Loans/ Debt to the owners

[Be Here Now]

Not everything is black and white.

A lot of the stuff they have done has been very bad. That doesn’t mean we should see everything they do as bad, that doesn’t help.

The loans that this thread is about, are not a bad thing.

I’ve witnessed arguments between fans at the last two home games. All of this whipping up of every commercial thing they do is making things worse.

We shouldn’t be demanding KLD buys out Madrox, if he’s got money to invest, buy some players. We also shouldn’t be complaining that they loaned the club money, and we shouldn’t give a toss about share percentages. Judge their actions going forward, give KLD a few years to sort the club out.

Our hatred has coloured our thinking.

Wow

I'll ask again why do you prefer to show more backing for Madrox at the same time as yet again slag our fanbase off. I think it is a fair question.

 

[Robanner]

Couldn’t care less now tbh. We are either going to be in league 1 for the fifth season running, which seems massively likely, or hmm…

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

@Grumpy Old Man we need grump's perspective on this!

The write off was legal - end of story. The balance should never actually have come about in the first time. The contract could and should have been better drafted to place the loan element of Short's payment in the club's court in the first case, In substance over form terms it was club money being used to pay a club debt - the last £25m of the SBC loan, which Short had moved into Drumaville to give the appearance of us being debt free, which was not the case. That would have left Madrox's cost of investment as £12.7m, and a much more realistic valuation.

 

[stretch]

It’s a f***ing mess. What has became of our fantastic club that two spiff’s from Oxford have us in a headlock

 

[sir rowell cummins]

Look, the only protest we can make is to empty the ground,which would make big news on local tv stations.Then hopefully be picked up in the press to run with it.I get that this is hard for people to do,i stayed away the other night a thing i havnt done in 65 seasons.All i ask is do people think any change will happen if we keep rolling up in our thousands.its time for us to show some backbone.

Or make nuisance to his business interests so he knows messing with ours can be reciprocated.

 

[GiantHogweed]

The write off was legal - end of story. The balance should never actually have come about in the first time. The contract could and should have been better drafted to place the loan element of Short's payment in the club's court in the first case, In substance over form terms it was club money being used to pay a club debt - the last £25m of the SBC loan, which Short had moved into Drumaville to give the appearance of us being debt free, which was not the case. That would have left Madrox's cost of investment as £12.7m, and a much more realistic valuation.

OK thx. Surprised KLD bought in if that is the case.

Wasn't it rumored the german consortium saw this dual entry shell game with parachute payments during due diligence and said thanks but no thanks and was why they walked away?

 

[blf]

I've been reading what's going on at your club for years now. I can't believe how much you have been shafted in particularly in the last 4 yrs
I think at most clubs there would be hell on at each game and organised protests around the town and stadium. Is it just how long it's gone on has beaten you down? I know it's not my club and it's nothing really to do with me but you need to get organised properly and act.
Or a meringue (SMB 1990- present day)

 

[Father Jack Hackett]

Bunch of horrible c unts

 

[Fez2]

Suggest we all put Hep on ignore.

 

[oddbod]

Utter nonsense, I’ve made a directors loan to a company personally. It’s very common practice.

The loans can be in both directions.

We don’t owe any money to them.

A company they own, owes money to them.

They’ve actively put money into the club and we still complaining???

This needs clearing up .is the money they say they(Donald cronies) have put into the club in the form of a loan? If it is this will be the last straw for me !..never mind not paying back 20 million(fek the semantics of madrox /sun fc)but donald has loaned the money with the hopes to get back in a sale down the line ...... its astonishing and they will get no more money from me if its true!Dont these things have to be mentioned in the yearly accounts?

 

[Guinness Guzzler]

The write off was legal - end of story. The balance should never actually have come about in the first time. The contract could and should have been better drafted to place the loan element of Short's payment in the club's court in the first case, In substance over form terms it was club money being used to pay a club debt - the last £25m of the SBC loan, which Short had moved into Drumaville to give the appearance of us being debt free, which was not the case. That would have left Madrox's cost of investment as £12.7m, and a much more realistic valuation.

My main question about it, however, is whether the £25m was always meant to be paid through the parachute payments, or whether it was part of the price Short wanted for safc with parachute payments still to come, and donald decided the only way he could afford it was to pay £12m and give Short the parachute payment (through the badly managed process you mentioned).

If the price was meant to be £37m for safc with parachutes still to come, then there's no argument, donald should be paying it back and he shouldn't be getting any of it back again when he sells.

If it was only meant to be £12m for safc without the second parachute payment then it's different. But if that's the case why did Donald specifically say he wanted over £30m when suggesting the fans could buy it from him? And why would he even talk about paying it back if he was never supposed to

Basically I don't believe it was all because Short "wanted it to look like he left the club debt free". I think Short wanted £37m, Donald couldn't afford it, so he paid a hefty chunk of it out of the clubs money and would now love nothing more than to avoid paying it back

 

[Deleted member 49669]

That’s two different things.

Why on earth would somebody loan money to their own business to then waste It

I was making a point, wether they waste it or spend it maintaining an unprofitable business, the result is the same.

The company is in debt to the owners when they sell. More than what the debt would be if it wasn’t a loan.

 

[SPUFF]

The write off was legal - end of story. The balance should never actually have come about in the first time. The contract could and should have been better drafted to place the loan element of Short's payment in the club's court in the first case, In substance over form terms it was club money being used to pay a club debt - the last £25m of the SBC loan, which Short had moved into Drumaville to give the appearance of us being debt free, which was not the case. That would have left Madrox's cost of investment as £12.7m, and a much more realistic valuation.

Though you do your best to explain it, the no of holding companies etc etc always riles me.

I know its common practice but in our instance I think its these pricks saying “lets move the money from A to B but not into C and those northern bufoons wont have a clue”.
I think a more transparent share set up is desperate going forward, suggestion: @Guinness Guzzler

 

[Scarborough mackem]

Putins leading a consortium to take us over

Totally implausible: it's be like Saudi Arabia being allowed to buy a club.

 

[Herberthall]

Remember when the majority licked their arses. Seats, selfies (delete from your phone) and pints.........................

 

[wackyjacky]

My main question about it, however, is whether the £25m was always meant to be paid through the parachute payments, or whether it was part of the price Short wanted for safc with parachute payments still to come, and donald decided the only way he could afford it was to pay £12m and give Short the parachute payment (through the badly managed process you mentioned).

If the price was meant to be £37m for safc with parachutes still to come, then there's no argument, donald should be paying it back and he shouldn't be getting any of it back again when he sells.

If it was only meant to be £12m for safc without the second parachute payment then it's different. But if that's the case why did Donald specifically say he wanted over £30m when suggesting the fans could buy it from him? And why would he even talk about paying it back if he was never supposed to

Basically I don't believe it was all because Short "wanted it to look like he left the club debt free". I think Short wanted £37m, Donald couldn't afford it, so he paid a hefty chunk of it out of the clubs money and would now love nothing more than to avoid paying it back

I can't see any way a Championship club, newly relegated from the Premier League, would only be valued at £12m. At the time I thought £37m was very low.

 

[Smiler]

I can't see any way a Championship club, newly relegated from the Premier League, would only be valued at £12m. At the time I thought £37m was very low.

We weren't a championship club newly relegated from the top flight though

 

[Ashley In!!]

My main question about it, however, is whether the £25m was always meant to be paid through the parachute payments, or whether it was part of the price Short wanted for safc with parachute payments still to come, and donald decided the only way he could afford it was to pay £12m and give Short the parachute payment (through the badly managed process you mentioned).

If the price was meant to be £37m for safc with parachutes still to come, then there's no argument, donald should be paying it back and he shouldn't be getting any of it back again when he sells.

If it was only meant to be £12m for safc without the second parachute payment then it's different. But if that's the case why did Donald specifically say he wanted over £30m when suggesting the fans could buy it from him? And why would he even talk about paying it back if he was never supposed to

Basically I don't believe it was all because Short "wanted it to look like he left the club debt free". I think Short wanted £37m, Donald couldn't afford it, so he paid a hefty chunk of it out of the clubs money and would now love nothing more than to avoid paying it back

The price is recorded in Madrox's accounts as £37m so that's what it was agreed as.

 

[Black Cat Gypsy]

Directors have loaned the club money. That’s it.

Have you been to every game since you were old enough to support them?

What is wrong with lending a business money?

They loaned themselves £20m and claim there's no obligation to pay it back. Rather than paying the money back, they are loaning the club. No doubt the club will have pay back those loans.

 

[MADBOB THE MAKEM]

Wonder if @MADBOB THE MAKEM could possibly elaborate, the situation is now getting very tense and folk are now expecting the worse. Try and give us something Bob to put us out of our misery..

I can tell you one thing for certain this black hole money everyone goes ape over is being paid back over 3 years it was 2 but due to circumstances beyond their control its now 3 years.
It has been paid back for a while now, but let's let the truth get in the way of anger.
PS it was part of the NDA and the financial restructure on the takeover that never was.

Trees at the academy blown over?

Same as our defence