• 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.

New buyers put off by £20 million hole in accounts

Status
Not open for further replies.

Grumpy Old Man said:
Can't say until I see the detail. I'm not going to rely on financially illiterate journalists for accurate information. I can see I'll have a busy day when they do hit Companies House.


We are. Madrox aren't.
Click to expand...
Aye you will! But whilst you may receive the odd dig please remember most of us appreciate your knowledge in this area and explaining what certain detail means.

If the info presented today is true would that basically suggest he bought the club for 12 million?
 
Chizno1 said:
Surely not if they have written off £20.538 million that Madrox owe SAFC though?
Click to expand...

i'm not sure at this stage exactly what has been done. They could just as easily do it by reducing the value of the investment in Sunderland, reversing the effective entry when the cash went through Madrox on the way to Drumaville. What's harder to see is how it would go through the books of Sunderland. The big giveaway will be the profit/loss figure in Sunderland/SAFC. A debt write-off of that size would need to be disclosed as an exceptional item. At the risk of repeating myself, until I see some accounts, I've got a blindfold on.
 
Ericsgate said:
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?
Click to expand...
Nail on head I had exactly the same discussion with him and said he was ultra defensive of Donald and had his head turned by having a few beers with the smooth talking owners
 
how do they 'take £20m' out of the club into their own pocket?

i have no idea what is going on here, can someone explain it in simple terms, in a few steps from when they bought the club to where we are now?
 
Grumpy Old Man said:
i'm not sure at this stage exactly what has been done. They could just as easily do it by reducing the value of the investment in Sunderland, reversing the effective entry when the cash went through Madrox on the way to Drumaville. What's harder to see is how it would go through the books of Sunderland. The big giveaway will be the profit/loss figure in Sunderland/SAFC. A debt write-off of that size would need to be disclosed as an exceptional item. At the risk of repeating myself, until I see some accounts, I've got a blindfold on.
Click to expand...

I understand that, but that is exactly what the Times and Mail articles are claiming. An exceptional item. As I have said, I also completely understand your position and am not trying to have a go at you at all.
 
Guinness Guzzler said:
Makes Donald's "I never changed my asking price" statement seem like yet another half truth. Yes he probably didn't change it, he probably asked for £40m initially then still asked for £40m when once the prospective buyers had found the £20m hole in the finances. No wonder people walked away
Click to expand...
I've said the same since the collapse of the FPP deal. He wants £40m and doesn't want the £20m taken out of it to cover the loan. So any new buyer will have to pay £40m and another £20m on top.
 
Grumpy Old Man said:
Can't say until I see the detail. I'm not going to rely on financially illiterate journalists for accurate information. I can see I'll have a busy day when they do hit Companies House.


We are. Madrox aren't.
[/


It’s beyond me.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Grumpy Old Man said:
Let's wait for the accounts. The Mail's interpretation of the use of the parachute was proven to be bollocks. They could be right this time. When the accounts are out, I'll comment in full. I'm not going to set up a lynch mob on the back of a Mail article. If it turns out to be true. then it's legal, arguable from one standpoint, and morally reprehensible from another. I'm perceived as biased; the reality is I attempt to see and balance all sides of an argument.
Click to expand...
I pretty much stopped posting after I was hounded by other posters on this board in a discussion with you where I stated that exactly what is being reported now was happening. I wish you had seen both sides then. The fact is if you try and balance the truth with a lie then just end up missing reality and buying into the myth.
 
Grumpy Old Man said:
That last £25m should have been left in the club, but Ellis's pride wouldn't let him do that. Supporters might have grumbled, but they would have understood better if the parachute had been used to clear a debt that was still in the club's books.
Click to expand...

The parachute payments were not to pay off Ellis, that was Stewart's job. The parachute were purely there to secure.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top