S.A.F.C. - the future

Biggest reason could be click bait

 

would you hire him to represent you though? if yes then he's obviously very good at his job.

 

Can you give guarantees you can run this club for two years at your lower shareholding ?. No we can’t.
Takeover rejected, you have to run the club for the next two years

 

I couldn't afford him mate, there's probably a bill on it's way because I called him ...

... I wonder if Sunday is double time

 

Great isn’t it, also it would make the EFL look like tits after sd and sartori were accepted by them just over 2 years ago,

 

i always thought with those top guys, that monday to friday was double time, weekends are any number they think of plus your first born child.

 

This is the EFL we're talking about here mind.

 

Surely it’s illegal to tell someone how long they have to own the club and who funds what. The EFL test is there to see if KLD has funds not the current ‘skint’ owners.

 

Think this might be a misguided attempt by the EFL to call out and save clubs from shysters like Donald.

The genuine fear is that they can’t agree a way forward and KLD has to walk.

Club needs to be issuing a statement urgently

 

Correct on all counts I would've thought but this is the efl who illegally introduced the salary cap.

 

Imagine turning done a multi billion pound family to run a club because the current owners can’t fund the club, we would have a better case then the mags

 

They’ll not save many clubs if they stop billionaires taking over them mate.

 

It’s absolutely barmy mate, it’s got to be bullshit.

 

I don't think the club needs to jump at every speculative newspaper story tbh.

Just my opinion.

 

This doesn’t feel speculative. It’s too specific (even if it doesn’t include quotes or data). Just a feeling mind.

 

I agree - hence “misguided”.

They want proof that somebody they approved to own 80% of a club can now own less if that club that is now bankrolled by a billionaire

 

I mean I think it’s a reasonable request especially given what’s gone on. If Donald owns 20% of the club he’s then liable for that 20%. He is taking the risk on it for the possible reward of increased value.

KLD is not allowed to foot the bill for Sunderland on his own. If Donald Methven and Sartori are responsible for their shares

Whether the EFL can request this I don’t know but they definitely should be asking this. It’s in the benefit of Sunderland (and KLD) that we do. If Donald can’t fund his 20% then the logical solution is he dilutes further to a level he can not that this results in a deal collapse.

 

I may be over reacting. Had a terrible 24 hours at home. Just my gut from reading that piece is that it’s at least partly genuine, no matter how bizarre it is.

I’m going to step away and take a breather tho

 

until the deal is signed and formal, any delay or change in share percentages can result in a deal collapse.

unlikely, and you’d like to think KLD is committed enough to stay. But seeing it’s widely reported he nearly walked away in November, there is naturally going to be a concern about this piece.

 

This sounds ridiculous and I cant imagine even if there is a necessity to commit it has only just come to light. The only possible thing I can think of is they are being asked to confirm they will continue to fund up to the level of their stake. I.E. Sartori being asked to confirm he is prepared to fund 20% of any operating loss in the event it happens. That would have been done at the original paperwork submission not now and I reckon they would all just say yes. I am only guessing as to what it might mean but I really doubt it is a necessity. Methven and Sartori would have had to go through this first time around which I dont recall being a thing...