New buyers put off by £20 million hole in accounts

[Grumpy Old Man]

So another porkie from Stu who said he could repay it at anytime?

Not at all. The loan is to Madrox. Because it came into Sunderland as share capital, Sunderland can't repay that £9m to Madrox. So Madrox will have to fund any repayment itself. That's why the £9m has to be factored into the selling price; Doanld will need to repay that loan on any sale (unless FPP simply acquire Madrox).

 

[Coeus]

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, 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.

What I'm speaking about is far prior to that.

The parachute payments are not going to be used to pay off Ellis, that's my job (Stewart D), Ellis has given me said term to pay, the parachute payments are purely there as security if I don't pay him.

That was the party line a couple of months in. So actually what you said was cloud cuckoo land was exactly the scenario that they said would happen? You seem to believe that a perfectly reasonable manner of buying the club is ridiculous?

Also, my messages could appear to be more snarkier than I am intending, so my apologies for that.

 

[molthemackem]

We're gonna be lucky to have a club, come the end of the year....

I hope your wrong marra.

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

Cheers that makes more sense. So why is the asking price higher than that? Pure profit?

If he is asking for more than £30m, yes. And that could well be a far bigger sticking point than anything to do with the intercompany balance.

 

[ighty seven]

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.

well he bought us didn’t he?

 

[MADBOB THE MAKEM]

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.

Grumps as I said before an arrangement has been set up to pay it back, everyone needs to calm down

 

[lN5]

Or basically a man who can not afford to buy and run safc uses the club's parachute payments to buy the club, saying it will be repaid. Now, with this figures, it's not going to be and written off as exceptional loss.

£50m down the back of the sofa iirc!!!

 

[molthemackem]

The only reason they own the club is because they agreed to use the clubs Para money to pay SAFCs/Shorts debt.
If they hadn’t then they’d possibly be in no better position to buy out Short than The Armstrong-Gray Gang or the Mystery Germans or Mystery Spaniards who presumably didn’t want to do that.
Then both parties were economical with the facts of the deal until the facts came out at Companies House.

I agree with your summation mate..Anyone still think these are not chancer's ?

 

[flusheding]

What I'm speaking about is far prior to that.

The parachute payments are not going to be used to pay off Ellis, that's my job (Stewart D), Ellis has given me said term to pay, the parachute payments are purely there as security if I don't pay him.

That was the party line a couple of months in. So actually what you said was cloud cuckoo land was exactly the scenario that they said would happen? You seem to believe that a perfectly reasonable manner of buying the club is ridiculous?

Also, my messages could appear to be more snarkier than I am intending, so my apologies for that.

Ha, in that case I think it loops back round to 'legitimate reasons to complain about Donald'. How many times did he change his story about how things were financed and who did what and what went where?

(It appears like) He says what people want to hear in a way that is, mostly resembling what happened, in a round about way, then gets questioned about it a month later and a little nugget/part of the story has suddenly changed.

I reckon best described in the similar fiasco about "largest budget" which what he actually meant was "the clubs entire budget is f***ing huge, we spend so much money everyone would love to have we we have available to spend" but chose to give a round about answer to a fairly direct question about transfer budgets. Why bring up the total outgoing of the club when specifically asked about a large transfer budget except to try and charm someone and give them a "nice" answer?

The internet is shit for tone, so I try not to take anything said on here too personally

 

[Wellaye]

"The explanation given to us by the owners is that writing off the debt was a condition of the £10m loan they took in October 2019 from US investors FPP, who had reversed on their initial intention to buy the club after undertaking due diligence.

However, the accounts we have seen - which the club have delayed publishing - are for the year ending July 31, 2019, raising the question of how did FPP insist on the debt being written off at least three months before making the loan agreement?"

Good question.

Donald In!!

 

[Safc88]

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

There still a few usual suspects

 

[Honess10]

Grumps as I said before an arrangement has been set up to pay it back, everyone needs to calm down

and they told you that. Both cut your hands with a Japanese knife, spat on them and sealed the deal. I hear ya

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

Ha, in that case I think it loops back round to 'legitimate reasons to complain about Donald'. How many times did he change his story about how things were financed and who did what and what went where?

(It appears like) He says what people want to hear in a way that is, mostly resembling what happened, in a round about way, then gets questioned about it a month later and a little nugget/part of the story has suddenly changed.

I reckon best described in the similar fiasco about "largest budget" which what he actually meant was "the clubs entire budget is f***ing huge, we spend so much money everyone would love to have we we have available to spend" but chose to give a round about answer to a fairly direct question about transfer budgets. Why bring up the total outgoing of the club when specifically asked about a large transfer budget except to try and charm someone and give them a "nice" answer?

The internet is shit for tone, so I try not to take anything said on here too personally

The sad truth is that Donald is one of the worst business communicators I've ever seen. He's perfectly capable of contradicting himself in a single sentence. He doesn't prepare, he is (to use a phrase beloved of civil servants about ministers) not on top of his brief, and has an alarming habit of extemporising under the slightest pressure. Frankly, I'd never let him near a microphone.

 

[Red and white TID]

The debt was shunted into a kind of half way house. In a dry, legalese sense of the word, the club was indeed free of both owner debt and bank debt. Also, what you seem to have heard doesn't tally with the claim that other buyers wanted the internal debt ported across, ie the club would only be free of external debt.

I wonder who claimed that

 

[Confucius]

Grumps as I said before an arrangement has been set up to pay it back, everyone needs to calm down

That is one reason why we shouldnt be calm, SD still being around

 

[Ashley In!!]

You must be logged on to see external links

Decent summary from the echo including a reminder of how they changed the way they talked about the original deal.

 

[KST]

ordinary football fans made good, wanting to help out a famous club and putting in millions of their own money = treacherous scum.

put your own money up and buy the club if you feel that strongly. our fans are getting so greedy and so needy that they're starting to sound like the scum.

Another fuckwit too worried about looking like a mag when the club is a mess yet again. Wake up man and worry about your club instead.

 

[Coeus]

Ha, in that case I think it loops back round to 'legitimate reasons to complain about Donald'. How many times did he change his story about how things were financed and who did what and what went where?

(It appears like) He says what people want to hear in a way that is, mostly resembling what happened, in a round about way, then gets questioned about it a month later and a little nugget/part of the story has suddenly changed.

I reckon best described in the similar fiasco about "largest budget" which what he actually meant was "the clubs entire budget is f***ing huge, we spend so much money everyone would love to have we we have available to spend" but chose to give a round about answer to a fairly direct question about transfer budgets. Why bring up the total outgoing of the club when specifically asked about a large transfer budget except to try and charm someone and give them a "nice" answer?

The internet is shit for tone, so I try not to take anything said on here too personally

I don't mind the budget thing, I don't even find it disingenuous, just a case of people getting mixed up with what could be construed as ambiguous language.

But for SD & Charlie to say they are responsible for the payment, not the parachute, it's there for security only, clearly and completely unambiguously to then say at the end of the season "it was always been earmarked in this manner" is a pretty emotive subject in my opinion.

Anyway, you get where I am coming from. The calm "factual" posts are not always the final word.

You must be logged on to see external links

Decent summary from the echo including a reminder of how they changed the way they talked about the original deal.

Thank the lord, I was starting to get a touch nervous that I had dreamt it all up as I have been crowing on about this for a year now.

 

[Red and white TID]

Grumps as I said before an arrangement has been set up to pay it back, everyone needs to calm down

Has it bollocks that why it’s been put in accounts because it’s not to be paid back that’s the whole point bullshit Bob strikes again

 

[GBSAFC]

The more I read the bleaker it's looking
Im trying to see a realistic way out from this... Easy option is a new owner buyout but as we've learned many fear the dodgy purchase black hole...

On the other hand if footballs is fucked because of corona virus and the parachute payment are gone... How are they going to cover the overheads???