WMS Who Owns Sunderland AFC?

[Red and white TID]

Potential buyers at the opening L1 game V Charlton.

Exactly they came for one reason to make money, would say SD got his money back on whatever % he sold to KLD (obviously never ever going to payback parachute payments to Madrox ever, which they can gloss over, as they do, but it was Safc’s money £20-5m) and what is far more worrying they are going to cause murders moving forward at our football club, it is far from finished with that deplorable mob imo unfortunately.

 

[molthemackem]

Hopefully its all what we want to hear

I would doubt it very much....I predict no clear cut answer.

 

[Hep]

In all seriousness could we not just have a sub-forum for Methven/KM and his stooges who just excitedly pass on the propaganda he hands them and stick out like a sore thumb? Like an Official Club account.

We all know his narrative verbatim by now: the fans are toxic and the reason SAFC never amounts to anything, We don't pay enough for tickets and don't turn up in enough numbers. The parachute payments are "just resting in their account".

It's getting really tedious now watching every potentially interesting topic derailed by the same narrative and it's canny insulting to people on this board that they think we don't know who they are. How many times do we have to read the same stuff over and over again?

I believe Charlie works in PR where the philosophy of beating people into submission by repeating the same ideas ad nauseam may work well for politics but it's absolutely ruining this board. It's not like we even get any new information- just the same relentless disinformation hidden behind hieroglyphics.

It's not even feasible to put them on ignore as they dominate threads so much it's impossible to follow the sense of any discussion.

I wonder if KLD knows Charlie is posting on the board and manipulating others to do the same and causing genuine bad feeling. Much as he did with the Oxford one.

Quite a few of the lads I know who used to love the SMB have just given up now. It's good for ticket news/travel info but any genuine debate has been pretty much destroyed.

Shame.

Debate has two sides, is that what you want? Or just everyone to agree that CM/SD are bad and everything they did was bad?

 

[molthemackem]

Debate has two sides, is that what you want? Or just everyone to agree that CM/SD are bad and everything they did was bad?

Your not trying to defend the Chancers are you? Really?

 

[Hep]

Well donald can put some of the parachute cash in then that he promised to pay the club. We shouldn't be in this league much longer so if serious about getting out that's an avenue we should be exploring.

I don't get this at all. All of the whinging over the parachute payments.

What difference would it make if the payments were still in the accounts of SAFC? The answer is none at all.

If you think that money would allow SAFC to buy players you are wrong. When SD owned the club, if he wanted to buy a player, he would. The cash would either come from the SAFC accounts (a company he owned) or another source of cash he had. Either way, if he wanted to buy a player he would. If he didn't, he wouldn't. Both scenarios result in SD making an investment.

Now KLD owns the club, nothing changes. The deal KLD made to buy the club factored in everything on the balance sheet. If there was an extra £28M in the SAFC accounts, KLD would have had to pay more to buy it, but as it wasn't he didn't. If he now wants to invest £28M he can.

It's all a net-zero argument.

 

[Sea to Shining Sea]

Debate has two sides, is that what you want? Or just everyone to agree that CM/SD are bad and everything they did was bad?

Looking at 2018-2020 objectively there are very few positives that can be pointed to.

Could point to the swift removal of wages (at least partially) from the books from the likes of Kone and N’Dong and also the initial bout of optimism that they managed to raise (from most, though not all) with their initial communications.

That aside, it was a litany of failure and incompetence. Gradual worsening of on field performance, gradual realisation that what they said in communications didn’t entirely reflect reality, and it all culminated with a load of anti-SAFC supporter nonsense.

 

[Hep]

Looking at 2018-2020 objectively there are very few positives that can be pointed to.

Could point to the swift removal of wages (at least partially) from the books from the likes of Kone and N’Dong and also the initial bout of optimism that they managed to raise (from most, though not all) with their initial communications.

That aside, it was a litany of failure and incompetence. Gradual worsening of on field performance, gradual realisation that what they said in communications didn’t entirely reflect reality, and it all culminated with a load of anti-SAFC supporter nonsense.

They stopped us from being a club losing £25m a year. That had an impact, but if they hadn't have done that, we'd be in administration.

Reducing expenditure on that magnitude will affect the players we can buy/pay and lots of other things, but we had no choice. We no longer had a billionaire funding us.

The key problem was SD/CM didn't have enough personal wealth to take us forward, but the deal they did with Short saved the club. There wasn't a queue of billionaires waiting to buy us.

So yes, it's been pretty shit, but the reality was there wasn't any money.

 

[Emcon]

40 pages and still no answers. The deep planners and Boards Fan Club have locked themselves into a strong logical fallacy and are just inventing stuff to try and argue that things have changed and our finances are like an untapped oil well waiting to explode and the Grand Plan will deliver a reduxed version of the man united youth team circa Beckham era.

 

[ilovehorswill]

Looking at 2018-2020 objectively there are very few positives that can be pointed to.

Could point to the swift removal of wages (at least partially) from the books from the likes of Kone and N’Dong and also the initial bout of optimism that they managed to raise (from most, though not all) with their initial communications.

That aside, it was a litany of failure and incompetence. Gradual worsening of on field performance, gradual realisation that what they said in communications didn’t entirely reflect reality, and it all culminated with a load of anti-SAFC supporter nonsense.

There were positives, mostly lost in the shitstorm of Donald not being the saviour he painted himself as.

For a financial investor ES let things go to hell in the day to day running of the club. A grand a month on plastic pot plants. Twice as many employees as the mags. The likes of Gary the Hair and Mags Byrne making decisions. Human sacrifice. Dogs and cats living together. Mass Hysteria.

Donald tightened up the spending making it appealing to potential buyers.

Not only that but by agreeing to Season 2 of STID they used their David Brent and Finchy double act to entertain viewers and promote the club to a wider audience.

 

[Sea to Shining Sea]

They stopped us from being a club losing £25m a year. That had an impact, but if they hadn't have done that, we'd be in administration.

Reducing expenditure on that magnitude will affect the players we can buy/pay and lots of other things, but we had no choice. We no longer had a billionaire funding us.

The key problem was SD/CM didn't have enough personal wealth to take us forward, but the deal they did with Short saved the club. There wasn't a queue of billionaires waiting to buy us.

So yes, it's been pretty shit, but the reality was there wasn't any money.

And therein lies the problem with them. They gave assurances about our budget, at one point saying that most teams in the division above would be envious of it, when they simply didn’t have the resources. The structure of the deal with Short highlighted that too and the fact they misled time and time again about that really highlighted they weren’t good owners or anything even remotely like it.

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

It seems that as soon as the subject is mentioned the club tell us just keep buying your tickets and shut up about it

Could we not have been more creative and pay players off that are poor or persistent sicknotes? Re contracting Hume was a waste of a squad player for a start. O Brien paperwork error to get rid was horrendous. Signing another sicknote... Evans another waste of a squad place as was the German non winger. Could we not pay up contracts and maybe spread the cost over the next few seasons?

Just do something different ffs. Or it will be the play offs for certain again.

Self-defeating, Any payment would be contractual, and would count towards the wage cap.

 

[Ghandi Floss]

I don't get this at all. All of the whinging over the parachute payments.

What difference would it make if the payments were still in the accounts of SAFC? The answer is none at all.

If you think that money would allow SAFC to buy players you are wrong. When SD owned the club, if he wanted to buy a player, he would. The cash would either come from the SAFC accounts (a company he owned) or another source of cash he had. Either way, if he wanted to buy a player he would. If he didn't, he wouldn't. Both scenarios result in SD making an investment.

Now KLD owns the club, nothing changes. The deal KLD made to buy the club factored in everything on the balance sheet. If there was an extra £28M in the SAFC accounts, KLD would have had to pay more to buy it, but as it wasn't he didn't. If he now wants to invest £28M he can.

It's all a net-zero argument.

Did you miss the point of Donald actually saying (on record) that he still owes the club £20m?
Of course it would make a difference.

 

[Stevie]

net-zero argument

I don't get this at all. All of the whinging over the parachute payments.

What difference would it make if the payments were still in the accounts of SAFC? The answer is none at all.

If you think that money would allow SAFC to buy players you are wrong. When SD owned the club, if he wanted to buy a player, he would. The cash would either come from the SAFC accounts (a company he owned) or another source of cash he had. Either way, if he wanted to buy a player he would. If he didn't, he wouldn't. Both scenarios result in SD making an investment.

Now KLD owns the club, nothing changes. The deal KLD made to buy the club factored in everything on the balance sheet. If there was an extra £28M in the SAFC accounts, KLD would have had to pay more to buy it, but as it wasn't he didn't. If he now wants to invest £28M he can.

It's all a net-zero argument.

I hear you use the phrase echo-chamber a lot and if I'm honest thought you were a troll or WUM, deliberately taking the opposite view for attention.

However that does you a disservice as I can see you are sincere so you have my apologies for that. My issue is the specious and spurious arguments you pass on as indisputable fact.

For example, "What difference would it make if the payments were still in the accounts of SAFC? The answer is none at all". I find comments like this utterly bizarre. Look at the situation at Derby or the sad demise of Bury. Do you really believe this as a legitimate observation or are you just trying to provoke the alternative view you enjoy so much.

Football owners cannot just put money in as you suggest in your post. I thought this had been done to death.

Incidentally, if it doesn't make a difference that the parachute payments are still in the accounts of SAFC, why don't all clubs just take them out and give them to someone else? As far as I can see, many of our problems began when we started signing parasite footballers and had key administrative staff who despite their atrocious professional performance refused to leave one penny behind on their departure.

Clubs such as Norwich, Watford, West Brom and Fulham have reinvested the Parachute payments back into their squads and have reaped the appropriate rewards. They do not seem to share your view that it doesn't matter where the money goes.

Finally, you say "Now KLD owns the club, nothing changes". Unfortunately the situation is nowhere near as simple as that (as I guess you know). KLD apparently owns a small majority and Donald/Methven still have a substantial minority. This may mean they have more influence behind the scenes than we know. More undeniably, it means they will need to be paid off to leave at some point in the future.

This may all seem irrelevant to you but it seems extremely significant to me.

The truth of course is apart from a poster who joined this board at the same time as Methven joined the club and a bloke who was Methven's compere at the Queen Vic talk-in and a self-confessed "good friend" who perhaps understandably won't have a bad word said against CM, nobody has any real accurate understanding of the financial situation at the club.


That's not the same as saying it's irrelevant though or a "net-zero argument" (I am aware of zero-sum games but never heard your term before).

 

[North Yorks Mackem]

I don't get this at all. All of the whinging over the parachute payments.

What difference would it make if the payments were still in the accounts of SAFC? The answer is none at all.

If you think that money would allow SAFC to buy players you are wrong. When SD owned the club, if he wanted to buy a player, he would. The cash would either come from the SAFC accounts (a company he owned) or another source of cash he had. Either way, if he wanted to buy a player he would. If he didn't, he wouldn't. Both scenarios result in SD making an investment.

Now KLD owns the club, nothing changes. The deal KLD made to buy the club factored in everything on the balance sheet. If there was an extra £28M in the SAFC accounts, KLD would have had to pay more to buy it, but as it wasn't he didn't. If he now wants to invest £28M he can.

It's all a net-zero argument.

If that money was repaid to the club we would have more to invest in players.

The requirement to repay the club that money was removed from the accounts by Stewart donald so your para about KLD is a nonsense.

You've spent 4 paragraphs trying to say that our previous majority owner refusing to pay a sum which could be as great as 20 million is not having a negative impact on the club.

It defies genuine belief and if you are a lads fan it is truly depressing you'd accept it.

 

[Hep]

And therein lies the problem with them. They gave assurances about our budget, at one point saying that most teams in the division above would be envious of it, when they simply didn’t have the resources. The structure of the deal with Short highlighted that too and the fact they misled time and time again about that really highlighted they weren’t good owners or anything even remotely like it.

They were hardly going to come out and say we've probably not got enough money if we don't get promoted.

 

[Sea to Shining Sea]

They were hardly going to come out and say we've probably not got enough money if we don't get promoted.

Did Donald need to exaggerate the extent of the budget available? Did they need to talk about Dortmund models?

There is literally zero mitigation for some of their communications. It was misleading and, dare I say it without a warning, quite dishonest.

 

[Barney Rubble]

Did Donald need to exaggerate the extent of the budget available? Did they need to talk about Dortmund models?

There is literally zero mitigation for some of their communications. It was misleading and, dare I say it without a warning, quite dishonest.

There was a huge amount of dishonesty and right to the point he resigned as chairman Donald maintained he paid £37m for the club and that's what he wanted for a full sale. That's why paying the parachute payments back matter as that was the majority of the £37m he claims to have paid and want "back" from the sale.
And on the subject of dishonesty, the way they spun their dealings with the Americans was both laughable and tragic. The Americans were ready to buy at a fair price, knowing full well what Donald/Methven had paid from their own money. It's obvious their greed and unprofessional behaviour scuppered that deal. Then they tried to blame the fans for the deal falling through.
The Amercans then loan Donald millions which was used to keep the club afloat for a year or so and then only paid back, I think, when KLD purchased his shares. And still they are here, awaiting a further payday and no doubt being their disruptive, unprofessional selves behind the scenes.

 

[Red and white TID]

I don't get this at all. All of the whinging over the parachute payments.

What difference would it make if the payments were still in the accounts of SAFC? The answer is none at all.

If you think that money would allow SAFC to buy players you are wrong. When SD owned the club, if he wanted to buy a player, he would. The cash would either come from the SAFC accounts (a company he owned) or another source of cash he had. Either way, if he wanted to buy a player he would. If he didn't, he wouldn't. Both scenarios result in SD making an investment.

Now KLD owns the club, nothing changes. The deal KLD made to buy the club factored in everything on the balance sheet. If there was an extra £28M in the SAFC accounts, KLD would have had to pay more to buy it, but as it wasn't he didn't. If he now wants to invest £28M he can.

It's all a net-zero argument.

You complete idiot, the point is the parachute payments weren’t created for SD to buy our FC. Do you get it, it wasn’t his money to use to buy my and your FC with end of story and he certainly ain’t paying back £20.5m of it.
So he took that money for his and the shareholders gain.
F***** scandalous.

 

[GarethQ]

I don't get this at all. All of the whinging over the parachute payments.

What difference would it make if the payments were still in the accounts of SAFC? The answer is none at all.

If you think that money would allow SAFC to buy players you are wrong. When SD owned the club, if he wanted to buy a player, he would. The cash would either come from the SAFC accounts (a company he owned) or another source of cash he had. Either way, if he wanted to buy a player he would. If he didn't, he wouldn't. Both scenarios result in SD making an investment.

Now KLD owns the club, nothing changes. The deal KLD made to buy the club factored in everything on the balance sheet. If there was an extra £28M in the SAFC accounts, KLD would have had to pay more to buy it, but as it wasn't he didn't. If he now wants to invest £28M he can.

It's all a net-zero argument.

If you give me all of your money on the premise I’m going to buy something for us and then pay it back, then I decide not to pay it back, would that make a difference to you?

 

[scott934]

There was a huge amount of dishonesty and right to the point he resigned as chairman Donald maintained he paid £37m for the club and that's what he wanted for a full sale. That's why paying the parachute payments back matter as that was the majority of the £37m he claims to have paid and want "back" from the sale.
And on the subject of dishonesty, the way they spun their dealings with the Americans was both laughable and tragic. The Americans were ready to buy at a fair price, knowing full well what Donald/Methven had paid from their own money. It's obvious their greed and unprofessional behaviour scuppered that deal. Then they tried to blame the fans for the deal falling through.
The Amercans then loan Donald millions which was used to keep the club afloat for a year or so and then only paid back, I think, when KLD purchased his shares. And still they are here, awaiting a further payday and no doubt being their disruptive, unprofessional selves behind the scenes.

Perfectly put. Their plan was clearly to market the club as worth the £37m they "paid" when in fact it was closer to £12m. I fell for it as much as anyone, but how can people still be falling for it to this day?