This loan wasn't what was wanted at the start. FPP wanted to buy us, they didn't (because of Donald). They are still interested in safc and made this loan offer, heavily weighted in their favour, because they wanted to keep the option open with a price depending on whether Donald could prove he was worth what he wanted. Donald didn't want the loan, but he'd ****ed it up and saw the reaction, he was anxious that if he turned it down the fans would properly turn on him. He took it because he was desperate at that time to keep them at the table, hence saying he didn't need it and hadn't spent it etc. That's as far as I know, but I'll be amazed if anyone with knowledge of the deal to date can refute it
There are two things, put forward by the 'this was never a takeover' believers, that don't make any sense. Why a bunch of seriously wealthy Americans would need to go through such a ludicrously lengthy process to buy a football club, never seen before in the history of the game. Why Donald would borrow such a huge sum of money then claim he didn't need it and wouldn't use it. There's only one reason the current owner would introduce the new owners to the manager during the season .... .... what wrecked the process hasn't yet been revealed but it was obviously a takeover.
Why cant Donald at least come out now to say either yes looking to sell or if he's staying to have another crack at promotion this season? The silence is deafening.
I mean this is literally my point All I am saying is that theoretically, they have done a deal that allows them to takeover the club at some point in the future if they want. Is that a 'takeover' deal? Some people would say yes, some people would say not until the right to buy is exercised. It's a slightly ambiguous deal in that regard because it could still end up in all 3 outcomes (buy us, walk away, hold position). So I am asking (politely) whether one man's takeover is another man's convertible loan, whether one man's 'deal to buy us' is exactly what we ended up with, and that the insistence - against the express public opinion of a man bound to legally not lie about FPP - that they made a bid to buy the majority of the shares in October last year may in fact refer to the convertible loan that they could exercise in future. I'm simply asking whether that terminology has caused confusion. If you actually read it, it's trying to help us all understand what has happened and whether the 'two sides' are actually just talking about the same thing.
good article on roker report https://rokerreport.sbnation.com/20...elling-the-club-or-having-another-crack-at-it
