The Owners


Status
Not open for further replies.
What’s this 10 million carryon?



No one is entitled to say anything bad against what’s going on aye?

The accounts disclosed that at 31 July last year, the club was owed £9.6m by another group company. Examination of the other accounts for the companies within the Sunderland Limited sub-group suggests that the amount was owed by either Madrox Partners (the company co-owned by Donald, Methven and Sartori, which owns the shares in Sunderland Ltd) or SJD Leisure Holdings, which holds Donald's shares in Madrox. Teh debt is shown as being repayable within 12 months of the year end, so the likelihood is that it has been repaid by now. It's not illegal, but it's not as common as loans on the opposite direction.
 
Is that what you are suggesting?

No. But you said they could do “whatever” they wanted and I’m testing how true that is.

So again, let’s say SAFC LTD loans £10m to SJD Holdings on a zero interest rate loan not to be paid back for 50 years, are you saying that’s ok?
 
No. But you said they could do “whatever” they wanted and I’m testing how true that is.

So again, let’s say SAFC LTD loans £10m to SJD Holdings on a zero interest rate loan not to be paid back for 50 years, are you saying that’s ok?
You're making far too many assumptions to try and back up your argument.

As @Grumpy Old Man says it's not the norm but also not illegal. Chances are there may have been a cashflow issue. By now that situation will have been resolved. You do know the accounts are a snapshot at a period of time and are now almost one year historical?
 
You're making far too many assumptions to try and back up your argument.

As @Grumpy Old Man says it's not the norm but also not illegal. Chances are there may have been a cashflow issue. By now that situation will have been resolved. You do know the accounts are a snapshot at a period of time and are now almost one year historical?

I’m asking a simple question. Would you be Ok with it?

I’m not saying that’s what they’ve done. You said you were happy for them to do “whatever” so I want to understand how far that goes.
 
You're making far too many assumptions to try and back up your argument.

As @Grumpy Old Man says it's not the norm but also not illegal. Chances are there may have been a cashflow issue. By now that situation will have been resolved. You do know the accounts are a snapshot at a period of time and are now almost one year historical?

I think you have missed his point tbh. Possibly deliberatly.
 
Not at all, if anyone is suggesting our majority shareholder has been dishonest in his dealings in regards financials at SAFC, then they should do it openly.

He hasn't said that's what they are doing. He's used it as an example. You said they can do what they want as long as it isn't illegal. That isn't illegal. Woukd you be happy with them doing it?
 
He hasn't said that's what they are doing. He's used it as an example. You said they can do what they want as long as it isn't illegal. That isn't illegal. Woukd you be happy with them doing it?
Never said, I'm or would be happy, but they own it and as long as it's not illegal it's up to them how they manage it.

That tends to be how it is when you own a business.
 
Never said, I'm or would be happy, but they own it and as long as it's not illegal it's up to them how they manage it.

That tends to be how it is when you own a business.

It's them that are banging the transparency rhetoric so presumably that's 'how they want to manage it' . They want to be transparent, or at least so they say, while refusing to be transparent on where 10 million of the clubs money has gone, as it continues to lose money.

They of course don't have to tell us anything, but if that's the case they need to stop bullshitting people with brags about how transparent they are.
 
It's them that are banging the transparency rhetoric so presumably that's 'how they want to manage it' . They want to be transparent, or at least so they say, while refusing to be transparent on where 10 million of the clubs money has gone, as it continues to lose money.

They of course don't have to tell us anything, but if that's the case they need to stop bullshitting people with brags about how transparent they are.
If you have a problem with this £10 million (which will very likely have been resolved in 2019) the FA and EFL should be where you direct your concerns.
 
It's them that are banging the transparency rhetoric so presumably that's 'how they want to manage it' . They want to be transparent, or at least so they say, while refusing to be transparent on where 10 million of the clubs money has gone, as it continues to lose money.

They of course don't have to tell us anything, but if that's the case they need to stop bullshitting people with brags about how transparent they are.

The impression I get is that the production of the statutory accounts has been left very much in the hands of the auditors. PwC were replaced by the firm that audits all of Donald's other companies; the accounts very much reflect their house style. They're a much smaller firm, and are clearly not used to producing accounts for a company which has a far wider range of interested and knowledgeable stakeholders than your run of the mill privately owned company. As such, the disclosures are pretty minimalist in their wording. They comply with all the relevant standards, but the disclosure of additional information which, whilst not required by standards or statute, is commonly given in accounts with a somewhat wider audience, is very noticeable by its absence.
 
The impression I get is that the production of the statutory accounts has been left very much in the hands of the auditors. PwC were replaced by the firm that audits all of Donald's other companies; the accounts very much reflect their house style. They're a much smaller firm, and are clearly not used to producing accounts for a company which has a far wider range of interested and knowledgeable stakeholders than your run of the mill privately owned company. As such, the disclosures are pretty minimalist in their wording. They comply with all the relevant standards, but the disclosure of additional information which, whilst not required by standards or statute, is commonly given in accounts with a somewhat wider audience, is very noticeable by its absence.

I'm not saying they've done anything wrong. Just gets on my tits when they praise themselves about how transparent they are and one of them gets a question they don't like so refuse to answer it and take a twitter break instead. Can't be that difficult to answer surely. He was quick to put the lad in his place about Grigg.
 
Keeping their heads down and looking for buyers while the club burns.
they tuernesd down offers..and they wre on national radio yesterday..t

I'm not saying they've done anything wrong. Just gets on my tits when they praise themselves about how transparent they are and one of them gets a question they don't like so refuse to answer it and take a twitter break instead. Can't be that difficult to answer surely. He was quick to put the lad in his place about Grigg.
agreed.

No. But you said they could do “whatever” they wanted and I’m testing how true that is.

So again, let’s say SAFC LTD loans £10m to SJD Holdings on a zero interest rate loan not to be paid back for 50 years, are you saying that’s ok?
its not illegal..drumaville loaned over a hundred million to safc interest free for years...

They knew what was coming

They’re already putting together a £2million war chest for next season
if they spent 2 million that will make them the biggest spenders in league one..
or maybe they will spend more than the team that won the championship..as they did this year..
 
Last edited:
Is it me or are they being really quiet the last couple of weeks?
We would not be where we are without them FFS. 5th in League 1 is better than League 2, which is where we were surely heading for, pre takeover. They cannot do right for doing wrong. They know what they are doing, or do you want Short back?!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top