New buyers put off by £20 million hole in accounts

[wackyjacky]

You rang?

I see a lot of unsubstantiated speculation in that article, and then quotes that seem to say the opposite of what the article says has been going on.

Pretty much exactly what you'd expect from a Daily Fail article.

And the article in The Times?

 

[Houghtoner]

SD has form taking legal action against the written press...if he doesn’t this time it’s true.

Who’s he successfully sued like? Load of shit as usual from him.

 

[Chizno1]

You rang?

I see a lot of unsubstantiated speculation in that article, and then quotes that seem to say the opposite of what the article says has been going on.

Pretty much exactly what you'd expect from a Daily Fail article.

Unsubstantiated!?! You must be on a wind up. They actually quote the amount written off in the accounts as ‘£20.538m’ which is pretty specific if they haven’t seen the accounts.

 

[fyl2u]

Didnt SD say on a podcast he was putting money in over the course of 5 years to cover the madrox loan? Didn't realise it was written off like. These accounts are going to be very interesting

SD himself said in an interview about a year ago that they were under no "legal obligation" to pay it back but not to worry about it.

It's not news.

 

[scott934]

You rang?

I see a lot of unsubstantiated speculation in that article, and then quotes that seem to say the opposite of what the article says has been going on.

Pretty much exactly what you'd expect from a Daily Fail article.

Might be time to accept defeat like, these wankers have to go.

 

[mag in peace]

Grumpy, presents himself as a financial genius but he is prone to misguided interpretations of Sunderland’s finances.

I consistently said the Finances were perilous and Donald was a gambler whose failings would be revealed in the next accounts.

The last time we debated it was impossible to reason with Grumpy’s point of view so I stepped back from the debate saying “let’s wait for the accounts”.

Well Grumpy?

Showed himself up a little bit when talking about Newcastle deal as well. I hope when we was in employment he managed to seperate head from heart.

The article doesn't read well, but the one plus of it is surely if they are sinking that quickly they will be more inclined to sell?

 

[fyl2u]

And the article in The Times?

Behind a paywall, can't see it.

 

[Chizno1]

SD himself said in an interview about a year ago that they were under no "legal obligation" to pay it back but not to worry about it.

It's not news.

But he also said they would pay it back. Writing it off gives more than a suggestion that they have no intention of ever doing that.

 

[West_Winger]

You rang?

I see a lot of unsubstantiated speculation in that article, and then quotes that seem to say the opposite of what the article says has been going on.

Pretty much exactly what you'd expect from a Daily Fail article.

It isn’t a Daily Mail article.

You must be logged on to see external links

Behind a paywall, can't see it.

There are none so blind as those who choose not to see.

 

[scott934]

Grumpy, presents himself as a financial genius but he is prone to misguided interpretations of Sunderland’s finances.

I consistently said the Finances were perilous and Donald was a gambler whose failings would be revealed in the next accounts.

The last time we debated it was impossible to reason with Grumpy’s point of view so I stepped back from the debate saying “let’s wait for the accounts”.

Well Grumpy?

Aren't you the bloke who pretended to like all north eastern teams until the big reveal of you being a mag, which all of us seen coming?

 

[timeforheroes1]

Unbelievable how some people still defend these c.unts

We are completley fucked

 

[Moneyball]

Who’s he successfully sued like? Load of shit as usual from him.

Didn’t say he’d sued anyone. He demanded, and got, a retraction from The S*n for printing erroneous claims.

 

[seaham ftm]

Who’s he successfully sued like? Load of shit as usual from him.

All bullshit, just like the bridle insurance office he was going to open in Sunderland.

 

[Deleted member 35923]

I said as much in a previous post, marra.

apologies - I missed it. I know you’ve been fairly consistent on them over a period of time too.

 

[SAFC_Jack]

Imagine writing it off due to it being the Mail and then realising it’s actually from The Times - crikey.

 

[Laidback Jack]

In fairness to the Mail they did an expose on the initial takeover deal too when no-one else was interested. Sadly at the time the vast majority of supporters were completely taken in by their bluster and absolutely hammered the journalists responsible online. It was embarrassing.

Good on them for sticking at it and I’m certainly grateful they are.

This is it. Anyone that dare to say a cross word on here got shot down in flames. I said something along the lines of 'They sound good but talk is cheap, lets see if they put it into action. It's all very well and good loving the adoration of the fans and fame but lets see if they still do that when the shit hits the fan'

I got absolutely crucified. For a long time we couldn't see past them. Ultimately they've spun a PR wheel and we've fallen for it.

 

[hank williams]

Who’s he successfully sued like? Load of shit as usual from him.

He sued The Sun

 

[roppa]

And our own paper

You must be logged on to see external links

 

[fyl2u]

But he also said they would pay it back. Writing it off gives more than a suggestion that they have no intention of ever doing that.

I think it being written off is the only way that would make it so that there was no legal obligation. Wasn't all this related to the financial black hole left by the Alvarez / Ndong situations anyway, and the reason why they renegotiated with Short for all this to happen in the first place?

I'm pretty sure SD/CM told us about all this a year or so ago.

 

[Zig81]

Imagine writing it off due to it being the Mail and then realising it’s actually from The Times - crikey.

You can’t fix stupid mate