• 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.

Bears Beets said:
-The reports on Friday allege that Juan Sartori paid just £1 for his shares in the club. Is this the case and what is the justification for this?

Madrox responded: “Juan Sartori has invested millions of pounds into Sunderland and has done so via Madrox on an interest free, debt free basis to the same proportion as the other investors.”

Millions

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Click to expand...

Totally avoided the £1 for shares direct question - a typical politicians answer by sidestepping on to positive spin.
 
Helmerroids said:
Through all the obfuscation the message I get loud and clear is that Donald is going nowhere until he gets us out of League 1. At which FPP will take a majority holding, with SD able to walk away with a profit, or stay in a capacity of FPP’s choosing.

Trying to be optimistic (not easy I know), best hope is that we emerge from the wreckage of this season with a squad bolstered by some of the better players from the teams that really hit the financial skids. I think PP is capable of getting us out of the league, we’ve little choice anyway. Maybe the players will respond positively to no crowd, away teams won’t up their game as much.

That’s as much glass half full as I can muster!
Click to expand...

I admire your optimism mate but rest assured, if Phil Parkinson and Stewart Donald are in charge next season we aren’t going up
 
sounds dodgy to me;
sale agreed at 39.5 million, but using future parachute payments to pay for it?

I'm sure it's legal, but you could question the morality behind it, and indeed makes them look like cowboys!!

#DonaldOut
 
Gazoliver said:
@Grumpy Old Man
Sorry to tag you in something else!
Click to expand...

I've commented, briefly. on the £20m hole thread. The threads really need merging now, All I'm really going to say is that the responses appear to have been drafted by a legal advisor, and that the operation on the rules on recognition of impairment of asset values is in accordance with standard accounting practice. Paradoxically, if they hadn't done that, they could have buried the write off for another 12 months.
 
Granger said:
Totally avoided the £1 for shares direct question - a typical politicians answer by sidestepping on to positive spin.
Click to expand...
Does it matter if he put millions into Madrox as a loan or a share purchase? Either way he'll only get it back when Madrox sells the club.
 
PTR said:
I'm still not entirely sure this isn't all just normal "accounting" that goes on in all businesses all the time, and that someone is simply trying to stir up shit here.

As I said before, if the club has a £20m credit note on its books, then the asking price goes up by £20m (ish). If that credit note is removed, then the asking price simply goes down by £20m.
Its pretty simple, no?
Click to expand...
Must admit I'm struggling with it all,reading the statement it all seems reasonable ?
 
All or Nothing said:
Still a bit Cloak and Dagger to the Layman fans 😬
Click to expand...

As opposed to the disproportionate number of financial experts who get on here. :lol:


flusheding said:
Isn't Short a supposed billionaire yet he constantly took out loans to fund things? I don't think it's uncommon for owners to treat clubs like actual businesses which themselves take out loans instead of just emptying their own bank balance non-stop.
Click to expand...

Maybe it is a sign of the times and deserved, but Donald receives far, far more scrutiny than Short ever did.
 
Grumpy Old Man said:
I've commented, briefly. on the £20m hole thread. The threads really need merging now, All I'm really going to say is that the responses appear to have been drafted by a legal advisor, and that the operation on the rules on recognition of impairment of asset values is in accordance with standard accounting practice. Paradoxically, if they hadn't done that, they could have buried the write off for another 12 months.
Click to expand...
So,from an accounting point of view they've done nothing wrong ?
 
They say they have invested £9M and then £11M into the club in 2 years - do they say where they this money came from? It seems to be very convenient. Did they always have this money? Has it been borrowed i.e. has Madrox gone into debt. Just for transparency I would wonder where this £20M came from as I didn't think they had this wealth.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top