FPP

Status
Not open for further replies.
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...

A lot of it is down to context and interpretation. Some of it is down to a poor manner or articulation but to flat out say he isn't economical with the truth is far fetched in my opinion.

Think its decent that you have gone to the amount of effort you have to support your standpoint but I think my point is that you shouldnt expect others to go to the same effort to discredit it when as stated context and interpretation plays a big role.

Out of interest did you manage to change anyone's minds on your thread or did you find the specific quotes where both of them say the parachutes are not intended to be used only for charlie to say at the end of the season that they were always intended to be used and they were under no obligation to pay them back?
 


martinlumley said:
I'm going with this, if we don't go up this season, they've bought it for 10 million. If we're promoted, they go back to the agreed price. Either way they get the club.
Click to expand...
For me and again this is just my personal opinion, Donald didn’t want to let it go whilst in League 1. That’s why it was sugar coated as an investment. I also believe there isn’t a cat in hells chance we will have new owners whilst there is a chance of promotion. We will have new owners in place for the start of next season. There is no way Donald would be pumping money his own into the clubs infrastructure now knowing he’s gone next season. He’s using the new owners money to do it. Just my opinion. No ITK insight
 
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...
I've bought businesses in the last and used the income from the business but I still said I'd paid it even though it hadn't come out of my pocket directly, if you ever have or ever will then a guarantee you'll do the same, even billionaires don't send a bank transfer for the amount they agree a price set over an agreed timescale, there's plenty of faults you can pick for Donald but this isn't one of them.
 
Super Mario said:
I've bought businesses in the last and used the income from the business but I still said I'd paid it even though it hadn't come out of my pocket directly, if you ever have or ever will then a guarantee you'll do the same, even billionaires don't send a bank transfer for the amount they agree a price set over an agreed timescale, there's plenty of faults you can pick for Donald but this isn't one of them.
Click to expand...

It is a fault that can be picked with him as it was incredibly misleading. They had given him very little in reality. And the point I was making really is that some people have stated that Donald never said it in the first place, he evidently did.
 
The Sheepfolds End said:
It is a fault that can be picked with him as it was incredibly misleading. They had given him very little in reality. And the point I was making really is that some people have stated that Donald never said it in the first place, he evidently did.
Click to expand...
It wasn't remotely misleading it's the price that was paid.
 
We have the journalistic equivalent of SD, pumping out vague statements with nothing behind them

Donald thanks you, for the next few minutes I'll be dreaming of flattening OP's spuds with a giant camping mallet instead of his
 
Super Mario said:
It wasn't remotely misleading it's the price that was paid.
Click to expand...

Well it was misleading. The 'we have given Ellis £40m' was not true. They did not use their funds. They used the club parachute payments with the intention of repaying over time. To omit that detail was misleading. Particularly when they continued to mislead in subsequent interviews and only provided vague clarity later on when it was challenged. If you choose to take an opposing view, thats your business but plenty believe it was indeed misleading.
 
The Sheepfolds End said:
Well it was misleading. The 'we have given Ellis £40m' was not true. They did not use their funds. They used the club parachute payments with the intention of repaying over time. To omit that detail was misleading. Particularly when they continued to mislead in subsequent interviews and only provided vague clarity later on when it was challenged. If you choose to take an opposing view, thats your business but plenty believe it was indeed misleading.
Click to expand...
Believing it doesn't mean it's true, anyway we'll just agree to disagree.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top