deleted user 785
Striker
Great posterThat'll ding dang do for me cocker.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Great posterThat'll ding dang do for me cocker.
how do you know that? without knowing who the consortium are, how much money they have put in and how much they have paid it could be anything.
Short could have paid off the debt and sold the club for £1
Short could have paid off the debt and sold the club for X, an amount the new owners could afford to fund without loans.
Short could have payed off the debt and sold the club for X and amount the new owners could not afford and they have had to loan a large sum from a bank and have substantial debts.
Are we any closer to finding out who these investors areBut starting that process debt free, as opposed to starting it with an existing millstone is different. If Short doesn't pay off the debt, it's pegged at anywhere between £70-£100m guaranteed. IF the new owners have given Short anything, that's between them and Short. The club haven't borrowed money on behalf of the club to buy the club. You realise that yes? Nobody gets to buy a football team by saying 'we'll buy it if they say yes because we don't have any money and need to take out a loan on behalf of the club to make the purchase'Imagine passing the 'fit and proper' test if that was your mindset.
Also, I'm confident the people involved have substantial amounts of money. I'll wait on the details and longer term plans, but they are ready to put a lot of money into the club.
But starting that process debt free, as opposed to starting it with an existing millstone is different. If Short doesn't pay off the debt, it's pegged at anywhere between £70-£100m guaranteed. IF the new owners have given Short anything, that's between them and Short. The club haven't borrowed money on behalf of the club to buy the club. You realise that yes? Nobody gets to buy a football team by saying 'we'll buy it if they say yes because we don't have any money and need to take out a loan on behalf of the club to make the purchase'Imagine passing the 'fit and proper' test if that was your mindset.
Also, I'm confident the people involved have substantial amounts of money. I'll wait on the details and longer term plans, but they are ready to put a lot of money into the club.
Personallyfeel he knows a hell of a lot more than you .As in the Glazer purchase of ManU?
I decide to sell my house, I pay off the balance of my mortgage, I am now debt free. This does not mean the person that buys my house will also be mortgage and debt free.
Sunderland will be debt free if the buyer can meet the terms off the sale without having to loan money. If the buyer has had to loan money to meet the terms of the sale then the club will not be debt free under the new ownership.
I am not saying the club will not be debt free at the start of the new ownership I am saying I don't know if it will be or it won't be and neither do you.
Obviously not if he believes the statement he made which I highlighted in bold.Personallyfeel he knows a hell of a lot more than you .
As in the Glazer purchase of ManU?
I decide to sell my house, I pay off the balance of my mortgage, I am now debt free. This does not mean the person that buys my house will also be mortgage and debt free.
Sunderland will be debt free if the buyer can meet the terms off the sale without having to loan money. If the buyer has had to loan money to meet the terms of the sale then the club will not be debt free under the new ownership.
I am not saying the club will not be debt free at the start of the new ownership I am saying I don't know if it will be or it won't be and neither do you.
I lend you borrowI wish you'd have a refresh on the difference between "loan" and "borrow".
As in the Glazer purchase of ManU?
At the time of the Drumaville takeover he was worth €12m. How much he had in the bank is a different question.What was Niall Quinn’s net worth before he took over in 2006, was Gray moaning then cos I doubt it was that much.
Grays just a bit bitter it isn’t the consortium he wanted.
Get off your knees man.I would be very sceptical that Short has wiped the debt out until it's in black and white. Very rich people tend to not get rich by giving away shit loads of money.
I wouldn't be surprised if in the details of the sale he has wiped the debt to stop the debt rising but the new owners have to pay him back over X amount of years.
Could be wrong, maybe he is just a Sunderland fan and wanted to give a huge amount of money away for the benefit of the fans.
As you didn't ask nicely no.
Two international players haven’t gone through the books and we’ve been reported to FIFA, one must be Alvarez, which I thought had already been sorted
I used to think that he was a bell end but over the last couple of years he seemed to have changed.Micky Gray is a f***ing imbecile. Hope he feels suitably embarrassed when the facts are revealed. On a personal level, it's utterly hilarious watching how the media and bookmakers work and how little actual knowledge exists. Not that I was under any illusions otherwise, but it's still funnier this time.
Give it up man, are you trying to convince us or you, your f***ing pathetic and also shitting yasel.As in the Glazer purchase of ManU?
I decide to sell my house, I pay off the balance of my mortgage, I am now debt free. This does not mean the person that buys my house will also be mortgage and debt free.
Sunderland will be debt free if the buyer can meet the terms off the sale without having to loan money. If the buyer has had to loan money to meet the terms of the sale then the club will not be debt free under the new ownership.
I am not saying the club will not be debt free at the start of the new ownership I am saying I don't know if it will be or it won't be and neither do you.
Slightly different for a number of reasons, not only because they owned a substantial amount of the business to start with, but because fit and proper tests simply didn't exist at the time. I also think that comparing a deal like this to a deal which required around £700m in financing is very different. Short has paid off the debt and was not looking for a substantial amount in compensation for the club.
Of course, debt can be transferred onto the club by owners (Gillete and Hicks style) at which point it'd be less desirable, but look at Newcastle for a club witha £100m+ debt that it's owner has attached to it. It can work debt-free in effect, because the terms of the loan and finance are not restrictive. You have to understand that the SBC loan would be getting called in next July and would likely not have been able to be paid. Administration was a possibility in that event.
Working with long term debt attached to the club is ok. Working with debt that has a fixed term is the worst case scenario. If we are financing the club by loans, we started that process without an existing arrangement, hence 'debt free'.
Also, yes, I do know a little more about the people involved and again, I can only characterise it as them being willing to invest very, very large sums into the club.