Finances chat

[Montysoptician]

“The investment we have got – or loan, if you want to call it that –is into our holding company Madrox, and that owns Sunderland in its entirety,”

I've no idea of the legalities but, as far as I'm concerned, if we've taken money from the Americans it isn't a loan.

There's absolutely no point in them loaning us money, for a period, then taking it back at some point.

After all the flights, due diligence, feasibility studies, Companies House registration, etc, this isn't just a loan.

IMO they'll take over the club by one means or another.

I try not to speculate, but your assessment seems to me to be nailed on Smug, It's common sense that this is more than just a loan, even Donald struggled throughout the BBC Total Sport interview to call it a loan. Almost every time he mentioned it he called it, the investment, er, hum, loan

 

[Sunderpitt]

I try not to speculate, but your assessment seems to me to be nailed on Smug, It's common sense that this is more than just a loan, even Donald struggled throughout the BBC Total Sport interview to call it a loan. Almost every time he mentioned it he called it, the investment, er, hum, loan

Personally not bothered what it is as long as we get a couple of strikers in January

 

[Nostradamoose]

I try not to speculate, but your assessment seems to me to be nailed on Smug, It's common sense that this is more than just a loan, even Donald struggled throughout the BBC Total Sport interview to call it a loan. Almost every time he mentioned it he called it, the investment, er, hum, loan

You can get a loan from anywhere, loans from philanthropic American billionaires who want to buy the club outright are a bit harder to come by.

 

[Nostradamoose]

I agree with your last sentence but he does get quite a bit of **** off 4 or 5 posters who all seem to like each others posts.
To be honest I think he takes a lot before he is provoked into name calling.I don't agree with some of his posts but I wouldn't troll him for likes.

Ronnie

It takes one person to cast doubt on his opinions to get him spitting out insults like "morons", "mouth breathers" and now "****ers".

This isn't particularly about him, although he is ****ing irritating.

Characters like him and that Chris bloke have just enough knowledge to sound like they know what they're talking about.

Chris in particular has a very anti SD following which in turn leads to more directed abuse towards Stewart and his family.

Some might say fair enough but these angry responses are often based on nothing but conjecture from one person.

This is why KM/Chris has been banned from multiple forums, not to mention threats of litigation because of the damage they cause.

Anyway, point taken on trolling someone who is probably twelve years old and giving it large from his D&D themed bedroom. I'm sticking him on ignore won't be replying to him.

 

[marcusblackcat]

Personally not bothered what it is as long as we get a couple of strikers in January

You need a little elaboration - a couple of strikers who can score a few goals!!!

 

[Kittenmittons]

That smug post is fine, but I'm not entirely sure why it's in this thread... I am positive about the loan/investment.

 

[Sandy Camel]

Because he used the club's parachute payments (instead of his own money) to pay Ellis Short for the club. So he owes that money back to the club.

The way I'm reading folk saying Donald has taken money out of the club is inferring it is going into his own personal bank account. I've always thought it ended up in Short's or SBC's tbh.

I was under the impression that the parachute payment went towards the £80 mil that was owed to SBC. So the convuluted money trail has the para payment going to Sunderland, then to Madrox(as a loan), then to Short, then to SBC.

That still leaves SBC owed £40 mil so I'm guessing Short paid that to clear that balance. So I see it as the club recieves £40 mil in para money, lends it to their new onwers Madrox, who use that money as part of their purchase of Sunderland and clear an £80 mil debt in the process of buying the club?

 

[Kittenmittons]

It takes one person to cast doubt on his opinions to get him spitting out insults like "morons", "mouth breathers" and now "****ers".

Actually that's not true. I've had:

• Definitely, 100% being multiple people who I am not
• Being autistic
• Being paid to bad mouth Donald
• Having an agenda against the owners
• Being paranoid and mentally ill
• Trying to cause trouble for the club as a whole
• Accusing Donald of legal wrongdoing

Not one of which are true, but have been said to me every time I post. Now I'm getting aspersions cast on my ability to run my company, how I treat my staff etc from some pillock, and you think I'm not entitled to call people generic names like ****er, moron or anything else like that? Get ****ing real pal. I was accused of libel by roppa and he wouldn't back down after multiple posts, he just waded in with threats and hoping I get sued for no reason except that he can't read, seemingly.

There are worse too, but for perspective, that's just what I get every time I post from Roppa, Owld fella, wtdg, others, you now...

I mean the rest of your post is garbage too. I've literally come out 2 days ago and said i think Donald has done well with this deal and it's positive for us. Have you acknowledged that? Because it completely undercuts all the theories about who I am and me having an agenda against the owners or the club.

And I've only been banned from RTG, and only for a few months, not 'multiple forums', so again, wrong.

Basically if you lads would actually read what I say, instead of deciding what I was trying to get at, you'd see I was open minded, normal, and rational. I'm open to being wrong, but when the evidence that I'm wrong isn't actually there, and the basis of criticism is that people don't think I have a right to ask questions or is personal, then **** that.

 

[Kittenmittons]

The way I'm reading folk saying Donald has taken money out of the club is inferring it is going into his own personal bank account. I've always thought it ended up in Short's or SBC's tbh.

I was under the impression that the parachute payment went towards the £80 mil that was owed to SBC. So the convuluted money trail has the para payment going to Sunderland, then to Madrox(as a loan), then to Short, then to SBC.

That still leaves SBC owed £40 mil so I'm guessing Short paid that to clear that balance. So I see it as the club recieves £40 mil in para money, lends it to their new onwers Madrox, who use that money as part of their purchase of Sunderland and clear an £80 mil debt in the process of buying the club?

Short cleared 55 of the 80, SD agreed to pay the other 25 which he did in August by using our parachute payments as a loan to Madrox that will be paid back.

He then took between 6-7m (approx) in april to pay part of the £12m he agreed with Short purely for his shares in the club.

 

[Sunderpitt]

You need a little elaboration - a couple of strikers who can score a few goals!!!

I completely concur!

 

[Sandy Camel]

Short cleared 55 of the 80, SD agreed to pay the other 25 which he did in August by using our parachute payments as a loan to Madrox that will be paid back.

He then took between 6-7m (approx) in april to pay part of the £12m he agreed with Short purely for his shares in the club.

Mate, I see it really simply as this. At the end of our previous owners reign, Sunderland Football Club owed SBC £80 mil. Under our new owners, Sunderland Football Club is owed £31-32 mil (not sure if this is correct but using your figures of £25 and 6-7) by our new owners. That is a swing of £110 mil into the positive for Sunderland Football Club. How is this a bad thing?

 

[Kittenmittons]

Mate, I see it really simply as this. At the end of our previous owners reign, Sunderland Football Club owed SBC £80 mil. Under our new owners, Sunderland Football Club is owed £31-32 mil (not sure if this is correct but using your figures of £25 and 6-7) by our new owners. That is a swing of £110 mil into the positive for Sunderland Football Club. How is this a bad thing?

It's not quite that simple, but I'm not saying there hasn't been any benefit to it.

My concerns are when we are this low, stuff like taking £6m for example, has a massive impact on what we can do. We need to use no more than 60% of our revenue on wages, so £6m not carrying over to this season as cash is not trivial, it's basically £3-4m we can't use to fund a team that is objectively failing on the pitch and underwhelmed even last year.

So that's what I'm saying, is that by all means loan that money if we're doing really well, or you have alternatives in place, but don't loan money out from the figure that goes towards SCMP calculations, and then complain that we can't sign players for financial reasons!

And that was in a nutshell what I've been saying for a few months.

As for this deal, I said before but it gives Donald more incentive to do the right thing for the club above himself for the first time, because he's accountable to more than just him, Juan and Charlie.

 

[T_Bone]

@Kittenmittons , I asked you politely to reel it in. Congratulations, you are the first poster on this forum that I am putting on ignore.
Once I fathom out how to do it.

 

[Sandy Camel]

It's not if it were that simple, and I'm not saying there hasn't been any benefit to it.

My concerns are when we are this low, stuff like taking £6m for example, has a massive impact on what we can do. We need to use no more than 60% of our revenue on wages, so £6m not carrying over to this season as cash is not trivial, it's basically £3-4m we can't use to fund a team that is objectively failing on the pitch and underwhelmed even last year.

So that's what I'm saying, is that by all means loan that money if we're doing really well, or you have alternatives in place, but don't loan money out from the figure that goes towards SCMP calculations, and then complain that we can't sign players for financial reasons!

And that was in a nutshell what I've been saying for a few months.

As for this deal, I said before but it gives Donald more incentive to do the right thing for the club above himself for the first time, because he's accountable to more than just him, Juan and Charlie.

I disagree, it is that simple, at least to me. Sunderland were in debt to the tune of £80mil and now they are owed whatever by our new owners. I couldn't care less about the details of how we got there tbh. And I can't see it as anyhting but a positive for the club going from being in debt to being owed money. That's the bottom line for me. And we have just had money come in from some seriously rich Americans who have had our books and finances dissected before handing over any cash. If they think everything looks good enough for them to get their hands in their pockets, that's more than good enough for me.

 

[Kittenmittons]

Fair enough, I have no problem with you disagreeing and saying you don't want to know more at all. I think to add context, the reason I was highlighting the risk of Donald owing us the money was that we weren't spending money and didn't seem to have a plan on or off the pitch. At least one of those now seems better which is why I'm way more positive about the future with Donald from a financial point of view.

Now all he has to do is invest the money wisely.

 

[BigPete]

Actually that's not true. I've had:

• Definitely, 100% being multiple people who I am not
• Being autistic
• Being paid to bad mouth Donald
• Having an agenda against the owners
• Being paranoid and mentally ill
• Trying to cause trouble for the club as a whole
• Accusing Donald of legal wrongdoing

Not one of which are true, but have been said to me every time I post. Now I'm getting aspersions cast on my ability to run my company, how I treat my staff etc from some pillock, and you think I'm not entitled to call people generic names like ****er, moron or anything else like that? Get ****ing real pal. I was accused of libel by roppa and he wouldn't back down after multiple posts, he just waded in with threats and hoping I get sued for no reason except that he can't read, seemingly.

There are worse too, but for perspective, that's just what I get every time I post from Roppa, Owld fella, wtdg, others, you now...

I mean the rest of your post is garbage too. I've literally come out 2 days ago and said i think Donald has done well with this deal and it's positive for us. Have you acknowledged that? Because it completely undercuts all the theories about who I am and me having an agenda against the owners or the club.

And I've only been banned from RTG, and only for a few months, not 'multiple forums', so again, wrong.

Basically if you lads would actually read what I say, instead of deciding what I was trying to get at, you'd see I was open minded, normal, and rational. I'm open to being wrong, but when the evidence that I'm wrong isn't actually there, and the basis of criticism is that people don't think I have a right to ask questions or is personal, then **** that.

Ignore them mate.

I'm sure a lot was from the same person as I remembered him calling you that and thought it was out of order.

 

[BigPete]

@Kittenmittons , I asked you politely to reel it in. Congratulations, you are the first poster on this forum that I am putting on ignore.
Once I fathom out how to do it.

I'm no side taker but I have seen the lad take some stick. Aye he has posted negative stuff about the owners going over details but once he realised he was wrong he admitted it and thought we had a good deal.

Unless I'm missing out on something can't see why he deserves stick he's getting.

 

[HeatonMackem]

There seems to be lots of confusion about the finances again. This is what I think has happened since the SD takeover and how it affects the Madrox accounts

1. ES wrote off his soft debt of £100m (i.e. he'd pumped that much into the club and said forget about repaying me).
2. ES paid £55m cash to SBC reducing their loan from £80m to £25m.
3. Madrox bought SAFC for £40m payable with £15m cash upfront to ES and £25m gradually to SBC. So Madrox owe ES and SBC.
4. Instead of paying off SBC gradually and costing SAFC interest, SD used the parachute money to pay off SBC, which meant Madrox owed SAFC £25m, to be repaid gradually.
   
5. £15m was reduced to £5m up front then £10m later because we didn't get £10m cash for N'Dong.
6. SD used his own money to pay ES £5m which meant Madrox owed SD £5m.
   
7. The remaining £10m was reduced to £7m because ES didn't declare or know about all the SAFC crap that SD/CM/RH discovered and dealt with (hence RH getting praise).
8. Because SD had to pump so much money into SAFC early on, he used the Close loan to pay off ES with the final £7m, which meant Madrox now owed SAFC £32m. Close were repaid with more parachute payments a few months later.
   
9. That would suggest SD's used a further £15m of his own money to pay for all sorts of stuff in SAFC e.g. Kone, Khazri, Grigg, Ticketmaster, Losses etc etc, which means Madrox now owe SD £20m, and Madrox now owe SAFC £17m (being repaid gradually).
10. That total £37m payable by Madrox balances with its £37m asset of SAFC.
11. Now FPP have loaned money to Madrox, the amounts payable by Madrox now include FPP so that has gone up to £46m, and Madrox's asset of SAFC has gone up to £46m to balance the accounts.
12. To keep it simple(?!) I left out CM and JS who also put a chunk of money in in 2018, and another chunk recently which will mean the £17m Madrox owes SAFC is actually much less than that, I'd guess about £12m and the other £5m is owed to CM/JS.

 

[BigPete]

There seems to be lots of confusion about the finances again. This is what I think has happened since the SD takeover and how it affects the Madrox accounts

1. ES wrote off his soft debt of £100m (i.e. he'd pumped that much into the club and said forget about repaying me).
2. ES paid £55m cash to SBC reducing their loan from £80m to £25m.
3. Madrox bought SAFC for £40m payable with £15m cash upfront to ES and £25m gradually to SBC. So Madrox owe ES and SBC.
4. Instead of paying off SBC gradually and costing SAFC interest, SD used the parachute money to pay off SBC, which meant Madrox owed SAFC £25m, to be repaid gradually.
   
5. £15m was reduced to £5m up front then £10m later because we didn't get £10m cash for N'Dong.
6. SD used his own money to pay ES £5m which meant Madrox owed SD £5m.
   
7. The remaining £10m was reduced to £7m because ES didn't declare or know about all the SAFC crap that SD/CM/RH discovered and dealt with (hence RH getting praise).
8. Because SD had to pump so much money into SAFC early on, he used the Close loan to pay off ES with the final £7m, which meant Madrox now owed SAFC £32m. Close were repaid with more parachute payments a few months later.
   
9. That would suggest SD's used a further £15m of his own money to pay for all sorts of stuff in SAFC e.g. Kone, Khazri, Grigg, Ticketmaster, Losses etc etc, which means Madrox now owe SD £20m, and Madrox now owe SAFC £17m (being repaid gradually).
10. That total £37m payable by Madrox balances with its £37m asset of SAFC.
11. Now FPP have loaned money to Madrox, the amounts payable by Madrox now include FPP so that has gone up to £46m, and Madrox's asset of SAFC has gone up to £46m to balance the accounts.
12. To keep it simple(?!) I left out CM and JS who also put a chunk of money in in 2018, and another chunk recently which will mean the £17m Madrox owes SAFC is actually much less than that, I'd guess about £12m and the other £5m is owed to CM/JS.

So he has been putting his own money in then aye?

He seems like a canny bloke just hope he's not mugging us off but I don't get the feeling that he is.

 

[Kittenmittons]

There seems to be lots of confusion about the finances again. This is what I think has happened since the SD takeover and how it affects the Madrox accounts

1. ES wrote off his soft debt of £100m (i.e. he'd pumped that much into the club and said forget about repaying me).
2. ES paid £55m cash to SBC reducing their loan from £80m to £25m.
3. Madrox bought SAFC for £40m payable with £15m cash upfront to ES and £25m gradually to SBC. So Madrox owe ES and SBC.
4. Instead of paying off SBC gradually and costing SAFC interest, SD used the parachute money to pay off SBC, which meant Madrox owed SAFC £25m, to be repaid gradually.
   
5. £15m was reduced to £5m up front then £10m later because we didn't get £10m cash for N'Dong.
6. SD used his own money to pay ES £5m which meant Madrox owed SD £5m.
   
7. The remaining £10m was reduced to £7m because ES didn't declare or know about all the SAFC crap that SD/CM/RH discovered and dealt with (hence RH getting praise).
8. Because SD had to pump so much money into SAFC early on, he used the Close loan to pay off ES with the final £7m, which meant Madrox now owed SAFC £32m. Close were repaid with more parachute payments a few months later.
   
9. That would suggest SD's used a further £15m of his own money to pay for all sorts of stuff in SAFC e.g. Kone, Khazri, Grigg, Ticketmaster, Losses etc etc, which means Madrox now owe SD £20m, and Madrox now owe SAFC £17m (being repaid gradually).
10. That total £37m payable by Madrox balances with its £37m asset of SAFC.
11. Now FPP have loaned money to Madrox, the amounts payable by Madrox now include FPP so that has gone up to £46m, and Madrox's asset of SAFC has gone up to £46m to balance the accounts.
12. To keep it simple(?!) I left out CM and JS who also put a chunk of money in in 2018, and another chunk recently which will mean the £17m Madrox owes SAFC is actually much less than that, I'd guess about £12m and the other £5m is owed to CM/JS.

Now this I can work with. I don't agree, but I appreciate the time put in and understanding of your position. Anyway I guess it's all open to interpretation but it's good to get another perspective on this, appreciate you taking some time.

The main ones I would disagree with are:

8: Because SD had to pump so much money into SAFC early on, he used the Close loan to pay off ES with the final £7m, which meant Madrox now owed SAFC £32m. Close were repaid with more parachute payments a few months later.

If we (SAFC) loan £12m from Close and only spend £6.6m, that's fine, but the £6.6m was used to pay off Short for Donald's shares as you say. We agree on that.

So who should pay back the Close bros loan? If we didn't spend £5.4m of it, we have still spent £6.6m and as you say, that was paid back from the club's parachute payments, so effectively, that needs to be added to Madrox's debt to the club, does it not?

That would suggest SD's used a further £15m of his own money to pay for all sorts of stuff in SAFC e.g. Kone, Khazri, Grigg, Ticketmaster, Losses etc etc, which means Madrox now owe SD £20m, and Madrox now owe SAFC £17m (being repaid gradually).

I just don't know how to get on board with this stuff adding up to £15m mate. The transfers, for example, should largely have balanced out because we also sold players in that time (including Khazri) and had begun to recoup payments on transfers. That's why generally, I have separated transfers from the workings out because a) the data is unreliable and b) with transfer fee instalments, we had a lot of money going both in and out. Khazri, McNair, Borini, Asoro and Lens all left for combined fees of around £20m last summer, and while it certainly doesn't get paid up front, it was enough that he wasn't funding all of those transfer instalments himself. We actually made a profit on McNair, Asoro and Khazri, so I'd be surprised if the final payment for Borini and what was outstanding for Lens, Khazri and Kone added up to a lot of money in the grand scheme of things.

It's a bit like Grigg, people talk about him putting that money in, but again, we sold Maja in January, so that would have offset almost entirely if the (dodgy) transfer data is anywhere near accurate.


How do you read the accounts in 2018? Specifically the £9.6m owed to a group entity (presumably Donald by your working out) and the £27m owed to someone else? It's just that it's hard to understand because we know that at that point, SAFC also acquired a debt to it of £9.6m in the same period.