• The first stage of the forum upgrades has now been completed but they remain in a degraded state with some features missing, normal posting/reading should now be possible.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    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.
Black Cat Gypsy said:
Wasn't this the type of contract the Lyle Taylor wanted? I think most clubs do that. But Donald doesn't want to do that.
Click to expand...
I was surprised to find out LT has a low basic wage , like all players at CAFC. He is out of contract at the end of June , we desperately hoped he would sign a new deal but it was never going to happen with our ownership issues. Terrible time for players who have their contracts ending , terms are going to be a lot lower. Players in the lower leagues will struggle to find a club. LT will be ok but won't be getting as big a pay day as he had hoped.
 

mikemanc said:
You really think people would have been upset about the club using it's own money to pay off its own debt? Obviously we all wish some sugar daddy would have come in, cleared the debt and given us a load of money to spend but realistically did anyone expect that to happen? If they had flipped it quickly they would have had to find someone willing to pay for arguments sake £40m but nobody would pay that on the basis that's what Donald claimed they had paid.
Click to expand...
The club was easily worth 40m. They only paid 12.7m. 25m was then coming direct from parachute payments to pay off external debt. So, yes, I believe people would be pissed off that new owners were getting a 40m asset for 12.7m and then using parachute payments which were meant to be spent on the club to pay off debt that was part of the purchase.

Why else would they lie about it? It's obvious they expected to have turned the club over and left before this came out. but now they are stuck and we are paying for it with the long term future of our club.
 
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...
Ad really love to know who the other higher bidders were
 
Lewberry pie said:
Wouldn't trust him with anything Donald and co related, he's not an objective observer he absolutely hates them and has done since Donald pulled him up on something a while back, he's also had articles pulled due to Donald's threatening to take legal action.
Click to expand...
In fairness Donald started a 'pile on' from his followers on Twitter. He also pulled SD up on a few things resulting in Donald going on a 'Twitter holiday' and playing the abuse card which we still haven't seen any evidence of.

Also, I think we need to step away from saying people have an agendas. Chris has an agenda so we should dismiss everything he says. Craig Hope is a Mag, The Mail is a Tory rag. Martin Hardy is a Mag and The Times is Murdoch rag. George Caulkin is Mag. Keith Downie is Mag mouth piece etc.. We even have people ignoring people like Kieran Maguire saying he knows nothing and we shouldn't listen to an "expert".

I'm sorry but these excuse don't wash anymore. Stewart Donald has been showing to a list, a chancer, a charlatan, a con man and a dishonest businessman.

I'd talk CW and his findings over anything our owners would say. At least Chris care about SAFC.
 
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...

“ or liquidated is taxable at 10%, rather than 20%.”

And that little bit is the trick that most people don’t understand or realise why people start companies and exit.

I was once persuaded to join a company as an Associate Director with a mid term view to equity. What I didn’t realise was that I was part of the main shareholders exit plan, as he had formulated a succession plan. He ended up walking with £3 million plus other elements and a tax position of 10%, whilst we had to work to clear the created debt for the buyout. The company paid back the debt a year ahead of schedule but it had lost its leader, moral and ethical compass. I departed shortly afterwards. I didn’t begrudge the guy his payday, as it was his company, but I did feel used and sold a duff situation. He spoke to me personally at the time and explained that his accountants had advised him to do this because the 10% opportunity may evaporate and the company was in the best position to do it without delay. It was a very smart move by him. After about two years after I left, I think that the two main shareholders that were left, got greedy, and pissed off clients. During that time, one of the shareholders passed away, sadly, but the guy whio was left drove the company to bankruptcy.

At the funeral of the shareholder who had passed away, the other twat asked me to rejoin which I said to him “this is ____’s funeral man, what the fuck are you thinking?” I
 
Black Cat Gypsy said:
In fairness Donald started a 'pile on' from his followers on Twitter. He also pulled SD up on a few things resulting in Donald going on a 'Twitter holiday' and playing the abuse card which we still haven't seen any evidence of.

Also, I think we need to step away from saying people have an agendas. Chris has an agenda so we should dismiss everything he says. Craig Hope is a Mag, The Mail is a Tory rag. Martin Hardy is a Mag and The Times is Murdoch rag. George Caulkin is Mag. Keith Downie is Mag mouth piece etc.. We even have people ignoring people like Kieran Maguire saying he knows nothing and we shouldn't listen to an "expert".

I'm sorry but these excuse don't wash anymore. Stewart Donald has been showing to a list, a chancer, a charlatan, a con man and a dishonest businessman.

I'd talk CW and his findings over anything our owners would say. At least Chris care about SAFC.
Click to expand...
I don't think we should dismiss everything he says just like I wouldn't dismiss everything Donald says, old Christopher has not liked Donald right from the beginning which is fine he's entitled to his opinion but throughout Donald's time as owner his criticism has ranged from wanting him to spend money to worrying the club will go bankrupt which is a bit of a contradiction.
 
Lewberry pie said:
I don't think we should dismiss everything he says just like I wouldn't dismiss everything Donald says, old Christopher has not liked Donald right from the beginning which is fine he's entitled to his opinion but throughout Donald's time as owner his criticism has ranged from wanting him to spend money to worrying the club will go bankrupt which is a bit of a contradiction.
Click to expand...

I don't see any contradiction there. And I can only congratulate him for seeing through Donald from day 1.
I don't know anything about him, but from your description seems a top bloke.
 
Last edited:
Lewberry pie said:
I don't think we should dismiss everything he says just like I wouldn't dismiss everything Donald says, old Christopher has not liked Donald right from the beginning which is fine he's entitled to his opinion but throughout Donald's time as owner his criticism has ranged from wanting him to spend money to worrying the club will go bankrupt which is a bit of a contradiction.
Click to expand...
Seems like Chris was the 1st to see through these impostors and should be thanked for not backing down and doing his best to expose them .
 
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...
I asked you who you think did the statement? You replied with safc you clown, theres a reason I rarely post on here anymore, I have a low tolerance for stupidity, you display this in abundance..... congratulations
 
Nelly The Elephant said:
I asked you who you think did the statement? You replied with safc you clown, theres a reason I rarely post on here anymore, I have a low tolerance for stupidity, you display this in abundance..... congratulations
Click to expand...
It's you who started the insults with putting jesus f***ing christ on the end of your post, if you can't take it don't dish it out. And as to your question I have no idea who did the Q&A ask the club I don't have aa crystal ball
 
Duncan H said:
Seems like Chris was the 1st to see through these impostors and should be thanked for not backing down and doing his best to expose them .
Click to expand...
Well I think they've done a really bad job with the football side but i still don't think they're imposters or crooks, just not good decision makers in running a football club.
 
Lewberry pie said:
Wouldn't trust him with anything Donald and co related, he's not an objective observer he absolutely hates them and has done since Donald pulled him up on something a while back, he's also had articles pulled due to Donald's threatening to take legal action.
Click to expand...
Enlighten me please? What did SD pull him up on and what were the articles?
 
Lewberry pie said:
I don't think we should dismiss everything he says just like I wouldn't dismiss everything Donald says, old Christopher has not liked Donald right from the beginning which is fine he's entitled to his opinion but throughout Donald's time as owner his criticism has ranged from wanting him to spend money to worrying the club will go bankrupt which is a bit of a contradiction.
Click to expand...
In Chris defence the mix signals from Donald probably lead to that. SD told us we had a "budget that most Championship clubs would be envious of" and at the end of last season he told us "we have the parachute payments which means we can give it a right go". That seems to say we have money to spend. But we haven't.

When you look at how the deal played out it's obvious SD hasn't got the money. He hasn't invested too much of his money into the club and is using our money to buy the club. No he has written off the loan which tells us he can't pay it back. I doubt he has the money to run the club.
 
pwsafc said:
It's you who started the insults with putting jesus f***ing christ on the end of your post, if you can't take it don't dish it out. And as to your question I have no idea who did the Q&A ask the club I don't have aa crystal ball
Click to expand...
Could have sworn we were talking about the statement not the Q&A? 🤷‍♂️
 
Lewberry pie said:
Well I think they've done a really bad job with the football side but i still don't think they're imposters or crooks, just not good decision makers in running a football club.
Click to expand...
I disagree, they ve set out to make as much money as possible whilst trotting out lie after lie and would of and probably will stil walk away without paying the money back
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top