But short wiped away any debt and left the parachute payments with donald. What is at question is the 20m that was paid to short. Has donald borrowed it then put it on safc book as a liability, do we (safc the entity) now owe the individual or other entity 20m that was borrowed to buy the club. Donald has done well reducing costs ( especially ) wages and should be congratulated. Buts let's not forget, he is a businessman not a philanthropist. He is doing himself favours ..first last and always
I don't care who he is, I am only pointing out that the only 2 people who can answer his questions and thoughts are the owners. Therefore the only way to find out if he has it right and to put this to bed once and for all, for good or bad is to ask them these questions. Unfortunatley the answers would probably result in more accountant speak so it requires someone with an understanding to hear them and counter the answer. There are now 2 takes on the financial situation of the club, one on here and one by GOM. By the poster on here's own admission he believes GOM takes a more positive view on things, but GOM has the benefit of meeting CM and seeing and hearing his responses first hand
For two reasons I'd imagine. Firstly the 'real points of his post' aren't clear although there's definitely a massive agenda. He's admitted he may or may not be correct when the accounts are available next April. Secondly his identity matters, otherwise he's just another anonymous 'whistle blower' on the internet.
What does his identity do to prove it's right or wrong? Take what you want from the post but the witch hunt for his identity is a desperare effort to try and rubbish claims.
Yes and because kittens paints the club in a bad light that must mean that GOW must be correct??? As I say believe which side you want, but the constant hounding of someone's identity is strange and borderline creepy.
No. The debt is the other way. Madrox ltd need to pay safc £20m, or needed to have paid, we don't know how much is left now.
If by hounding you mean suggesting he meets with the owners, yes I have suggested he does that. What seems to be ignored is that unless this is discussed with them, answers will never be forthcoming, but as we have seen with the takeover rumours become fact pretty quickly
It's not a witch hunt on my part. His posts simply lack credibility, in my opinion, because he's totally anonymous. I'm not desperate to rubbish his claims, I don't really know what they are in all honesty. I don't even believe he knows himself.
Simple really smug. I don't know why anyone would actively want to know less about this, to the point where they play the man rather than the ball. My posts don't lack credibility on any level because they're not 'claims' or 'allegations' or anything of the sort. They're all facts, or at absolute worst, I've made absolutely clear where we need to put 2+2 together, and how sure we can be that the answer we get is correct. I've even said where there are other options, and what they may be, including those where they're favourable to the owners. You added the caveat about the accounts, not me. I disagreed, because I think there is now enough evidence in the public domain (particularly the words of the owners themselves) to make a reasonable judgement. Will we know more when the next accounts are published? Yes, but by your logic, we would then simply dismiss whatever we learn from them and say 'we'll have to wait for the 2021 accounts before we pass any judgement on the 2020 ones'. It's always a fluid evaluation, based on the accounts of a few companies, companies house updates, and comments from the owners explaining their actions.
Also, for people who can't be arsed to read the full thing, I put a summary in the opening post at the top.
Grumpy Old Man, I just read your take on this: Let's start with the very top. You obviously won't have seen but I'm very clearly not Chris Wetherspoon or any other person who has interacted with Stewart Donald. The fact that the lad has actually come in here with an account from 2012 should at least make you realise this, so that's not a great start is it? 'highly biased, extremely agenda driven' - this seems to be a line that a group of people are using? My agenda is plain and simple, let's not let £20m+ slip through the cracks when we're up against the wall financially, eh? Especially when the club's cash has left the company to directly benefit the owner's personal finances, being replaced by a debt that has no timescale for repayment. factually incorrect or based on uncorroborated assumptions not supported by any real evidence - this should be collegiate - show me where I'm wrong, GOM, so I can understand. But fundamentally, as you won't even acknowledge that the overwhelming majority of the headline stuff is true (the £20m+ owed, the use of club funds to purchase shares in the club for the owner's sole financial benefit), I could easily call you biased. Why have you not said where I am right? If you wish to be objective, then approach this objectively and empirically, and you will find that actually, I'm very amenable to your input. I have said that there are assumptions and made clear where they are, but none of the assumptions is actually a fundamental part of this, or I wouldn't have published it. The bullet pointed first section of the OP (30 seconds laymans terms version) is all corroborated by FACT. Stewart Donald owed the club 'around £20m' in the summer of 2019 He used the club to take out a loan of between £10-£12m in April 2019, the 'bulk of which' was used to pay Ellis Short for his shares in the club, for Stewart Donald's financial benefit. There is no schedule or timescale for repayment of either the £20m or the loan from April There is no intention or obligation to put any money back into the club in 19/20.
"They're all facts, or at absolute worst, I've made absolutely clear where we need to put 2+2 together, and how sure we can be that the answer we get is correct." You keep saying that but ... what exactly is the answer. You keep saying money has been shifted around etc, but what is your point? And, when you say "let's not let £20m+ slip through the cracks" what exactly do you mean and what are you asking people to do?
What do you mean 'what is your point'? I have said what my point is, to raise awareness that this situation exists so that people can make an objective and informed opinion about whether they are ok with the club being run in this way.
What is the point of your analysis? What are you actually saying is wrong? And when you say "let's not let £20m+ slip through the cracks" what are you suggesting people do? Any good accountant should be able to give straightforward answers and clarify the situation. That, for me, is where you're failing.
I'm not an accountant, in fact I own and run a business with a majority shareholding of a similar level to Donald's, so I see it more from his perspective. What I am saying is 'wrong' is that millions of the club's money has been used for Stewart Donald's sole financial benefit, specifically, to purchase some or even most of shares that he is trying to profit from before he has repaid the debt to the club. As an example of how this should work, Ellis Short effectively entered into a similar arrangement with Donald, accepting repayments in the future for the shares. However until they were paid off, a charge was formally placed on the club, and any profit from those shares that Donald hadn't paid back would have gone to Short. Now, we (SAFC) are in a similar position to Short - Donald owns the shares, but he hasn't actually given SAFC the money for them. If he sells, he makes a profit and there is at this point still no guarantee that he will pay back the amounts he owes from the proceeds. What I am saying is wrong, is that the club's money has gone towards Stewart Donald's assets and at this stage he has given no indication of any formal or even informal timeframe to pay that off. You don't have to be an accountant to know that this is not best practice or acting primarily in the interests of SAFC over his own profit. It doesn't get any more simple. You seem to want me to categorise it as something, or accuse someone of a crime, but that's not what this is. This is like when Mike Ashley, or the Allams or any other owner who puts themselves above the club runs it in a way that puts them at odds with the club's ability to progress on and off the pitch. You think 'that's not good', but the difference is, people aren't tugging those people off, and they're definitely not hounding those who dare to point out that it's not ok.
So what you're saying is that Donald may, or may not, be doing something that's not illegal. And you don't want people to actually do anything, just be aware that a football club owner may have his own reasons, and interests, involved in the club he owns. I'd say that's probably true of 99% of owners. Would you say that's a fair summary?
Must admit, and I've mentioned it a while ago to GOM on RTG, that I'm a bit uneasy about the money owed being "drip-fed" back in.
I would say that what I think is above in far more clear terms, so don't try to put words into my mouth or summarise and then later say 'we agreed...' I don't think anything he is doing is 'illegal'. I will say that much. And no, I don't think '99% of owners' are able to do this because for most of them, they are obligated to report to more than just themselves. As Donald himself said, the EFL were 'nervous' about his plans because they had never seen anything like it before. This is not normal. Nothing at SAFC ever is ( ) but in this case, I can't see why you as a SAFC fan would want the owner to have this money instead of the club.
Me too, but I've still no idea what the OP is saying that's any different to the majority of posters. In fact I doubt you'd find a single Sunderland supporter who would say they trust the owners 100% ... ... most don't even trust the new ones although they don't even believe they're involved yet
