Loans/ Debt to the owners

[North Yorks Mackem]

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.

I think all that is pretty much irrelevant tbh. They paid 37 million for the club. The bulk was with the clubs parachute money.

There were other bids on the table lower than 37 million which were not using this cash. WMS suggests there was an alternative bid which had been agreed to. The only way they got the club was to use the parachute money and put the valuation at the price they did.

This wasn't some mistake drafting the contract. This was all thought out.

 

[10 Gary Rowells]

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

Can't stand it when people turn round to blame the fans. The time you describe is before anyone knew about these financial tricks, before we knew they'd touted a generation of youngsters, before we knew how shady and duplicitous they were. At that time we all felt we were debt free and saved. So let's focus on how we get rid of these people rather than trying to slag off fans who were duped. I presume from day one you were explaining that Madrox were crooks.

 

[Hep]

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.

Did you read my post?

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?

What difference does it make?

He either gets it back when the club is sold, or if he had capitalised the money, he would get it back as the club would be worth more without the loan liability.

 

[Be Here Now]

Did you read my post?

What difference does it make?

He either gets it back when the club is sold, or if he had capitalised the money, he would get it back as the club would be worth more without the loan liability.

Yes I did and you still can't give a straight honest answer. Reminds me of the people in charge of the club

 

[Hep]

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.

Indeed, but the club they own is worth one pound less for every pound it owes. So they’ll get less for it when they sell.

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.

The loan can be given to the club for as long as the directors want. It nets off during a sale.

Just like when you sell a car and it’s got finance left on it, you end up with less as the outstanding finance needs settling.

Yes I did and you still can't give a straight honest answer. Reminds me of the people in charge of the club

You keep saying I’m defending the club, when I’ve repeatedly explained that I’m explaining why a loan isn’t a bad thing.

I think all that is pretty much irrelevant tbh. They paid 37 million for the club. The bulk was with the clubs parachute money.

There were other bids on the table lower than 37 million which were not using this cash. WMS suggests there was an alternative bid which had been agreed to. The only way they got the club was to use the parachute money and put the valuation at the price they did.

This wasn't some mistake drafting the contract. This was all thought out.

What GOM says is exactly correct and completely relevant.

The problem is it makes it look like there was a big issue when in reality there wasn’t, other than the optics.

If the other bids had been lower without using the pp cash, how was short getting the last £25m he wanted?

 

[Be Here Now]

Indeed, but the club they own is worth one pound less for every pound it owes. So they’ll get less for it when they sell.

The loan can be given to the club for as long as the directors want. It nets off during a sale.

Just like when you sell a car and it’s got finance left on it, you end up with less as the outstanding finance needs settling.

You keep saying I’m defending the club, when I’ve repeatedly explained that I’m explaining why a loan isn’t a bad thing.

Hep you are doing the exact same thing as you did the other day.

The other day when I asked you questions all you went on about was the South Stand completely diverting from everything I asked.

Today you are constantly going on about the loan.I have never once asked you about the loan.

I will ask again. Why as apparently you are a supposed to be a Sunderland fan do you choose to run down the fans from this working class region who struggle to make ends meet but still invest their hard earned money into SAFC but yet you stand by owners who have millions of pounds to their name whilst dragging the football club to depths we've never seen before.

And again Ill point out how you never deny having connections to the owners. If I was being called a club stooge or even being accused of actually being Charlie Methven Id be denying it thoroughly. You don't deny but simply go silent and to try change the topic.

You are as bad as the people you are clearly in bed with at SAFC.

 

[Hep]

Hep you are doing the exact same thing as you did the other day.

The other day when I asked you questions all you went on about was the South Stand completely diverting from everything I asked.

Today you are constantly going on about the loan.I have never once asked you about the loan.

I will ask again. Why as apparently you are a supposed to be a Sunderland fan do you choose to run down the fans from this working class region who struggle to make ends meet but still invest their hard earned money into SAFC but yet you stand by owners who have millions of pounds to their name whilst dragging the football club to depths we've never seen before.

And again Ill point out how you never deny having connections to the owners. If I was being called a club stooge or even being accused of actually being Charlie Methven Id be denying it thoroughly. You don't deny but simply go silent and to try change the topic.

You are as bad as the people you are clearly in bed with at SAFC.

This thread is about the loans, that’s why we’re talking about them. If you dont want to talk about the loan, don’t post in the thread about them.

I’ve never said anything about the fans on this thread. I’ve never defended the owners on this thread, I’ve never claimed to have an association with the club.

I’ve answered all the questions you asked several times on several threads. I get bored of answering when you just keep asking.

 

[Sonnyboy]

I've just put "H", "E" and "P" in an anagram solver and it's come up with "CLUB STOOGE"

 

[Be Here Now]

This thread is about the loans, that’s why we’re talking about them. If you dont want to talk about the loan, don’t post in the thread about them.

I’ve never said anything about the fans on this thread. I’ve never defended the owners on this thread, I’ve never claimed to have an association with the club.

I’ve answered all the questions you asked several times on several threads. I get bored of answering when you just keep asking.

You get bored because you know full well you are pathetic. Diverting it again about the loan which I never asked.

You've never once answered on the other threads.

You know deep down you are nothing but an apologist for Madrox and I highly doubt you'd go on the match with fans the way you do on here.

 

[Deleted member 49669]

Indeed, but the club they own is worth one pound less for every pound it owes. So they’ll get less for it when they sell.

The loan can be given to the club for as long as the directors want. It nets off during a sale.

Just like when you sell a car and it’s got finance left on it, you end up with less as the outstanding finance needs settling.

You keep saying I’m defending the club, when I’ve repeatedly explained that I’m explaining why a loan isn’t a bad thing.

What GOM says is exactly correct and completely relevant.

The problem is it makes it look like there was a big issue when in reality there wasn’t, other than the optics.

If the other bids had been lower without using the pp cash, how was short getting the last £25m he wanted?

The club is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it.

The debt will be payable regardless (unless declared bankrupt).

Sell it for £1 and the debt still needs paying so it doesn’t net off.

 

[---Nemo---]

Hep has posted on here for the thick end of two decades. It's highly unlikely he has connections to Donald and his mouthpiece.

 

[10 Gary Rowells]

Re-reading this thread and the initial tweet to expose potential wrong doing it is still difficult to understand. We all know thar Madrox used the parachute payments, which were intended to help us get back up, to buy the club. They then said they were gradually paying them back and had paid perhaps 2/3 of what they owed. Am I correct in thinking that the latest revelation is that in fact the money they were putting back in to 're-pay' the parachute payments was in fact a loan? If so, regardless of any corporate slight of hand it would mean that 1. They have lied (again) and 2. They will ultimately be trousering the parachute payments after all. Is that the what the tweet says is happening, in layman's terms? Apologies if I am wrong.

 

[molthemackem]

Likes a holiday does KLD


It would, and he would be welcomed.


Need too be an accountant to read this forum nowadays.

He has to count the number of days he is in this country I suspect. For Tax.

 

[BumbleBee]

Re-reading this thread and the initial tweet to expose potential wrong doing it is still difficult to understand. We all know thar Madrox used the parachute payments, which were intended to help us get back up, to buy the club. They then said they were gradually paying them back and had paid perhaps 2/3 of what they owed. Am I correct in thinking that the latest revelation is that in fact the money they were putting back in to 're-pay' the parachute payments was in fact a loan? If so, regardless of any corporate slight of hand it would mean that 1. They have lied (again) and 2. They will ultimately be trousering the parachute payments after all. Is that the what the tweet says is happening, in layman's terms? Apologies if I am wrong.

IF the tweet is right that's my take on it as well.

 

[Guinness Guzzler]

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.

Same as our defence

Steve Davison confirmed in the recent meeting that it hasn't all been repaid, so unless he was making it up I can't imagine that it's all been repaid for a while. Also pretty certain there wasn't an NDA to begin with (or if there was, certain very senior people at safc were unaware of it initially). Regardless even if it has been repaid we need confirmation that it doesn't go back out again when they finally sell their shares

 

[Hep]

The club is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it.

The debt will be payable regardless (unless declared bankrupt).

Sell it for £1 and the debt still needs paying so it doesn’t net off.

That's not correct, Short had lots of money owing to him and wrote it off as part of the sale.

The club's full balance sheet is always factored in during any sale.

Steve Davison confirmed in the recent meeting that it hasn't all been repaid, so unless he was making it up I can't imagine that it's all been repaid for a while. Also pretty certain there wasn't an NDA to begin with (or if there was, certain very senior people at safc were unaware of it initially). Regardless even if it has been repaid we need confirmation that it doesn't go back out again when they finally sell their shares

But if they capitalise the loans into shares, the club is worth more, so they'll get more when they sell it.

e.g. if the club is worth £50 today

Directors lend club £5, Club is worth £50 + the £5 of loans it has in the bank, but owes £5, so it's worth £50. The directors get £50 + their £5 loan back.

Directors lend club £5, Club is worth £50 + the £5 of loans it has in the bank, directors convert loans to shares, club is worth £55 when it's sold. Directors get £55 (e.g. the £50 + the £5 they invested)

Directors don't lend club £5, Club is worth £50 when it's sold. (Directors get £50)

IF the tweet is right that's my take on it as well.

Short wanted the parachute payment money as part of the deal, in exchange for writing all the other loans off. They haven't 'trousered' anything.

 

[oddbod]

Did you read my post?

What difference does it make?

He either gets it back when the club is sold, or if he had capitalised the money, he would get it back as the club would be worth more without the loan liability.

If you don't see the difference between putting moneys into the club to help with day to day running/covid and development plans to improve club and putting money into the club via a loan and expecting it back I cannot help you !
Not all moneys going into the club adds value to it!

 

[Hep]

If you don't see the difference between putting moneys into the club to help with day to day running/covid and development plans to improve club and putting money into the club via a loan and expecting it back I cannot help you !
Not all moneys going into the club adds value to it!

so you don't want them to loan the club money? I'm confused?

 

[oddbod]

so you don't want them to loan the club money? I'm confused?

So would I if I were you!

 

[10 Gary Rowells]

IF the tweet is right that's my take on it as well.

There is a complexity to this that is difficult to follow. However, SD/CM/KLD will all know the specifics. Equally, those that wish to profit will try to use the complexity to mask their actions. I hope the fans groups can make the questions clear so that the answers cannot dodge the reality. For me the issue was that the parachute payments should not have been used to buy the club, that is not what the payments were intended for. If they were used in that way they should have been paid back swiftly and, to date, they haven't been. If the re-payment is in the form of a loan then it means there was never any intention to re-pay. I do not know the legality of this but if this is what is happening then surely the EFL should be made aware as it surely falls well short of 'fit and proper'.