The first few Roker Report podcast interviews with SD and CM...

[Deleted member 634]

OK I can see why you've taken it that way because of the way I worded it. I could have been more clear if I'd taken more time over that sentence. Still, the fact was he failed to do what we all hoped he'd do - get us promoted - so his job was in jeopardy throughout the summer. The "anti-Ross stuff" wasn't just from the fans, it was from the newspapers too. Are you denying he was in danger of being sacked going into this season? Did you think he would still be in charge come the end of this season? Do you not think that players we were trying to sign would have had that same opinion and therefore would be concerned that they'd be surplus to requirements once the next manager came in?

Isn't every manager these days in danger of not seeing the season out? Players know this, surelybthey don't go into season they are guaranteed to see out season with same manager.

Now back to my question....

 

[fyl2u]

So nothing to do with the takeover talk in the summer?

The "takeover" talk in the summer was still likely to involve SD being at the club, so any worry about change in manager probably wouldn't have been because of new owners if the players were paying attention properly to the news reports. On the other hand you'd be quite to say that a lot of people weren't paying attention properly so yes, it may well have also contributed.

At the end of the day it was unlikely that Ross would still be our manager by the end of the season, so players would likely have been put off by it, yes. So yes, as you quite rightly said, it would likely have applied to the summer window as well.

Isn't every manager these days in danger of not seeing the season out? Players know this, surelybthey don't go into season they are guaranteed to see out season with same manager.

Now back to my question....

Yes to an extent, but when a manager has only just been appointed or if they succeeded in the club's aims the previous year, they're more likely to see out the season than one that failed to deliver the aims of the previous season, so the uncertainty is increased for managers who "failed", leading to the players you want being less likely to sign for you than for a club with either a manager who was a success the previous year or a newly installed manager.

Can we get back to the point of the thread please? You've derailed it for long enough already.

Do you have any evidence to suggest SD is the wrong person to take us forward? If so, present it. If not, start your own thread about whatever it is you're trying to achieve at the moment on this one.

 

[Deleted member 26022]

Logon or register to see this image

 

[Deleted member 634]

The "takeover" talk in the summer was still likely to involve SD being at the club, so any worry about change in manager probably wouldn't have been because of new owners if the players were paying attention properly to the news reports. On the other hand you'd be quite to say that a lot of people weren't paying attention properly so yes, it may well have also contributed.

At the end of the day it was unlikely that Ross would still be our manager by the end of the season, so players would likely have been put off by it, yes. So yes, as you quite rightly said, it would likely have applied to the summer window as well.


Yes to an extent, but when a manager has only just been appointed or if they succeeded in the club's aims the previous year, they're more likely to see out the season than one that failed to deliver the aims of the previous season, so the uncertainty is increased for managers who "failed", leading to the players you want being less likely to sign for you than for a club with either a manager who was a success the previous year or a newly installed manager.

Can we get back to the point of the thread please? You've derailed it for long enough already.

Do you have any evidence to suggest SD is the wrong person to take us forward? If so, present it. If not, start your own thread about whatever it is you're trying to achieve at the moment on this one.

The thread gets derailed because you make ridiculous claims about failure to win promotion would be fans groups fault, a poor summer window was 'Ross Out' campaign fault, nothing at all is Teflon Don's fault.

Thats fine if you think that but don't pretend that anything presented would change your mind. You are stuck in your Donald is wonderful world and you wont budge.

You evade questions and repeat your mantra with breakdown like posts when you are shown up for the sycophant that you are.

 

[Deleted member 26022]

The thread gets derailed because you make ridiculous claims about failure to win promotion would be fans groups fault, a poor summer window was 'Ross Out' campaign fault, nothing at all is Teflon Don's fault.

Thats fine if you think that but don't pretend that anything presented would change your mind. You are stuck in your Donald is wonderful world and you wont budge.

You evade questions and repeat your mantra with breakdown like posts when you are shown up for the sycophant that you are.

Logon or register to see this image

 

[fyl2u]

The thread gets derailed because you make ridiculous claims about failure to win promotion would be fans groups fault, a poor summer window was 'Ross Out' campaign fault, nothing at all is Teflon Don's fault.

Thats fine if you think that but don't pretend that anything presented would change your mind. You are stuck in your Donald is wonderful world and you wont budge.

You evade questions and repeat your mantra with breakdown like posts when you are shown up for the sycophant that you are.

If someone presented some evidence that was based in reality I'm absolutely open to being convinced. So far in 16 pages not a single shred of evidence has been presented that has been backed up by facts.

If you want me to want to want SD out, tell me why I should. And back it up with facts, not conjecture.

 

[Deleted member 26022]

Logon or register to see this image

 

[scott934]

If someone presented some evidence that was based in reality I'm absolutely open to being convinced. So far in 16 pages not a single shred of evidence has been presented that has been backed up by facts.

If you want me to want to want SD out, tell me why I should. And back it up with facts, not conjecture.

"We are targetting 100 points"......Proceeds to weaken the squad by the end of the window.

It's not a takeover....Jack Ross talks openly about meeting with the soon-to-be new owners in a press conference......It's investment....turns out it's a loan. Which one is true?

Charlie Methven will now be doing the fan engagement stuff due to fan abuse of SD (which nobody seen).....2 months later, Charlie Methven handed in his notice a while ago because he's starting a family.

Just so happens the best people to run the Academy and negotiate player contracts both worked for SD at Eastleigh....meanwhile the AOL is performing historically bad and the 1st team gets weaker after every transfer window.

 

[G Force]

@fyl2u

You refuse to see the countless contradictions from Donald & Methven. If you can’t see them, then you’re simply refusing to look.

It’s not for debate whether they’ve contradicted themselves. They have. What is up for debate is whether they were well intentioned or if they were here for a quick flip. The evidence does point towards they were here for a flip, despite your defence and protestations. However that’s not necessarily a bad thing. If they’d done it last summer on the back of a promotion then I doubt there’d have been any complaints. There is an issue however whether they should have taken the gamble if they didn’t have the funds for a second season. Again the evidence points towards the fact they didn’t have the finances for a second year down here. Again you’ll ignore those.

Also the fact that both Methven and Davidson left for personal reasons not long after a year, and that Donald has been fairly miserable since the summer lends itself they didn’t want to be here long term. Again you’ll dispute this.

I have seen many interviews and listened to the podcasts. I don’t need to be patronised by you that I’m holding a pitchfork or I’m getting my details from posters lying about them on the SMB. I formed my opinion by listening to his interviews/podcasts. They’ve constantly contradicted themselves.

If you think Donald is brilliant then great, good for you. However many other fans see through his spin and u-turns.

And for the record I don’t actually mind the bloke, however if you refuse to believe he’s changed his tune countless times then you’re blind.

Right off away from the SMB again for a while. Had a lightbulb moment that I’d much rather not bother getting into these meaningless debates on here. Simply bored of it after nearly two decades on the boards. I’ve never seen it all so divided.

And no point dissecting the minutiae and replying mate. I won’t see it. Well not for a while anyway All the best fella

 

[fyl2u]

"We are targetting 100 points"......Proceeds to weaken the squad by the end of the window.

It's not a takeover....Jack Ross talks openly about meeting with the soon-to-be new owners in a press conference......It's investment....turns out it's a loan. Which one is true?

Charlie Methven will now be doing the fan engagement stuff due to fan abuse of SD (which nobody seen).....2 months later, Charlie Methven handed in his notice a while ago because he's starting a family.

Just so happens the best people to run the Academy and negotiate player contracts both worked for SD at Eastleigh....meanwhile the AOL is performing historically bad and the 1st team gets weaker after every transfer window.

The first two and last points have already been covered.

3. CM's taken a back seat so he's irrelevant now.

 

[JVokes]

The "takeover" talk in the summer was still likely to involve SD being at the club, so any worry about change in manager probably wouldn't have been because of new owners if the players were paying attention properly to the news reports. On the other hand you'd be quite to say that a lot of people weren't paying attention properly so yes, it may well have also contributed.

At the end of the day it was unlikely that Ross would still be our manager by the end of the season, so players would likely have been put off by it, yes. So yes, as you quite rightly said, it would likely have applied to the summer window as well.


Yes to an extent, but when a manager has only just been appointed or if they succeeded in the club's aims the previous year, they're more likely to see out the season than one that failed to deliver the aims of the previous season, so the uncertainty is increased for managers who "failed", leading to the players you want being less likely to sign for you than for a club with either a manager who was a success the previous year or a newly installed manager.

Can we get back to the point of the thread please? You've derailed it for long enough already.

Do you have any evidence to suggest SD is the wrong person to take us forward? If so, present it. If not, start your own thread about whatever it is you're trying to achieve at the moment on this one.

You contradict yourself in so many posts (makes me think this could be the delboy himself) but I can’t be bothered to pick you up on them as you will talk rubbish anyway.

You’ve been told things that are logical and common sense and also statements from SD but you just disagree for the sake of it.
Like taking a short term loan out from another company you can’t give me any logical reason the would do that.

but just a daft one for you:

Now you’re saying jack ross failed so was probably going to get sacked as an excuse for our poor summer window signings, but you said before that SD said at the start he expected it to probably take 2 seasons to get promotion. (So for SD jack ross actually hadn’t failed)

 

[fyl2u]

@fyl2u

You refuse to see the countless contradictions from Donald & Methven. If you can’t see them, then you’re simply refusing to look.

It’s not for debate whether they’ve contradicted themselves. They have. What is up for debate is whether they were well intentioned or if they were here for a quick flip. The evidence does point towards they were here for a flip, despite your defence and protestations. However that’s not necessarily a bad thing. If they’d done it last summer on the back of a promotion then I doubt there’d have been any complaints. There is an issue however whether they should have taken the gamble if they didn’t have the funds for a second season. Again the evidence points towards the fact they didn’t have the finances for a second year down here. Again you’ll ignore those.

Also the fact that both Methven and Davidson left for personal reasons not long after a year, and that Donald has been fairly miserable since the summer lends itself they didn’t want to be here long term. Again you’ll dispute this.

I have seen many interviews and listened to the podcasts. I don’t need to be patronised by you that I’m holding a pitchfork or I’m getting my details from posters lying about them on the SMB. I formed my opinion by listening to his interviews/podcasts. They’ve constantly contradicted themselves.

If you think Donald is brilliant then great, good for you. However many other fans see through his spin and u-turns.

And for the record I don’t actually mind the bloke, however if you refuse to believe he’s changed his tune countless times then you’re blind.

Right off away from the SMB again for a while. Had a lightbulb moment that I’d much rather not bother getting into these meaningless debates on here. Simply bored of it after nearly two decades on the boards. I’ve never seen it all so divided.

And no point dissecting the minutiae and replying mate. I won’t see it. Well not for a while anyway All the best fella

All the best mate. After 16 pages nobody has yet shown me any evidence of the things you describe. If you have them feel free to post them, but if you're off I guess you won't be.

Have a good one mate, you're a fine fellow that I have a lot of time for.

Best wishes, and hope you don't stay away too long because you can be a good poster occasionally.

o7

 

[Deleted member 634]

If someone presented some evidence that was based in reality I'm absolutely open to being convinced. So far in 16 pages not a single shred of evidence has been presented that has been backed up by facts.

If you want me to want to want SD out, tell me why I should. And back it up with facts, not conjecture.

If you want me to blame fans groups for poor transfer windows, tell me why I should. And back it up with facts, not conjecture

 

[scott934]

The first two and last points have already been covered.

3. CM's taken a back seat so he's irrelevant now.

Show me where they've been covered, or give me a summary, because I haven't seen it.

CM is relevant if you're judging SD, he was a director ffs.

 

[Definitely Maybe]

The owners backed Jack Ross after the play off final. There were next to no calls for him to go until after the season started, to blame our awful recruitment on that is ludicrous.

After his sacking Jack Ross talked of his frustration of at being repeatedly told his transfer targets were out of budget but also repeatedly asked what the budget was so he could plan but never got an answer.

In the same article, Caulkin quotes a club source saying that Ross was told to deal with Mark Campbell re transfers and didn't know who was running the club from one day to another.

Until recently, Tony Coton was our only scout despite and even then was absent for months after his heart attack.

Are those not more likely reasons than players not wanting to sign in case Ross was sacked?

 

[johnna]

Because I'm not yet convinced by the arguments from the DonaldOut people.

or me , Could have sworn people were saying , only 18 months ago that he’d “saved” Sunderland and “they’d got their club back”. Such ingratitude for their saviour.

 

[brisbanemackem]

OK, point by point as far as I understand it from spending a large portion of this week looking into it:

Re: Buying the club, JS's stake, and "making profit" selling the club:

The deal to buy the club was £40m, to be paid in four yearly installments: £15m up front, then £5m after a year, then £10m, then £10m.

My assumption is (because obviously I haven't seen the finances or the paperwork for the deal, just like everyone else on here hasn't, but this would make sense) that Juan's 20% of the initial £15m was quite rightly £3m and that he would have put in another £1m after a year, then £2m after two years and a final payment of £2m after three years to continue to have a 20% stake.

After taking over, there were certain things like the Ndong situation that had been slightly misrepresented to the new owners by Short, meaning there was a £10m black hole in the club finances compared with how it had been presented to them by Short, so they renegotiated the payment of the initial £15m so that instead of giving him £15m in one go, they'd pay £5m up front and the other £10m over the course of the next 4 months, finally paying it off in the September.

In the meantime they had to inject something in the region of £25m into the club itself to cover the black holes, so when it came time to pay Short his monthly installments for that remaining £10m, they did so out of the club bank account using the parachute payments, having already put in £25m themselves that they otherwise would have used £10m of to pay Short.

Essentially, instead of giving their own £10m directly to Short, they temporarily put their own money into the club bank account and then paid Short from there. Nothing nefarious, NOT "using the club's money to buy the club", not "buying the club with the parachute payments", just letting their own money rest in the club's accounts for 4 months to cover things that needed covering immediately and then taking £10m of it back out again in monthly installments to give to Short after the parachute payments for each of those months came into the club.

So, if they were to sell Madrox for £40m, SD/JS/CM wouldn't be making any profit at all (if they paid off the debt to Short in the process) but what would be more likely at this stage would be that they would sell Madrox for £20m and the new new owners would port that debt to Short to themselves, so that they (the new new owners) would still have to pay Short £10m at the end of this season and £10m after the end of next season, meaning in total they'd still be paying £40m for the club: £20m to SD/CM/JS and £20m to Short.

That's almost exactly the same as what happened when Short sold to SD/CM/JS. He offered them the club for £15m but with £25m of debt, so it would cost SD/CM/JS £40m still, of which £15m would go to Short and £25m would pay the debt in installments, but instead they said "You pay the debt off Ellis, and we'll pay the £40m to you in installments instead", which meant the club itself would be debt-free.

Re: takeovers/investment:

You're the first person that I've seen describe a 51% stake as a "full takeover", so kudos to you for that. Unfortunately not everyone in the fanbase sees it that way, and have been using the "full takeover" words of Campbell's as evidence that SD/CM/JS have been trying to "flip the club" or "sell the club" for ages, and that therefore nothing has changed since the joint statement came out, when clearly it has because now they're looking to get out completely. Previously, as you quite rightly point out, the "takeover"/"investment" was going to involve SD (and probably also CM and JS at a guess) staying on as shareholders.

Most folks on here would call a 51% stake "investing in the club" whereas they'd call a 100% stake a "full takeover". You and I know better, but that's not what the vast majority on here or on other social media platforms mean when they say "the club has been up for sale for over a year" and use it as a stick to beat SD with. They think a 100% stake in the club has been for sale for over a year. That is not the case. 100% is up for sale now because of the joint statement but previously SD would have been staying at the club alongside any new owners/investors.

SD pulled the plug on the Campbell deal at the last minute, not because the money wasn't right, but because FPP looked like a much better prospect for the club and the region in the long term. This was based on their very deep pockets and their extensive connections in the sporting world.

A wide range of deals were offered to FPP, from a "small" £10m loan to Madrox that they could then invest in the club, to an almost complete takeover that would still see SD running the club. FPP never wanted a "control transaction" to use SD's words. They never wanted to run the club themselves. Whatever deal they went for in the end would be a certain size loan or a certain percentage stake in the club with CM still running the club.

The idea being that if SD can show FPP that he's spending their money wisely, they would be more inclined to put more money into the club (and into the region) in the future.

He hasn't "blamed the fans" for anything as far as I can see.

He said he'd leave if the fans wanted him out. "The fans" (well, three fansites and whoever is in charge of RAWA) have told him to leave. He's now leaving. Simple as that.


Which won't happen anyway because the owners can afford to pay the loan back.


If the owners were to decide to not spend anything ever again on the club then yes of course I'd want them gone.

As you say, there'd be no point them staying in those circumstances (unless they somehow made the club not only self-sufficient but making enough profit to be able to buy top players without anybody injecting money in from outside, but that would be very difficult I'd say).

While many on here have taken exception to your intransient stance I can see how you have formed a view and are hypothesizing about staged payments to support that view.

However the other #Donaldout posters have also made eloquent observations and supported their stance with factual content.

The crux of the matter is that there are so many inconsistencies in Donald's statements that no one believes a word that comes out of his mouth.

He has got form for this , I believe he said he wrote of a 10 million pounds investment in Eastleigh but if you research this in his own words he only invested 3 million pounds and there was no need for further investment.

Eastleigh chairman Stewart Donald reveals his £3m cash injection into the club

CHAIRMAN Stewart Donald has revealed he will have poured £3m of his own cash into Eastleigh FC by the start of next season.

www.dailyecho.co.uk

The article also highlights the small time thinking penny pinching attitude of the man.

Your argument also falls down about how Donald and Co will invest 25 million in years 2-4.

The man sold his insurance business that was established 45 years ago recently for not a substantial amount of money and then hocks the club Lock stock and barrell for a ten million pounds loan

He defends this by stating he took the loan as he wanted to bring FPP to the table due to their global connections and potential further down the line.

Now he says they have no interest in further involvement and it is simply a loan

 

[fyl2u]

While many on here have taken exception to your intransient stance I can see how you have formed a view and are hypothesizing about staged payments to support that view.

However the other #Donaldout posters have also made eloquent observations and supported their stance with factual content.

The crux of the matter is that there are so many inconsistencies in Donald's statements that no one believes a word that comes out of his mouth.

He has got form for this , I believe he said he wrote of a 10 million pounds investment in Eastleigh but if you research this in his own words he only invested 3 million pounds and there was no need for further investment.

Eastleigh chairman Stewart Donald reveals his £3m cash injection into the club

CHAIRMAN Stewart Donald has revealed he will have poured £3m of his own cash into Eastleigh FC by the start of next season.

www.dailyecho.co.uk

The article also highlights the small time thinking penny pinching attitude of the man.

Your argument also falls down about how Donald and Co will invest 25 million in years 2-4.

The man sold his insurance business that was established 45 years ago recently for not a substantial amount of money and then hocks the club Lock stock and barrell for a ten million pounds loan

He defends this by stating he took the loan as he wanted to bring FPP to the table due to their global connections and potential further down the line.

Now he says they have no interest in further involvement and it is simply a loan

Thanks for the reply. I'd argue my stance isn't permanently intransient, I just haven't yet seen any evidence that convinces me we should be calling for his head.

None of the "factual content" shown so far on the thread has stood up to scrutiny. Absolutely none. Not a single sausage.

I am genuinely trying to assess the situation from a neutral standpoint. The evidence is mounting up that the anti-SD standpoint is massively flawed though, possibly completely flawed.

He's being accused of "inconsistencies" yet nobody's managed to show me any of these inconsistencies this whole week in 16 pages of thread.

I didn't say he was going to "invest" £25m in years 2-4, I said he would be paying Short 3 more instalments in years 2-4, which is what he revealed in one of the interviews, possibly on the radio interview in early January or maybe one of those podcasts, I forget which and don't have time to search. £15m up front, £5m after a year, then £10m then £10m. Total paid to Short = £40m.

Where does he say FPP have no interest in further involvement? That's the first I've heard of that.

Haven't got time to check your Eastleigh stuff. The missus is here again tonight and is getting pissed off at me again for typing while we're watching stuff.

 

[The Albanian]

Thanks for the reply. I'd argue my stance isn't permanently intransient, I just haven't yet seen any evidence that convinces me we should be calling for his head.

None of the "factual content" shown so far on the thread has stood up to scrutiny. Absolutely none. Not a single sausage.

I am genuinely trying to assess the situation from a neutral standpoint. The evidence is mounting up that the anti-SD standpoint is massively flawed though, possibly completely flawed.

He's being accused of "inconsistencies" yet nobody's managed to show me any of these inconsistencies this whole week in 16 pages of thread.

I didn't say he was going to "invest" £25m in years 2-4, I said he would be paying Short 3 more instalments in years 2-4, which is what he revealed in one of the interviews, possibly on the radio interview in early January or maybe one of those podcasts, I forget which and don't have time to search. £15m up front, £5m after a year, then £10m then £10m. Total paid to Short = £40m.

Where does he say FPP have no interest in further involvement? That's the first I've heard of that.

Haven't got time to check your Eastleigh stuff. The missus is here again tonight and is getting pissed off at me again for typing while we're watching stuff.

fuck me, the fanzine statement has completely broken you