I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. I'm trying to clarify what you're saying for my own benefit. You're asking people to be aware of something that may or may not turn out to be true or long term. You aren't in a position to say 'Donald has done X and that situation won't change' ... .... just that it may not. You've said you just want people to be aware that the owners may not be all they claim to be. As I've said, I haven't met one who says any different, irrespective of what you've said.
What is clear is that SD doesn't have the money to keep trying to get us promoted. When you add his inability to do so last year it looks like we're at a stalemate. It ain't pretty but it looks like we'll have to watch our club sink a little bit further until Stew and co decide to throw their hands in and sell, hopefully to our American friends who will have loaned them enough to get the club cheap when the time comes.
I don't think there are different camps mate. Is there anyone who, A - trusts the owners 100% B - think they only have the club's interests at heart, not their own C - believe every decision has been a good one Neither me, GOM, nor yourself I'd guess, think that and are just hoping the new people come in and sort things out. Of course Donald & Methven want to benefit ... ... why else would they be in the NE in the first place.
I am not naive enough to think that other owners are saints and we somehow got the worst ones. I do think they are making a profit at a time when the club is in need of investment on and off the pitch, and them replacing our guaranteed cash from the summer of 2019 with debt that has no timescale for repayment is a very poor decision and not in the best interests of the club. I don't begrudge them a profit, but I think if they're making one from selling the club, they should at very least have paid for the shares from their own pockets. Is that a fair assessment?
I'd say it's a fair guess but not an accurate assessment because, as you say, you don't have all the facts. Whatever the case it doesn't seem to be a good use of your time to keep posting the same theories. In reality you're posting to a dozen people on an Internet thread, not addressing the nation. I'll leave you to the other 11 ....
That's fine, but I don't comment on you posting on here. I made the thread because it was asked, in fact, you asked for it. People keep asking me questions, yourself included. I'm polite enough to respond, particularly when people make incorrect assertions about what I do or don't believe, and try to summarise on my behalf.
The way I see it is that there's a pretty fundamental point being missed by KM/Chris. This was never a £40m upfront deal. From the start, SD always said that ES would be paid off gradually. Most business takeovers are done by instalments. If ES wanted £40m from SD upfront, there would never have been a deal between them and who knows what might have happened to the club - it may have been 'Buried'. 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. So to avoid that, SD used the club's parachute payments to pay off ES/SBC upfront, and instead is now paying back the club gradually instead of ES. 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). Who by the way have used an expensive top team of due diligence auditors to go through everything with a fine tooth comb. Yet, according to KM/Chris 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. 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. It's not because SD is skint, unless he blatantly lied about showing the EFL he had £50m in his account. I wish KM/Chris would stop this obvious vendetta until they know for a fact that SD has done something wrong instead of just speculating that they might eventually rip the club off or could be spending much more on players. All it does it spread more negativity and desperation for the takeover news. Rant over!
A good point there about it being best to get SBC paid off first given that it was attracting a crippling interest. The only thing I'd say I'm unhappy about is how secretive it is. I get that we aren't shareholders so we have no right to know, but SD has made transparency, openness and the whole being "only a custodian" thing as being almost his calling card since coming here. If he just came out and said "I am aware that parachute payments were used to part fund the purchase of the club, I will feed this back in as and when the club needs it and if I sell up before then it will be factored into the sale price" then everyone would be happy. In fact I think he has said along those lines previously. The issue is that it's then been muddied by Methven seemingly suggesting the money wasn't due to come back to the club (at the RAWA meeting when he seemed to contradict himself). If he clarified it's definitely due back and it's coming back then no bother, ultimately when he chooses to put it in and what he chooses to spend it on is his business
I know what you're saying but nothing wrong with keeping an open mind on these sort of things no matter the source.
Meeting and believing what they say doesn't make it gospel though mate. If there is shady doings going on they're not going to admit it.
There certainly seemed to be a little PR work on the original explanations to put the deal across in the best possible light. I think CM's apparent contradiction was when he was trying to get the point across (albeit slightly out of context from the question) is that the club can only count that parachute income once. The money repayable by SD/Madrox to the club isn't new income that increases the SCMP limit. He goes on to say quite clearly that the £20m will be repaid, one way or another... "CM: In accounting terms, the club is now “owed” around £20 million – so in the event that any new owner came in, there will an adjustment in purchase price. If Madrox stays in charge then the debt remains and gradually gets paid down. As per the above, not leaving £25 million of debt to SBC in the SPA is a big ‘win’ for the club." https://09aa3e36-dd11-450f-981b-2a7...d/6fecdb_7a8295f244fa408fbbefb684b16f4aee.pdf
Ah, cheers, that clarifies it quite well. So, basically, both Donald and Methven have said there's money to put back into the club and they'll do it as required? Not sure this is much of an issue then. I mean, we can argue about whether we should be spending £5m of it in January, but we could have that debate even if it was sat in SAFC's bank account. As long as they know its outstanding and will pay it back, that's fair enough
Maybe this money was kept for FFP reasons as they presumed we would have went straight up and could have spent it? I don't get why a lot of people are getting on @Kittenmittons back as he is only posting financial information which is great but at the moment all we can do is speculate on what will happen with it. No need to arguments just chill
Excellent post, the last paragraph sums up the financial situation as I see it although I'm no expert. If FPP are willing to work with them until the expected takeover when the time is right that tells me that they are running the money side of the club correctly. Thanks for starting this thread Kittens. Ronnie
I notice a slightly different take on the financial situation is on rtg. Guess the only ones that really know are the owners and short