• 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:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm not criticising how the current owners have done it, they were in a really shit position and as long as the negotiation stance from Cattermole was consistently "I'm not leaving this club for a penny less than my full contract" - they only had 2 choices.

I am with the benefits of hindsight looking at what we could have had with that £40K per week last season and the next.

And if we are paying that next season, and need to sign a team (again) with little or no match day receipts? Our outgoings must vastly out weight our income.
 

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?


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.
Click to expand...
Maybe bonus payments for appearances, goals, etc that we now don't have to pay and I expect they both wanted to leave. Maybe some tax reduction for one or both if the payments we are making are classed as some form of redundancy/severance payment rather than a salary? (I've no idea on individual tax)
 
I just wish I could go to watch some football, the last game I saw live will have been like most of us at home to Gillingham and I remember how f***ing gutted I was walking out of th stadium, yet looking back now I probably shouldn't have even been there.

I'd still give anything just to be watching a game at the SOL.
 
mikemanc said:
Maybe bonus payments for appearances, goals, etc that we now don't have to pay and I expect they both wanted to leave. Maybe some tax reduction for one or both if the payments we are making are classed as some form of redundancy/severance payment rather than a salary? (I've no idea on individual tax)
Click to expand...

Good point, hadnt considered that.
 
LukeJH96 said:
Why would they not be? They are just playing the long game and want to get the club for what it’s actually worth.
Click to expand...

SAFC is in a pretty bad way at the moment. A more sensible "long game" would of been to of get involved before the January transfer window and inject some proper money in the Club to strengthen the squad. With a bit of cash it should be easy to get out of L1. You could then make a decent return on your investment.

If they stand back until SD runs you into the ground and they pick you up for £10 million because of the charge they have over the clubs assets, they will probably have invest a lot more to be anywhere close to promotion, than if they had back in 2019.

That £10 million appears to being used in keeping the club afloat, as Stewie is basically potless.
 
Black Cat Gypsy said:
Leaked accounts. Why didn't Madrox release the statement to The Times? The Times contacted them by never replied.
Click to expand...

The Times ( and WMS) have seen the clubs first attempt accounts, which can be changed up to the date they are legally required to be submitted to companies house.

The Times (and WMS) have not seen Madrox accounts. This will be where the "pay backs" to the club will presumably show they've been made after the SAFC year end date.

I agree no smoke without fire, but there's a lot of assumptions being made without having all the proof, i.e. Madrox accounts
 
RedFlag1308 said:
What does this mean. Paying back what you owe the club isn’t investing in it. So far they have put 7.5m in max. They owe the club a further 20m. You can’t ‘continue’ to do something you have never done.
Click to expand...


This 1000%
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’ll add to this that Donald consistently said we could afford to keep him as long as he was contributing! If Cattermole was desperate to leave then we wouldn’t have came to an agreement to keep paying him, we actively made sure he left the club even though he was our best midfielder last season, this is by a mile too and he was also our top scorer from central midfield!

He was contributing, we got rid of him anyways and we didn’t strengthen that area of the park.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Gobuchul said:
I can't believe that people still think that FPP are still interested in buying any football club.
Click to expand...

Extremely bizarre agreement, we're awash with dosh but we're now contractual tied to the Yanks for some piddly amount.....
 
RedFlag1308 said:
What a set of horrible lying, slimy fuckers. Where the statement isn’t painfully petulant and childish they are obviously trying to be ‘clear’ with yes and no answers.

Here’s the problem with that:

Q. Is Sunderland AFC debt free?
A. Yes.

No shit Sherlock. Here’s what happened. Short the vile c.unt included the remaining cost of the debt he put upon the club through SBC in the ‘cost’ for the club. Madrox then used the parachute payments to pay that debt off instantly, then took out another 10m loan in the name of Madrox. The club has technically been debt free since they came in, it’s the manner in which that debt was paid off which is the problem. Interestingly if they are going to run with this bollocks though, I assume this means the 10m Loan Madrox got from the yanks wont need a penny from the club to repay it then :lol:

Q. Will all parachute payment monies utilised by Madrox be returned to SAFC?

A. Yes.

How and why when there is no legal requirement to do so? furthermore if they can why is it in dribs and drabs? Are Madrox going hand to mouth and putting in all they can up to the level of 20m? Do they have the money sitting there but won’t pay the club back all in one so they can filter it in and cover black holes in the finances? Or are they just lying again. They will add this cost to the sale price and then claim to have paid it back once they get the money for the club.

Q. Does this process impact the sale of the club in any way?
A. No.

Lie. Point blank lie. How can it not. The asset somebody could be buying now has 20m less in legally obligated income. a figure which is more than the asset itself is worth

Q. Are Madrox continuing to invest in the club?
A. Yes.

What does this mean. Paying back what you owe the club isn’t investing in it. So far they have put 7.5m in max. They owe the club a further 20m. You can’t ‘continue’ to do something you have never done.
Click to expand...

A loan doesnt constitute as investment in my book either. It's a debt.
 
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?


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.
Click to expand...

They were entitled to it. We are just paying it over a longer period instead.
 
Coeus said:
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?
Click to expand...

Nothing to do with that. If a shareholder lends as an individual it will show in the company's accounts as a shareholder loan. Money moving between group companies happened in very group I ever audited or worked for. It's absolutely routine, as is the occasional writing off of balances. It's simply very visible.

The tax advantages have nothing to do with taxation of trading profits. In any event, Sunderland won't be paying any tax for a very long time, because it has around £200m in unutilised tax losses to offset against future profits. The advantage comes in the treatment of any capital gains made on the sale of any investments made by that company. If they make a large gain on the sale of Madrox, that profit goes, proportionately, into their indvidual companies which they set up to hold the shares. This is where the saving to them as individuals comes in; if they are the sole shareholder of that business (tick), and have owned it for at least two years (tick, as of a couple of months ago), then any gain arising when the company is sold or liquidated is taxable at 10%, rather than 20%. That's why the ownership will pass through companies until you reach the top ones owned by the investors as individuals.
 
SVU said:
They were entitled to it. We are just paying it over a longer period instead.
Click to expand...

They were only entitled to their contract being paid due to the offer we accepted.

It's not standard for players to be paid entire contract after being sold.
 
Grumpy Old Man said:
Nothing to do with that. If a shareholder lends as an individual it will show in the company's accounts as a shareholder loan. Money moving between group companies happened in very group I ever audited or worked for. It's absolutely routine, as is the occasional writing off of balances. It's simply very visible.

The tax advantages have nothing to do with taxation of trading profits. In any event, Sunderland won't be paying any tax for a very long time, because it has around £200m in unutilised tax losses to offset against future profits. The advantage comes in the treatment of any capital gains made on the sale of any investments made by that company. If they make a large gain on the sale of Madrox, that profit goes, proportionately, into their indvidual companies which they set up to hold the shares. This is where the saving to them as individuals comes in; if they are the sole shareholder of that business (tick), and have owned it for at least two years (tick, as of a couple of months ago), then any gain arising when the company is sold or liquidated is taxable at 10%, rather than 20%. That's why the ownership will pass through companies until you reach the top ones owned by the investors as individuals.
Click to expand...

Got you, it's better for their tax if they sell. Fair enough.

I'm looking at it in a far too simplistic manner I'm sure. Just goes to prove there are southerners uneducated in business matters as well as northerners. But an owner of Sunderland wouldnt be writing off debts etc and the two companies meaning two accounts brings in conflict of interest.
 
SVU said:
They were entitled to it. We are just paying it over a longer period instead.
Click to expand...
You have to wonder if there wasn't some way we could have done that and kept them at the club, just defer a percentage payment but allow them to leave on a free whenever they choose to do so.
 
A common theme on this thread and the board is for some posters to argue that we shouldnt really believe anything negative written about the club because of the source of the story.

It's the Daily Fail,sky,that shit rag the sun, Keith.Downie is a mag and Nixon nars fuck all are some of the regular comments.

I do sometimes think our backs against the wall,seige mentality has it's place but with the current owners we've had a history of what turned out to be accurate reports rubbished by the club at the time and this position is often taken by some posters on here.

Keith Downie breaks the news Maja is not going to sign a contract- Donald took to twitter to attack this story but we all know what happened next and plus other reports and Stid 2 actually suggested he was never going to sign and we knew this and wanted to sell his to Boredeaux for financial reasons.

"Takeover" story breaks leading up to the Play Off Semi- Rubbish again says Donald,he's not trying to sell safc. I actually heard someone say it was "sky making up shit to cause unrest at the club".

Chris Weatherspoon articles on our finances- Donald took to twitter again to rubbish them.

The latest Mail/Times articles-Same again.

There are more examples and of course you could adopt the view all of the above are just lies or part of a conspiracy to run us down.

Or perhaps a number of ex-players and interested parties in buying the club are so pissed off at missing out they have began a intricate attack plan using the press and social media to turn us against the club?

Of course it's worth remembering when the local press and fanzines were briefed about the Dell takeover by the club and it was very positive this news was welcomed by our support.
 
Mary Hinge said:
Extremely bizarre agreement, we're awash with dosh but we're now contractual tied to the Yanks for some piddly amount.....
Click to expand...
That piddly £10 m loan from FPP and how much have our glorious owners paid back according to them anyway that they “borrowed” from the “borrowed” parachute payments to Madrox, oh £10 m 🤔
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top