SD on Radio Newcastle on Thursday evening

[Deleted member 21726]

Tbh it was gonna be a waste of time anyway. He was on there a few weeks back and there wasnt a single awkward moment for donald. The lads in the studio were so easy going it was like we were sitting top of the league, not struggling in the bottom half.

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

You don’t always sea in facts. You quite often give an informed opinion based on your professional experience and some information. That’s opinion

Yes, and as I said on another thread, I try to make the difference clear. As I also said there, I clearly need to be better in that regard. In general, if I say "it could be" or "it might be", that's a pretty clear indication of a statement of opinion. If I say that Madrox have spent £9m on new shares in Sunderland, that's a statement of fact, as there's documentary evidence of that at Companies House.

 

[ilovehorswill]

Simon Pryde saying he never said he was definitely coming on, yet BBC Newcastle have been advertising it as he will be on Thursday night.

Telling porky pies Simon lad. To be fair to SD, he's best off not coming on. The questions would be vetted anyway, and anyone with a slightly testong question wouldn't get through. Plus Marco would just stick his head a bit further up his arse.

Exactly the same kind of double speak that helped tarnish Stew's reputation, bizarre

 

[wilki]

Stewart Donald has agreed to be on the live talk in tomorrow evening to explain his recent decision.

Who told you that bollocks?

 

[Ferryhill Exile]

I'd have done the deal differently, if at all possible. I'd have asked Short to leave the £25m in the club rather than porting it to Drumaville, and paid him £15m for the shares. IF SBC were exerting pressure, I'd have paid it off using the parachute (which SBC had an assignment of anyway), and explained why I'd had to do it. If Short had insisted in having it moved, I'd have said what came out eventually, that I'd paid £15m for the shares, and the parachute had been used to pay off the last of the debt, which Short had moved out of the club. Rushing the deal, and structuring it so badly was his biggest mistake. Apparently, both sets of advisors thought you could get the parachute paid direct to Short. If they'd had a 2 minute chat with the club FD, she's have been able to tell them it's against PL rules.

Operationally, I'd have done more or less what he has. I'd also have tried to get Nicola Cortese in as CEO, and let him appoint a DoF.

She needs the boot.

 

[Linus]

Pryde now tweeting that he was never confirmed in the first place

https://twitter.com/x/status/1212709539197403138

Logon or register to see this image

"but but but but.........."

 

[Chewit]

What is the relationship between yourself and Stewart Donald as it is noticeable that you are there to jump to his defense at every opportunity.

You have gained immense respect and credibility on this forum with your knowledge of all things financial, but I have noticed in recent posts a very certain and definite bias towards Stewart Donald

Is he under caution?
What’s wrong with an objective view? Are you only allowed to stick with the gang and criticise? It’s like the playground this place.
What if I asked you Who do you have a relationship with that influences your opinion, because I don’t believe you can think for your self

Does anyone believe what he says though?

Goebbels didn’t hide even though the Nazis were losing WW2.

He’s no more hiding than most chairmen/ owners, it’s only by his own naive standards that he’s being scarce. He’s best off keeping a low profile, nothing he can say is going to placate anyone. He’s at the stage of actions speak louder than words

All entrepreneurs are ‘chancers’.

So the little Asian fella who runs the corner shop, the old lady who owns the fish shop, and the lad with the gammy leg who delivers the milk are all chancers? I will look at them differently next time

 

[brisbanemackem]

Is he under caution?
What’s wrong with an objective view? Are you only allowed to stick with the gang and criticise? It’s like the playground this place.

I asked the question of @Grumpy Old Man because of late all his responses seem to be firmly on defense of Stewart Donald.

I have owned and run my own businesses all my life so have a basic understanding of accounts but nothing like the depth of knowledge of Grumpy.

I'm retired now and have been beholding to Grumpy in the past for his detailed explanations, but recently his posts appear to me to be biased towards Donald.

When he states Madrox is Madrox and not Sunderland in the full knowledge that Madrox is sole owner of Sunderland, I consider that to be less than clear to forum members who are otherwise not aware of the company structure.

When Grumpy defended Donald's valuation of Sunderland by Donald as greater than the sum of the parts and drew Comparison with the value of Marks and Spenser book value bring considerably less than its stock market value he omitted to highlight that M and S declared substantial profits compared to the financial basket case that is Sunderland.

I raised the question of his relationship with Donald as if they were on friendly terms it would be natural to develop a bias in Donald's favour.

Grumpy clarified this and other posters suggested that he was on better terms with Methven.

Grumpy himself admitted he needed more clarity in his explanation.

 

[bat]

So the little Asian fella who runs the corner shop, the old lady who owns the fish shop, and the lad with the gammy leg who delivers the milk are all chancers? I will look at them differently next time

Entrepreneur: a person who sets up a business or businesses, taking on financial risks in the hope of profit.
hope this helps!

 

[Teed]

So his arse dropped out then?

 

[Nelson!]

Love to know what his "other commitments" are while the club he owns falls apart.

Is he even in the area these days?

 

[Alfa]

Love to know what his "other commitments" are while the club he owns falls apart.

Is he even in the area these days?

Was thinking exactly the same. The club looks increasingly like it’s just drifting aimlessly with no leadership at all.

Images of McLaughlin having to retrieve the ball from the stand at a home game, the farce of the minute silence, recent resignations of key figures without replacements and the rumours of financial difficulties all suggest the club is in a mess.

 

[Deleted member 7101]

Was thinking exactly the same. The club looks increasingly like it’s just drifting aimlessly with no leadership at all.

Images of McLaughlin having to retrieve the ball from the stand at a home game, the farce of the minute silence, recent resignations of key figures without replacements and the rumours of financial difficulties all suggest the club is in a mess.

It's not just a suggestion mate. Of all the comments made by people on here and elsewhere,all the differing opinions,all the contradictions and confusion,fake news and spin,....the one absolute fact that no-one can present any kind of argument against,is that this club is in an unholy mess!

 

[daveybigpotatoes]

I asked the question of @Grumpy Old Man because of late all his responses seem to be firmly on defense of Stewart Donald.

I have owned and run my own businesses all my life so have a basic understanding of accounts but nothing like the depth of knowledge of Grumpy.

I'm retired now and have been beholding to Grumpy in the past for his detailed explanations, but recently his posts appear to me to be biased towards Donald.

When he states Madrox is Madrox and not Sunderland in the full knowledge that Madrox is sole owner of Sunderland, I consider that to be less than clear to forum members who are otherwise not aware of the company structure.

When Grumpy defended Donald's valuation of Sunderland by Donald as greater than the sum of the parts and drew Comparison with the value of Marks and Spenser book value bring considerably less than its stock market value he omitted to highlight that M and S declared substantial profits compared to the financial basket case that is Sunderland.

I raised the question of his relationship with Donald as if they were on friendly terms it would be natural to develop a bias in Donald's favour.

Grumpy clarified this and other posters suggested that he was on better terms with Methven.

Grumpy himself admitted he needed more clarity in his explanation.

I believe GOM does a good job for this board - yes he sometimes expresses opinion as fact but who doesn't? We are not at work here - sometimes drafting isn't exact as it might be but lets give him a break and be grateful for the contribution.

 

[Hawyatt Earp]

Love to know what his "other commitments" are while the club he owns falls apart.

Is he even in the area these days?

Now I don’t like Stewart Donald. I think he’s a complete con man.

However, in his defence, with Donald not replacing and now doing the roles of Tony Davison, Mark Moisely and Charlie Methven, all whilst working part time, I imagine he has his hands quite full.

 

[Deleted member 35923]

Tbh it was gonna be a waste of time anyway. He was on there a few weeks back and there wasnt a single awkward moment for donald. The lads in the studio were so easy going it was like we were sitting top of the league, not struggling in the bottom half.

that’s not at all how I perceived the last Donald appearance on total sport. Pryde asked him tough questions, Donald floundered and babbled.

 

[Hawyatt Earp]

that’s not at all how I perceived the last Donald appearance on total sport. Pryde asked him tough questions, Donald floundered and babbled.

I agree with this. And to be fair, the questions are easier to ask this time and more straight forward

 

[Guinness Guzzler]

I asked the question of @Grumpy Old Man because of late all his responses seem to be firmly on defense of Stewart Donald.

I have owned and run my own businesses all my life so have a basic understanding of accounts but nothing like the depth of knowledge of Grumpy.

I'm retired now and have been beholding to Grumpy in the past for his detailed explanations, but recently his posts appear to me to be biased towards Donald.

When he states Madrox is Madrox and not Sunderland in the full knowledge that Madrox is sole owner of Sunderland, I consider that to be less than clear to forum members who are otherwise not aware of the company structure.

When Grumpy defended Donald's valuation of Sunderland by Donald as greater than the sum of the parts and drew Comparison with the value of Marks and Spenser book value bring considerably less than its stock market value he omitted to highlight that M and S declared substantial profits compared to the financial basket case that is Sunderland.

I raised the question of his relationship with Donald as if they were on friendly terms it would be natural to develop a bias in Donald's favour.

Grumpy clarified this and other posters suggested that he was on better terms with Methven.

Grumpy himself admitted he needed more clarity in his explanation.

This might sound like a criticism of GOM but it really isn't meant to be. Like yourself I've noticed that he seems to be quite consistently positive about the owners. I think part of it will be down to the fact that they've been happy to have him involved in RAWA meetings (well, at least one) and the likes. No matter how canny you've done in your career it must be a bit of an ego boost to find out that people running your club value your opinion and I think it's bound to make you think positively of them. I'm not for a second suggesting he'd overlook anything concerning, just that when things are open to interpretation I think it's only natural that he might be more understanding of their position. If they were daft enough to value my opinion on anything I'd probably feel the same! Mind, while I think that might play a part (however small), it might mainly just be because he has a better understanding than most of the job they've had to do and might thus not expect them to have been able to make as much progress as others, who have no idea about the work load or timescales, would.

 

[Deleted member 35923]

This might sound like a criticism of GOM but it really isn't meant to be. Like yourself I've noticed that he seems to be quite consistently positive about the owners. I think part of it will be down to the fact that they've been happy to have him involved in RAWA meetings (well, at least one) and the likes. No matter how canny you've done in your career it must be a bit of an ego boost to find out that people running your club value your opinion and I think it's bound to make you think positively of them. I'm not for a second suggesting he'd overlook anything concerning, just that when things are open to interpretation I think it's only natural that he might be more understanding of their position. If they were daft enough to value my opinion on anything I'd probably feel the same! Mind, while I think that might play a part (however small), it might mainly just be because he has a better understanding than most of the job they've had to do and might thus not expect them to have been able to make as much progress as others, who have no idea about the work load or timescales, would.

All good points. I think it may be the case that Donald’s amiable character and willingness to communicate with supporters led to a reduction of objectivity when it came to the clubs ownership and how things were actually being done. Some of the grandiose claims made whilst the operational decisions that GOM describes were being implemented were fanciful at best and too many were willing to just go along with it even when there was mounting evidence to suggest not all was going as claimed.

 

[molthemackem]

Unless, of course, it doesn't fit whatever is the current narrative.

Goes without saying mate..

Cant argue with any of that. However the cost cutting became more slash and burn after getting rid of those leeches. It did start to feel like he was trying to run a massive club like Sunderland on an Eastleigh budget. Which was never going to end well, as we have ultimately seen with the way we have struggled.

Is the correct answer....