• 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.

‘The real story of the takeover’

Status
Not open for further replies.
scott934 said:
They've heavily implied it, but even in the quotes they have from Methven it talks about parachute payments going towards the SBC debt, not to Short. SD was very open that the parachute payments were essentially secured by Short in case SD didn't make the final payments for the club.
Click to expand...

Yeah thats different to using it to pay Short which I totally and utterly disagree with

That money could have been used to fund the club.
 

Doberman said:
it's not new information at all.

they've done nothing wrong.

If you're willing to back the Daily f***ing Mail and that arsehole Craig Hope over our club then you're absolutely no use to our club whatsoever.
Click to expand...

I'm not backing anyone. I'm feckin firmly on the fence. Which is where you should be if you had any wit.
 
The Rat said:
How can people dismiss this

IF true

they've used £32m of Sunderland's money to facilitate purchasing the club rather than funding it

People are brain washed.



It is new information :lol:

what the fuck are you talking about?

Where has it been said they were using the clubs parachute payments to buy the club???
Click to expand...

several people on the first 3 pages of this thread alone were aware of the details of the takeover listed in that hatchet job (that you've latched onto because you're a knacker) so unless we're all Stewart Donald then it's clearly not new information is it?

Ellis Short held onto the parachute payments until the full amount had been paid. If Donald was unable to pay then Short was going to take the parachute monies as payment. Donald has been open about this since day one.
 
Doberman said:
it's not new information at all.

they've done nothing wrong.

If you're willing to back the Daily f***ing Mail and that arsehole Craig Hope over our club then you're absolutely no use to our club whatsoever.
Click to expand...
It’s not the mail and a Journo versus safc though is it? It’s the mail and a journo versus Stewie and Charlie.
 
Doberman said:
several people on the first 3 pages of this thread alone were aware of the details of the takeover listed in that hatchet job (that you've latched onto because you're a knacker) so unless we're all Stewart Donald then it's clearly not new information is it?

Ellis Short held onto the parachute payments until the full amount had been paid. If Donald was unable to pay then Short was going to take the parachute monies as payment. Donald has been open about this since day one.
Click to expand...

Its completely new information that like, you're wrong and far too defensive as usual.

Donald isn't Sunderland

he has been here less than a year, so maybe don't through the club's soul away that quickly


Why on earth are you so defensive about a bloke
 
BumbleBee said:
I'll wait to see what @Grumpy Old Man has to say.
Click to expand...

I'd love to know which accounts they've looked at, because I can't anything in them to substantiate their claims. Madrox's accounts show £9.6m owing to a group company (SAFC), so that's the counterpart to that debtor, and creditors of £27m, which is presumably the amount owing to Short. There are investments of £37m, which will be the cost to Madrox of the shares in Sunderland Limited. That implies the purchase price was £37m. The £25m of parachute payments was, as already known, used in part payment of the SBC debt, prior to the purchase going through. The suggestion that that £25m ended up with Short is erroneous, given the amount still owing on the shares. What's confusing the Mail are the consolidated accounts of SJD, the ultimate holding company. I'll need to do a detailed crawl through that to separate the group and company elements. It's complicated because,as the takeover was in May, the cosolidated accounts only include the trade of SAFC from then forward. It's not straightforward at all.
 
scott934 said:
But there's no evidence that they used the PP to pay Short. Apart from this terribly written clickbait which implies all sorts but says nothing. Even their quotes to back up the story are about payments going to SBC.
Click to expand...

OK well fair enough if its not true then obviously no issue

But if it is, you agree with it? I am more amazed that if people do believe its true they think that is OK,if it is true, then I am not exactly sure what they have done here, PR basically.
 
hudson88 said:
Thought this was fairly common knowledge?
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure the message that they've tried to put across was that the parachute money was to service debt such as wages and not on buying the club.

The timing of this article is very mag like. But if the owners bought the club using parachute money (a big if I know) then that's an absolute disgrace. That is big news if true.

That surely cant be the case though.
 
Doberman said:
several people on the first 3 pages of this thread alone were aware of the details of the takeover listed in that hatchet job (that you've latched onto because you're a knacker) so unless we're all Stewart Donald then it's clearly not new information is it?

Ellis Short held onto the parachute payments until the full amount had been paid. If Donald was unable to pay then Short was going to take the parachute monies as payment. Donald has been open about this since day one.
Click to expand...

I seriously thought that last paragraph was common knowledge from more or less when the club was first bought? I'm pretty sure it's been mentioned on here on more than one occasion?
 
Doberman said:
it's not new information at all.

they've done nothing wrong.

If you're willing to back the Daily f***ing Mail and that arsehole Craig Hope over our club then you're absolutely no use to our club whatsoever.
Click to expand...
Since when were a couple of chancers from down south "our club" like?
 
The Rat said:
Its completely new information that like, you're wrong and far too defensive as usual.

Donald isn't Sunderland

he has been here less than a year, so maybe don't through the club's soul away that quickly


Why on earth are you so defensive about a bloke
Click to expand...

every second sentence is a dig at our owners or the club but as it's anti-Donald you're lapping it up.

How the fuck has he thrown the club's soul away? :lol:

if you hate the club that much then log out and forget we exist.
 
Grumpy Old Man said:
I'd love to know which accounts they've looked at, because I can't anything in them to substantiate their claims. Madrox's accounts show £9.6m owing to a group company (SAFC), so that's the counterpart to that debtor, and creditors of £27m, which is presumably the amount owing to Short. There are investments of £37m, which will be the cost to Madrox of the shares in Sunderland Limited. That implies the purchase price was £37m. The £25m of parachute payments was, as already known, used in part payment of the SBC debt, prior to the purchase going through. The suggestion that that £25m ended up with Short is erroneous, given the amount still owing on the shares. What's confusing the Mail are the consolidated accounts of SJD, the ultimate holding company. I'll need to do a detailed crawl through that to separate the group and company elements. It's complicated because,as the takeover was in May, the cosolidated accounts only include the trade of SAFC from then forward. It's not straightforward at all.
Click to expand...

Is it fanciful to suspect The Mail may have had a tip-off regarding some of the transactions. Otherwise why would they even bother looking at it?
 
The Rat said:
Yeah absolutely we did

Why are people saying its not new information? it is
Click to expand...

I was possibly getting it wrong in my head like but aye. I always thought there was (very rough figures, I'm knackered tonight!), say £150m debt. I thought Donald and co paid £50m of their own money to Short, and Short took the parachute money to pay some of the debt off, and wrote off the other circa £50m.

Instead it looks like Donald and co paid very little, and that presumably means Short had to write more off and that they got an even better deal than it looked at the time, and stand to make considerably more if they flip it.

I'm not massively concerned, especially as I don't really understand the ins and outs of it. Presumably if Short had been demanding £50m from them the purchase simply wouldn't have happened and god knows where we'd be now, either way I don't think we were ever getting that parachute money to use ourselves, but it does seem a bit lacking in transparency considering being transparent has always been their "thing". I'm still happy with what they've done mind, and by hook or by crook at least we are largely debt free now and in a position where we can try and come back either with them or someone else. I just think it's a bit disingenuous to suggest it isn't new information at all
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top