Cynicism about Donald et al?

Status
Not open for further replies.
rocky said:
The cynicism.

It's what to op was about. I find it pathetic. If you don't then that's fine.
Click to expand...
I can kind of understand it in this situation. I think it's a generation thing. Even now we see people saying that they don't want an American owner because they know nothing about football. Or Arabs, Chinese, Malaysians etc.
 


JimmyQuinn said:
Agreed

Does make you wonder about the rumours of a £50m buyout

You'd expect any new people to have taken into account unpaid elements of that 25m when coming to a purchase price
Click to expand...
i agree with you-thing is-the "unpaid elements" are o longer fixed..ie..the first tranche was stuff they knew was coming and would have to pay..like legacy transfers..maybe there is some of that left..but most of it now is doscretioanry..ie what do they choose to spend cahs on.. 9like donald putting the extra in to buy grigg) in january..so not sure how its quantifiable-unless they have a budget for the year ahead that is a loss budgte and sayt os tewrat he covers that? or for the year after they do that?
 
kildaremackem said:
i agree with you-thing is-the "unpaid elements" are o longer fixed..ie..the first tranche was stuff they knew was coming and would have to pay..like legacy transfers..maybe there is some of that left..but most of it now is doscretioanry..ie what do they choose to spend cahs on.. 9like donald putting the extra in to buy grigg) in january..so not sure how its quantifiable-unless they have a budget for the year ahead that is a loss budgte and sayt os tewrat he covers that? or for the year after they do that?
Click to expand...

More meant it someone has seen they've spent 40 and thought let's try buy it for 50

When that 40 isn't really accurate

You'd expect sufficient DD to be done though
 
I don’t trust anyone not to run the club as a business but it’s literally the only reason anyone would want to buy a football club really, at least within the Football League. Colossal waste of money for a hobby or vanity project.

I hate that’s the way it’s gone but that’s where it is
 
JimmyQuinn said:
More meant it someone has seen they've spent 40 and thought let's try buy it for 50

When that 40 isn't really accurate

You'd expect sufficient DD to be done though
Click to expand...
well indeed. Question is, since they bought the share capital for £15m (not £37m) and paid for the share capital they acquired themsleves (not using club money0 surely the new acquieir would buy what they oad £5m for...whopse buisness is the other £25m? the £25m wasnt run up by the current owners but the previous one..so does it figure that whatever is left of the £25m passes to the new ownwrs..just as it passed from ellis to SD? that would be the most logical thing...but...
 
kildaremackem said:
well indeed. Question is, since they bought the share capital for £15m (not £37m) and paid for the share capital they acquired themsleves (not using club money0 surely the new acquieir would buy what they oad £5m for...whopse buisness is the other £25m? the £25m wasnt run up by the current owners but the previous one..so does it figure that whatever is left of the £25m passes to the new ownwrs..just as it passed from ellis to SD? that would be the most logical thing...but...
Click to expand...

As long as it goes into the club I don't care
 
JimmyQuinn said:
As long as it goes into the club I don't care
Click to expand...
well fair enough. I think my point is it never left the club-in the sense that no one else got it except a club cerditor. so it benfitted the club already-it benefitted ellis short because it meant he didnt have to pay it-and it benefitted the current owners as it meant they didnt have to pay it-but the ultiamte beneficiary of the £25m is already safc..as the club saved millions in interest by using the para money to clear the debt.
 
Yes, I am cynical about him. I think when the dust settles, he will have made a lot of money by using the club's income to purchase shares and selling them at a profit. I do think we're in better shape, but I'm sceptical about how much that comes down to Donald and how much is about having an owner - any owner - who isn't Ellis Short.

I also think that when we get to the bottom of the paper trail - something that has objectively become hard to do under Donald, worryingly - we will find that Ellis Short has rather cleverly ended up pocketing the better part of our parachute payments for the last two years, and ultimately we may look back and question whether they both had an understanding before the purchase that this would be a desirable outcome for both of them (ie: Short funnels out money he could never have done so as owner, avoids administration and takes whatever cash he can for a distressed asset, Donald sells shares within 12-18 months and avoids majority of expense asosciated with the purchase).

All of which may not end up being the case, but I suspect that in 2 years time that will be what the paper trail shows.
 
Last edited:
KittenMittens said:
Yes, I am cynical about him. I think when the dust settles, he will have made a lot of money by using the club's income to purchase shares and selling them at a profit. I do think we're in better shape, but I'm sceptical about how much that comes down to Donald and how much is about having an owner - any owner - who isn't Ellis Short.

I also think that when we get to the bottom of the paper trail - something that has objectively become hard to do under Donald, worryingly - we will find that Ellis Short has rather cleverly ended up pocketing the better part of our parachute payments for the last two years, and ultimately we may look back and question whether they both had an understanding before the purchase that this would be a desirable outcome for both of them (ie: Short funnels out money he could never have hoped to, avoids administration, Donald sells shares and avoids majority of expense asociated with the purchase).

All of which may not end up being the case, but I suspect that in 2 years time that will be what the paper trail shows.
Click to expand...
but its a fact he didnt use the clubs income to pruchase the shares-thats proven.
 
kildaremackem said:
but its a fact he didnt use the clubs income to pruchase the shares-thats proven.
Click to expand...

They used it to finance the purchase of the club - indirectly - by acquiring a debt based on our parachute payments as a guarantee. You can argue the labelling, but the only reason this deal even went through was because Donald was able to sit at the EFL table and have Short give them an ultimatum that it was either this deal or administration. Hence my cynicism about how much of the parachute money has directly or indirectly ended up benefiting Short.

The only financial 'facts' we will know will be at least two years in the future when Donald/Madrox debt is reconciled as part of our accounts, his shares transferred and the debt scheduled for either repayment or an instrument put in place to ensure we as a club are not allowing it to go unpaid or be paid by a new owner who would otherwise have been able to commit that cash to the club in the future.

I respect @Grumpy Old Man but I take a different view of this. If Donald (or any facility on his behalf and not connected to a future purchase of SAFC) does not pay back that debt, we will have lost money. If a new owner comes in and (effectively) pays that debt on Donald's behalf, we will have lost money that could have otherwise been earmarked for the club's on-pitch progression, or financial security in the future.
 
KittenMittens said:
They used it to finance the purchase of the club - indirectly - by acquiring a debt based on our parachute payments as a guarantee. You can argue the labelling, but the only reason this deal even went through was because Donald was able to sit at the EFL table and have Short give them an ultimatum that it was either this deal or administration. Hence my cynicism about how much of the parachute money has directly or indirectly ended up benefiting Short.

The only financial 'facts' we will know will be at least two years in the future when Donald/Madrox debt is reconciled as part of our accounts, his shares transferred and the debt scheduled for either repayment or an instrument put in place to ensure we as a club are not allowing it to go unpaid or be paid by a new owner who would otherwise have been able to commit that cash to the club in the future.

I respect @Grumpy Old Man but I take a different view of this. If Donald (or any facility on his behalf and not connected to a future purchase of SAFC) does not pay back that debt, we will have lost money. If a new owner comes in and (effectively) pays that debt on Donald's behalf, we will have lost money that could have otherwise been earmarked for the club's on-pitch progression, or financial security in the future.
Click to expand...
the para money benefitted short yes-indirectly-but the point in your post was "how much of the papra money was used to buy shares" and the answer is none.
The para moeny benefitted the club-because it was used to pay a club debt-doesnt matter who owns the club-the debt was still due.
so the para money wasnt used to buy the shares of safc-and didnt go to short-it went to a bank and has helped safc enormously.
how will we have lost money? when ellis came in he took on debt left by quinny..when stewart came in he took on debt left by ellis..if the new owners come in and take on the "debt"-)(there is no legal debt by the way) its no different to every owner we have had..
 
KittenMittens said:
They used it to finance the purchase of the club - indirectly - by acquiring a debt based on our parachute payments as a guarantee. You can argue the labelling, but the only reason this deal even went through was because Donald was able to sit at the EFL table and have Short give them an ultimatum that it was either this deal or administration. Hence my cynicism about how much of the parachute money has directly or indirectly ended up benefiting Short.

The only financial 'facts' we will know will be at least two years in the future when Donald/Madrox debt is reconciled as part of our accounts, his shares transferred and the debt scheduled for either repayment or an instrument put in place to ensure we as a club are not allowing it to go unpaid or be paid by a new owner who would otherwise have been able to commit that cash to the club in the future.

I respect @Grumpy Old Man but I take a different view of this. If Donald (or any facility on his behalf and not connected to a future purchase of SAFC) does not pay back that debt, we will have lost money. If a new owner comes in and (effectively) pays that debt on Donald's behalf, we will have lost money that could have otherwise been earmarked for the club's on-pitch progression, or financial security in the future.
Click to expand...

I think you've got some of this the wrong way round. The debt is owed to the club by Madrox, the owner of 100% of Sunderland. That debt is scheduled to be repaid by Madrox, irrespective of the ownership of that company. Whether that money ends up coming from Donald or a new shareholder in Madrox is immaterial. If it's going to come from a new investor, then any rational one will adjust the price he's prepared to pay for the shares in Madrox by the amount of the loan from SAFC he has to repay. The only matter of any import is that those funds are remitted to SAFC as and when they are needed.
 
Tbf, if you're getting a club like Sunderland in the state we were in and for the price that they did there's every chance that the club could be sold for a decent profit a year later if we were improved. Surely this is scenario isn't new to people? Would people feel different if it was dyed in the wool MLFs rather than out of towners?
 
Last edited:
JimmyQuinn said:
Agreed

Does make you wonder about the rumours of a £50m buyout

You'd expect any new people to have taken into account unpaid elements of that 25m when coming to a purchase price
Click to expand...
absolutely...but then the £50m pirce is not someting that anyone anywhere has confirmed-nor do we know how much of the £25m is unpaid..and £50m is the full price of the club according to those reports..ie the vaue of 100pc of the equity..but 100pc of the equity is not being sold.
 
Grumpy Old Man said:
I think you've got some of this the wrong way round. The debt is owed to the club by Madrox, the owner of 100% of Sunderland. That debt is scheduled to be repaid by Madrox, irrespective of the ownership of that company. Whether that money ends up coming from Donald or a new shareholder in Madrox is immaterial. If it's going to come from a new investor, then any rational one will adjust the price he's prepared to pay for the shares in Madrox by the amount of the loan from SAFC he has to repay. The only matter of any import is that those funds are remitted to SAFC as and when they are needed.
Click to expand...

Think he is suggesting that other owners would have taken over but no remaining debt whatsoever, so the money would never have left the club and ES would have paid off SBC himself as part of the deal to sell up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top