Has anyone's view on Stuart Donald changed in the last few weeks ?


Status
Not open for further replies.
realistically yes, that's exactly what a good proportion of the supporters are going to want.I'm not in that boat but we clearly have a decent number on this forum who don't give a fuck about how to run a stable club and basically just want success, even if that means we need a sugar daddy who is personally bank rolling the club like Ellis.

And to try and be fair, that is exactly how Chelsea and Man City are run, so you can't blame them entirely for not living in the real world as some clubs are incredibly lucky and get exactly that. Realistically the chance Sunderland will get another Ellis who also happens to be incredibly good at running a football club is surely pretty f***ing small so it would make far more sense to run the club sustainably even if it means it takes a long time to get back to the premier league...but hey

So in one sentence you say Short left us debt free, do you also think that Donald stole the parachute payments? As the 25m parachute payment to SBC was a condition of Short selling the club, so either Short left us debt free by using the parachute payment to clear those debts or Donald took the 25m and 'abused' it in someway? You can't really have it both ways.
They didn't abuse anything. They bought the club on the cheap and Short was making sure the debt is paid with that condition. That's why I said he was the one making sure the club is stable.
Not their superb handling of the club made us stable financially.
They're signing 4m strikers to sit on the bench and can't get us out of League One.
 
Without one, would we have the other?
I don’t think we would.
While the current situation is awful, I think we’re in a better position, as a club, than we were in the summer of 2018.
Back then, we were spiralling downwards and insolvency was a real prospect. Now, we are at least looking upwards.
The fans are looking upwards But I think the owners are scanning the horizon for anyone with a bit of time n money on their hands. Remember they know more than us about the coffers.
Like evey other club in the world?

No. A lot of clubs show a profit.
More importantly a club that isn’t a drain on a businessman’s resources provides other benefits. At PL level a football club owner can get to meet ministers and heads of state in developing countries when otherwise phone calls would result in investment meetings with their flunkies. People worldwide at all levels of society are addicted to the game.
Football opens doors.
just unbelievable

he took 25 mill in parachute payments out of the club

and people still spout this shite?

amazing
The
Southampton in administration, minus ten points, league 1 2009
Southampton promoted to PL 2012

We need our own Liebherr and Cortese
and it's this hope that keeps me going because I don't care what anyone says, looking at the respective positions of the two clubs at the same moment in time (us now, Southampton 2009) we are a FAR MORE attractive prospect to buy in every regard, vanity project or otherwise.
Their tkt prices and corporate etc bring in more than ours. It’s a far more affluent neck of the woods.
 
Last edited:
They didn't abuse anything. They bought the club on the cheap and Short was making sure the debt is paid with that condition. That's why I said he was the one making sure the club is stable.
Not their superb handling of the club made us stable financially.
They're signing 4m strikers to sit on the bench and can't get us out of League One.
They appear to have used 15m to buy the club, is that on the cheap if that was the going rate for the club?
As Short put the condition in that the 25m would be used to pay off debts the club owed already, the cost to run the club was 35m a year so Donald and Methvan didn't do anything positive in your eyes in reducing that number so the club didn't keep losing money or go bust?

I'm not at all saying Donald is some heroic figure who single handedly saved us, but there are so many posts on here that pretend this situation is a clear black and white and there are only heroes and villains. It's entirely possible to thing Donald failed in lots of areas and did well in lots of areas.
 
He's just a business man trying to make money from his investments... Nothing against him tbf... If people were abusing him at the matches its totally uncalled for... Came across as a reasonable bloke on stid; in contrast to salmon pants
 
No. A lot of clubs show a profit.
More importantly a club that isn’t a drain on a businessman’s resources provides other benefits. At PL level a football club owner can get to meet ministers and heads of state in developing countries when otherwise phone calls would result in investment meetings with their flunkies.
Those clubs weren't profitable until the current owners made them profitable with their vision and investment.
And buying an already profitable club isn't a good investment as it costs too much to benefit from the profit it makes, it would take years and years just to get your money back.
A debt free Sunderland is one of the better investments out there, if you know what you're doing.
 
My opinion on him won’t change until he shows evidence of death threats. Blokes an absolute f***ing balloon.
 
He's just a business man trying to make money from his investments... Nothing against him tbf... If people were abusing him at the matches its totally uncalled for... Came across as a reasonable bloke on stid; in contrast to salmon pants
Did you not get a feeling that he is also quite a big football fan and enjoys owning a club? He doesn't need to stand in the away end when watching games yet does and doesn't appear to make a big deal of it wanting attention when he does it. He obviously won't want to be made bankrupt by this whole saga and making money is how he's got where he is, but he doesn't seem to be a cold hard business man who is just trying to flip the club come what may.
 
The way they were economic with the truth about how they used the club‘s own money to pay-off Ellis Short, makes it impossible for me to trust them.

The main problem is there appears to be little alternative to these two; I’m genuinely worried about the future of SAFC.

They used the club's money to pay off the £25m of the SBC loan which Short had moved into Drumaville to give the impression the club was debt free.
 
They appear to have used 15m to buy the club, is that on the cheap if that was the going rate for the club?
As Short put the condition in that the 25m would be used to pay off debts the club owed already, the cost to run the club was 35m a year so Donald and Methvan didn't do anything positive in your eyes in reducing that number so the club didn't keep losing money or go bust?

I'm not at all saying Donald is some heroic figure who single handedly saved us, but there are so many posts on here that pretend this situation is a clear black and white and there are only heroes and villains. It's entirely possible to thing Donald failed in lots of areas and did well in lots of areas.
I'm not saying Donald is a villain. He did his part and I hope he makes a good profit. He reduced costs just as anyone else in his position would've done. I'm just concerned if he's here for the long run, seeing that in the process he made the football part worse and we're becoming a perennial L1 club with a shite academy.
 
They weren't the only ones interested. We're stable because Short left them the club almost debt free with the best League One squad. How quickly people forget!
What's their input? Getting rid of Ndong and Cattermole? I bet they'd have been gone by now no matter the regime.

Well technically debt free at the time.

With an annual operating deficit in the tens of millions.

That’s why we had such a good League 1 squad. We were paying them more than we were earning.

So anybody who came in was going to have to fund the club as Short was or try to fix it.

I don’t think people understand what dire financial state the club was in. It had been utterly run into the ground and was only alive on life support (Short’s money).

Donald tried to balance the recovery. Slash the finances and keep us competitive. Fell short by an injury time goal to Charlton. I don’t think they did a horrible job.

It’d be nice to have some benevolent billionaire come in and run the club totally competently while pouring in whatever money is required. In reality it’s not happening.
 
just unbelievable

he took 25 mill in parachute payments out of the club

and people still spout this shite?

amazing
This £25m was to clear a “safc debt”.
It’s still a bit misunderstood why and when this debt was created. Correct me if I’m wrong but you seem to believe it was created to give ES something for his troubles when he left, am I right? Which obviously shows why SD & CW included it in their claim of buying safc for £40m. This also explains why it was paid off ASAP by safc via the £25m parachute payment when it arrived thus saving what I’d imagine to be horrendous interest payments If it wasn’t.
If the above is the case then theres a few people were economical with the truth back then.
Southampton in administration, minus ten points, league 1 2009
Southampton promoted to PL 2012

We need our own Liebherr and Cortese
and it's this hope that keeps me going because I don't care what anyone says, looking at the respective positions of the two clubs at the same moment in time (us now, Southampton 2009) we are a FAR MORE attractive prospect to buy in every regard, vanity project or otherwise.
Their tkt prices and corporate etc bring in more than ours. It’s a far more affluent neck of the woods.
They used the club's money to pay off the £25m of the SBC loan which Short had moved into Drumaville to give the impression the club was debt free.
So ES didn’t take £25m for his troubles Via whatever mechanism and it was a genuine debt that’d been ran up while keeping the show on the road? I hope it was genuine because I’ve had a few irl arguments about it. With me saying it was a real debt and others saying it was a payoff for ES and saved SD& CM a fortune while buying. Maybe there’s more believe the artificial debt thing than don’t? Maybe that’s at the root of a lot of anti SD & CM hostility?
 
Last edited:
This £25m was to clear a “safc debt”.
It’s still a bit misunderstood why and when this debt was created. Correct me if I’m wrong but you seem to believe it was created to give ES something for his troubles when he left, am I right? Which obviously shows why SD & CW included it in their claim of buying safc for £40m. This also explains why it was paid off ASAP by safc via the £25m parachute payment when it arrived thus saving what I’d imagine to be horrendous interest payments If it wasn’t.
If the above is the case then theres a few people were economical with the truth back then.

Their tkt prices and corporate etc bring in more than ours. It’s a far more affluent neck of the woods.

So ES didn’t take £25m for his troubles Via whatever mechanism and it was a genuine debt that’d been ran up while keeping the show on the road? I hope it was genuine because I’ve had a few irl arguments about it. With me saying it was a real debt and others saying it was a payoff for ES and saved SD& CM a fortune while buying. Maybe there’s more believe the artificial debt thing than don’t? Maybe that’s at the root of a lot of anti SD & CM hostility?

no

it’s completely wrong

the club has been cut to with an inch of it’s life at all levels because they took the parachute payments out
and they now have the cheek to ask for 40 mill for a sale

it’s worth much less than the day they bought it

it’s absolutely scandalous

why you are still replying to that accountant above, he was taken for a ride, humiliatedand Won’t admit it

so he continues to spin their Pr

him and Reiver Man, ffs :lol:
 
This £25m was to clear a “safc debt”.
It’s still a bit misunderstood why and when this debt was created. Correct me if I’m wrong but you seem to believe it was created to give ES something for his troubles when he left, am I right? Which obviously shows why SD & CW included it in their claim of buying safc for £40m. This also explains why it was paid off ASAP by safc via the £25m parachute payment when it arrived thus saving what I’d imagine to be horrendous interest payments If it wasn’t.
If the above is the case then theres a few people were economical with the truth back then.

Their tkt prices and corporate etc bring in more than ours. It’s a far more affluent neck of the woods.

So ES didn’t take £25m for his troubles Via whatever mechanism and it was a genuine debt that’d been ran up while keeping the show on the road? I hope it was genuine because I’ve had a few irl arguments about it. With me saying it was a real debt and others saying it was a payoff for ES and saved SD& CM a fortune while buying. Maybe there’s more believe the artificial debt thing than don’t? Maybe that’s at the root of a lot of anti SD & CM hostility?

I just don't think it's a coincidence that Short got loan a from SBC to Drumaville at the time of the deal, and that just happens to be the amount of the parachute used. My understanding (and this is in the minutes of the liaison meeting last June) is that that £25m was meant to be paid directly to Drumaville, but nobody in either set of advisers thought to check if that was possible. It was only when they told Angela Lowes about this that they found out it was against Pl rules. The parachute had to go into an account in the club's name (for very good reasons, if you think about it). That set up the whole sorry trail of money flow from SAFC to Drumaville via Madrox, creating a raft of accounting problems by showing it in Madrox's books as an additional cost of investment. As Methven himself put it, the whole thing was "a monumental cock-up".
 
Last edited:
Those clubs weren't profitable until the current owners made them profitable with their vision and investment.
And buying an already profitable club isn't a good investment as it costs too much to benefit from the profit it makes, it would take years and years just to get your money back.
A debt free Sunderland is one of the better investments out there, if you know what you're doing.
Agreed.
Ive been banging on in here about safc being one of the 13 biggest clubs in England crowd potential wise for nigh on 20 years now. Of those only Leeds, Wednesday and City have fallen to this level since the PLs invention. A stable SAFC would be about the best investment in English football crowdwise atm. Unfortunately more affluent areas muddy the waters.
 
They used the club's money to pay off the £25m of the SBC loan which Short had moved into Drumaville to give the impression the club was debt free.
When they announced theyd bought the club for £40m debt free was it inevitable that the next set of accounts would have shown them up to be fibbers?

They could have just announced the club still has £25m of debt but they have a plan to clear that over the next year or so and it would have caused them a lot less hassle.
 
Their tkt prices and corporate etc bring in more than ours. It’s a far more affluent neck of the woods.
With a difference in stadium capacity of 15,000, your assertion would not stand up to closer scrutiny even though we famously keep SC prices down and their area is indeed more affluent.
 
Without one, would we have the other?
I don’t think we would.
While the current situation is awful, I think we’re in a better position, as a club, than we were in the summer of 2018.
Back then, we were spiralling downwards and insolvency was a real prospect. Now, we are at least looking upwards.
See a few posts above
With a difference in stadium capacity of 15,000, your assertion would not stand up to closer scrutiny even though we famously keep SC prices down and their area is indeed more affluent.
In Fulham’s last PL season they brought in more matchday revenue than safc and our grounds almost twice the size of theres. Granted Fulham will charge more than Soton for tkts/hospitality but it’s the principle I’m banging on about.
 
Last edited:
See a few posts above

In Fulham’s last PL season they brought in more matchday revenue than safc and our grounds almost twice the size of theres. Granted Fulham will charge more than Soton for tkts/hospitality but it’s the principle I’m banging on about.
I get the principle. Perhaps someone could dig out the revenue figures for the two clubs the last time we were in the PL at the same time. I'm not clever enough :lol:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top