• 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.

Loans/ Debt to the owners

Status
Not open for further replies.
Father Jack Hackett said:
Donald was on the radio saying, if the fans wanted to buy him out then £35m and he'd be gone. I think we know he wants, what he put in as well as the value of the parachute money. Along with his slimeball mate, the biggest enemies in the history of our great club.
Click to expand...
Exactly. I can buy that the parachute money was always going to Short and they just explained it badly. Short wanted to say he left us debt free, Donald wanted to sound like a big man paying £37m for a club. Don't agree that it's the right thing to do, but I could understand it. But any benefit of the doubt that any fan could give Donald is surely destroyed when, after knowing fans are well aware of how much he actually paid for the shares, he then came out and said he wanted over £35m for them. That from the horse's mouth, was all the evidence I needed to ensure I didn't give him the benefit of the doubt. He isn't just looking for a sale based on a whole club value of £12m, and he's removed the obligation to complete paying back the parachute. Really don't understand why, faced with that, any account on here would go to such lengths to repeatedly try to explain it away or say it doesn't matter
 

Boris Bear said:
Maybe those fans who kidnapped his daughter were just getting our money back
Click to expand...
I know you're making a joke (and a good ironic one). But, that story about his daughter is something I keep returning to. If someone of his age, experience, intelligence and career is capable of coming up with that then what does that say about him? It really shook me and still does. Nothing will surprise me after that. An incredible insight to the man.

And @Hep is someone with, err, "links" to the club so nothing has smacked me across the face more than his post saying "I would agree, the club is worth less than the £12.7m he effectively paid for it". SAFC worth less than a Premier League reserve defender? How far have we fallen?
 
ExiledonFront Street said:
I know you're making a joke (and a good ironic one). But, that story about his daughter is something I keep returning to. If someone of his age, experience, intelligence and career is capable of coming up with that then what does that say about him? It really shook me and still does. Nothing will surprise me after that. An incredible insight to the man.

And @Hep is someone with, err, "links" to the club so nothing has smacked me across the face more than his post saying "I would agree, the club is worth less than the £12.7m he effectively paid for it". SAFC worth less than a Premier League reserve defender? How far have we fallen?
Click to expand...

I think both these points go a long way to explaining where we are at. Donald seems a very insecure character. When he was doing the Podcasts he seemed desperate to be liked. If we were to fluke the play offs we'd likely be spending more on a striker than he got for 'saving the club'. He'd hate that and likely see it as a personal betrayal.
 
Father Jack Hackett said:
Donald was on the radio saying, if the fans wanted to buy him out then £35m and he'd be gone. I think we know he wants, what he put in as well as the value of the parachute money. Along with his slimeball mate, the biggest enemies in the history of our great club.
Click to expand...
Imagine Mcmaremoney with his assistant David Boils managing us with Chodwell and Ndong ( to name but 2) playing CM and Stumpy and Brylcream boy owning us.
 
timeforheroes1 said:
No surprise the forum wanker is defending them . Prick
Click to expand...
Get a grip man, this let's boo the owners act is tedious.
Guinness Guzzler said:
So are we starting to find some common ground then? Donald (well, Madrox, but let's keep it simple) bought the shares for £12m. Nothing he has done has increased that value (in fact its likely dropped as we have no parachute payments and have made next to no progress on the pitch).

Does this mean we agree that £4m for Donald's 34% is about right, if not on the high side? And even if he's also fed £10m in since buying it, that doesn't increase the worth of his shares due to the lack of progress and thus the value of the club not increasing? In fact, if they have been put in as a loan, so he's owed £10m, then his shares would be worthless because they're only worth £4m even if the club doesn't owe anyone £10m? After all the £12m was for a "debt free" club

Assuming those points are all agreed, and they seem to be, we're basically on the same page. The difference is that I don't trust Donald at all. I don't think he'll be telling kld he can take the shares for nowt, he wants £4m paying back, and whatever else he's put in is simply a loss. I think if he was asking that, kld would have bought him out long ago. Certainly, given everything else that has gone on, I don't think you, I, or any other fan should be giving Donald any benefit of the doubt until he comes out plainly and tells us how much he's selling his shares for. There's a very good chance he's hamstringing the club, and that's the answer to your question of why people care
Click to expand...
Great post, and I agree.

My explanations of a lot of things are based on what happens before any investments proceed, but as you say once you factor in the actual progress, the value of the club is most probably less.

So any sale will come down to the value of the goodwill and potential rather than the asset value. e.g. what someone is willing to pay.
 
Last edited:
ExiledonFront Street said:
I know you're making a joke (and a good ironic one). But, that story about his daughter is something I keep returning to. If someone of his age, experience, intelligence and career is capable of coming up with that then what does that say about him? It really shook me and still does. Nothing will surprise me after that. An incredible insight to the man.

And @Hep is someone with, err, "links" to the club so nothing has smacked me across the face more than his post saying "I would agree, the club is worth less than the £12.7m he effectively paid for it". SAFC worth less than a Premier League reserve defender? How far have we fallen?
Click to expand...
I’ve said before and am adamant that if someone had done to my daughter what he alleged they would have been in a police cell before their feet touched the ground. I certainly wouldn’t have invited them into my home and had a drink with them as he intimated.
I admit like many I was taken in by them but when they transferred £20million or so to Madrox then wrote it off which GOM said was legal, I am disgusted they could get away with it. I feel if they had been successful and walked away with a good profit I wouldn’t have begrudged it but a succession of failures I feel they should be lucky if they keep whatever the put into the club.
 
nyron4england said:
considering we claim to have a mostly working class fanbase, there appears to be an abundance of newly qualified business analysts and accountants amongst us.
Click to expand...
Exactly. @Hep has suggested that it is possible to have paid a large part of the parachute payments AND have made loans. It needs pretty quick clarification and I would have thought it wouldn't be difficult for KLD to clear this up. I totally get that Madrox are shady at best and dishonest and deceiptful (and rather crooked) at worst but all Hep is doing is giving alternative explanations. He doesn't deserve the abuse he is getting. That said it is pretty clear that it would be best for all concerned that Madrox and SAFC part company and we can draw a line on what has been a pretty awful ownership period.
 
stevo said:
Dear me sounds like he is like a gambler chasing bets.I think you could be right about the long game here.They can neither keep putting in on a mthly basis or even worse bankroll replacing up to 15 players in the champo.We could be close to the end game here
Click to expand...
I'd guess its would not be far away. Don't forget that a figure of £21.1m was being touted that the yshareholders had to put in up to Christmas If I got it right. That would be a few million from Donald alone so hopefully he will not be too far away from seeing the light.
 
Hep said:
I would agree, the club is worth less than the £12.7m he effectively paid for it. He hasn't got a chance of getting £40m+
Click to expand...

Does he want that for his own shares, those of himself, Sartori and Methven OR is that what he's valued the WHOLE club at and he wants a pro rata cut of that £40m for his 34%
 
10 Gary Rowells said:
Exactly. @Hep has suggested that it is possible to have paid a large part of the parachute payments AND have made loans. It needs pretty quick clarification and I would have thought it wouldn't be difficult for KLD to clear this up. I totally get that Madrox are shady at best and dishonest and deceiptful (and rather crooked) at worst but all Hep is doing is giving alternative explanations. He doesn't deserve the abuse he is getting. That said it is pretty clear that it would be best for all concerned that Madrox and SAFC part company and we can draw a line on what has been a pretty awful ownership period.
Click to expand...
unfortunately on this board people like to dismiss people's opinion, often being downright rude and abusive, without putting forward their own credentials.

people don't like to hear anything against their narrative sadly. common theme nowadays.
 
nyron4england said:
unfortunately on this board people like to dismiss people's opinion, often being downright rude and abusive, without putting forward their own credentials.

people don't like to hear anything against their narrative sadly. common theme nowadays.
Click to expand...
This board represents society then. Decide your position and ensure every new development suits your own set narrative. That Madrox need to leave is a given. That the club has had a bad few weeks/months is a given. That doesn't mean every single development is part of a wider conspiracy. I recall on the day we appointed Neil (I think) there was a post stating that 'everything in this club is rancid top to bottom'. I suggested otherwise and we saw examples of that on Tuesday in dealing with that awful mediacl emergency.
 
Lord Alfred said:
Does he want that for his own shares, those of himself, Sartori and Methven OR is that what he's valued the WHOLE club at and he wants a pro rata cut of that £40m for his 34%
Click to expand...
I've no idea what his valuation of the club is, but the calculation is easy.

£37m - £25m parachute payments = £12m effective price when they purchased it for the whole club.

The next question is has it gone up or down in value since. Some things would have increased the value such as no longer having financial liabilities for players' contracts like Cattermole, not having the costs of a large academy etc, but the lack of progress would decrease it, as would losing potential future high-value players from the academy.

So even if you say it's stayed the same, his shares are worth 34% of £12m or just over £4m
10 Gary Rowells said:
Exactly. @Hep has suggested that it is possible to have paid a large part of the parachute payments AND have made loans. It needs pretty quick clarification and I would have thought it wouldn't be difficult for KLD to clear this up. I totally get that Madrox are shady at best and dishonest and deceiptful (and rather crooked) at worst but all Hep is doing is giving alternative explanations. He doesn't deserve the abuse he is getting. That said it is pretty clear that it would be best for all concerned that Madrox and SAFC part company and we can draw a line on what has been a pretty awful ownership period.
Click to expand...
They would need a mechanism to pay back the parachute payments. That could be in the form of these loans, with a view to later capitalise them into shares, via a share issue but we think that hasn't happened, or a gift to the club which is unlikely.

My money is it's via a loan, which they may keep as a loan if it has other benefits (tax etc) and then maybes later capitalise it, or just leave it as a loan. It's only a problem if they want to take the money back out.
 
Last edited:
hertsmackem said:
isn't it that they wanted to buy the club but didn't have the money to do so. So they approached an ever desperate Short who thought about a way they could do it and himself rid himself of the club. You can pay me the parachute money that the club will receive (which of course meant we had little money to build the team back with, for which it is meant for partly) and pay it back as and when you can? in a nutshell or am i wrong?
Click to expand...
Right and wrong. It was a 12 month flip. Price too good to be true. BuY club cheap>Promotion>sell>quick profit>Feck off back down south with money on a few suitcases.
 
Hep said:
They would need a mechanism to pay back the parachute payments. That could be in the form of these loans, with a view to later capitalise them into shares, via a share issue but we think that hasn't happened, or a gift to the club which is unlikely.

My money is it's via a loan, which they may keep as a loan if it has other benefits (tax etc) and then maybes later capitalise it, or just leave it as a loan. It's only a problem if they want to take the money back out.
Click to expand...
I think that is where most of us struggle. They said they would pay the parachute payments back (even though using them in the first place suggested they weren't suitable owners). If they pay them back in loans it means - to the none accountant lay person - that the club will be obliged to pay that back to Madrox. To me, and most others, paying the parachute payments (which were borrowed from the club to buy it) in loans does not equate to paying them back. I just don't see how that works. Ultimately that will lead to the parachute payments finding its way back into their pockets. Surely?
 
Guinness Guzzler said:
Exactly. I can buy that the parachute money was always going to Short and they just explained it badly. Short wanted to say he left us debt free, Donald wanted to sound like a big man paying £37m for a club. Don't agree that it's the right thing to do, but I could understand it. But any benefit of the doubt that any fan could give Donald is surely destroyed when, after knowing fans are well aware of how much he actually paid for the shares, he then came out and said he wanted over £35m for them. That from the horse's mouth, was all the evidence I needed to ensure I didn't give him the benefit of the doubt. He isn't just looking for a sale based on a whole club value of £12m, and he's removed the obligation to complete paying back the parachute. Really don't understand why, faced with that, any account on here would go to such lengths to repeatedly try to explain it away or say it doesn't matter
Click to expand...
The reason is I hate conspiracy theories. The reason why I've tried to explain that the PP money doesn't matter is that I genuinely believe that.

e.g.
We know Short wanted £37M in total for the club

Scenario 1: SD pays ES £12m, then the £25M PP. ES writes off all the debt - which is near enough what happened. The press release says "SD buys club for £37m, ES writes off all debt" - both look good.

Scenario 2: SD pays ES £12M, but ES leaves £25M of debt which he later gets back equalling £37M. The club is £25M in debt, we get paid the PP money, the club is debt-free. The press release says "SD buys club for £12M, ES writes off all but £25M of debt" - not as good.

The point is, it's all about perception. Scenario 1 looks like they've some underhand dodgy deal has gone, whereas Scenario 2 doesn't. But the outcome is no different. In both scenarios, the SD has paid £12m and the club ended up debt-free.

I fully and wholeheartedly agree that the way they've shared information with the fans is nowhere near good enough, but we need to focus on the right problems.

What that problem is, is are the ownership team prepared to invest additional money at risk to try and increase the club's value by a return to the premier league, and secondly are they capable of investing that money in a way that will lead to that success?

So yes, I'm a bit over passionate about this issue, because we're chasing the wrong outcome. If KLD has money to invest I do not want him to buy SDs shares, I want him to invest it in SAFC and then SD will have a choice to match it or be diluted. Personally, I want him to match it. Getting a stronger squad is more important than anything else.
10 Gary Rowells said:
I think that is where most of us struggle. They said they would pay the parachute payments back (even though using them in the first place suggested they weren't suitable owners). If they pay them back in loans it means - to the none accountant lay person - that the club will be obliged to pay that back to Madrox. To me, and most others, paying the parachute payments (which were borrowed from the club to buy it) in loans does not equate to paying them back. I just don't see how that works. Ultimately that will lead to the parachute payments finding its way back into their pockets. Surely?
Click to expand...
It would depend on what they do with the loan. It could be there for years. It's only a problem if it's taken back out, but that's not the only outcome.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top