FPP

Status
Not open for further replies.


Surely though that is known anyway that they would he in pole position if they have control with the 10m?

I wonder if that was a test get up on 10m and you'll make a bit if not we get the club.
 
OohBaldyBally said:
Give over man :lol: :lol:

Do you think that this billionaire business men are so short-sighted as to be making business decisions on something as temporary as form ?
Click to expand...
Multi billionare business are supposidly arguing over the price of safc that are the equivilent of a tip to a taxi driver to them ..something is very fishy about the whole saga and it cannot be charlies salmon pants as hes gone...or has he?I hope the truth comes out in the end and my guess will be donald won't be welcome in the north east (except the unwashed part)for a very long time.
 
Last edited:
oddbod said:
Multi billionare business are supposidly arguing over the price of safc that are the equivilent of a tip to a taxi driver to them ..something is very fishy about the whole saga and it cannot be charlies salmon pants as hes gone...or has he?I hope the truth comes out in the end and my guess will be donald won't be welcome in the north east for a very long time.
Click to expand...

Even though it's not much to them at the end of the day it's still a hell of a lot of money.

Those guys didn't get where they are by giving away tips like that.

Do agree though seems strange dragged on so long hopefully it's just all NDAs and we will find out end of season.
 
Howard [QUOTE="fyl2u said:
Did they define "full takeover" at the meeting?

It seems that a lot of folks on here don't understand what a "full takeover" is. (And I was one of them before last week when I started my little investigation looking into the complaints against SD).

When Campbell was interviewed for the Echo, he said that his would have been a "full takeover" but with SD still a shareholder. It turns out that a "full takeover" actually only means 51% of the shares or more. That's not how I would have defined it personally, and certainly not what most folks on here mean when they use those words.

So when folks are talking about FPP having been thinking about a "full takeover" but SD saying that FPP never wanted to take control of the club, it is actually possible for both statements to be true, even though to many on here it may sound like a contradiction in terms.
Click to expand...
51% is control of the club so you cant have both statements as true
 
fyl2u said:
My little investigation was taken in good faith, looking at each complaint point by point. Of all the complaints given on my thread (the one titled something like "the first few podcast interviews with the owners" or something along those lines), not a single complaint stood up to scrutiny. They were all misquotes or misunderstandings from the complainant. Every single one.

I'm still open to hearing more of them and interested only in continuing to investigate them from a position of neutrality.

And so I'm keen to see this video someone says they have of SD saying "we have given Short £40m for the club".

The way I understand it (and this might be wrong, but it's how it looks to me) from looking into it this week, it was like this:

There was a deal agreed originally that changed slightly after they took over because certain things turned out not to be exactly how Short had presented them, so they renegotiated the payment plan slightly.

The original deal was supposed to be this:

- Madrox would pay £40m to Short in total: £15m up front, £5m after one year, £10m after two years and £10 after 3 years.
- Ellis had offered them the club for £15m but with a £25m debt, but they said "no, scrub the debt and we'll pay £40m" (which is pretty much exactly the same really but leaves the club itself with no debt, which is better for the club).

When they actually took over, it turned out that the Ndong situation wasn't exactly how Short had presented it. In amongst all the other financial stuff he'd told them Watford were going to be buying him for £8.5m, but it didn't happen, meaning there was £8.5m less coming in, and his wages still going out, which left a £10m black hole in the club's finances compared with how Short had presented them, so they renegotiated with Short to pay the initial £15m in installments: £5m up front, and the other £10m following over the course of the next 4 months.

Now this could all be wrong, and perhaps @Grumpy Old Man could shed some light on this for us if he wouldn't mind?

That's how it seemed to me though.
Click to expand...

That keen to see the video you are seemingly ignoring it??
 
The Sheepfolds End said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1184595189173817344

Opening sentence. ‘We’ve given Ellis £40m’.

They hadn’t given Ellis £40m. Now, that can be called a slip of the tongue, a poorly explained soundbite or however you want to dress it up. He repeated it elsewhere in the early stages. And it was an untruth.

If I’m misquoting him there, then I apologise as my grasp of the English language is clearly not up to scratch.
Click to expand...

OK, granted. He did say it. Fair enough. That's the first time in the last week that someone's backed up their complaint with actual valid evidence. :lol:

16 pages of thread over the course of a week and not a single person managed what you just did. :lol:

As you say though, it could well be a slip of the tongue. He does go on to say "that's the deal price" immediately afterwards, so it's possible that's a "correction" to the "we've given him" part of the sentence.

Like if someone asked me how much I bought my house for I might say "I gave them £75,000 for it" even though it was a mortgage that I'd be paying for the next 40 years after agreeing the deal, and I only actually put x% up front.
 
The Sheepfolds End said:
That keen to see the video you are seemingly ignoring it??
Click to expand...

Gimme a chance marra, I'm replying to a list of people at once across multiple threads again. :lol:
phunboy said:
51% is control of the club so you cant have both statements as true
Click to expand...

It's a controlling share but it doesn't mean they wanted to run the club. And it certainly wouldn't equate to what most folks on here (myself included before last week) would have called a "full takeover". That was my point.
 
Last edited:
fyl2u said:
Gimme a chance marra, I'm replying to a list of people at once across multiple threads again. :lol:


It's a controlling share but it doesn't mean they wanted to run the club. And it certainly wouldn't equate to what most folks on here (myself included before last week) would have called a "full takeover". That was my point.
Click to expand...

They do say it like mate
 
fyl2u said:
OK, granted. He did say it. Fair enough. That's the first time in the last week that someone's backed up their complaint with actual valid evidence. :lol:

16 pages of thread over the course of a week and not a single person managed what you just did. :lol:

As you say though, it could well be a slip of the tongue. He does go on to say "that's the deal price" immediately afterwards, so it's possible that's a "correction" to the "we've given him" part of the sentence.

Like if someone asked me how much I bought my house for I might say "I gave them £75,000 for it" even though it was a mortgage that I'd be paying for the next 40 years after agreeing the deal, and I only actually put x% up front.
Click to expand...

If I had the time and inclination to do so, I could link you to several interviews with Donald that have been given in podcasts and quotes from newspaper articles where he directly contradicts what he has said previously on a number of issues. But it’s pointless as I don’t think it’s going to persuade you to change your mind and that’s fair enough. You’re within your rights to believe in the chairman. But I think it’s very misleading to say that none of the complaints made against Donald stand up to scrutiny as plenty of them do.
 
The Sheepfolds End said:
If I had the time and inclination to do so, I could link you to several interviews with Donald that have been given in podcasts and quotes from newspaper articles where he directly contradicts what he has said previously on a number of issues. But it’s pointless as I don’t think it’s going to persuade you to change your mind and that’s fair enough. You’re within your rights to believe in the chairman. But I think it’s very misleading to say that none of the complaints made against Donald stand up to scrutiny as plenty of them do.
Click to expand...

Please do mate if you have the time and inclination. (Preferably on that other thread if you can be bothered, so that I can try to keep it all in one place).

Yours genuinely is the first complaint presented to me in the past week that has actually been backed up with evidence that hasn't fallen apart with the most minimal amount of scrutiny.

I am genuinely trying to investigate this thoroughly and from a position of neutrality. Purely because I don't understand how so many people have this opinion of him when I hadn't seen anything to back up their arguments, whereas I did find a wealth of evidence to suggest the #DonaldOut folks were misquoting or lying about the owners.
 
Last edited:
fyl2u said:
Gimme a chance marra, I'm replying to a list of people at once across multiple threads again. :lol:


It's a controlling share but it doesn't mean they wanted to run the club. And it certainly wouldn't equate to what most folks on here (myself included before last week) would have called a "full takeover". That was my point.
Click to expand...
Yeah but running the club and taking control are two different things. If they take 51% they are in control as they have the leading share vote but they can have someone else "run" it for them. Your question asked whether both statements could be true 1) a full takeover by FPP (51% or more) and 2) them not wanting to take control of the club the answer is no. I wouldn't expect FPP to run the club themselves that's what CEO'S are for and if that's what SD was meaning then he was using language open for misinterpretation. The majority of business people would understand the difference between the two phrases
 
fyl2u said:
My little investigation was taken in good faith, looking at each complaint point by point. Of all the complaints given on my thread (the one titled something like "the first few podcast interviews with the owners" or something along those lines), not a single complaint stood up to scrutiny. They were all misquotes or misunderstandings from the complainant. Every single one.

I'm still open to hearing more of them and interested only in continuing to investigate them from a position of neutrality.

And so I'm keen to see this video someone says they have of SD saying "we have given Short £40m for the club".

The way I understand it (and this might be wrong, but it's how it looks to me) from looking into it this week, it was like this:

There was a deal agreed originally that changed slightly after they took over because certain things turned out not to be exactly how Short had presented them, so they renegotiated the payment plan slightly.

The original deal was supposed to be this:

- Madrox would pay £40m to Short in total: £15m up front, £5m after one year, £10m after two years and £10 after 3 years.
- Ellis had offered them the club for £15m but with a £25m debt, but they said "no, scrub the debt and we'll pay £40m" (which is pretty much exactly the same really but leaves the club itself with no debt, which is better for the club).

When they actually took over, it turned out that the Ndong situation wasn't exactly how Short had presented it. In amongst all the other financial stuff he'd told them Watford were going to be buying him for £8.5m, but it didn't happen, meaning there was £8.5m less coming in, and his wages still going out, which left a £10m black hole in the club's finances compared with how Short had presented them, so they renegotiated with Short to pay the initial £15m in installments: £5m up front, and the other £10m following over the course of the next 4 months.

Now this could all be wrong, and perhaps @Grumpy Old Man could shed some light on this for us if he wouldn't mind?

That's how it seemed to me though.
Click to expand...
They used 25 million from parachute payments ie safc revenue to buy the club of short......this money could have been used to as it was designed to by the prem hierarchy to help the club with the ndong type situation and fund a promotion push ..instead we got halfwits who could not afford to pay for the club out of their own money!

Look at wolves look at leicester owners ..Who do we get?......We get fekking dell boy clones and a cross betweeen trigger and flashman as a pr guru ..Only at safc !..........if it wasn't for our great fans we would have been dead and burried years ago.

When is our great fans going to get a slice of luck and get owners that we deserve ,i for one am not holding my breath but like the rest of our prodigious and down trodden support i still cling onto the hope omnibusIor should i say monorail.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top