It's a joke to try and paint it as such to be honest. It's like saying I've written off that £20m I owe you, but at least you don't have the worry of someone owing you money any more. Knew that's where we would end up though.
I’m sorry - maybe I’m stupid and I don’t understand - but this doesn’t make sense.
Interesting, the footballers most likely to want to play in the north east as those from the north east.
And that would be stage 1 of that planInteresting, the footballers most likely to want to play in the north east as those from the north east.
Imagine if we had good young players coming from, who we gave a chance and nurtured together.
I suppose, someone will say it’s a positive that we sell anyone decent at age 16, as we don’t know if they would be good at age 20, we don’t have to pay their wages and we get an immediate cash injection.
It means the new owners could just buy the club and then invest as they see fit, it can also mean they can fiddle their taxes of other businesses they have by offsetting investment into the club against other profit's, if they left the charge against madrox it would mean the new owners will have to put that 20 million in without any "benefits" to them.I’m sorry - maybe I’m stupid and I don’t understand - but this doesn’t make sense.
That’s under the assumption you purchase Madrox.
If you purchased SAFC from Madrox- they would still be on the hook for repaying the money they owe to the club.
Why remove a legal obligation to inject cash into an asset unless you did not want to inject it?
I’m intrigued as to how you are slanted this as a positive move when all others are not- even a football finance lecturer on Talksport was extremely negative.
Interesting, the footballers most likely to want to play in the north east as those from the north east.
Imagine if we had good young players coming from, who we gave a chance and nurtured together.
I suppose, someone will say it’s a positive that we sell anyone decent at age 16, as we don’t know if they would be good at age 20, we don’t have to pay their wages and we get an immediate cash injection.
let's just hope they sell to the right people who have a longer term plan, or possibly they might take some investors on who will allow them to have a longer term vision themselves, either way they're not as bad as wisemensay seem to think but definitely not as good as fyl2u thinks.I honestly believe supporters, and I’m one of them, would stomach League 1 and even mid table initially, if we were playing the youth and trying to build a team to progress further.
But something very significant has changed with the write-off. Any investment into safc will now be very much in the favour of the investor rather than the club. We will no longer be debt free. They might charge interest. It may not come at all. This can’t be seen as a good thing because it isn’t a good thing.It means the new owners could just buy the club and then invest as they see fit, it can also mean they can fiddle their taxes of other businesses they have by offsetting investment into the club against other profit's, if they left the charge against madrox it would mean the new owners will have to put that 20 million in without any "benefits" to them.
That's how I see it but I can see how they have contradicted themselves over the last few years about this 25million but in reality very little has changed, their options are 1 sell the club, 2 put the money back into the club or 3 let the club go out of business and lose everything.
They're going to sell the club in other words
That's how it works at any club that the owner puts money in, if you want your owner to fund the club then this is how it will work, if you don't want that then the other option is we remain sustainable and costs keep being cut as our income goes down.
Indeed, but the balance was a reality. It was in the clubs favour. It meant that either there would be a vehicle available to allow an easy injection of capital to get the club going (that wouldn’t burden us with debt) - or it would ensure that the asking price remained realistic. Now it’s been removed and neither of those things are available to us. It might be how things normally work but we no longer have something that was to our advantage. There’s no way that this should be equivocated or explained away. It’s a bad thing - plain and simple.
I agree 100%
Is it me, or is this arse about face!?! If Sunderland Football Club now shows a debt to Madrox surely the current or future owners can further asset strip and use this as a vehicle to take more money out of the club? Sorry if I'm being thick.
Should have added that this is Donald doing something that helps him but could hurt the club. It’s unambiguous and should remain so.
It’s not a good thing and shouldn’t be described as such. At best it may open up the possibility of ownership change that helps us in the long run - but it opens us up to debt, potential sharp practice and problems down the line too.
