RTG

Cool. I get it can be complex. To be honest, that's why it's better to have multiple sets of eyes on the accounts.

 

I so hope he does too. I’m glad I posted about me dad because he’s said it gave him the courage/confidence to post about himself.
And yes, It’s a brilliant place for support when you need it. A bunch of strangers on a forum helped me so much when me dad was poorly and when he died.
Sounds daft but it was just nice, the comments and posts did offer comfort and this was a bloke that had never posted and nobody knew. xx

 

Does that not say that the Parachute money was always meant to be used to pay off sbc?

 

It does, but they are now saying they won't put any money back in over the next financial year, and talking about raising the price as a result to cover SD's debt to the club.

This is why it's all coming back to the forefront, because it's pretty clearly going to be a sticking point for a new owner to (effectively) buy not only the shares, but pay off the debts of the previous owner that were specifically run up while they acquired those same shares.

 

Sorry excuse my ignorance but if the PP was always meant to be used to pay SBC then what exactly are we expecting back?

 

IIRC CM indicated that the monies had gone through Madrox to pay SBC, or is my memory failing again
Then again what do any of us know until we see the actual accounts

 

I think your right and I'm sure GOM said it was just a clunky way of doing it

 

No problem, it's not ignorance, just complexity.

The £25m SBC debt was transferred to Madrox as part of the deal to buy the club from Short .This means that it was up to Donald to pay it, but that debt was secured against the parachute payments. This meant that if Donald couldn't - or as transpired, chose not to - pay that debt, the club's parachute payments would have to be used.

This is classed as a loan to Madrox. This means that Madrox owes SAFC at least £20m as of the last information from SD and CM. It could be closer to £25m, or depending on the 'accounting error' SD talked of, it could be more than £30m. We won't know until April for sure.

 

I thought they'd said there was enough money to cover this season's operating costs but they would then need further investment to continue whichever league we found ourselves in.

 

Roll on April

 

They believe we'll actually make a profit of £5m this season. Whether that's still the projection I don't know.

The point is that this (let's just assume the lowest amount) £20m sits on our books as an outstanding debt we are owed by Madrox. SD claims he has that £20m. Why is it not coming back in over an agreed schedule? SD is making the decision that he does not need to put that money in unless there is a 'need'.

The problem I then have, is that in April, he took out a short term loan against the rest of the 18/19 season's parachute payments of about £11-12m (DM wrongly attributed it to 19/20 payments) that was used to pay off the final £8m+ of the SBC debt. The rest of the loan was apparently only for use in an emergency.

If he has that money, and there's a 'need' from the club, why is he not using it? Why is he taking out short term loans to run the club when he has that money and owes it to the club? If he's willing to do that, at what point will he find a situation that warrants him actually paying out of his own pocket?

 

Thanks for clarifying. Very interesting indeed and keep up the good work of watching the financial situation.

 

Is that what you got banned for saying the above?

Good on you tbh always good to have extra sets of eyes who know the financial side especially one who is willing to challenge, cheers.

 

Yeah pretty much. I have said for around 6 months now that this is not right and the money that has gone out is going into a black hole.

Madrox doesn't publish accounts, so that money can go towards any debt that Madrox wishes to service.

This means - just theoretically of course, I'm sure this would never happen... - if Donald had run up a debt, of say, £9.6m to the former owner, he could - again, this is complete fantasy - pay out £9.6m from the club's cash reserves via Madrox and - please, indulge this completely hypothetical situation - then use it to pay off this personal debt.

All we would know is that the club had sent £9.6m to someone via Madrox. It's entirely legal, I just think as it's club money, we should know exactly which debt is being serviced.

Anyway, on a completely unrelated note, here are Madrox's accounts.

 

Hello Kittenmittons,

I'm admin for the site and your posts have been brought to my attention.

I don't pretend to understand any of this stuff, simply because I'm not a Sunderland supporter, so I wouldn't be expected too. I think there is concern of anything that may lead to potentially libellous statements.

Having first hand experience of supporters not being protected behind their keyboards, when it comes to that phrase I've used, I ask, are you able to support any of your claims, with links, to any said statements or to accounts that support any financial claims, Ie via companies house?

Anyway, i've done my bit now, so don't really care if you get your arsed sued off or not, whatever the case maybe

Enjoy

 

Good timing

 

No worries. Everything I say is based on the accounts, known payments acknowledged by the owners, or the owners' words themselves. I'm merely explaining an example scenario that could occur - entirely legally - without oversight. Hopefully you get that there's nothing libellous about repeating the words of the owners, or questioning items in their own accounts!

 

But it’s not your football club, it’s theirs, your view is irrelevant imho. My point is simple enough, as long as you’re not accusing them of theft or fraud, then you can hold any opinion you feel appropriate. We will just agree to differ on our perceptions of sd and cm et al, I think they’re muddling along trying to run a large organisation, and looking for the best way out, hopefully for themselves and us. In terms of transparency I would rather we knew nowt tbh, that’s how business should be run, not in public.

 

I'm not accusing them of fraud. They're acting entirely legally. I just disagree that when the club's money leaves via the owner's personal company, we then have no right to know where that money ends up. Particularly when they then indicate they have no intention of paying money back to the club that they have loaned in the foreseeable future.

 

Exactly. As long has people don't start going the lines of inappropriate suggestions, then I'm happy. Anything that is in the public domain and can be researched as such is cool with me.