odf lies and slanders on here,..

depends who RR regard as a very good source..im sure tbey have more than the owners they considet ot be good sources..

It wasn’t Roker Report, it was ALS, and the source wasn’t a good source it was Donald himself.

You must be logged on to see external links

‘Short accepted the delay in payment in return for similar security from the club. Once Donald has paid Short all of the £40m, that security deal disappears too. Short’s security is what I’d expect from someone who made his billions in failed company restructuring (he knows all the tricks). Short has security against the cash of the business (the bank account) and also the bricks and mortar (the Academy).

If Donald doesn’t pay the money, the bank and/or Short can demand the payment from the club. Worth noting that Stewart has confirmed to me that the charges are ‘reducing charges’. This means that, now the amount owed has fallen, the amount that can be demanded of the club also falls. This is different (and better) than most mortgages where non-payment means you lose your house, no questions asked.

Stewart explained to us “If I do not make those payments (the bank) has a charge on the Academy and also the bank account. Ellis has taken all the debt and paid it out apart from a portion which he has left outstanding owed by him rather than the club… (he has) reassigned that debt from the club to him personally. He is then paying that off as I pay him. Any interest accruing is Ellis’ issue not the club’s.”‘

 

[oddbod]

Where is GOM when you need him? is this you grumpy?

You must be logged on to see external links

 

[The Cabbage]

Not sure what point you’re trying to make there.
It’s Donald and his team’s poor track record that makes me sceptical, they’ve completely wasted the parachute payments and unless he gets better people in I fear they’ll do it again.
I understand they won’t overspend and are willing to be ruthless, which as investors mitigates your risk but personally I care more about how we do as a football club.

Aye, the investors don’t want to see Safc perform even adequately relative to their levels of funding apparently. That’s not their priority.

 

[Roker Mackem]

but elkllis only took it over for a technical reaosn and wanted repayment..he woudknt have done it otherwise..if paying off sbc is something he wanted to do he would have done it much earlier..safc owed sbc..they wanyed paying quickly so ellis used his own cash and got reinbursed..he wouldnt have done it othwerwise..and we would have been left with the debt..safc benefitted from how the para money was spoent..these owners didnt.its that simple..depsite the torrent odf lies and slanders on here,..

depends who RR regard as a very good source..im sure tbey have more than the owners they considet ot be good sources..

Not sure theyd trust the tea lady mind

 

[stevo]

The read the forum for years but never posted stuff is unquantifiable one way or another.

However you're posting date and post contents are.

I've had a look. Critical and agenda driven are their content. That is quantifiable.

Ha ha he has a strange posting style,reminds me of someone,it will come to me

 

[oddbod]

If you follow the money you usually get to the root of the matter..Unlike Giles Mooney in the als article I do care and i do want to know what ffp are getting out of this strange deal !

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

Where is GOM when you need him? is this you grumpy?

You must be logged on to see external links

Nope.

I'm just waiting for more details. What we have so far is not a lot, although the capital restructuring is intriguing.

 

[Secret Visage]

Ha ha he has a strange posting style,reminds me of someone,it will come to me

I've got an idea who it either maybe or akin to it maybe.

Either way the posts are clearly agenda driven and somewhat defamatory.

Definitely not conducive to us moving forward with new investment.

If you follow the money you usually get to the root of the matter..Unlike Giles Mooney in the als article I do care and i do want to know what ffp are getting out of this strange deal !

Why would financial fair play get anything out of it?

Nope.

I'm just waiting for more details. What we have so far is not a lot, although the capital restructuring is intriguing.

That's what tweaked my interest. I usually stand aside and leave yourself to look at things like this.