• 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.
Coeus said:
You said we couldn't afford cattermole contract at league one, quite correctly however he is being paid his full contract and you say it is common place.

It does appear to defending them for the sake of it and to hell with sense.
Click to expand...
I said he was will of been given a payoff as you have too if they are still under contract, I have no idea if it was his full contract or not. And how on earth is that defending anyone that is just stating a fact
Nelly The Elephant said:
Your inability to answer my question, thought that was pretty clear tbf....
Click to expand...
I've answered any questions you clown
 

Ale taster said:
“It’s no secret that I’ve been trying to sell Sunderland,” Short said on Sunday. “But I’ve waited until the right group came along that have the experience, finances and plan to take this great club back where it deserves to be.”

“Overall, my chairmanship has not gone the way I would have wished; the many high points of a decade in the Premier League have been overshadowed by the low points of the last two terrible seasons,” Short said. “I was therefore determined to ensure that I leave Sunderland in the best possible hands and in the best possible state to turn the corner. To achieve this, higher offers from less qualified buyers were rejected, and I’ve paid off all debts owed by the club to leave it financially strong and debt free for the first time since years before I owned it.

Ellis has a lot to answer for too.
Click to expand...

I dont know, he appears to have got an ok sale price in 35 to 45m whilst having lost north of 250m. As owners go there are many worse than he.
 
Redby-lad said:
Ellis has done them up like a kipper if he has insisted using 25m of money that would come in when he was no longer owner to pay a debt he ran up when he was but no-one could know about it as he wanted to look like he had left us completely debt free at time of sale. What was in it for the 2 being done up like kippers in that case....unless they foresaw the inflated 40m purchase price as a benchmark to their future (not too distant) selling price and their accountant had told them that the 25m could easily be wrote off as standard business practice. Greedy greedy b's.
Click to expand...
The only reason I can see for them wanting to say it was £40m was to make people think they were wealthy enough to afford that and try to put to bed rumours that they couldn't fund the club (worked well if that's the case!) or as you say it sets a bench mark for a future selling price. But that is daft, any buyer would look at the state of the business at the time of negotiating and value it based on it's assets/liabilities, expected cashflows etc. If you go to buy a car or a house you offer what you think it's worth, what the seller paid for it is totally irrelevant.
 
pwsafc said:
I said he was will of been given a payoff as you have too if they are still under contract, I have no idea if it was his full contract or not. And how on earth is that defending anyone that is just stating a fact

I've answered any questions you clown
Click to expand...

On one hand we cant afford them defending the decision to sell.

On the other it's completely normal to pay sold players off, widely believed to be in full.

Those two points contradict themselves, surely? Either way, doesnt matter.
 
Coeus said:
On one hand we cant afford them defending the decision to sell.

On the other it's completely normal to pay sold players off, widely believed to be in full.

Those two points contradict themselves, surely? Either way, doesnt matter.
Click to expand...
Widely reported? We have no idea what he was paid. Its just common sense that a league 1 club can't pay that sort of weekly wage, his wage was more than some clubs total wage budget
 
Ale taster said:
Well his choice of custodian now looks terrifying and we weren't debt free as he stated.
Click to expand...

The way it was initially explained we were, he gave sd 1 or 2 years to pay him. I could be wrong and it wasnt he who established it had to be paid by parachute, more so he needed them as security?
pwsafc said:
Widely reported? We have no idea what he was paid. Its just common sense that a league 1 club can't pay that sort of weekly wage, his wage was more than some clubs total wage budget
Click to expand...

Yep that's fine, completely agree but if they have been paid of in full, it doesnt help, does it. Either way, forget it.
 
Last edited:
mikemanc said:
The only reason I can see for them wanting to say it was £40m was to make people think they were wealthy enough to afford that and try to put to bed rumours that they couldn't fund the club (worked well if that's the case!) or as you say it sets a bench mark for a future selling price. But that is daft, any buyer would look at the state of the business at the time of negotiating and value it based on it's assets/liabilities, expected cashflows etc. If you go to buy a car or a house you offer what you think it's worth, what the seller paid for it is totally irrelevant.
Click to expand...
If it's a house then the price rarely goes down.
 
6inarow said:
Well they have put in £10mill on their terms to (by the looks of it) take ownership on their terms, they are still there, they are the clubs biggest investors so I would say they are still pretty interested, why would people think they wouldnt?
Click to expand...
What they have said is they put in around £10 m of the money they used in the first place from the club ie parachute payments into Madrox, but we have no idea whether that is true or not, is that just the loan from FPP who knows, we only have there word they will pay all that back which isn’t a great thought either
 
Zak's Dad said:
Apparently / allegedly so, both things are second / third hand information so not verifiable.

The stuff about the two players contracts were just an aside from Bob on a thread where he was trying to explain just how bad things were at the club, the bit about the money is just the amount floated about by the Times article - god knows what the real truth is regarding that?
Click to expand...

It was said by many people at the time we would still be paying them their full contracts, just spreading it over a longer period of time to ease the weekly budget.
 
Ericsgate said:
As unpalatable as it is, Donald has stopped the rate of decline and stabilised the club. It was heading for absolute certain bankruptcy.

It might seem like rock bottom now but think what it could have been like.

Anything built in the future has to have stable foundations. History will ultimately judge Donald’s era well, much in the way most people did not understand the tough medicine of Thatcherism until the context of 20 years had passed.
Click to expand...
The major factor that stopped us going to the wall was Short writing off the debt.
 
SVU said:
It was said by many people at the time we would still be paying them their full contracts, just spreading it over a longer period of time to ease the weekly budget.
Click to expand...

If what Bob says is true (and I've no reason to doubt him), that's what's happened.
With the benefits of hindsight that last contract extension given to Cattermole by the previous regime has been an absolute albatross around the neck of the club.
His weekly wage alone is the equivalent of some of the entire first team wages of some clubs in this division.
 
Grumpy Old Man said:
Tax advantages if you make a profit later.
Click to expand...

Does it provide a lot of utility also to move money about etc without announcing, eg investors dont have to named and you can write loans off between the pair?
Zak's Dad said:
If what Bob says is true (and I've no reason to doubt him), that's what's happened.
With the benefits of hindsight that last contract extension given to Cattermole by the previous regime has been an absolute albatross around the neck of the club.
His weekly wage alone is the equivalent of some of the entire first team wages of some clubs in this division.
Click to expand...

But does easing his wage but not total debt equate to value that his and oviedo performance provided?

There is no doubt they both should leave as they were unsustainable but it doesnt make sense to me to pay them off in full.
 
Last edited:
Coeus said:
Does it provide a lot of utility also to move money about etc without announcing, eg investors dont have to named and you can write loans off between the pair?
Click to expand...

This has come to light precisely because there is required disclosure. If the accounts hadn't been leaked, they would still have had to be filed later, and any write-offs would be obvious then. It's actually much easier to hide things where individuals are concerned, rather than companies. Companies are required to make information available publically which individuals aren't.
 
Grumpy Old Man said:
This has come to light precisely because there is required disclosure. If the accounts hadn't been leaked, they would still have had to be filed later, and any write-offs would be obvious then. It's actually much easier to hide things where individuals are concerned, rather than companies. Companies are required to make information available publically which individuals aren't.
Click to expand...

Both Maddox and safc are companies? So having two companies provides financial.movings that an owner of just safc wouldnt, right?

Also were not likely to be in a position to have a tax deductible profit in a year any time soon? So in this instance, that reason doesnt provide any utility?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top