‘The real story of the takeover’

but the money is going back in now-to cover losses etc,,,,essentially he used the £30m to pay ellis earnly-then his onw money to pay debts..
Essentially what I posted at 7am.

‘The real story of the takeover’

Three hours and hundreds of posts from people trying to belittle the new owners running of a business, when most of them would struggle running a bath.
 


The real story of Sunderland's takeover... Donald and Methven could pocket £40m by selling again | Daily Mail Online

Four journalists and I’m pretty sure all of this is already in the public domain but there you go. Totally understand if you don’t want to click on a Mail link.
Thats what business people do, they set out with an idea when they go into business that will make them wealthy, its what every business does with a plan in mind. They are like any other business men, they are out are out to make money. Nothing wrong with that.
 
I told you in April that they were using the parachute payments to buy the club and you said i was wrong, now what,?

The Madrox accounts still show a creditor of £27.4m. As the only asset is the investment in Sunderland, it follows that this is almost certainly owed to Short. Donald has created confusion because of how he's phrased things. On 31 July, Madrox had an asset of £37m, the cost of its shares in Sunderland. It also had creditors of £9.6m
The problem is IF he sells and doesn't repay the £32 million that's being reported then he has basically took that from the club. That's why people are concerned.

Apparently bought the club for £37million from Short, used £5 million of his own money and used £32million of the club's. If he sells now for let's say £40 million. Would he repay the £32 million and take the £8 mil himself or would he take the whole £40 million, leaving us losing £32mil?

I'm going to write a fairly lengthy piece on group and acquisition accounting. A lot of the problem lies in Donald's cavalier use of English. In the article, it's implying £25m was paid direct to Short. On Twitter, he's only saying it was ringfenced to pay down debt. Those statements are actually conttradictory. Also, Madrox's accounts show other creditors of £27.4m. Their only asset is the shares in Sunderland. So if Short was paid in full via £5m from Donald, £9,6m from SAFC, and £25m in parachute, why is that creditor there? If the source of that creditor is the club, it would show as a group creditor, like the £9.6m. That leaves only Short or the directors as the other creditors. If it's Short, that means that Short wasn't paid for the shares with the parachute, but that it was treated as pre-acquisition and went to SBC. In that case, everything would be dealt with through the books of SAFC. The other alternative is that the £27.4m is owed to a hitherto undisclosed third party, or to the shareholders. The only thing that can be said with certainty is that there are so many unknowns that the situation is as clear as mud.

So you would be happy for them to take £32 million from the club's funds? Unbelievable

Stop thinking of SAFC in isolation. In group terms, everything from SJD downwards is the club. SAFC Ltd is just that part of the group that handles the football side.
 
Last edited:
So you would be happy for them to take £32 million from the club's funds? Unbelievable
they arent..the club doesnr have 32m and never did..sbc corproation did..

Thanks to Short clearing the debts. IF what is reported is true and they have used the club's funds and sell the club and don't repay the club would be £32 million worse off thanks to them
yes they would-but the point is-the £32m was a debt to sbc..that has been paid-so either the club used the para to pay it-or the owenrs paid it themselves..there are no other alteratives..but either way the £32m has gone into the club to make it better..

The club is not losing £500k per week though. If he was meant to pay Short £37million and only paid £5mil of his own and the rest from the club surely he should return that money if / when he sells though.
well ot when he sell-sbecause the club hasnt got a pot to piss in-and owed sbc £32m now-he had to pay it now..not whe he sells-far sooner than that...thats the point-there are two emtities that wanted £30m from safc-ellis short and sbc..both have had £32m..
now there is only one lot of para money..one lot of £32m...but both have been paid-therefore the onwrs have put it in..
whether the owners £32m paid short or paid sbc is rather irrelevant...sbc ad short were both paid..

If only there was someone with experience of PR at the club who could counteract this kind of thing.

Oh. Awkward.
there is-he arraged for the chairman to do a talk on it next week..

He's saying that SD used the £30 million from parachute payments to buy the club from ES. So if SD sells up then Armstrong is asking if SD will put that £30 million back into the club. If not then I can see why he's got a beef! :lol:

Imagine that, you've rich enough so OK'd to buy a business. That business is due £30m so you give it to old owner who is already taking a hit so not really spending your own money. You then sell the club on but then don't have to pay the club the £30 million ;)
it shows why gordon armstrong shouldbt be in charge of a club-he doesnt realise rthat £30m of debt owed by sbc before donald ever came here has also disapeared-thats the other £30m..thats where it went..
 
Last edited:
Mentioning that the second largest shareholder, was Billionaire Mr Sartori, wouldn't have sat well with their agenda.

yes. and he has always been clear on that. this article is massively inaccurate though-it doesnt mention juan owns 20 per cent of the club.

I’m certain if Sartori was as on the left he’d be mentioned in this

what is new is that the journalists dont seem to think juan sartori owns the club...

its also a lack of research in that they dont seem to be aware that juan has a stake?

this article is massively inaccurate though-it doesnt mention juan owns 20 per cent of the club.

DAILY MAIL ARTICLE said:
an injection of cash was received as a result of selling a 20 per cent stake in the club to Uruguayan businessman Juan Sartori.


If you're not even going to read the article why bother writing about what's in it?
 
Dunno about that

Had a bath this morning, it’s got a jacuzzi built in too so it was particularly enjoyable
so now its cleared up for you.
there were TWO people who wanted over £30m from SAFC last summer.
One was ellis short-who wanted paying for the club-which is understandable]
The other was SBC corporation-who loaned SAFC money and wanted the cash back.
There was ONE lot of £30m in the club-the para money. The other lot of £30m has been paid by the owners.
It doesnt matter which £30m went to ellis and which to SBC-the point is both have been paid and the owners paid the money agreed.

If you're not even going to read the article why bother writing about what's in it?
well then-if he has 20 per cent-all the numbers about stewarts profit are wrong...the article is inaccurate for that reason.
 
Why would we want to do that? £35m invested in playing staff at league 1 level - Christ, even at champ level - would create a financially unsustainable club. Plus this goes back to the fundamental problem that most football fans have trouble with understanding these days. Investment is not a gift. Any money that is put into a club comes out of it at some point down the line. If Donald puts £35m into Safc, his asking
they arent..the club doesnr have 32m and never did..sbc corproation did..


yes they would-but the point is-the £32m was a debt to sbc..that has been paid-so either the club used the para to pay it-or the owenrs paid it themselves..there are no other alteratives..but either way the £32m has gone into the club to make it better..


well ot when he sell-sbecause the club hasnt got a pot to piss in-and owed sbc £32m now-he had to pay it now..not whe he sells-far sooner than that...thats the point-there are two emtities that wanted £30m from safc-ellis short and sbc..both have had £32m..
now there is only one lot of para money..one lot of £32m...but both have been paid-therefore the onwrs have put it in..
whether the owners £32m paid short or paid sbc is rather irrelevant...sbc ad short were both paid..


there is-he arraged for the chairman to do a talk on it next week..


it shows why gordon armstrong shouldbt be in charge of a club-he doesnt realise rthat £30m of debt owed by sbc before donald ever came here has also disapeared-thats the other £30m..thats where it went..
But the bottom line was, regardless of who owed what to whom, the deal for Madrox to acquire the club from Short meant they had to stump up £40 million, everything else is just smoke and mirrors from what I can see.

If they repay the parachute money then fair enough, but if they don't, then this would be completely wrong.
 
baffles me why so many people want to belittle their own club and owners when a lot of hard work has gone into stabilising the club


we do not have the best fans in the world...sorry to say
 
Well I think they have done a cracking job and if they have done it on the cheap then what difference does it make? If we get promoted then its job done doesn't really matter how much they paid...
This for me, mate.

baffles me why so many people want to belittle their own club and owners when a lot of hard work has gone into stabilising the club


we do not have the best fans in the world...sorry to say
As has been said on numerous occasions on here mate, at the match their appears to be a lot less blood letting than there is on here. That does seem to indicate that a lot of members on here, only do it to get a bite or don't go to as many games as they make out.
 
Last edited:
As has been said on numerous occasions on here mate, at the match their appears to be a lot less blood letting than there is on here. That does seem to indicate that a lot of members on here, only do it to get a bite or don't go to as many games as they make out.

or they are the boo boys when we get the bigger crowds.. our very own angry kids
 

Back
Top