FPP to take full control

[Wayne the Punk]

No, you told people 25m was outstanding to be paid over time and the parachute payments were a guarantee, but not preferred option. I heard you say that.

Jesus ****ing wept, just keep blowing him off

 

[Kittenmittons]

Just a simple question for all those defending this, saying nothing has changed and it's not notable:

Why did they do it? What is the advantage to this, given it is a clear PR disaster to do so.

 

[Owld Feller]

It seems to me that @Kittenmittons just attempts to use this thread to gain a reputation above that of GOM, which imho he'll never succeed in doing.

He's just a bore who loves the attention that his condition is renowned to need!

 

[The Norton Cat]

Just a simple question for all those defending this, saying nothing has changed and it's not notable:

Why did they do it? What is the advantage to this, given it is a clear PR disaster to do so.

But it wouldn't be a PR disaster if we'd been promoted or even if the FPP involvement hadn't come about. No one would have cared. It's only because there is already discontent with Donald that's even an issue.

 

[Kittenmittons]

It seems to me that @Kittenmittons just attempts to use this thread to gain a reputation above that of GOM, which imho he'll never succeed in doing.

He's just a bore who loves the attention that his condition is renowned to need!

No, I just want GOM to acknowledge that he was wrong to question my motives and whether this was possible last year.

As for you, remember you didn't even think the £20m debt existed, and called me all kinds of ****e for saying it did.

 

[Kittenmittons]

But it wouldn't be a PR disaster if we'd been promoted or even if the FPP involvement hadn't come about. No one would have cared. It's only because there is already discontent with Donald that's even an issue.

I agree, I said as much myself.

But again, what is the financial or procedural benefit in removing the obligation for them to pay the debt off, do you think?

 

[Sinner]

Jesus ****ing wept, just keep blowing him off

He did say that but I might be wrong as just been told the 25m been paid off with parachute money. I didn't know that unless the debt has been transferred to another part of the club. Will try and find out.

 

[Ozzymac]

Because I said that the debt could be wiped by SD instead if ever being paid back, which he dismissed out of hand and questioned my motives for saying such nasty things about the owners. I don't mind him disagreeing, I did mind him trying to paint me as saying this with an ulterior motive. I don't have one and I thought my scenario was credible. So credible that it's now happened.



The original loan was scheduled for repayment, yes, but there was no attempt to refinance that on more favourable terms, with SBC or otherwise, at a lower level. It seems that Short made sure of that by effectively committing Donald to paying him instead of SBC for it.

That was something I was always in favour of. I didn't see the need to be 'debt free' if it still meant being in League One, because we had an open goal where we had more money coming in than any club in L1 history, yet we were committing to putting that money into completely paying off a debt. Like I said, the mortgage analogy, paying off the last of your house but not being able to eat for 2 years.

That anyone is aware of. You must agree that this is pure speculation on your part.

 

[Ozzymac]

Just a simple question for all those defending this, saying nothing has changed and it's not notable:

Why did they do it? What is the advantage to this, given it is a clear PR disaster to do so.

That a sale is getting closer

 

[Kittenmittons]

That a sale is getting closer

But I'm saying what is the benefit of this, and to who? In your eyes.

 

[The Norton Cat]

I agree, I said as much myself.

But again, what is the financial or procedural benefit in removing the obligation for them to pay the debt off, do you think?

Like I said, it doesn't really matter what benefit there is to it. If people hadn't already decided they didn't like Donald, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Like I've also said many times before, finances are not something I ever have to bother with or take any interest in but logic would suggest that removing the obligation would give them more time to deal with it, perhaps allowing them to concentrate on other things, or relieve pressure on them.

If they run the club to the best of their abilities they can do that however they like as far as I'm concerned. What concerns me more is that newspapers are undermining the owners, and therefore the club as a whole, with what is essentially a non-story.

 

[Ozzymac]

But I'm saying what is the benefit of this, and to who? In your eyes.

Firstly it makes it a cleaner transaction. Any purchase seeing an "inter company loan" may be put off.

By getting rid of it it clears up a lot of loose threads.

I'll ask you the opposite question. What advantage, and to who is there in leaving it there?

 

[Ozzymac]

Like I said, it doesn't really matter what benefit there is to it. If people hadn't already decided they didn't like Donald, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Like I've also said many times before, finances are not something I ever have to bother with or take any interest in but logic would suggest that removing the obligation would give them more time to deal with it, perhaps allowing them to concentrate on other things, or relieve pressure on them.

If they run the club to the best of their abilities they can do that however they like as far as I'm concerned. What concerns me more is that newspapers are undermining the owners, and therefore the club as a whole, with what is essentially a non-story.

And the haters are grabbing it with glee

 

[HeatonMackem]

Just a simple question for all those defending this, saying nothing has changed and it's not notable:

Why did they do it? What is the advantage to this, given it is a clear PR disaster to do so.

If they write off the £20m owed to the club (effectively from SD), they can sell for £17m instead of £37m to break even. It's bad that the £20m isn't being paid into the club, but potentially good that it clears the way for genuinely rich owners to buy the club and pump much more than £20m in.

 

[Owld Feller]

No, I just want GOM to acknowledge that he was wrong to question my motives and whether this was possible last year.

As for you, remember you didn't even think the £20m debt existed, and called me all kinds of ****e for saying it did.

No, I just want GOM to acknowledge that he was wrong to question my motives and whether this was possible last year.

As for you, remember you didn't even think the £20m debt existed, and called me all kinds of ****e for saying it did.

I think that the emboldened text just demonstrates the way in which you remember things (let's just say) 'differently' to everyone else.

 

[Kittenmittons]

If they write off the £20m owed to the club (effectively from SD), they can sell for £17m instead of £37m to break even. It's bad that the £20m isn't being paid into the club, but potentially good that it clears the way for genuinely rich owners to buy the club and pump much more than £20m in.

Exactly. But the assumption is that we get rich owners who make up that difference.

Which begs the question of where FPP are in all of this. If this really was done at their behest (which I doubt) then why did they not buy us for a few million more than they've already put in?

 

[Kittenmittons]

Just for what it's worth, Grumpy has apologised to me. That's what I was after from him.

 

[Comfy]

No, I just want GOM to acknowledge that he was wrong to question my motives and whether this was possible last year.

As for you, remember you didn't even think the £20m debt existed, and called me all kinds of ****e for saying it did.

Why would he acknowledge himself for being wrong on something that you’ve not proved

 

[Magnus]

If they write off the £20m owed to the club (effectively from SD), they can sell for £17m instead of £37m to break even. It's bad that the £20m isn't being paid into the club, but potentially good that it clears the way for genuinely rich owners to buy the club and pump much more than £20m in.

If the price come down to 17m then it would make sense, but the still wanting 35m

 

[Guinness Guzzler]

But I'm saying what is the benefit of this, and to who? In your eyes.

Disclaimer, I've got no idea about buying of businesses. Is there any benefit to buying Madrox as opposed to the linked companies? If so, maybe a buyer wants to buy Madrox but obviously doesn't want to buy it and then owe the £20m to SAFC, so they get Donald to write it off now (because it wouldn't look great if they came in and did it). That only makes sense if there's a reason why a buyer would want Madrox rather than Sunderland AFC and Sunderland Limited (or whatever the official company names are).