Finances chat

[Smug in Boots]

re: the first part, I'm saying that the reason we currently 'won't' is because Donald and co are intent on making us sustainable in league one above all else, which is mental given that we have a huge window of opportunity to get straight out of this league, and it would take an incredibly negative person to not think that it was worth pushing as hard as possible to maximise our chances.

Now I agree that we don't want to risk too much, but I'm suggesting that a small investment could provide the big boost, weaken rivals, and push us on to automatic promotion. Why won't they spend anything? Not even £100k has gone on transfer fees, I'm sorry, but from reading up on FFP at the weekend, I believe that he is entitled to put money into the club this year and not break FFP, because it counts as revenue.

The answer is almost certainly that the profit this year can help offset a loss next year once the parachute payments run out, but it's SUNDERLAND ffs We aren't meant to become a sustainable league one club, we're supposed to have an owner who will get us into the Championship with a budget that outstrips the rest of the division. Instead, we're basically saying we'll give up on our window of opportunity.



All of which would be far more palatable if we weren't down at least £20m in cash that should be in the bank for us right now, and Donald hadn't used the bulk of another loan in April to pay off Ellis Short for his own private benefit. How can anyone look at that and think 'you know what, actually, I'm quite happy for us to spend nothing on players, because Stewart Donald will make a massive profit if he sells the club with shares that the club bought for him' Madness.

Referring to Rodders, Oviedo, Catts etc - those guys' contracts were already on the books as liabilities, so paying them off early or over a longer time is of benefit to the club. I think Chodders got a settlement, so he got paid less than he would have got had he just seen out the year but was released and got to double dip, so a net gain to the club despite the waste, as we would have paid the full amount before.

With Oviedo and Catts, someone may have exact details, but I believe in Cattermole's situation, he was released immediately in return for paying his contract over two years rather than one, so in effect, reducing the liability per year to 20k a week (£1m) rather than paying all £2m this season (which I suspect may have been partly motivated by FFP, although I believe there is a clause for players who signed deals a substantial period before relegations). We don't know the terms of the Oviedo deal, but whatever deal was struck would simply have meant paying him less in some way or form.

Whatever happened, you can be certain of one thing: it didn't 'cost' to shift them, it will end in a net saving, even if just on this year's books.[/QUOTE
Forums>Sunderland>
Finances chat
Unwatch Thread
< Prev1234

1. You must log in or register to see images
   
   BumbleBeeMember
   New
   ↑
   But you’re missing the whole point in this one reply, the owner owns the club, it’s his to do with as he thinks fit, the misinformation comes from individuals like you, who have an agenda and who, as smug says, are simply there to either stir up trouble or seek attention, either one is bad.
   Aye but what if someone else buys the club and calls the loan in?
   
   Today at 5:16 PM
   
   Like Reply
   
   
2. You must log in or register to see images
   
   haslamWell-Known Member
   New
   ↑
   Aye but what if someone else buys the club and calls the loan in?
   Loans involving SD and CM would be paid off with the proceeds of the sale. Loans involving the club wouldn't need to be, it depends on how a purchaser was looking to finance the situation.
   
   Today at 5:19 PM
   
   Like Reply
   Roppa likes this.
3. You must log in or register to see images
   
   BigPeteWell-Known Member
   New
   Tell you what this thread makes me feel less ripped off paying my accountant as I haven't got a scooby.
   
   Today at 5:20 PM
   
   Like Reply
   nandossonicsauce and marcusblackcat like this.
4. You must log in or register to see images
   
   marcusblackcatSAFC Sheriff
   Forum Moderator
   New
   ↑
   Tell you what this thread makes me feel less ripped off paying my accountant as I haven't got a scooby.
   My accountant is my best mate! I pay him in beer and wine. It’s awesome
   
   Today at 5:50 PM
   
   Like Reply
   Ozzymac and BigPete like this.
5. You must log in or register to see images
   
   BigPeteWell-Known Member
   New
   ↑
   My accountant is my best mate! I pay him in beer and wine. It’s awesome
   He want somebody else for more beer?
   
   I'm in a 12 month contract with mine ends in Feb
   
   Today at 5:53 PM
   
   Like Reply
   marcusblackcat likes this.
6. You must log in or register to see images
   
   Gordon ArmstrongS.A.F.C. Sheriff
   Forum Moderator
   New
   My accountant is my best mate's best mate . . . . sort of self taught after becoming sick of having to wait for my eldest daughter, who is a senior tax advisor, to do them for me every year
   
   Today at 5:55 PM
   
   Like Reply
   
   
7. You must log in or register to see images
   
   hullmackemMember
   New
   Appreciate the OP efforts, but can someone summarise in 2 lines please.
   
   Today at 6:19 PM
   
   Like Reply
   
   
8. You must log in or register to see images
   
   Gordon ArmstrongS.A.F.C. Sheriff
   Forum Moderator
   New
   Things may not be as they seem
   
   Everything in the garden might not be as rosy as they seem
   
   Third line . . . . they might be, though
   
   Today at 6:22 PM
   
   Like Reply
   RTB likes this.
9. You must log in or register to see images
   
   Porterfield73New Member
   New
   very interesting thread subject, but I'm not sure what the point of it is. Watching football as a supporter is a leisure pastime, once you've bought your ticket, or season ticket, all you're entitled to is watching a game ( or games) of football. The 'contract' ends there. Unless you're a shareholder you have no right to know what the club owner does with the money, its his club, and his money. My eldest lad has a season ticket for Odeon Cinemas, I wonder what reply he'd get if he started hassling the MD of Odeon cinemas and demanding to know what they'd spent his admission money on? I'd expect him to get a short sharp reply. Yet people such as OP think they can demand answers to the financial affairs of SAFC. I don't get this sense of entitlement, especially when everyone agrees that nothing illegal has taken place. I'm sure that Stewart Donald , knowing that a very detailed DD procedure was imminent, would not have done anything to jeopardise any takeover/investment from an outside group, who would quickly discover any anomaly. I'm glad it got moved to its own thread, but I doubt I'll be following it, wild goose chase springs to mind.
   
   Today at 6:29 PM
   
   Like Reply
   Robref62, Montysoptician, Nacho and 1 other person like this.
10. You must log in or register to see images
    
    Dairy ConsultantActive Member
    New
    ↑
    No. I think people should be aware that there is a situation where the club apparently needs money, the owner owes a substantial amount of money to the club, but the club is not calling that debt in, nor is there any arrangement to do so. In fact, the owner is now saying he won't be putting that money back for the foreseeable future.
    
    I also think that taking a club's cash reserves and replacing them with a debt, as they have done with the loan in April, is not ok when we are on such tight margins as a club.
    
    With regards to the takeover, neither of us know truly what is going on, even if they do come on board, there's no guarantee about the nature of the deal right now. I'm not suggesting we storm the gates, I'm suggesting there's a lot of misinformation out there, and it's better off that instead of reading ridiculous whatsapps that accuse the owners of all sorts, we just read the facts as a timeline and when the accounts come out in April, we know what we're looking at/for.
    Click to expand...
    What do you think the club needs money for if as, according your earlier reply to me, we won't spend money on transfers rather than can't. If we won't it wouldn't matter how much we had.
    
    Also not sure why you're worried that we won't know to look out for the loan if as you say SD has freely admitted to taking it out.
    How much do you think it cost to shift Catts and Oviedo? how has that been funded and is it included in the projected £5m profit.
    
    I do appreciate the fact that you have isolated this issue in it's own thread
    
    Today at 6:36 PM
    
    Like Reply
    
    
11. You must log in or register to see images
    
    Guinness GuzzlerWell-Known Member
    New
    I'm baffled at how many are just saying "it's his club he can do what he wants as long as it's legal".
    
    So if we got into the top flight you'd have no issue with paying for season cards every year whilst the owner spent nothing, took the hundred million pounds of TV money and put it in his back pocket?
    
    For avoidance of doubt I'm not suggesting that Donald has done or would do any such thing, but if your argument is "what's the point of looking into finances, he can do what he wants" I think you're missing quite a major part of what makes people football fans. We are meant to want the best for the club. We invest a lot in it both financially and emotionally, it's a huge part of people's lives. Yes, Donald owns the club so we're limited in what we have the "right" to know but I'd like to think most fans are interested in how good a "custodian" (to use a term Donald likes) the owner is being.
    
    If we found that, whilst not doing anything illegal, an owner was lining their own pockets at the expense of the clubs possible success, I'd hope someone would uncover it and that the majority of the fans would protest and attempt to get the owner to sell up. Again, I don't think that's what Donald is doing, and I think he has got the club's best interests at heart (along with obviously wanting to make a profit), but **** me I'm amazed that so many genuinely wouldn't be bothered if he was taking loads of money out of the club they say they support just because "he owns it, he can do what he wants". Absolutely baffling
    
    Today at 6:42 PM
    
    Like Reply
    Kittenmittons likes this.
12. You must log in or register to see images
    
    Smug in BootsWell-Known Member
    New
    ↑
    No. I think people should be aware that there is a situation where the club apparently needs money, the owner owes a substantial amount of money to the club, but the club is not calling that debt in, nor is there any arrangement to do so. In fact, the owner is now saying he won't be putting that money back for the foreseeable future.
    
    I also think that taking a club's cash reserves and replacing them with a debt, as they have done with the loan in April, is not ok when we are on such tight margins as a club.
    
    With regards to the takeover, neither of us know truly what is going on, even if they do come on board, there's no guarantee about the nature of the deal right now. I'm not suggesting we storm the gates, I'm suggesting there's a lot of misinformation out there, and it's better off that instead of reading ridiculous whatsapps that accuse the owners of all sorts, we just read the facts as a timeline and when the accounts come out in April, we know what we're looking at/for.
    Click to expand...

You were inviting questions but seem to have ignored mine .....

"we just read the facts as a timeline and when the accounts come out in April"

See, that's my problem with all this tbh ....
8k
... between now and then there may/will be a takeover, investment, transfer window, Christmas, New Year, etc etc etc.

And if the owners, whoever they may be, produce a wonderful set of accounts, everything you've spent months researching will have been a total waste of your time.

Isn't that so?

 

[BigPete]

ffs pay for iptv and it's not even working i'll be changing soon like @Jerry le is yours working?

Anybody got any links?

 

[BigPete]

Nevermind got it on with a bit of a derka derka

 

[Montysoptician]

My main point was just that companies are specifically very different to anything else you could own. They are their own legal entity and not really comparable to anything else to be honest (not having a go, just how it is), I'd love to say the reason was due to protecting employees (which is how it is often framed nowadays) but it actually comes from the industrial revolution and protecting banks and investors. Bascially if you trashed your car it's your problem, if you trashed your company it has a knock-on effect to many others (suppliers, investors, employees, etc) so you aren't allowed to just do with it as you want (for bigger companies, if you have a small one it's not so much of an issue).

You are correct to highlight the words "within the law" and from what we know he hasn't done anything illegal (as i say in the ps afterwards I think SD and CM are doing their best), there are certainly immoral practices though which are legal but drain money from companies (I could bore you all with Mike Ashley information but this is probably not the time or place!) and that is, i think, what kittymittens is wary of. The parachute payments money is a valid point of concern but in fairness to SD he has been open about it all.

Rightly or wrongly this is my take, Donald acquired Sunderland AFC, a business running at an annual loss of c £35m with a total debt of c £180m, he was offered the debt but refused it and negotiated a deal where that debt was cleared by Short (who is reported to have been advised to place the club into administration but refused).

The new owners then trimmed the cloth to suit the circumstances that Sunderland AFC found itself in. A Strategic Plan was presented to the Football League, scrutinised and then accepted, (failure to do so would have resulted in a transfer embargo and/or points deduction). The plan ensured that we comply with League 1 SCMP, got rid of the high earners on the books and steady the ship. As a consequence of this plan the owners look like they will meet their short term target to break even. Irrespective of how they managed this, unless they have broken the law I am thankful to them for their work, (I honestly thought we would have entered administration last season) and by their financial expedience they have protected the interests of Sunderland AFC employees and ensured we have a viable business.

I do believe that Donald was disingenuous with his explanation of how he funded the deal, stating that he had paid £40m, but in reality paid nowhere near that figure, using some of the parachute payment to pay off Short, but providing it is legal, the end justifies the means to me. We have a club that appears to have solid foundations with an opportunity to rebuild and attract investment, I accept that because the alternative doesn’t bear thinking about.

I am sure my thoughts will be shot to bits but for the majority of my working life I have managed facts, intelligence and evidence. It appears to me that whilst the financial “experts” on here may think they have a handle on the clubs books, it can only be conjecture because to the best of my knowledge none of them were party to purchase negotiations nor attended subsequent board meetings.

 

[Montysoptician]

It's not illegal. I've stated that. I'm asking you now, if you were an investor in the above company, would you ask the owner why we couldn't use the money he owed to finance the new contract?

Not sure what you mean, we have three investors Donald, Methven and Sartori. All of whom will have been fully aware of how the purchase was structured.

 

[Kittenmittons]

You were inviting questions but seem to have ignored mine .....

"we just read the facts as a timeline and when the accounts come out in April"

See, that's my problem with all this tbh ....
8k
... between now and then there may/will be a takeover, investment, transfer window, Christmas, New Year, etc etc etc.

And if the owners, whoever they may be, produce a wonderful set of accounts, everything you've spent months researching will have been a total waste of your time.

Isn't that so?

While this fella is down - I didn't see this.

It's not wasted time. It gives us an understanding of what we currently know, and where we might look in next year's accounts.to clarify. The thing is, while Madrox is administered as a small company, Sunderland is not, so we can always figure out some parts from that. For example, if Donald decided to write off the £20m debt he owes, he couldn't just do it without a trace at SAFC's end, if that makes sense?

I think we'd be at greater risk of this 'wonderful set of accounts' being used to obfuscate our understanding if we didn't have any starting point. This is a starting point, and I'm happy enough that if it stops the lunatics accusing him of being Bernie Madoff Jnr on whatsapp, it's a good thing.

 

[Montysoptician]

I'm baffled at how many are just saying "it's his club he can do what he wants as long as it's legal".

So if we got into the top flight you'd have no issue with paying for season cards every year whilst the owner spent nothing, took the hundred million pounds of TV money and put it in his back pocket?

For avoidance of doubt I'm not suggesting that Donald has done or would do any such thing, but if your argument is "what's the point of looking into finances, he can do what he wants" I think you're missing quite a major part of what makes people football fans. We are meant to want the best for the club. We invest a lot in it both financially and emotionally, it's a huge part of people's lives. Yes, Donald owns the club so we're limited in what we have the "right" to know but I'd like to think most fans are interested in how good a "custodian" (to use a term Donald likes) the owner is being.

If we found that, whilst not doing anything illegal, an owner was lining their own pockets at the expense of the clubs possible success, I'd hope someone would uncover it and that the majority of the fans would protest and attempt to get the owner to sell up. Again, I don't think that's what Donald is doing, and I think he has got the club's best interests at heart (along with obviously wanting to make a profit), but **** me I'm amazed that so many genuinely wouldn't be bothered if he was taking loads of money out of the club they say they support just because "he owns it, he can do what he wants". Absolutely baffling

Been there, done it and got the T-shirt under Tom Cowie's tenure. As I get older, I am a great believer in the Serenity Prayer:

God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,

Courage to change the things I can,

And wisdom to know the difference

It is Donald's club, he is the owner and within the law he can do what he wants with it, that said if I had the slightest concern that he was doing anything detrimental to the future of the club I would be first in line knocking at his door.

 

[monty987]

had we give Maja a rise of about £15,000 a week instead of signing Grigg we would be in the championship. and if these owners keep signing these type of players, we will join Bury in a couple of seasons. Murray started this demise then through Short have nearly finished our club.

 

[Ozzymac]

had we give Maja a rise of about £15,000 a week instead of signing Grigg we would be in the championship. and if these owners keep signing these type of players, we will join Bury in a couple of seasons. Murray started this demise then through Short have nearly finished our club.

What part of "we offered Maja what he asked for" is so hard for some people to understand. He was never going to stay and there were no guarantees that he would have continued scoring.
The number of goals we scored after Maja left were very similar to what we scored after he had left. He also go injured shortly after he left us but people seem to forget that as well.

 

[Kittenmittons]

I am sure my thoughts will be shot to bits but for the majority of my working life I have managed facts, intelligence and evidence. It appears to me that whilst the financial “experts” on here may think they have a handle on the clubs books, it can only be conjecture because to the best of my knowledge none of them were party to purchase negotiations nor attended subsequent board meetings.

The irony is, the only person shooting people to bits is you You're completely entitled to your opinion mate, don't take disagreement as anything other than that.

The big thing is that the reason we have so much information is because Donald spent a solid 2 hours giving us a blow by blow breakdown of the deal, and Charlie subsequently explained it (ironically, to GOM) at the RAWA meeting. Donald has also been quite open from day one about how the deal was supposedly done, but it was him getting caught in contradictions early on that set the tone for people starting to get curious.

Some people believe that he has a right to administer the club how he wants. If he paid for it out of his own pocket, I'd say the same, but the fact that he didn't even pay the full £15m (later £12m) portion of the deal that was unequivocally for his benefit (the shares) makes me feel differently about it.

 

[Chunksafc]

The irony is, the only person shooting people to bits is you You're completely entitled to your opinion mate, don't take disagreement as anything other than that.

The big thing is that the reason we have so much information is because Donald spent a solid 2 hours giving us a blow by blow breakdown of the deal, and Charlie subsequently explained it (ironically, to GOM) at the RAWA meeting. Donald has also been quite open from day one about how the deal was supposedly done, but it was him getting caught in contradictions early on that set the tone for people starting to get curious.

Some people believe that he has a right to administer the club how he wants. If he paid for it out of his own pocket, I'd say the same, but the fact that he didn't even pay the full £15m (later £12m) portion of the deal that was unequivocally for his benefit (the shares) makes me feel differently about it.

I have read this thread today and can I make a suggestion?

At the next meeting you go instead of GOM? He travelled from Bristol to attend the meeting, something I doubt he received payment for, yet your on the doorstep.

You seem to disagree with his summing up of the situation and have on previous posts suggested he looks to much on the good side.

This is a retired bloke, who was asked to attend as he has for the past x number of years posted the accounts in a way us normal people can understand. I don't recall you offering?

 

[Kittenmittons]

I have read this thread today and can I make a suggestion?

At the next meeting you go instead of GOM? He travelled from Bristol to attend the meeting, something I doubt he received payment for, yet your on the doorstep.

You seem to disagree with his summing up of the situation and have on previous posts suggested he looks to much on the good side.

This is a retired bloke, who was asked to attend as he has for the past x number of years posted the accounts in a way us normal people can understand. I don't recall you offering?

I don't know what you're getting at here, you're acting as if I forced GOM to do this, but I recall he actively wanted to do it? I know he's had health difficulties so I don't know if it's feasible to do it in future, but he certainly seemed to take some enjoyment from it all, as expected for an accountant.

Regardless, I've said it before, I can't be the public face of this, I have a business to run, and no desire to be in the firing line when Donald next loses his rag on twitter. Look at the abuse I've had on here just for saying things, my god, my life would be over if I let the lunatics like owld fella, roppa and the like loose on my private life.

 

[Chunksafc]

I don't know what you're getting at here, you're acting as if I forced GOM to do this, but I recall he actively wanted to do it? I know he's had health difficulties so I don't know if it's feasible to do it in future, but he certainly seemed to take some enjoyment from it all, as expected for an accountant.

Regardless, I've said it before, I can't be the public face of this, I have a business to run, and no desire to be in the firing line when Donald next loses his rag on twitter. Look at the abuse I've had on here just for saying things, my god, my life would be over if I let the lunatics like owld fella, roppa and the like loose on my private life.

I haven't suggested you forced GOM to do anything, what I have suggested is as you have spent such a large amount of your time digesting and recording all of your statement that you take over and offer to attend the next meeting to raise your concerns

 

[Kittenmittons]

I haven't suggested you forced GOM to do anything, what I have suggested is as you have spent such a large amount of your time digesting and recording all of your statement that you take over and offer to attend the next meeting to raise your concerns

What part of 'I wish to retain my privacy' makes you think I'd want to do it? Look, GOM loves it, and he also gets loads of plaudits for it. I'm not doing it because I don't want to, but even if I had any inclination to do it, I ain't taking away a 60yr old man's spotlight. He's more than capable, I just disagree with some of his interpretation (as I'm sure he does mine).

 

[HeatonMackem]

re: the first part, I'm saying that the reason we currently 'won't' is because Donald and co are intent on making us sustainable in league one above all else, which is mental given that we have a huge window of opportunity to get straight out of this league, and it would take an incredibly negative person to not think that it was worth pushing as hard as possible to maximise our chances.

Now I agree that we don't want to risk too much, but I'm suggesting that a small investment could provide the big boost, weaken rivals, and push us on to automatic promotion. Why won't they spend anything? Not even £100k has gone on transfer fees, I'm sorry, but from reading up on FFP at the weekend, I believe that he is entitled to put money into the club this year and not break FFP, because it counts as revenue.

The answer is almost certainly that the profit this year can help offset a loss next year once the parachute payments run out, but it's SUNDERLAND ffs We aren't meant to become a sustainable league one club, we're supposed to have an owner who will get us into the Championship with a budget that outstrips the rest of the division. Instead, we're basically saying we'll give up on our window of opportunity.



All of which would be far more palatable if we weren't down at least £20m in cash that should be in the bank for us right now, and Donald hadn't used the bulk of another loan in April to pay off Ellis Short for his own private benefit. How can anyone look at that and think 'you know what, actually, I'm quite happy for us to spend nothing on players, because Stewart Donald will make a massive profit if he sells the club with shares that the club bought for him' Madness.

Referring to Rodders, Oviedo, Catts etc - those guys' contracts were already on the books as liabilities, so paying them off early or over a longer time is of benefit to the club. I think Chodders got a settlement, so he got paid less than he would have got had he just seen out the year but was released and got to double dip, so a net gain to the club despite the waste, as we would have paid the full amount before.

With Oviedo and Catts, someone may have exact details, but I believe in Cattermole's situation, he was released immediately in return for paying his contract over two years rather than one, so in effect, reducing the liability per year to 20k a week (£1m) rather than paying all £2m this season (which I suspect may have been partly motivated by FFP, although I believe there is a clause for players who signed deals a substantial period before relegations). We don't know the terms of the Oviedo deal, but whatever deal was struck would simply have meant paying him less in some way or form.

Whatever happened, you can be certain of one thing: it didn't 'cost' to shift them, it will end in a net saving, even if just on this year's books.

Repaying the club what it is owed is not new investment so doesn't increase the SCMP limit. I'm convinced you're not Chris the accountant now!

 

[Chunksafc]

What part of 'I wish to retain my privacy' makes you think I'd want to do it? Look, GOM loves it, and he also gets loads of plaudits for it. I'm not doing it because I don't want to, but even if I had any inclination to do it, I ain't taking away a 60yr old man's spotlight. He's more than capable, I just disagree with some of his interpretation (as I'm sure he does mine).

I made a suggestion that you attend the next meeting to present your thoughts, will you attend?

 

[Kittenmittons]

Repaying the club what it is owed is not new investment so doesn't increase the SCMP limit. I'm convinced you're not Chris the accountant now!

Thanks for the clarification, on both parts. My lass will be wounded, I'd started telling her how she's riding the lad who Stewart Donald slagged off on twitter.

 

[Kittenmittons]

I made a suggestion that you attend the next meeting to present your thoughts, will you attend?

Absolutely not, mainly because of the utter psycho element of our fans who Donald has looking for 'Chris the Accountant' like they're the ****ing Gestapo Why would I do that? Why would I honestly subject myself, my family, and my business to the kangaroo court of twitter spats with the owner of SAFC and his PR guru right hand man?

I don't see how it makes anything I've said less valid?

 

[Chunksafc]

Absolutely not, mainly because of the utter psycho element of our fans who Donald has looking for 'Chris the Accountant' like they're the ****ing Gestapo Why would I do that? Why would I honestly subject myself, my family, and my business to the kangaroo court of twitter spats with the owner of SAFC and his PR guru right hand man?

I don't see how it makes anything I've said less valid?

How would attending a meeting lead to that? I have no idea what GOM looks like or where he lives, as probably most people don't.

You seem rather concerned that you, your family and your business would suffer, this is all getting a bit bizarre

 

[Kittenmittons]

How would attending a meeting lead to that? I have no idea what GOM looks like or where he lives, as probably most people don't.

You seem rather concerned that you, your family and your business would suffer, this is all getting a bit bizarre

Have you seen the crap I've had anonymously on here?

Your name is documented at the top of the minutes, I can't have any kind of interaction like that without people knowing who I am. My name is enough to know everything, believe me, especially as I have appeared in newspaper articles and the like in relation to work. It's not happening, I don't know why you can't grasp that.