Just a simple question for all those defending this, saying nothing has changed and it's not notable: Why did they do it? What is the advantage to this, given it is a clear PR disaster to do so.
It seems to me that @Kittenmittons just attempts to use this thread to gain a reputation above that of GOM, which imho he'll never succeed in doing. He's just a bore who loves the attention that his condition is renowned to need!
But it wouldn't be a PR disaster if we'd been promoted or even if the FPP involvement hadn't come about. No one would have cared. It's only because there is already discontent with Donald that's even an issue.
No, I just want GOM to acknowledge that he was wrong to question my motives and whether this was possible last year. As for you, remember you didn't even think the £20m debt existed, and called me all kinds of ****e for saying it did.
I agree, I said as much myself. But again, what is the financial or procedural benefit in removing the obligation for them to pay the debt off, do you think?
He did say that but I might be wrong as just been told the 25m been paid off with parachute money. I didn't know that unless the debt has been transferred to another part of the club. Will try and find out.
Like I said, it doesn't really matter what benefit there is to it. If people hadn't already decided they didn't like Donald, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Like I've also said many times before, finances are not something I ever have to bother with or take any interest in but logic would suggest that removing the obligation would give them more time to deal with it, perhaps allowing them to concentrate on other things, or relieve pressure on them. If they run the club to the best of their abilities they can do that however they like as far as I'm concerned. What concerns me more is that newspapers are undermining the owners, and therefore the club as a whole, with what is essentially a non-story.
Firstly it makes it a cleaner transaction. Any purchase seeing an "inter company loan" may be put off. By getting rid of it it clears up a lot of loose threads. I'll ask you the opposite question. What advantage, and to who is there in leaving it there?
If they write off the £20m owed to the club (effectively from SD), they can sell for £17m instead of £37m to break even. It's bad that the £20m isn't being paid into the club, but potentially good that it clears the way for genuinely rich owners to buy the club and pump much more than £20m in.
I think that the emboldened text just demonstrates the way in which you remember things (let's just say) 'differently' to everyone else.
Exactly. But the assumption is that we get rich owners who make up that difference. Which begs the question of where FPP are in all of this. If this really was done at their behest (which I doubt) then why did they not buy us for a few million more than they've already put in?
Disclaimer, I've got no idea about buying of businesses. Is there any benefit to buying Madrox as opposed to the linked companies? If so, maybe a buyer wants to buy Madrox but obviously doesn't want to buy it and then owe the £20m to SAFC, so they get Donald to write it off now (because it wouldn't look great if they came in and did it). That only makes sense if there's a reason why a buyer would want Madrox rather than Sunderland AFC and Sunderland Limited (or whatever the official company names are).
