WMS Who Owns Sunderland AFC?

[Happy_Layabout]

Do you not see your contradicting yourself here? See bits in bold. On one hand your saying not returning 20 million didn't change things, then you're saying due to us being in such financial peril that we had to sell things off to just to keep going.

That included a generation of youth that if allowed to mature he could have made us some serious money.

Costs needed to be cut, we needed to stop losing so much cash. But it shouldn't have included the above.

Parachute money provides clubs each year in the championship a ridiculously unfair advantage over the competition. Its why we see west brom, Fulham, Norwich swapping places all the time.

Of course not being able to use it on the team has changed things man.

yep.

Rotherham this year. kept their championship squad from last year (other than losing Crooks to Boro) and could only do so because of the parachute payments.

If we had used the parachute payments in a way they were designed to be used we may well be in a higher division and would certainly have a much stronger academy.

 

[molthemackem]

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.

It was actually £1500 ...that is what Tony Davison and Chief Chancer stated to my face at the SoL.

 

[North Yorks Mackem]

The club needed to change its operating costs to match its operating revenues. What is the point of spending the parachute payments to keep things going for another year? You're just delaying the inevitable. What you're actually saying is you wanted SD to fund another year of £25m losses using the parachute money, or maybes 3 years of funding a large youth set-up... and then what? It's a gamble that a few players would come good and we'd sell them. At which point we'd be unhappy about the sale.

If SD had kept the parachute payment money in SAFC, that doesn't mean he was going to use it to fund more players. He couldn't have done that as after that money had gone, how would he have paid them?? You have to live within your operating revenues.

Are you Stewart donald? Seriously, its unreal. Youre genuinely arguing that an injection of 20 plus million wouldn't have helped the club. Its incredible.

Regarding the first bit in bold to get us out this league. Sunderland can tread water in the championship; it can't in league 1. And I'm not saying the second bit at all. All I wanted was for the club to use the parachute money it is owed to help us get out this league.

 

[Happy_Layabout]

The club needed to change its operating costs to match its operating revenues. What is the point of spending the parachute payments to keep things going for another year? You're just delaying the inevitable. What you're actually saying is you wanted SD to fund another year of £25m losses using the parachute money, or maybes 3 years of funding a large youth set-up... and then what? It's a gamble that a few players would come good and we'd sell them. At which point we'd be unhappy about the sale.

If SD had kept the parachute payment money in SAFC, that doesn't mean he was going to use it to fund more players. He couldn't have done that as after that money had gone, how would he have paid them?? You have to live within your operating revenues.

It's not one or the other. You need time to balance the books after a massive hit on revenue that relegation entails. thats why there are parachute payments in the first place.

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

yep.

Rotherham this year. kept their championship squad from last year (other than losing Crooks to Boro) and could only do so because of the parachute payments.

If we had used the parachute payments in a way they were designed to be used we may well be in a higher division and would certainly have a much stronger academy.

There are no parachute payments between the Championship and League 1. They were able to keep their squad together because for one or more of three reasons:

1. As a relegated club, their SCMP cap is 65% of income, not 60%.
2. They may not have increased the wage bill greatly after being promoted the season before.
3, There were almost certainly relegation clauses in the players' contracts.

We only got parachute payments because we still had the second and third years of them to come after our relegation from the PL.

 

[Ghandi Floss]

By close of play today I'm told. @Ghandi Floss or myself will post a new thread when minutes are published.

I’ll put them on mate, but I’m sure you’ll end up fielding plenty questions with you being in the meeting.

 

[The Cabbage]

Are you Stewart donald? Seriously, its unreal. Youre genuinely arguing that an injection of 20 plus million wouldn't have helped the club. Its incredible.

Regarding the first bit in bold to get us out this league. Sunderland can tread water in the championship; it can't in league 1. And I'm not saying the second bit at all. All I wanted was for the club to use the parachute money it is owed to help us get out this league.

I disagree with that bit mind. Chris W often says that - it's incorrect. SAFC can be sustainable in League One (not that we'd want to, mind). You just need to be set up differently. The big crime of the Donald era is that they acted like a 'win now' team and tried to get up in a year but did such a piss poor job of it that they hamstrung us for multiple seasons. That they did it primarily by sacrificing our long term prospects (ie the Academy) only adds insult to injury.

 

[Boots]

KLD wouldnt have to do a share issue to fund transfers though. There lots of ways to inject cash. He could just do a directors loan (in). It really does depend on the nature and shape of other agreements and holdings to determine best way to do it.....if he wants us to buy. As a by the by i don't think it'll be or need to be anywhere north of 3 or 4M depending on our losses.

 

[North Yorks Mackem]

I disagree with that bit mind. Chris W often says that - it's incorrect. SAFC can be sustainable in League One (not that we'd want to, mind). You just need to be set up differently. The big crime of the Donald era is that they acted like a 'win now' team and tried to get up in a year but did such a piss poor job of it that they hamstrung us for multiple seasons. That they did it primarily by sacrificing our long term prospects (ie the Academy) only adds insult to injury.

Maybe you misread what i meant (me not being clear). But if you're saying we can be self sufficient in this league with our facilities and this level of support over a sustained period of time I disagree.

And no the big crime of the donald era was not paying back money they promised to pay back (which could be up to 20 million).

 

[The Cabbage]

Maybe you misread what i meant (me not being clear). But if you're saying we can be self sufficient in this league with our facilities and this level of support over a sustained period of time I disagree.

And no the big crime of the donald era was not paying back money they promised to pay back (which could be up to 20 million).

Nah we absolutely can be sustainable over a sustained period of time. We'd just have to lower our wage bill (no more Bailey Wrights and AOBs taking down £15k+ between them) and be ready to sell young players every season. It's tough but doable. Again, that's not me saying it's desirable at all - it's just feasible.

As for the last bit, it's their failure that makes it galling. If they'd been dishonest at the same time as actually improving us on the pitch we'd have largely (but perhaps grudgingly) accepted it.

 

[Guinness Guzzler]

It surely can't be because of more bad news. Maybe something good is being planned one way or another that people can actually get behind.

It is Sunderland mind mate!

 

[Red and white TID]

Madrox paid ~£12m for the club and £25m went from the parachute payments to Short and then to paying the SBC loan. This was described to us as Madrox giving £40m (later revised to £37m) to Short.

Then when it all came out Madrox said they'd pay the club that money back, therefore making the purchase price the full £37m. After a short while they wrote the debt off, claiming that FPP had insisted they do it as part of FPP's "investment" (loan).

So now they still want the asset value to be seen as £37m, despite coming nowhere near paying that for the club. That's where their profit will come from, nevermind the fact that they're hanging on (like parasites, ironically) to a stake for when someone else (hopefully KLD) does the business and takes us up.

On top of that they've talked shite about fans scaring off investors, wanting Murray out after finishing 7th, acting like a pissed women with mascara running down her face, being clueless about business in the north east.

You say this so much better than me.

 

[North Yorks Mackem]

Nah we absolutely can be sustainable over a sustained period of time. We'd just have to lower our wage bill (no more Bailey Wrights and AOBs taking down £15k+ between them) and be ready to sell young players every season. It's tough but doable. Again, that's not me saying it's desirable at all - it's just feasible.

As for the last bit, it's their failure that makes it galling. If they'd been dishonest at the same time as actually improving us on the pitch we'd have largely (but perhaps grudgingly) accepted it.

Thats on the assumption the support levels would remain and they absolutely wouldn't. This years crowds inflated by KLD arrival. Patience is extremely thin at the mo. Being sustainable should also factor in being able to grow a club or business. Our support base would shrink. Kids locally would choose other teams as they're doing now.

Staying in this league damages the clubs prospects long term. Its extremely naive to think otherwise imo.

 

[The Cabbage]

Thats on the assumption the support levels would remain and they absolutely wouldn't. This years crowds inflated by KLD arrival. Patience is extremely thin at the mo. Being sustainable should also factor in being able to grow a club or business. Our support base would shrink. Kids locally would choose other teams as they're doing now.

Staying in this league damages the clubs prospects long term. Its extremely naive to think otherwise imo.

Its certainly not desirable - and it limits the impact of benefit from the likes of the academy. However, I don't like the scare tactics of 'we must get out of this league ASAP because we are unsustainable in league one' as it is neither true nor helpful to us making good decisions as a club. The majority of the voices saying that will jsut say the same at the next level to justify the next series of short term actions anyway.

 

[scott934]

KLD wouldnt have to do a share issue to fund transfers though. There lots of ways to inject cash. He could just do a directors loan (in). It really does depend on the nature and shape of other agreements and holdings to determine best way to do it.....if he wants us to buy. As a by the by i don't think it'll be or need to be anywhere north of 3 or 4M depending on our losses.

The problem then is he's taking all of the risk for the benefit of all the owners, I can see why it wouldn't be good business sense to do that.

 

[North Yorks Mackem]

Its certainly not desirable - and it limits the impact of benefit from the likes of the academy. However, I don't like the scare tactics of 'we must get out of this league ASAP because we are unsustainable in league one' as it is neither true nor helpful to us making good decisions as a club. The majority of the voices saying that will jsut say the same at the next level to justify the next series of short term actions anyway.

I understand what you're saying mate but I disagree. I think every year in this league damages our support base and that concerns me.

I also think we can plan for the long term and also ensure we get out of this league immediately. Seems to be a misconception that the two can't go hand in hand.

 

[Boots]

The problem then is he's taking all of the risk for the benefit of all the owners, I can see why it wouldn't be good business sense to do that.

Yeah i agree but I was trying to suggest there are many ways to skin that cat. Not unusual to fund transfers for instance that way

I understand what you're saying mate but I disagree. I think every year in this league damages our support base and that concerns me.

I also think we can plan for the long term and also ensure we get out of this league immediately. Seems to be a misconception that the two can't go hand in hand.

Well we sure as hell shouldnt be planning to be in this league long term. Weve already be down here long enough.

 

[Happy_Layabout]

There are no parachute payments between the Championship and League 1. They were able to keep their squad together because for one or more of three reasons:

1. As a relegated club, their SCMP cap is 65% of income, not 60%.
2. They may not have increased the wage bill greatly after being promoted the season before.
3, There were almost certainly relegation clauses in the players' contracts.

We only got parachute payments because we still had the second and third years of them to come after our relegation from the PL.

didnt realise this. Just shows the size of the advantage we had when we were relegated.

Not sure how they did it, but Warne was almost in tears on the last day when they were relegated specifically because "this squad is going to be torn apart"

all thro the close season they were expecting to lose Smith in particular - looks a good move in keeping him now

 

[Alfies Hat]

Yeah i agree but I was trying to suggest there are many ways to skin that cat. Not unusual to fund transfers for instance that way

Well we sure as hell shouldnt be planning to be in this league long term. Weve already be down here long enough.

We shouldn't worry about a few more seasons in Div 3, part of the plan for sustainability.
Heard it here.

 

[riffraff]

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.

The only reason they are here is because they agreed that ES gets the parachute money. If not we wouldve had different owners. Who may have been better or may have been worse.