Sorry didn't address this I didn't 'attack' us, I stated a fact. We get weird about Dell, FPP and the americans. People (me and you more than anyone) hang around discussing it day after day, month after month, and nothing changes. If the club appoints a director, people to mental somersaults to attribute it to FPP. A lot of our fans actively promote the possible tactic of them letting us suffer as a club in order to get a better price. They laud them as canny businessmen and say it like it would be acceptable for us to go to the wall, or all kinds of things, as long as we get the FPP boys. That's why I said we're weird about it, because we are. All of us, me and you included. That's what Donald recognises too, that they can throw the FPP excuse out there and some people will say 'yet more canny FPP business' when really he's just jipped the club of £20m he was going to pay back.
Unless I'm completely misunderstanding this, the article is telling us: 1. Donald and co. used the parachute payments to buy the club. Which we knew. 2. Donald's (assumed) asking price is too high. Which we knew. The only thing that might be a revelation is the stuff about them not being required to pay back the 20 million. But the article clearly states that they have said that they will anyway. If we had been promoted at the end of last season and been making good progress in the Championship this season, would anyone have cared about this 20million? I doubt it. Seems to me that following the release of the second Netflix series and the news about Newcastle's possible takeover, now is an excellent time for the papers to set the cat amongst the pigeons in order to get their respective news outlets a bit more attention. And maybe to twist the knife a bit.
My word, there is absolutely no limit to your quest for validation which smacks of insecurity. GOM, who you are obsessed with although he only deals in facts, explained the 25m loan some time ago. Don't let the Daily mail rattle your cage.
I get what you're saying but in some respects Methven's correct. Simply put, the 25 million that came into the club was used to pay a 25 million club debt. A debt i believe that was racking up millions a year in interest. Now, If SD wants 40m for the club then he should put that money back in. If however he only wants 15m then who gives a ****. Why the need to beat him with how it was used. Parachute payments are designed for the relegated clubs to get them back on an even keel. Clearing the SBC debt did exactly that, ergo, what the para payments are designed for. Sadly some people are of the belief that the parachute payments should be used for transfers and player payments to have a crack at getting back into the PL. That's exactly the same as getting made reduntant and throwing all your payout on red or black at the casino. Probably worse odds than that.
I know what the loan is. I just didn't need him telling me I was a fifth column last year when I raised the prospect of them writing off the debt. Can you see why I would be pissed off about him doing that?
But if the loan was used to pay off a club debt then why does it need to be repayed at all? Or in simple terms. We;ve taken 25m out of the clubs accounts for the previous owner to pay off a club debt.
I think the money could be used for both, and we could have manageable debt while also getting out of League One while (for example) spending any amount in a transfer fee for a player this year For example, even if the interest was around £2m p/a on £25m, would you say that us paying back £15m of that and leaving a £10m debt (and 800k interest pa) was a good thing? I'd say we could have then used £8-9m on on-field or other costs. It was possible to try and do this, via either SBC or someone else at that level. There are alternatives, I've always said, you don't pay off your mortgage early if it means you can't eat for a few years. Instead we pumped it into getting rid of something that was more important to Short and Donald, and the on-field situation has been worse because of it.
I can but you are going on too much about. You make good points but have a real bee in your bonnet. Your posts are also too long to digest, for me anyway, although always interesting.
Forgive me for feeling a little bit like people should be aware that GOM got this completely wrong and threw me under the bus in the process. I do have a bee in my bonnet and that is people taking money out of our club at a time when it needed to be put in.
But isn't that just hindsight? If for example we'd actually won the playoff final and have cleared the debt then wouldn't we be in an even better position? Also (and correct me if i'm wrong) didn't the debt need to cleared in full by a particular date and if so your point is moot. As i said, hindsight. Both a wonderful thing and a curse.
How did he get it wrong? He's always stated that the money was used to clear a club debt. Are you saying that the debt wasn't the clubs debt that Ellis effictively ported over to himself?
I agree. I'm no accountant but remember clearly SD saying they would pay the 25m back to ES over time and the guarantee to ES was the parachute payments, although not preferred option. They have paid Bach 5m and all would have been fine had we gone up.
If I knew I wouldnt name them, we know FPP were interested, I dont know who else. Are you telling me these 2 havnt tried to buy a club, without the resources, and then factor in the guaranteed incoming money and added it to the sale value? I buy a pub for £15 million, I know it has guaranteed money coming in, if I do nothing at all of £25million,I then try to sell it for £40million. That money wasnt meant to be used for speculators, it was for the benefit of the club supposedly
Because I said that the debt could be wiped by SD instead if ever being paid back, which he dismissed out of hand and questioned my motives for saying such nasty things about the owners. I don't mind him disagreeing, I did mind him trying to paint me as saying this with an ulterior motive. I don't have one and I thought my scenario was credible. So credible that it's now happened. The original loan was scheduled for repayment, yes, but there was no attempt to refinance that on more favourable terms, with SBC or otherwise, at a lower level. It seems that Short made sure of that by effectively committing Donald to paying him instead of SBC for it. That was something I was always in favour of. I didn't see the need to be 'debt free' if it still meant being in League One, because we had an open goal where we had more money coming in than any club in L1 history, yet we were committing to putting that money into completely paying off a debt. Like I said, the mortgage analogy, paying off the last of your house but not being able to eat for 2 years.
But I told people that I had bought it with no debt, not needing the £25million, then when it didnt work out, left it to rot I cant beleive anyone is trying to defend this
Seriously man, get over yourself. You're just pontificating about what we do know and speculating about what we don't ... ... just like everyone else. I looked at RTG, after your comments about your attack, and lots of people are asking GOM for his take or saying they'll wait until he's posted before forming an opinion. I didn't see any asking you tbh. I'd suspect that's because your lengthy posts are crammed with endless possibilities, one of which you'll quote if it turns out to have any credibility. As you said earlier, "There is so much to unpack in this statement that my head is spinning with the possibilities." After all the 'hard work' you've put in I'd seriously doubt anyone, on either board, actually knows where you stand ... ... I'm not even sure you do.
No, you told people 25m was outstanding to be paid over time and the parachute payments were a guarantee, but not preferred option. I heard you say that.
