• 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.

Chizno1 said:
Well, the claim in the Times is that since the Y/E for those accounts, £11.5 million has been put into SAFC by Madrox by way of additional share capital. Of course, they don't expect us to twig that £9 million of that was from the loan from FPP.
Click to expand...

There's only been £9m of share capital (source: Companies House). That implies the rest is an intercompany loan.
 
Well, the truth will out as they say. Fair few people with egg on their face here.
 
beezer said:
OK I see. I presume they must have put something in, such as the money for will Grigg. Do we know where that came from or will that be reflected in the accounts that are due?
Click to expand...

Well, if the amount written off was around £20m, that implies they put in £5m during 2018/19 (the amount of the SBC loan moved by Short was £25m. They now say another £11.5m has been out in. £9m of that is increased share capital and the relates to the FPP loan. That leaves £2.5m, presumably via the Madrox shareholders.
 
Grumpy Old Man said:
There's only been £9m of share capital (source: Companies House). That implies the rest is an intercompany loan.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. The article claimed that they (Donald/Madrox/whoever) were saying that Madrox had put £11.5 million into SAFC. It definitely wouldn't be a surprise if the only actual cash that had been put in was the loan from FPP, with the other 2.5 million being intercompany loans.
 
Grumpy Old Man said:
Well, if the amount written off was around £20m, that implies they put in £5m during 2018/19 (the amount of the SBC loan moved by Short was £25m. They now say another £11.5m has been out in. £9m of that is increased share capital and the relates to the FPP loan. That leaves £2.5m, presumably via the Madrox shareholders.
Click to expand...
Willy Wonka and the golden ticket springs to mind here like
 
Red and white TID said:
I have asked you stuff on this before and have felt because you seem a real decent man you want them to being telling the truth which is fair enough, But if this is correct and not sure why 2 papers would lie about it as they will both get sued big style especially off our owner, if it is the truth and account’s will tell everyone 100% then you have to come out imo and distance yourself from this lot or you are as bad as them I’m afraid.
Click to expand...

I'm simply reserving judgement until I see the accounts for myself. What they're saying looks damning, but they got the parachute thing totally wrong, because they didn't spot the loan created in Drumaville.
 
Chizno1 said:
Absolutely. The article claimed that they (Donald/Madrox/whoever) were saying that Madrox had put £11.5 million into SAFC. It definitely wouldn't be a surprise if the only actual cash that had been put in was the loan from FPP, with the other 2.5 million being intercompany loans.
Click to expand...

Interco loans will also be cash.
 
Grumpy Old Man said:
Well, if the amount written off was around £20m, that implies they put in £5m during 2018/19 (the amount of the SBC loan moved by Short was £25m. They now say another £11.5m has been out in. £9m of that is increased share capital and the relates to the FPP loan. That leaves £2.5m, presumably via the Madrox shareholders.
Click to expand...
So they’ve basically put 7.5 mill of their own dollar in?
 
Grumpy Old Man said:
Don't get me wrong. I'm not denying there may be truth in it. Although I will say that draft accounts are, by definition, not final, so I'm not putting the black cap on until then. Let's just say that the allegiances of all the journalists involved leads me to suspect that altruism was not one their motives.
Click to expand...

so what do you believe is their motive? What do they have to gain from publishing negative stories about Sunderland’s ownership who the fans (generally speaking) are already sceptical of anyway? It’s hardly like theyre derailing a successful season or relationship is it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top