‘The real story of the takeover’

Status
Not open for further replies.


Rizla said:
It is just disappointing that it's taken the Daily Mail to tease out the truth from them.

He originally said the parachute payments were a guarantee and not the source of the payments to Short which obviously was not the case.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. They may have decided to pay short off earlier, using this and replacing it themselves, which I think you'll find is what comes out in the wash.
 
Typical negative story on the eve of a huge game, this has happened pretty regularly recently.

I don't need to know the inner workings of football finances. We were £140+ million in debt 12 months ago and plummeting. Now the financial future looks secure and we are moving forward again as a club and this is all thanks to Stewart and Charlie primarily. That's good enough for me, I don't need to know anything else.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BNM
The childish digs in the article ensure I don’t believe much else, the Bromley and Davison jibes are akin to a Lad doing an article on their school placement trying to be edgy.

Coupled with him being a heavy slurper then I have my doubts about the facts they claim.
I have full confidence in SD putting this to bed and I would suggest others chill the fuck out too

rocky said:
Your complete and utter lack of self awareness is beyond staggering.
This thread is classic rat.
Click to expand...

He made the thread impossible to follow due to the cnnnnnut being on ignore
 
North Yorks Mackem said:
You've no problem with the owners taking the clubs money to buy the club?! Just cant believe that actually happened, but if it did you shouldn't be ok with it.
Click to expand...
The club was losing 1/2 a million a week, Ellis wasn’t going to let that happen for very long. I don’t recall a long list of takers at the time when he was trying to offload the club. We could of collapsed but Donald & Charlie took a chance on us when no one else was willing to. As long as it’s not through criminal activities I’m not bothered where the money came from. It’s similar to how the Glaziers bought Man Utd anyway.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jme
skullmeister said:
Typical negative story on the eve of a huge game, this has happened pretty regularly recently.

I don't need to know the inner workings of football finances. We were £140+ million in debt 12 months ago and plummeting. Now the financial future looks secure and we are moving forward again as a club and this is all thanks to Stewart and Charlie primarily. That's good enough for me, I don't need to know anything else.
Click to expand...

Plenty people said similar when Short was in charge; I even agreed with them in the early days of his tenure. But if these questions aren’t asked by people who can in the early stages and they aren’t properly held to account then history could repeat itself. We shouldn’t treat owners like messiahs or see them as ‘the club’. They’re temporary custodians with business interests. They should be commended for good work they do, challenged on bad work they do and always held to account.
 
Wearside Wanderer II said:
The childish digs in the article ensure I don’t believe much else, the Bromley and Davison jibes are akin to a Lad doing an article on their school placement trying to be edgy.

Coupled with him being a heavy slurper then I have my doubts about the facts they claim.
I have full confidence in SD putting this to bed and I would suggest others chill the fuck out too



He made the thread impossible to follow due to the cnnnnnut being on ignore
Click to expand...
Add that to comments about Donald/David Brent and Methvens political and chino preferences then it comes across as very bitter and personal.

Awful article.
 
West_Winger said:
“I know I’m supposedly worth £8m but somehow I’ve managed to find £50m in my piggybank and the EFL have seen that, so no problem.” That’s what Donald said last year when they took over. So he clearly didn’t have £50 million in his piggy bank.

Also the general consensus on here was that the parachute payments were never anything more than security for them paying Short. Now it seems that was never the case all along and the parachute payments were always going to go to him.

Parachute payments to help pay Short........
Click to expand...
The 50m was to ensure he had the finance to run the club going forward not to give to short
 
The Sheepfolds End said:
Plenty people said similar when Short was in charge; I even agreed with them in the early days of his tenure. But if these questions aren’t asked by people who can in the early stages and they aren’t properly held to account then history could repeat itself. We shouldn’t treat owners like messiahs or see them as ‘the club’. They’re temporary custodians with business interests. They should be commended for good work they do, challenged on bad work they do and always held to account.
Click to expand...
I agree with all of this however that piece in The Mail gets me on the defensive straight away. The childish and back handed personal digs at Methven, Donald and Davison are utterly pathetic.
 
rocky said:
Add that to comments about Donald/David Brent and Methvens political and chino preferences then it comes across as very bitter and personal.

Awful article.
Click to expand...

It’s bizarre that seemingly a fair bit of research has gone into it and then they’ve gone lowest common denominator in style. Could have been a very good article but they lose credibility with the tone.
 
The tone of the article is poor. Full of unnecessary digs and clearly designed to sow dissent within the fanbase. That raises questions regarding its honesty tbh. A neutral presentation of fact would have prevented the impression that this is a hatchet job.

The whole thing hinges on the SBC loan and the truth of Donald’s next actions. The parachute money has effectively been used to pay that off. That’s a different kettle of fish to the Glazer takeover of United that the article is insinuating is equivalent. That is the club prioritising debt repayment rather than a leveraged buyout. And the speculation that Donald is actually looking to sell up rather than seek investment is designed to be pejorative and lacks context.

Ultimately I’m not bothered if Donald doesn’t have a pot to piss in. I’ve been consistent right through from the short era. I’d rather the club lives completely within its means. If he’s trying to keep the club debt free I honestly couldn’t care less if he bought us for a quid. What is of far greater importance is the strategic direction he chooses. That is the key for SAFC moving forward - not yet more ‘investment’ for the fanbase to froth over.
 
Steve Leeds said:
I think its good to find out the truth but reading that article. What a hatchett job

"A one-time Samson the Cat, the club mascot, was appointed their new managing director. Tony Davison returned to the club he had supported since childhood, after working as a commercial director at Tottenham and Oxford United, as well as at Methven’s communications firm in London."
Click to expand...
Pink seats tick
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top