• The forum upgrades are now largely complete.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

Season Card Q&A

Status
Not open for further replies.

Definitely Maybe said:
I'm not angry as such, more disgruntled.

There seems to be a pattern of the club/owners pushing things as far as they can then backtracking when they go too far.

Charlie calls fans parasites, fans complain, Charlie apologises

The club tell non-ST holders they have to buy a Walsall ticket to qualify for a Wembley ticket. Fans complain, the club blame it on an error on the website and say that was never the intention. Yet we later see the footage on STID of Charlie pushing the idea to make an extra £60k and maximise revenue

Charlie repeatedly says SD is staying away because he's had death threats and personal abuse. Fans complain. SD later says it isn't true and he was just having a break because he'd promised his family he'd spend more time with them

Charlie says Sunderland fans are a disease, we're "unbelievably uneducated in business" and are running around like a drunk girl with mascara on our face. Fans complain. Charlie half-heartedly apologises but also claims he only said it because he'd been provoked despite numerous fans from the meeting saying this was not the case.

And then this - club tries to fleece fans, fans complain, FSA points out what they're doing is illegal, club (in a fashion) backtracks.

I'm just weary of them. Even ignoring the fact they've created a situation where its impossible to support the club financially without completely ripping yourself off, their intention was to take our money and offer something only an absolute moron would take (in your own words ;)) in return. They've treated us with absolute contempt and only partially backtracked when people rightfully kicked off.
Click to expand...


Great post, they have pushed it all the way on every occasion, and only backed down when people stand up to them.

Well, fuck you Cherry trousers, and fuck you Mr Duck, lets see if you can get your £20million gift out of the club in your selling price. I f***ing despise these 2.
 
Maggie1973 said:
I’m sure the RR and WMS have their reasons and own agendas. Not long ago they were dining at the top table
Click to expand...
RR definitely. WMS were always quite cynical of Donald though. I believe Chris Weatherspoon spotted some inaccuracies in the takeover price early on and Donald basically ignored/fucked him off which is why he/they started to dig deeper.
 
Last edited:
Mackem00 said:
What's your interpretation of the £20m like?
Click to expand...

League regulations meant that to pay Ellis Short back for paying off the last £25m of the club's own existing debt, the new owners had to put the £25m from the parachute payments through Madrox and make it look like a loan, which was later written off because it never really was a loan, it was the club paying off its own debt.

The £20m "hole" never really existed. It wasn't a loan. The club paid its own debt, end of story. Nothing illegal, nothing immoral, nothing needing to be paid back into the club, just the club paying off its own debt, with Madrox standing in between the club and Ellis Short because of the league rules.

A complete non-story that is being twisted into something it isn't by certain parties with agendas against the owners.
 
fyl2u said:
League regulations meant that to pay Ellis Short back for paying off the last £25m of the club's own existing debt, the new owners had to put the £25m from the parachute payments through Madrox and make it look like a loan, which was later written off because it never really was a loan, it was the club paying off its own debt.

The £20m "hole" never really existed. It wasn't a loan. The club paid its own debt, end of story. Nothing illegal, nothing immoral, nothing needing to be paid back into the club, just the club paying off its own debt, with Madrox standing in between the club and Ellis Short because of the league rules.

A complete non-story that is being twisted into something it isn't by certain parties with agendas against the owners.
Click to expand...

No because initially it was clearly talked about us being debt free when they took over, why would they say this if they actually had a 20m debt to Short?
 
fyl2u said:
League regulations meant that to pay Ellis Short back for paying off the last £25m of the club's own existing debt, the new owners had to put the £25m from the parachute payments through Madrox and make it look like a loan, which was later written off because it never really was a loan, it was the club paying off its own debt.

The £20m "hole" never really existed. It wasn't a loan. The club paid its own debt, end of story. Nothing illegal, nothing immoral, nothing needing to be paid back into the club, just the club paying off its own debt, with Madrox standing in between the club and Ellis Short because of the league rules.

A complete non-story that is being twisted into something it isn't by certain parties with agendas against the owners.
Click to expand...

Nope, as I've posted to you before, the only people who have twisted the situation are the owners.

May 2018 From 11 minutes in;


You must be logged on to see external links

The Roker Rapport Podcast team are back again this week for an extra special exclusive episode in which our new owners discuss the club and answer your questions! As always, you can catch this week’s show on iTunes, Acast and YouTube.
rokerreport.sbnation.com

' Methven: People have been saying about Ellis Short taking the parachute payments going forward, that's not the case. What's happening is is that Ellis Short is enabling us and allowing us to pay for the club over a period of time to try and ensure that we've got enough cashflow in the meantime, working capital is the phrase, to actually put right some of these things that need to be put right. If one had to pay him the full £40 million up front and then had to cover everything needed in the short term that would be difficult for almost anyone to do, tha's an awful lot of cash. So he has accepted that he will need to be paid out gradually. Now, what then happens is then when somebody is owed money effectively in that situation, by us, they then need to take some security over the eventuality that we then turn round and say one day well we're not gonna pay you. The thing which is most easy to put that security against the parachute payments. So, it's security for Ellis to make sure he does get paid out his £40 million, but it is not like he is going to be turning up here on the day the premier league parachute payment arrives with a big sack over his back and waiting to take it back to Florida.'

June 2018 from 1:00:18;


You must be logged on to see external links

Sunderland owner Stewart Donald joined us for yet another in-depth chat about every single thing going on around the club at the moment. As always, you can catch this week’s show on iTunes, Acast and YouTube.
rokerreport.sbnation.com

'CB: Basically people want to know does the club owe Ellis Short £40 million and have the parachute payments as collateral?
SD: No, I, I owe Ellis
CB: You owe Ellis and it's done against the parachutes
SD: And it's a little bit more than that cos there's a bit of a hole.'

From 1:01:14;

'SD: The reality of it is Sunderland doesn't owe any money. Ellis has wiped the debt off, so the issue is mine. Now if I don't pay him, he has a call on those payments.'

From 1:05:10;

'SD: The basic bottom line is Sunderland has no debt, Ellis has wiped it off, I'll pay Ellis.'

From 1:07:48;

'CB: SBC was the company we owed well Ellis short owed are we all done with them, they're finished?
SD: Yeah um as part of the agreement he had to settle the debts and he couldn't quite settle them on completion because the banks didn't move as quickly so we completed on the proviso that he would clear those debts. He has done that um so they've gone, so there's no debt. But he as we mentioned at the start he's got a charge on um well we were over cautious for him, to me he didn't need them both but I wasn't going to fall out over it. He wanted a property charge so he's got a property charge on the Academy of Light not the stadium, we refused the stadium he wanted a charge on everything, we said no, the academy was part of the deal it has got a property value or whatever if you want a charge in case I don't pay you, you can have it over that. So that was valued and then he wanted a charge over the parachute payments a well because it was physical cash well alright if you have a charge over the parachute payments if I didn't pay you, you don't need a charge over the academy and in the end I just went ok fine, it doesnt matter cos you're gonna get paid so just have the charge, and I think the agreement is that as that money then goes down, the charge reduces and then it goes. So, as I pay Ellis which will all be done by within 2 years, he then removes those charges. The position should then be the club has no debt, has no charges, we don't want an overdraft and we then need to see whether or not the club can function without me feeding it every year.'
 
fyl2u said:
League regulations meant that to pay Ellis Short back for paying off the last £25m of the club's own existing debt, the new owners had to put the £25m from the parachute payments through Madrox and make it look like a loan, which was later written off because it never really was a loan, it was the club paying off its own debt.

The £20m "hole" never really existed. It wasn't a loan. The club paid its own debt, end of story. Nothing illegal, nothing immoral, nothing needing to be paid back into the club, just the club paying off its own debt, with Madrox standing in between the club and Ellis Short because of the league rules.

A complete non-story that is being twisted into something it isn't by certain parties with agendas against the owners.
Click to expand...
That's fair enough but why was Donald telling anyone who would listen that he'd payed £40m for the club when he clearly didn't?
 
Chizno1 said:
Nope, as I've posted to you before, the only people who have twisted the situation are the owners.

May 2018 From 11 minutes in;


You must be logged on to see external links

The Roker Rapport Podcast team are back again this week for an extra special exclusive episode in which our new owners discuss the club and answer your questions! As always, you can catch this week’s show on iTunes, Acast and YouTube.
rokerreport.sbnation.com

' Methven: People have been saying about Ellis Short taking the parachute payments going forward, that's not the case. What's happening is is that Ellis Short is enabling us and allowing us to pay for the club over a period of time to try and ensure that we've got enough cashflow in the meantime, working capital is the phrase, to actually put right some of these things that need to be put right. If one had to pay him the full £40 million up front and then had to cover everything needed in the short term that would be difficult for almost anyone to do, tha's an awful lot of cash. So he has accepted that he will need to be paid out gradually. Now, what then happens is then when somebody is owed money effectively in that situation, by us, they then need to take some security over the eventuality that we then turn round and say one day well we're not gonna pay you. The thing which is most easy to put that security against the parachute payments. So, it's security for Ellis to make sure he does get paid out his £40 million, but it is not like he is going to be turning up here on the day the premier league parachute payment arrives with a big sack over his back and waiting to take it back to Florida.'

June 2018 from 1:00:18;


You must be logged on to see external links

Sunderland owner Stewart Donald joined us for yet another in-depth chat about every single thing going on around the club at the moment. As always, you can catch this week’s show on iTunes, Acast and YouTube.
rokerreport.sbnation.com

'CB: Basically people want to know does the club owe Ellis Short £40 million and have the parachute payments as collateral?
SD: No, I, I owe Ellis
CB: You owe Ellis and it's done against the parachutes
SD: And it's a little bit more than that cos there's a bit of a hole.'

From 1:01:14;

'SD: The reality of it is Sunderland doesn't owe any money. Ellis has wiped the debt off, so the issue is mine. Now if I don't pay him, he has a call on those payments.'

From 1:05:10;

'SD: The basic bottom line is Sunderland has no debt, Ellis has wiped it off, I'll pay Ellis.'

From 1:07:48;

'CB: SBC was the company we owed well Ellis short owed are we all done with them, they're finished?
SD: Yeah um as part of the agreement he had to settle the debts and he couldn't quite settle them on completion because the banks didn't move as quickly so we completed on the proviso that he would clear those debts. He has done that um so they've gone, so there's no debt. But he as we mentioned at the start he's got a charge on um well we were over cautious for him, to me he didn't need them both but I wasn't going to fall out over it. He wanted a property charge so he's got a property charge on the Academy of Light not the stadium, we refused the stadium he wanted a charge on everything, we said no, the academy was part of the deal it has got a property value or whatever if you want a charge in case I don't pay you, you can have it over that. So that was valued and then he wanted a charge over the parachute payments a well because it was physical cash well alright if you have a charge over the parachute payments if I didn't pay you, you don't need a charge over the academy and in the end I just went ok fine, it doesnt matter cos you're gonna get paid so just have the charge, and I think the agreement is that as that money then goes down, the charge reduces and then it goes. So, as I pay Ellis which will all be done by within 2 years, he then removes those charges. The position should then be the club has no debt, has no charges, we don't want an overdraft and we then need to see whether or not the club can function without me feeding it every year.'
Click to expand...
I've replied to this because he won't.
 
fyl2u said:
League regulations meant that to pay Ellis Short back for paying off the last £25m of the club's own existing debt, the new owners had to put the £25m from the parachute payments through Madrox and make it look like a loan, which was later written off because it never really was a loan, it was the club paying off its own debt.

The £20m "hole" never really existed. It wasn't a loan. The club paid its own debt, end of story. Nothing illegal, nothing immoral, nothing needing to be paid back into the club, just the club paying off its own debt, with Madrox standing in between the club and Ellis Short because of the league rules.

A complete non-story that is being twisted into something it isn't by certain parties with agendas against the owners.
Click to expand...
Theyve said they are paying it back though. Right now would be very f***ing useful.
 
Definitely Maybe said:
I'm not angry as such, more disgruntled.

There seems to be a pattern of the club/owners pushing things as far as they can then backtracking when they go too far.

Charlie calls fans parasites, fans complain, Charlie apologises

The club tell non-ST holders they have to buy a Walsall ticket to qualify for a Wembley ticket. Fans complain, the club blame it on an error on the website and say that was never the intention. Yet we later see the footage on STID of Charlie pushing the idea to make an extra £60k and maximise revenue

Charlie repeatedly says SD is staying away because he's had death threats and personal abuse. Fans complain. SD later says it isn't true and he was just having a break because he'd promised his family he'd spend more time with them

Charlie says Sunderland fans are a disease, we're "unbelievably uneducated in business" and are running around like a drunk girl with mascara on our face. Fans complain. Charlie half-heartedly apologises but also claims he only said it because he'd been provoked despite numerous fans from the meeting saying this was not the case.

And then this - club tries to fleece fans, fans complain, FSA points out what they're doing is illegal, club (in a fashion) backtracks.

I'm just weary of them. Even ignoring the fact they've created a situation where its impossible to support the club financially without completely ripping yourself off, their intention was to take our money and offer something only an absolute moron would take (in your own words ;)) in return. They've treated us with absolute contempt and only partially backtracked when people rightfully kicked off.
Click to expand...


Spot on that like mate.
 
fyl2u said:
League regulations meant that to pay Ellis Short back for paying off the last £25m of the club's own existing debt, the new owners had to put the £25m from the parachute payments through Madrox and make it look like a loan, which was later written off because it never really was a loan, it was the club paying off its own debt.

The £20m "hole" never really existed. It wasn't a loan. The club paid its own debt, end of story. Nothing illegal, nothing immoral, nothing needing to be paid back into the club, just the club paying off its own debt, with Madrox standing in between the club and Ellis Short because of the league rules.

A complete non-story that is being twisted into something it isn't by certain parties with agendas against the owners.
Click to expand...
Where is the confusion then? Why would they say they might or atleast could put it back?
 
Last edited:
Chizno1 said:
Nope, as I've posted to you before, the only people who have twisted the situation are the owners.

May 2018 From 11 minutes in;


You must be logged on to see external links

The Roker Rapport Podcast team are back again this week for an extra special exclusive episode in which our new owners discuss the club and answer your questions! As always, you can catch this week’s show on iTunes, Acast and YouTube.
rokerreport.sbnation.com

' Methven: People have been saying about Ellis Short taking the parachute payments going forward, that's not the case. What's happening is is that Ellis Short is enabling us and allowing us to pay for the club over a period of time to try and ensure that we've got enough cashflow in the meantime, working capital is the phrase, to actually put right some of these things that need to be put right. If one had to pay him the full £40 million up front and then had to cover everything needed in the short term that would be difficult for almost anyone to do, tha's an awful lot of cash. So he has accepted that he will need to be paid out gradually. Now, what then happens is then when somebody is owed money effectively in that situation, by us, they then need to take some security over the eventuality that we then turn round and say one day well we're not gonna pay you. The thing which is most easy to put that security against the parachute payments. So, it's security for Ellis to make sure he does get paid out his £40 million, but it is not like he is going to be turning up here on the day the premier league parachute payment arrives with a big sack over his back and waiting to take it back to Florida.'

June 2018 from 1:00:18;


You must be logged on to see external links

Sunderland owner Stewart Donald joined us for yet another in-depth chat about every single thing going on around the club at the moment. As always, you can catch this week’s show on iTunes, Acast and YouTube.
rokerreport.sbnation.com

'CB: Basically people want to know does the club owe Ellis Short £40 million and have the parachute payments as collateral?
SD: No, I, I owe Ellis
CB: You owe Ellis and it's done against the parachutes
SD: And it's a little bit more than that cos there's a bit of a hole.'

From 1:01:14;

'SD: The reality of it is Sunderland doesn't owe any money. Ellis has wiped the debt off, so the issue is mine. Now if I don't pay him, he has a call on those payments.'

From 1:05:10;

'SD: The basic bottom line is Sunderland has no debt, Ellis has wiped it off, I'll pay Ellis.'

From 1:07:48;

'CB: SBC was the company we owed well Ellis short owed are we all done with them, they're finished?
SD: Yeah um as part of the agreement he had to settle the debts and he couldn't quite settle them on completion because the banks didn't move as quickly so we completed on the proviso that he would clear those debts. He has done that um so they've gone, so there's no debt. But he as we mentioned at the start he's got a charge on um well we were over cautious for him, to me he didn't need them both but I wasn't going to fall out over it. He wanted a property charge so he's got a property charge on the Academy of Light not the stadium, we refused the stadium he wanted a charge on everything, we said no, the academy was part of the deal it has got a property value or whatever if you want a charge in case I don't pay you, you can have it over that. So that was valued and then he wanted a charge over the parachute payments a well because it was physical cash well alright if you have a charge over the parachute payments if I didn't pay you, you don't need a charge over the academy and in the end I just went ok fine, it doesnt matter cos you're gonna get paid so just have the charge, and I think the agreement is that as that money then goes down, the charge reduces and then it goes. So, as I pay Ellis which will all be done by within 2 years, he then removes those charges. The position should then be the club has no debt, has no charges, we don't want an overdraft and we then need to see whether or not the club can function without me feeding it every year.'
Click to expand...
Christ. Puts that argument to bed then! :) Top work
 
fyl2u said:
Ah, I've stopped listening to WMS and RR. The last few I listened to were full of lies, anti-owner propaganda and rewriting of history to make themselves look less foolish over the whole "joint statement" situation. To borrow a phrase from those people who mistrust the owners, "If WMS or RR told me it was raining, I'd have to look outside and check".

You do make some good points with regard to the reasons people might have been angry at first. I don't see how they can still be angry now that they have a choice between getting a refund or going with the streaming deal though. I mean, are you personally still angry about the new SC situation now that you've chosen to cancel?
Click to expand...
My 75 year old dad is on the DD scheme. Had I not told him about the new deal then he would have been stuck with as stream he had no use for.

Surely the onus should be on on the club to communicate, how can they assume everyone checks the internet for updates?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top