Loans involving SD and CM would be paid off with the proceeds of the sale. Loans involving the club wouldn't need to be, it depends on how a purchaser was looking to finance the situation.
Tell you what this thread makes me feel less ripped off paying my accountant as I haven't got a scooby.
My accountant is my best mate's best mate . . . . sort of self taught after becoming sick of having to wait for my eldest daughter, who is a senior tax advisor, to do them for me every year
Things may not be as they seem Everything in the garden might not be as rosy as they seem Third line . . . . they might be, though
very interesting thread subject, but I'm not sure what the point of it is. Watching football as a supporter is a leisure pastime, once you've bought your ticket, or season ticket, all you're entitled to is watching a game ( or games) of football. The 'contract' ends there. Unless you're a shareholder you have no right to know what the club owner does with the money, its his club, and his money. My eldest lad has a season ticket for Odeon Cinemas, I wonder what reply he'd get if he started hassling the MD of Odeon cinemas and demanding to know what they'd spent his admission money on? I'd expect him to get a short sharp reply. Yet people such as OP think they can demand answers to the financial affairs of SAFC. I don't get this sense of entitlement, especially when everyone agrees that nothing illegal has taken place. I'm sure that Stewart Donald , knowing that a very detailed DD procedure was imminent, would not have done anything to jeopardise any takeover/investment from an outside group, who would quickly discover any anomaly. I'm glad it got moved to its own thread, but I doubt I'll be following it, wild goose chase springs to mind.
What do you think the club needs money for if as, according your earlier reply to me, we won't spend money on transfers rather than can't. If we won't it wouldn't matter how much we had. Also not sure why you're worried that we won't know to look out for the loan if as you say SD has freely admitted to taking it out. How much do you think it cost to shift Catts and Oviedo? how has that been funded and is it included in the projected £5m profit. I do appreciate the fact that you have isolated this issue in it's own thread
I'm baffled at how many are just saying "it's his club he can do what he wants as long as it's legal". So if we got into the top flight you'd have no issue with paying for season cards every year whilst the owner spent nothing, took the hundred million pounds of TV money and put it in his back pocket? For avoidance of doubt I'm not suggesting that Donald has done or would do any such thing, but if your argument is "what's the point of looking into finances, he can do what he wants" I think you're missing quite a major part of what makes people football fans. We are meant to want the best for the club. We invest a lot in it both financially and emotionally, it's a huge part of people's lives. Yes, Donald owns the club so we're limited in what we have the "right" to know but I'd like to think most fans are interested in how good a "custodian" (to use a term Donald likes) the owner is being. If we found that, whilst not doing anything illegal, an owner was lining their own pockets at the expense of the clubs possible success, I'd hope someone would uncover it and that the majority of the fans would protest and attempt to get the owner to sell up. Again, I don't think that's what Donald is doing, and I think he has got the club's best interests at heart (along with obviously wanting to make a profit), but **** me I'm amazed that so many genuinely wouldn't be bothered if he was taking loads of money out of the club they say they support just because "he owns it, he can do what he wants". Absolutely baffling
"we just read the facts as a timeline and when the accounts come out in April" See, that's my problem with all this tbh .... ... between now and then there may/will be a takeover, investment, transfer window, Christmas, New Year, etc etc etc. And if the owners, whoever they may be, produce a wonderful set of accounts then everything you've spent months researching will have been a total waste of your time.
Yet when a certain other poster does this over the road his fly is unzipped and given royal treatment. Some people just can't accept what they read as it doesn't put us in good light. I was told before the takeover that these 2 didn't have a pot to piss in and us running into trouble was going to be inevitable.
https://www.russell-cooke.co.uk/media/2034/overview_of_directors_duties_under_the_companies_act_2006_november_2009.pdfa duty to act in good faith in the best interests of the company; a duty to exercise skill and care; a duty to avoid conflicting interests and duties; and a duty not to make a secret profit. The Companies Act 2006 (“the Act”) was intended to simply „codify‟ these duties – i.e. translate them into legislation largely unchanged. In the end however the Act has, by detailing duties more specifically, arguably changed the scope of directors‟ duties. Most controversially, it includes a new „overriding duty‟ broadly equivalent to the old common law duty to act in good faith referred to at 1.1.1 above.
It's an interesting read, but from small businesses upwards accounts can be "manipulated" to suit the business needs, be that for tax reasons or personal reasons. They are also horribly out of date when they are published on companies House and do not reflect the current situation.
re: the first part, I'm saying that the reason we currently 'won't' is because Donald and co are intent on making us sustainable in league one above all else, which is mental given that we have a huge window of opportunity to get straight out of this league, and it would take an incredibly negative person to not think that it was worth pushing as hard as possible to maximise our chances. Now I agree that we don't want to risk too much, but I'm suggesting that a small investment could provide the big boost, weaken rivals, and push us on to automatic promotion. Why won't they spend anything? Not even £100k has gone on transfer fees, I'm sorry, but from reading up on FFP at the weekend, I believe that he is entitled to put money into the club this year and not break FFP, because it counts as revenue. The answer is almost certainly that the profit this year can help offset a loss next year once the parachute payments run out, but it's SUNDERLAND ffs We aren't meant to become a sustainable league one club, we're supposed to have an owner who will get us into the Championship with a budget that outstrips the rest of the division. Instead, we're basically saying we'll give up on our window of opportunity. All of which would be far more palatable if we weren't down at least £20m in cash that should be in the bank for us right now, and Donald hadn't used the bulk of another loan in April to pay off Ellis Short for his own private benefit. How can anyone look at that and think 'you know what, actually, I'm quite happy for us to spend nothing on players, because Stewart Donald will make a massive profit if he sells the club with shares that the club bought for him' Madness. Referring to Rodders, Oviedo, Catts etc - those guys' contracts were already on the books as liabilities, so paying them off early or over a longer time is of benefit to the club. I think Chodders got a settlement, so he got paid less than he would have got had he just seen out the year but was released and got to double dip, so a net gain to the club despite the waste, as we would have paid the full amount before. With Oviedo and Catts, someone may have exact details, but I believe in Cattermole's situation, he was released immediately in return for paying his contract over two years rather than one, so in effect, reducing the liability per year to 20k a week (£1m) rather than paying all £2m this season (which I suspect may have been partly motivated by FFP, although I believe there is a clause for players who signed deals a substantial period before relegations). We don't know the terms of the Oviedo deal, but whatever deal was struck would simply have meant paying him less in some way or form. Whatever happened, you can be certain of one thing: it didn't 'cost' to shift them, it will end in a net saving, even if just on this year's books.
Haha he worked fir kpmg before going self employed. He’s bloody expensive sadly but, as we’ve known each other for 40 years, he refuses to charge me! He bought us a house and charged us half the market rent on it!!
The only thing I'd come back to in terms of your comment about wishing he'd put some more money in now is the fact that it might adversely affect us next season. If we were looking for a couple of extra signings to try and get us up we might have ended up with Maddison and Eisa. That could conceivably have been £6m plus when you take into account wages. That wouldn't guarantee promotion but when you look at how they've performed in this league you'd have to say you'd have fancied us to go up. Thing is though that's then another two players on fairly big money in the league above. We've already seen that Eisa who looks good in this league didn't really make the grade in the league above, if Maddison is the same then he's spent a hell of a lot of money, probably hamstrung himself in terms of how much more he can spend in season one of the championship, and it would quite possibly lead to us going straight back down. I'm assuming his plan is to avoid that kind of risk, try to go up spending very little like most other sides do at this level and then, assuming a manager can get a promotion side out of what is hardly a bad collection of players at this level, he could spend that £6m on more guaranteed championship level quality who currently would turn us down for a championship move. That I think is his main motivation for not spending the money now. I think promotion is meant to be worth about £6m more for us than we'd get in league one next season, but a lot of that will be taken up by wage rises for those who stay. Imagine the likes of Eisa and Maddison, neither proven in the league above, with larger wages to begin with, also getting rises. I don't see how Donald could get us competitive at that time. Go up spending little, have wage rises that are smaller, be able to release some who had 2 year contracts and still have money set aside to spend? That sounds to me like a better idea, albeit a risky one because as you say we might not go up
Just say you found out a lass you shagged years ago had a bairn who also likes to pay in beers If he fancies hoying in a house I wont complain either.. Anyway it's that time!!!!!!!!!!!!1 HWTL!
