• 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.
gavrocks said:
I always thought parachute payments were part of the deal when short sold the club that he would keep them. like someone said until the figures are released from the club whatever papers print should be taken with a punch of salt.
Click to expand...

Might have been the case behind closed doors. Early on they said specifically that they were not for Ellis, stewart would pay that.

When it came time to pay, Charlie said they had always been earmarked to be used in that manner and they were under no obligation to pay them back.

Said in such a brazen manner that he expected everyone to forget what was said previously. To be fair the majority did and were only seeing the reaction now.
 

CaptainRed said:
Agree. The club is now valued at a fiver. That's based on what Sartori paid for his 20%. That should be the asking price. Even so with no gate receipts for quite probably the next 12 months I still don't see there being a queue of buyers.
Click to expand...

No, no, no. Sartori owns 0% of Sunderland. He owes 20% of Madrox, shares which he bought from Stewart Donald. What he gave Doanld for those shares is utterly irrelevant to the valuation of Sunderland.
 
This is exactly what loads of people including myself thought for a while now, a shambles and I’m guessing more to come from these absolute chancers get out asap please, why did he not tell the truth and say I’ve come to sort out what was a mess, then make a profit, ok fair enough but they lie about everything why if you watch his first interview after they took over could people not see it, totally Smacks of someone lying, with the other one sitting over him cringing because he knows he’s lying and he’s scared shitless he’s says something he shouldn’t # case dismissed guilty as charged liars
 
Grumpy Old Man said:
If there's an excepional item, that's pretty clear cut (i can't read Times articles because a) I'm a cheapskate b) I'm not giving Murdoch money for it.


Head turned by a few drinks with the owners. I'm my own man, and you don't have a f***ing clue about me. Now, just sod off.
Click to expand...

Your obviously upset and I did not mean to offend you as I know you are a die hard fan, I was just pointing out that we had an ongoing debate about the finances and your stance was staunchly pro-Donald, whereas I said the accounts would not be filed promptly and would reveal everything. You admitted you had shared a few drinks with them, which can colour anyone's judgement. I am not suggesting for one minute any questions about your integrity or your obvious financial expertise. In fact when the accounts are eventually published we will all look to you for your expertise. At this point it seems my analysis and was correct though but if I have caused you any personal offense then I unreservedly apologise
 
Last edited:
Grumpy Old Man said:
You tell me. I can only go on what CM said in front of the liaison group last June, ie, in his own words "the deal, as originally drafted, was a balls up". A statement I cannot find fault with.
Click to expand...

I know Gom but that's what I said at the time. Cm said they had always been earmarked in that manner at your meeting.

In a podcast prior they both said absolutely that they were not to be used in this manner.

This is half the reason some cant stand the bloke.
 
Grumpy Old Man said:
No, no, no. Sartori owns 0% of Sunderland. He owes 20% of Madrox, shares which he bought from Stewart Donald. What he gave Doanld for those shares is utterly irrelevant to the valuation of Sunderland.
Click to expand...

Now I understand why Sartori refused to seriously invest unless we got promoted.

He seen potential, but he also knew things we didn't and seen a black hole for his money.
 
Grumpy Old Man said:
No, that was blown out of the water by CM last June. The parachute was always heading Short's way. In fact, the original draft of the deal had the parachute payment going directly to Drumaville, until it was pointed out that PL rules said they had to ogo into a club account first.
Click to expand...
They did tell us specifically and unequivocally that this wasn’t the case during the early interviews, though.
 
jsdftm04 said:
Imagine still defending the two owners man :lol::lol::lol:

No shame. They need chasing to save the club.

Or to lower his price as he will be very scared of losing what has gone into the club surely?

You have to agree his price is pie in the sky stuff
Click to expand...
Anyone who defends him - genuinely wants us to fail.
 
brisbanemackem said:
Your obviously upset and I did not mean to offend you as I know you are a due hard fan, I was just pointing out that we had an ongoing debate about the finances and your stance was staunchly pro-Donald, whereas I said the accounts would not be filed promptly and would reveal everything. You admitted you had shared a few drinks with them, which can colour anyone's judgement. I am not suggesting for one minute any questions about your integrity or your obvious financial expertise. In fact when the accounts are eventually published we will all look to you for your expertise. At this point it seems my analysis and was correct though but if I have caused you any personal offense then I unreservedly apologise
Click to expand...

Apology accepted. And kudos for doing it, Many wouldn't have. I attempt to be even handed. When the pitchforks are out, that comes across as defending. I have personal experience of being involved in trying to turn round a struggling business. It's beyond hard, so I have an appreciation of what people are trying to do.
 
The Cabbage said:
They did tell us specifically and unequivocally that this wasn’t the case during the early interviews, though.
Click to expand...

That's the thing that baffles me. If they'd actually given the correct detail at the time, it wouldn't have been popular, but it would have been a passing glitch. Hell's teeth, even I needed to see the charges in Short's companies to confirm what I thought had happened.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top