• 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.
I’m only up to page 43 so I assume he hasn’t sold it yet. However he is clearly a man child type and the risk of us getting sold to any old whopper is a real possibility.
 

Grumpy Old Man said:
Those assets are offset by other balance sheet items, and the price will also have to take consideration of trading performance. Share valuations are not a precise science, but the two starting points will normally be net assets and setting a price/earnings ratio (a multiple of profits if any). Another factor in this case is that Donald will want to recover his costs. It looks like they paid £12.7m for the shares, have put about £7.5m back in as cash, and need to repay the FPP loan. That comes to just under £30m.
Click to expand...
We've not seen any evidence of the FPP loan having been spent have we? So that money may be sitting there and can be paid back reducing the £30M to £21m, could that be feasible?
 
Super Colin Todd said:
Are you saying there isn't a problem at the club? As there has been since the tory twits, took over.....
Click to expand...
Legitimate question, where did you get the idea from that I'm saying there isn't a problem with the club?

You posted a link of an academic expert in the field who doesn't know the background to a situation but has been asked by TalkSport to give an opinion so he has basically said "well skimming this story it appears to be X,Y,Z" without actually understanding anything that has gone on before hand and I've said that doesn't help this situation, it causes confusion as it doesn't adequately explain where the parachute payments actually went.

At no point in the three posts involved have I said anything about Donald being good or bad or what state the club are in.

It feels like as so often on here, someone says X and that immediately turns into a "so you mean Y!", No, I've just said X.
 
flusheding said:
I've actually said that multiple times in my first couple of posts to this thread. I said there are legitimate arguments against Donald and listed some of them. I've got no issue with people saying Donald often says once thing and then does another or changes his tune.

My entire point is that people are still, 55 pages into a thread, spouting absolute bollocks about "stealing the clubs money". It's been explained multiple times by multiple posters that the SBC debt was club debt, it had a deadline for when it needed to be paid and Short was part of the arrangement who agreed the parachute payments were going to be used to clear that club debt.

I'm sure it'll be said tens of times again, every time GOM tries to explain to the 50th person who says "but they are stealing the clubs money to buy the club aren't they!??!"

Ellis was clearly not going to pay the 25m debt himself off, so the club was going to be owing that debt when Ellis sold the club to whoever sold it. In a normal world, the debt would have just been part and parcel of the club bought and then it would have ended up most likely with the parachute payments being used to pay off the debt anyway.

What other scenario do people seriously think was going to happen? A new owner would have just used their own money to clear the 25million after paying Short whatever he asked for and then also used the 25 million parachute payment as pure funding for players and transfers etc? Cloud cuckoo land stuff.

As much as people will say "but we actually are complaining that Donald said X and is now doing Y", you may want to read the majority of posts in this thread which are actually what I've mentioned above and don't clearly explain the situation.
Click to expand...

The scenario in which you just described as cloud cuckoo land was the very same scenario that Sd and cm said would happen.

It's this type of dismissive post that is actually incorrect that annoys me in the same manner that chancers etc annoy you I imagine.
 
Last edited:
riffraff said:
Errrrh THATS EXACTLY what I said.
Read it again. Stewart/Methven/Sartori didn’t pull £25m out of their back pockets either yet still ended up with SAFC in their portfolio. By using money owed to the club by the PL as part of the deal and telling everyone they’d put it back. Now they aren’t gonna put it back.
Click to expand...
they don’t have to put it back.. they were just stupid to say they would.
 
WildinHetton said:
Couldn't find anything on the SAFC website to say that so went ahead and paid for my seats. Like where I sit and the people around me but would have enjoyed the delayed payment if it was still available.
Click to expand...
I want to renew my grandson and granddaughters season card, but cant. tried to phone, no answer and no reply to email. I am sure it was on here or in the echo that all deadline dates are cancelled due to situation
 
Safc88 said:
Anyone defending these is not a safc fan, f***ing end of
Click to expand...

I don’t think I’ve seen one single person other than mad bob possibly defend them on this thread. I may have missed it mind.
But either way it would show posts defending these shysters are few and far between
 
Grumpy Old Man said:
Those assets are offset by other balance sheet items, and the price will also have to take consideration of trading performance. Share valuations are not a precise science, but the two starting points will normally be net assets and setting a price/earnings ratio (a multiple of profits if any). Another factor in this case is that Donald will want to recover his costs. It looks like they paid £12.7m for the shares, have put about £7.5m back in as cash, and need to repay the FPP loan. That comes to just under £30m.
Click to expand...
Cheers that makes more sense. So why is the asking price higher than that? Pure profit?
 
Coeus said:
The scenario in which you just described as cloud cuckoo land was the very same scenario that Sd and cm said would happen.

It's this type of dismissive post that is actually incorrect that annoys me in the same manner that chancers etc annoy you I imagine.
Click to expand...
Except it isn't the same. Roker Repport etc started questioning the fact that most people wanted the parachute payment money to be used on players and that was no longer available, which turns into Donald and Methvan saying they'd put that money back into the club, which turned into "we will put money in as and when is needed", to this point where it's probably unlikely they'll ever put in exactly 25million.
In my scenario a willing owner uses their own money to pay off SBC's debt, the club still has 25m parachute payment and the owner will need to fund the running of the club out of their own pocket, so it's an additional 25million. If that magical owner uses the 25 PP to fund the running of the club then it isn't then there for buying players etc and you're left with an owner "chasing" the running of the club with its own money instead of his own pocket.
 
Last edited:
wackyjacky said:
And the article in The Times?
Click to expand...

I used to play football with Martin Hardy, a nice and bright lad but black and white to the core. If there is a slant to be put on Sunderland whilst the Mags are in the process of such a mega takeover, I’m pretty sure that he would take pleasure in such an article. Mind you, the situation does appear as fishy as fuck..........
 
wackyjacky said:
But didn't they say that the money to FPP was owed by them and not the club so really £9m should still come off the figure?
Click to expand...

The money is owed by Madrox to FPP, and will, presumably, need to be cleared if Madrox sells its shares in Sunderland. So that repayment needs to be factored into the price.
 
ReaL Madras said:
I used to play football with Martin Hardy, a nice and bright lad but black and white to the core. If there is a slant to be put on Sunderland whilst the Mags are in the process of such a mega takeover, I’m pretty sure that he would take pleasure in such an article. Mind you, the situation does appear as fishy as fuck..........
Click to expand...
Tbf the chief reporter is Matt Lawton with Hardy as support, I've no knowledge of Lawton having any allegiances to the mags. I've no doubt Hardy might put a negative slant on it but Lawton is their main sports reporter so not sure why he would want to do it. As you say it's fishy as fuck and more to come out, no doubt.

Read somewhere there's supposed to be an expose on Sartori coming soon, will be interesting to see what that says.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top