RTG

[Kittenmittons]

Cool. I get it can be complex. To be honest, that's why it's better to have multiple sets of eyes on the accounts.

 

[janey]

I know they are times when RTG has driven people crazy - but look at the threads by foggy to see the good side. If you are religious or not spare a thought/prayer for a fine supporter who is doing everything to fight the Big C. I have met the lad, I have been fortunate to fight off cancer but he is a really nice bloke and I hope he gets through this next operation.

I so hope he does too. I’m glad I posted about me dad because he’s said it gave him the courage/confidence to post about himself.
And yes, It’s a brilliant place for support when you need it. A bunch of strangers on a forum helped me so much when me dad was poorly and when he died.
Sounds daft but it was just nice, the comments and posts did offer comfort and this was a bloke that had never posted and nobody knew. xx

 

[Chunksafc]

The MSD guys are probably aware of it because Methven said they'd up the asking price to accommodate SD's debt...

You must log in or register to see images

Does that not say that the Parachute money was always meant to be used to pay off sbc?

 

[Kittenmittons]

It does, but they are now saying they won't put any money back in over the next financial year, and talking about raising the price as a result to cover SD's debt to the club.

This is why it's all coming back to the forefront, because it's pretty clearly going to be a sticking point for a new owner to (effectively) buy not only the shares, but pay off the debts of the previous owner that were specifically run up while they acquired those same shares.

 

[Chunksafc]

It does, but they are now saying they won't put any money back in over the next financial year, and talking about raising the price as a result to cover SD's debt to the club.

This is why it's all coming back to the forefront, because it's pretty clearly going to be a sticking point for a new owner to (effectively) buy not only the shares, but pay off the debts of the previous owner that were specifically run up while they acquired those same shares.

Sorry excuse my ignorance but if the PP was always meant to be used to pay SBC then what exactly are we expecting back?

 

[OldNewtown]

Does that not say that the Parachute money was always meant to be used to pay off sbc?

IIRC CM indicated that the monies had gone through Madrox to pay SBC, or is my memory failing again
Then again what do any of us know until we see the actual accounts

 

[Chunksafc]

IIRC CM indicated that the monies had gone through Madrox to pay SBC, or is my memory failing again
Then again what do any of us know until we see the actual accounts

I think your right and I'm sure GOM said it was just a clunky way of doing it

 

[Kittenmittons]

Sorry excuse my ignorance but if the PP was always meant to be used to pay SBC then what exactly are we expecting back?

No problem, it's not ignorance, just complexity.

The £25m SBC debt was transferred to Madrox as part of the deal to buy the club from Short .This means that it was up to Donald to pay it, but that debt was secured against the parachute payments. This meant that if Donald couldn't - or as transpired, chose not to - pay that debt, the club's parachute payments would have to be used.

This is classed as a loan to Madrox. This means that Madrox owes SAFC at least £20m as of the last information from SD and CM. It could be closer to £25m, or depending on the 'accounting error' SD talked of, it could be more than £30m. We won't know until April for sure.

 

[Blond Bombshell]

It does, but they are now saying they won't put any money back in over the next financial year, and talking about raising the price as a result to cover SD's debt to the club.

This is why it's all coming back to the forefront, because it's pretty clearly going to be a sticking point for a new owner to (effectively) buy not only the shares, but pay off the debts of the previous owner that were specifically run up while they acquired those same shares.

I thought they'd said there was enough money to cover this season's operating costs but they would then need further investment to continue whichever league we found ourselves in.

 

[Blond Bombshell]

No problem, it's not ignorance, just complexity.

The £25m SBC debt was transferred to Madrox as part of the deal to buy the club from Short .This means that it was up to Donald to pay it, but that debt was secured against the parachute payments. This meant that if Donald couldn't - or as transpired, chose not to - pay that debt, the club's parachute payments would have to be used.

This is classed as a loan to Madrox. This means that Madrox owes SAFC at least £20m as of the last information from SD and CM. It could be closer to £25m, or depending on the 'accounting error' SD talked of, it could be more than £30m. We won't know until April for sure.

Roll on April

 

[Kittenmittons]

I thought they'd said there was enough money to cover this season's operating costs but they would then need further investment to continue whichever league we found ourselves in.

They believe we'll actually make a profit of £5m this season. Whether that's still the projection I don't know.

The point is that this (let's just assume the lowest amount) £20m sits on our books as an outstanding debt we are owed by Madrox. SD claims he has that £20m. Why is it not coming back in over an agreed schedule? SD is making the decision that he does not need to put that money in unless there is a 'need'.

The problem I then have, is that in April, he took out a short term loan against the rest of the 18/19 season's parachute payments of about £11-12m (DM wrongly attributed it to 19/20 payments) that was used to pay off the final £8m+ of the SBC debt. The rest of the loan was apparently only for use in an emergency.

If he has that money, and there's a 'need' from the club, why is he not using it? Why is he taking out short term loans to run the club when he has that money and owes it to the club? If he's willing to do that, at what point will he find a situation that warrants him actually paying out of his own pocket?

 

[Blond Bombshell]

They believe we'll actually make a profit of £5m this season. Whether that's still the projection I don't know.

The point is that this (let's just assume the lowest amount) £20m sits on our books as an outstanding debt we are owed by Madrox. SD claims he has that £20m. Why is it not coming back in over an agreed schedule? SD is making the decision that he does not need to put that money in unless there is a 'need'.

The problem I then have, is that in April, he took out a short term loan against the rest of the 18/19 season's parachute payments of about £11-12m (DM wrongly attributed it to 19/20 payments) that was used to pay off the final £8m+ of the SBC debt. The rest of the loan was apparently only for use in an emergency.

If he has that money, and there's a 'need' from the club, why is he not using it? Why is he taking out short term loans to run the club when he has that money and owes it to the club? If he's willing to do that, at what point will he find a situation that warrants him actually paying out of his own pocket?

Thanks for clarifying. Very interesting indeed and keep up the good work of watching the financial situation.

 

[BigPete]

They believe we'll actually make a profit of £5m this season. Whether that's still the projection I don't know.

The point is that this (let's just assume the lowest amount) £20m sits on our books as an outstanding debt we are owed by Madrox. SD claims he has that £20m. Why is it not coming back in over an agreed schedule? SD is making the decision that he does not need to put that money in unless there is a 'need'.

The problem I then have, is that in April, he took out a short term loan against the rest of the 18/19 season's parachute payments of about £11-12m (DM wrongly attributed it to 19/20 payments) that was used to pay off the final £8m+ of the SBC debt. The rest of the loan was apparently only for use in an emergency.

If he has that money, and there's a 'need' from the club, why is he not using it? Why is he taking out short term loans to run the club when he has that money and owes it to the club? If he's willing to do that, at what point will he find a situation that warrants him actually paying out of his own pocket?

Is that what you got banned for saying the above?

Good on you tbh always good to have extra sets of eyes who know the financial side especially one who is willing to challenge, cheers.

 

[Kittenmittons]

Yeah pretty much. I have said for around 6 months now that this is not right and the money that has gone out is going into a black hole.

Madrox doesn't publish accounts, so that money can go towards any debt that Madrox wishes to service.

This means - just theoretically of course, I'm sure this would never happen... - if Donald had run up a debt, of say, £9.6m to the former owner, he could - again, this is complete fantasy - pay out £9.6m from the club's cash reserves via Madrox and - please, indulge this completely hypothetical situation - then use it to pay off this personal debt.

All we would know is that the club had sent £9.6m to someone via Madrox. It's entirely legal, I just think as it's club money, we should know exactly which debt is being serviced.

Anyway, on a completely unrelated note, here are Madrox's accounts.

You must log in or register to see images

 

[brb]

No problem, it's not ignorance, just complexity.

The £25m SBC debt was transferred to Madrox as part of the deal to buy the club from Short .This means that it was up to Donald to pay it, but that debt was secured against the parachute payments. This meant that if Donald couldn't - or as transpired, chose not to - pay that debt, the club's parachute payments would have to be used.

This is classed as a loan to Madrox. This means that Madrox owes SAFC at least £20m as of the last information from SD and CM. It could be closer to £25m, or depending on the 'accounting error' SD talked of, it could be more than £30m. We won't know until April for sure.

Hello Kittenmittons,

I'm admin for the site and your posts have been brought to my attention.

I don't pretend to understand any of this stuff, simply because I'm not a Sunderland supporter, so I wouldn't be expected too. I think there is concern of anything that may lead to potentially libellous statements.

Having first hand experience of supporters not being protected behind their keyboards, when it comes to that phrase I've used, I ask, are you able to support any of your claims, with links, to any said statements or to accounts that support any financial claims, Ie via companies house?

Anyway, i've done my bit now, so don't really care if you get your arsed sued off or not, whatever the case maybe

Enjoy

 

[brb]

Yeah pretty much. I have said for around 6 months now that this is not right and the money that has gone out is going into a black hole.

Madrox doesn't publish accounts, so that money can go towards any debt that Madrox wishes to service.

This means - just theoretically of course, I'm sure this would never happen... - if Donald had run up a debt, of say, £9.6m to the former owner, he could - again, this is complete fantasy - pay out £9.6m from the club's cash reserves via Madrox and - please, indulge this completely hypothetical situation - then use it to pay off this personal debt.

All we would know is that the club had sent £9.6m to someone via Madrox. It's entirely legal, I just think as it's club money, we should know exactly which debt is being serviced.

Anyway, on a completely unrelated note, here are Madrox's accounts.

You must log in or register to see images

Hello Kittenmittons,

I'm admin for the site and your posts have been brought to my attention.

I don't pretend to understand any of this stuff, simply because I'm not a Sunderland supporter, so I wouldn't be expected too. I think there is concern of anything that may lead to potentially libellous statements.

Having first hand experience of supporters not being protected behind their keyboards, when it comes to that phrase I've used, I ask, are you able to support any of your claims, with links, to any said statements or to accounts that support any financial claims, via companies house?

Anyway, i've done my bit now, so don't really care if you get your arsed sued off or not, whatever the case maybe

Enjoy

Good timing

 

[Kittenmittons]

Hello Kittenmittons,

I'm admin for the site and your posts have been brought to my attention.

I don't pretend to understand any of this stuff, simply because I'm not a Sunderland supporter, so I wouldn't be expected too. I think there is concern of anything that may lead to potentially libellous statements.

Having first hand experience of supporters not being protected behind their keyboards, when it comes to that phrase I've used, I ask, are you able to support any of your claims, with links, to any said statements or to accounts that support any financial claims, via companies house?

Anyway, i've done my bit now, so don't really care if you get your arsed sued off or not, whatever the case maybe

Enjoy

No worries. Everything I say is based on the accounts, known payments acknowledged by the owners, or the owners' words themselves. I'm merely explaining an example scenario that could occur - entirely legally - without oversight. Hopefully you get that there's nothing libellous about repeating the words of the owners, or questioning items in their own accounts!

 

[Roppa]

SD in May on the RR podcast said that he wanted someone to look through those transactions that were under question in Madrox's accounts and give them the ok. GOM wanted to be that man. They still haven't let him see them. It's October. This isn't about the official accounts we can see now (albeit we can glean something from them) because they will not show anything in detail. This is about SD and CM preaching about their transparency and then not following up.

Again, nothing they have done is illegal, I just don't believe it is the right way to run a football club.

But it’s not your football club, it’s theirs, your view is irrelevant imho. My point is simple enough, as long as you’re not accusing them of theft or fraud, then you can hold any opinion you feel appropriate. We will just agree to differ on our perceptions of sd and cm et al, I think they’re muddling along trying to run a large organisation, and looking for the best way out, hopefully for themselves and us. In terms of transparency I would rather we knew nowt tbh, that’s how business should be run, not in public.

 

[Kittenmittons]

But it’s not your football club, it’s theirs, your view is irrelevant imho. My point is simple enough, as long as you’re not accusing them of these or fraud, then you can hold any opinion you feel appropriate. We will just agree to differ on our perceptions of sd and cm et al, I think they’re muddling along trying to run a large organisation, and looking for the best way out, hopefully for themselves and us. In terms of transparency I would rather we knew nowt tbh, that’s how business should be run, not in public.

I'm not accusing them of fraud. They're acting entirely legally. I just disagree that when the club's money leaves via the owner's personal company, we then have no right to know where that money ends up. Particularly when they then indicate they have no intention of paying money back to the club that they have loaned in the foreseeable future.

 

[brb]

No worries. Everything I say is based on the accounts, known payments acknowledged by the owners, or the owners' words themselves. I'm merely explaining an example scenario that could occur - entirely legally - without oversight. Hopefully you get that there's nothing libellous about repeating the words of the owners, or questioning items in their own accounts!

Exactly. As long has people don't start going the lines of inappropriate suggestions, then I'm happy. Anything that is in the public domain and can be researched as such is cool with me.