****ing spot on m8, this is an obvious vendetta or obsession, neither of which is remotely healthy either to the club, it’s fans or the individual nut jobs who spend hours trying to prove that aliens exist, or that sd has done a quick sleight of hand with £20m that nobody except this wacko has spotted, no financial regulator, no investigative journalist and no football authorities.
That's why wouldn't mind GOM on here I appreciate @Kittenmittons but its always good to see both sides of the coin. That's whats brilliant about our Sunderland forums difference of opinions and agreements. Only downfall is the petty arguments but haven't been many on here so its all good
I agree and it's good to see it from both sides. My only issue was and is, that instead of posting it on a message board where lots, including myself won't understand it then meet with the people that can answer the questions. This then sent us down a bizarre rabbit hole of how it could lead to threats against people, families and reputations when all I suggested was to meet with the people concerned. Now which ever side of the finances you chose to believe, the one constant is rich people are usually rich for a reason and unless they are mad Sunderland fans won't be doing this for the good of us and the club, they will be doing it to make money. Personally I don't care who makes what out of the club as long as its moving forward both on and off the pitch
As already stated: I am not KM and am not responsible for anything the poster has said here or anywhere else. I've been pretty vocal before so suddenly turning anonymous wouldn't make a lot of sense. Please acknowledge this and stop lumping me in with something I have no desire to be a part of on here. I don't want to have to request threads get pulled as I think the discussion is worthwhile, I just can't be getting tagged with the actions/words of others. Thanks.
This all sounds good at first reading, but it's contradicted by a few facts: unless he blatantly lied about showing the EFL he had £50m in his account Donald only proved he had £20m in his account according to his own words. Listen here: The problem with SD paying off ES/SBC gradually, is that ES/SBC would still have a security charge hanging over the club, putting off any new investors. Agreed, but why didn't Donald pay that off in April, instead of using the club's money again? Specifically, this portion also related to his shares, which again makes it all the more illogical that he did not pay for it out of his own pocket, but put yet more onto an i.o.u slip. Yet, according to KM they might have missed or forgotten to get assurances in the deal about the £20m (or however much it might be now) owed to the club. I'm clearly not Chris ffs, please stop perpetuating this as some people will believe it but as for your point, I have said before, but him owing the club £20m (as an example) is not a good thing during a takeover, of course they're going to know about it, but that doesn't mean they will like it. Put it this way, if he owes the club £20m for the SBC debt, and (rough estimate) another £6.5m for the Short debt, and he paid £5m up front, that means even before we take into account the 'drip feed', he has either paid, or has liabilities totalling around £32m in the club. He owns 74% of the club right now, so to make a profit, he needs to get an asking price of around £44m. That's assuming he didn't put a penny more into the club last year. If he sold the club for £40m today, and that debt had to be paid off, he would make a loss of at least £2m on the whole endeavour, and you can add on other funds he's spent on it too. Do you think people are offering £44m for us right now lads? Honest question. Because that's the minimum that Donald needs to make a profit. Now, if he put that money back in, there should be no doubting that it's a good thing for the club. The chances of success go up as the money is paid back. Does anyone disagree with that logic? It would also subsequently give us a better chance of achieving a situation where someone was willing to pay £44m for the club. As it stands, we're in a situation where that 'gamble', despite being a very clear pathway to success, is not one the owner is willing to take because he would rather not even put a few million in. As far as I'm concerned, the reason we haven't splashed money on players is due to FFP/SCMP limits, if not hitting us this year, then next year. I agree this is a factor, but do we know what the wage bill for players is? If we don't, then we can't be sure about any of it. I don't want to get into a guessing game, but part of the issue for me is this: If Donald wanted to put money in because he has a liability to the club, that would absolutely count as revenue. Is it possible you misread this part of the EFL rules? This actually refers to the other way around. If the club owed someone £10m, and that money was written off, it would not count as 'additional revenue' even though the net effect on the club's finances would be +£10m in the next accounts. If someone owes the club £10m and pays it back, then that would count as revenue. Also worth noting that had Donald left the parachute payments in the club of £6-7m that he paid to Short in April, that would have been carried over to this year and helped with FFP too. So if you know of a specific rule that says that someone paying their liability to the club (which is all most revenue ends up being, even as far down as a supporter paying off direct debits for season cards) does not count towards revenue, then I would like to see it. By doing this they've saved the club £millions of interest on the SBC debt and put us in a position where we are on the verge of a gradual takeover by several multi-billionaires (hopefully). The last point on this is that the SBC loan debt is often portrayed as an incredible amount, something like £8m. Actually, the debt had interest of 8.5%, which would have equated to £2m p/a on the £25m outstanding. Now, I can absolutely get behind the SBC debt being paid off using parachute payments (shock!) because £2m a year is still a lot, albeit I should point out that the debt was Donald's, not the club's. The debt was simply secured against the club, so the interest saved was actually Donald's liability, not the club's. I just think that the entire point with that portion of debt is that whatever the rights and wrongs of using the club money early to sort it out, Donald does not appear to be paying it off in the foreseeable future based on his words and actions.
Interesting counter viewpoint. Is this just your theory on what's happened regarding the parachute payments or backed up with facts? FFP restrictions would mean that we won't be bringing anyone in during the January window either which is a little disappointing.
Please excuse me if I'm asking the obvious but I have nothing to do with finance and all this is making my brain hurt, so feel free to call me a dumbass, etc, and I'll just take it on the chin. Aren't you saying here that SD has bought the club with the club's own money, which he is paying back (and can you confirm or otherwise that we don't know over what period or even if there is any interest attached to this loan - so that by using the parachute payments, SD, as much as the club, has saved HIMSELF ££££££££s on the takeover payments to ES because he keeps his own money invested and earning for himself? I don't really care one way or t'other because it is all legal (so I've seen confirmed on here no end).
Just a random comment on people who give me **** and praise everything GOM says: If I said this, what would you lads who criticise me say? I already have seen, that the question would be 'but how do you know?' ...and if I said this, what would you lads who criticise me say? You would rightly say 'but are you just believing reports? How do you know for certain?' With all due respect to GOM, I show my working out and am open about what I know and do not know. He speaks in broad statements like this and cites 'reports' and circumstantial evidence, and nobody bats an eyelid. Just have some consistency in your approach, and an open mind.
Simple question time. If all the posts are correct would we be any better off with one of the other consortiums that wanted to port the debt?
We don't know, we can never know unless we know what the terms were of the deals that were or had been on the table. It truly is the idlest of speculation about a parallel universe, and the only sources we have are Methven and Donald, who have a vested interest in us believing that their deal was the best one.
Just on your last point, Donald said in an interview with ALS that any interest would be Ellis problem not the clubs; https://www.a-love-supreme.com/sing...-Finances-Finally-Explained-by-Stewart-Donald ‘If Donald doesn’t pay the money, the bank and/or Short can demand the payment from the club. Worth noting that Stewart has confirmed to me that the charges are ‘reducing charges’. This means that, now the amount owed has fallen, the amount that can be demanded of the club also falls. This is different (and better) than most mortgages where non-payment means you lose your house, no questions asked. Stewart explained to us “If I do not make those payments (the bank) has a charge on the Academy and also the bank account. Ellis has taken all the debt and paid it out apart from a portion which he has left outstanding owed by him rather than the club… (he has) reassigned that debt from the club to him personally. He is then paying that off as I pay him. Any interest accruing is Ellis’ issue not the club’s.” So, in summary, Ellis really did pay off the debts. He and Stewart Donald have done a deal very quickly which means there are a few more odd clauses than a deal which might be ironed out over months but none of them to the detriment of the club. As it stands, Ellis owes the bank about £10m and Stewart owes Ellis about £25m. The club is like the annoying blue thing in the Amigo loans advert (and, if the EFL says Donald can afford it, he can afford it’
We don't know, because the entirety of the deal is not known. For example, GOM is chatting about potential asset stripping. He doesn't even know the names of the people involved, he doesn't know how many of them, he doesn't know what their plan was for the debt on any level at all. It is useless speculation. For all we know, their plan was to pay the debt off themselves once they bought the club, but they refused to give Short some money for the club as they were accepting the debt burden. That seems like the most likely alternative, not 'asset stripping' which he has zero evidence of. Christ, the irony of it is that SD and CM discussed borrowing against the stadium this season! Would that have made them asset strippers? Because in GOM's world, it would:
Yeah, good point and thanks for the link, read that on RTG earlier. The SBC debt remained Short's, but I think the detail ended up being that Donald would have had to service that interest debt had it gone through a whole year too, based on the account liabilities? I guess the overriding point whichever way is that it was most definitely not the club's debt at that point.
Insane stuff over on RTG this. Kildare wades in with absolutely no ****ing idea and some unsubstantiated bollocks. There is not a deal in history that would have 'made SD about £70m' because if there was, he would have ****ing done it Hell, you'd struggle to find a lads fan who wouldn't do that deal There is no explanation of how that deal would have benefited Donald to the tune of £70m, just absolute nonsense. Then some moron wading in and saying that because the explanation is easily understandable, it's right. Absolute whelp.
So if I have this right and the other consortium had taken over instead of SD and taken the debt on. That means the club is essentially bought for £80 million. Short doesn't lose any more money. So the club then has £80 million worth of debt and is losing money hand over fist, the PP don't cover the debt so we would need seriously wealthy and generous owners just to stay in business Or have I missed something simple
