• The forums will be unavailable for a few hours on Saturday 6th June, when they do return they will initially be in a degraded state with some features missing, but normal posting/reading will be possible. The main website will not be affected by these updates.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.
    Some other features of the forum are also currently disabled.

Takeover in trouble

Status
Not open for further replies.

Lewberry pie said:
So rather than allow them to explain anything you're choosing to believe the negative connotation. Glad we cleared that up, what's your agenda then?
Click to expand...

I've said what I said based only on his words. You can choose to be naive and defend this, or you can ask a question of a man who has a responsibility to explain to fans why he is loaning himself club money. He is a custodian of SAFC, it is not his personal piggy bank.
 
KittenMittens said:
I've said what I said based only on his words. You can choose to be naive and defend this, or you can ask a question of a man who has a responsibility to explain to fans why he is loaning himself club money. He is a custodian of SAFC, it is not his personal piggy bank.
Click to expand...
He hasn't taken any money out of the club like, you're just twisting what he's said to fit a negative.
 
KittenMittens said:
I've said what I said based only on his words. You can choose to be naive and defend this, or you can ask a question of a man who has a responsibility to explain to fans why he is loaning himself club money. He is a custodian of SAFC, it is not his personal piggy bank.
Click to expand...

We have an explanation. You just haven't seen it yet.
 
Grumpy Old Man said:
Did he? You may have a surprise coming.
Click to expand...

Why be cryptic? I think there's enough in that podcast to wonder what happened. Particularly as the balance of his shares also ended up secured vs parachute payments according to his words in the linked podcast. If you have a different interpretation or know more, then I think you should at least say?
 
KittenMittens said:
Why be cryptic? I think there's enough in that podcast to wonder what happened. Particularly as the balance of his shares also ended up secured vs parachute payments according to his words in the linked podcast. If you have a different interpretation or know more, then I think you should at least say?
Click to expand...

Donald is not terribly articulate. I'm being cryptic because until the detail comes out in the club's own words (and Stewart's explanation on the podcast was actually internally contradictory at times) I can't not be.

Secret Visage said:
A reasonable one?
Click to expand...

In my opinion, yes.
 
KittenMittens said:
So am I. You think I can funnel money between the businesses without attracting concern? Fuck the legalities man, you are making excuses for the bloke using SAFC's cash to pay HIS debt.



I believe now from their words and characterisation that they showed proof of funds of £20m only.
Click to expand...

Am I fuck :lol:

Why would I defend him when I want them gone?:lol:
 
Grumpy Old Man said:
Donald is not terribly articulate. I'm being cryptic because until the detail comes out in the club's own words (and Stewart's explanation on the podcast was actually internally contradictory at times) I can't not be.



In my opinion, yes.
Click to expand...
That'll do for me.

I run the finances for a few seven figure turnover companies, group and non group and appreciate the time you take on the safc accounts. Time which I certainly don't have spare.
 
The Jarra Wanderer said:
Grumpy Old Man seems furious that Speedy1976 has the inside track on the club with more relevant knowledge that he could only dream of.
Click to expand...

And he's wrong again. I was offered information on Friday, and turned it down because I can't pass on unpublished commercially sensitive information without getting into serious trouble. Furthermore, I have no idea who it was who was offering me the information, nor whether it was remotely true. If other people want to pass on unsubstantiated stuff from anonymous third parties, that's up to them. I can't and won't. The more I think about it though, looking at all the negative rumours (Donald being drunk at a Q&A, etc), the more I'm convinced I was being played.
 
garyswc said:
So after the related party balances consolidate out, what's left re the other side of the £9.6M Bank credit, not an o/d directors loan / loan due from a participator is it?
Click to expand...

The creditor is in Madrox, the debtor is in SAFC. The related cash indeed left the group, as it related to a payment due to a third party.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top