Jump to content
[[Template core/global/global/poll is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

Recommended Posts

I think it's probably questionable that he's losing as much as £2M a month, that would seem very excessive given all the players (bar Rodwell) seemingly had a 40% pay cut and they've spent virtually nothing.

 

Even if he was losing £2M a month, I still don't think he'd sack off the £69M owed and walk away, maybe a portion of it, but he isn't just going to walk away for nothing.

 

But essentially, without substantial new investment, it's a long road back, administration or no administration.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mackem at work (kinda like a mag at work but real), reckons theres to be some big announcement today.

 

As much as I am enjoying their plummet I'm not sure I'd like to see them go out of business (which I dont think would happen).

 

This was denied by their local journos yesterday.

Link to post
Share on other sites

He gains from administration in that it would allow him to just walk away from the club. Otherwise he has to find someone to take it off his hands, which isn't looking likely.

 

No he doesn't. He can just put it into voluntary liquidation.

 

Short's holding of the club- both equity and debt are worth absolutely zero. Only once the business is worth more than the debt owed to Guggenheim will Short get a penny. Guggenheim may opt to appoint an administrator if Sunderland fail to meet the financial covenant tests in the loan agreement, at which point they may accelerate the debt (demand it all back) and on the basis Sunderland have no means to pay, then either side could appoint administrators.

 

However this can be done without the need for a costly administration process if Short and Guggenheim mutually agree a debt-for-equity swap, which would hand control to Guggenheim and Short would be left with nothing (or virtually nothing).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mackem at work (kinda like a mag at work but real), reckons theres to be some big announcement today.

 

As much as I am enjoying their plummet I'm not sure I'd like to see them go out of business (which I dont think would happen).

I'm the same, prefer to see them cling onto life and sink slowly through the leagues year by year.
Link to post
Share on other sites

He gains from administration in that it would allow him to just walk away from the club. Otherwise he has to find someone to take it off his hands, which isn't looking likely.

 

No he doesn't. He can just put it into voluntary liquidation.

 

Short's holding of the club- both equity and debt are worth absolutely zero. Only once the business is worth more than the debt owed to Guggenheim will Short get a penny. Guggenheim may opt to appoint an administrator if Sunderland fail to meet the financial covenant tests in the loan agreement, at which point they may accelerate the debt (demand it all back) and on the basis Sunderland have no means to pay, then either side could appoint administrators.

 

However this can be done without the need for a costly administration process if Short and Guggenheim mutually agree a debt-for-equity swap, which would hand control to Guggenheim and Short would be left with nothing (or virtually nothing).

 

This is pretty much what I was thinking as well, the external debt owner (Guggenheim) has more to lose than Short and frankly if I was the owner of that debt and such rumours were floating around I would be making some serious moves to protect my investment to the point where I may even consider taking ownership of the club and putting my own people in charge to try to stabilize the rot and then to see what can be salvaged.  Kind of like a VC investor taking the bits that are worth anything and scrapping the rest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Christ almighty!

 

 

 

'The Football League saw both cases as clubs trying to exploit a loophole, and changed the rules. From 2007–08, any club entering administration after the fourth Thursday in March would have their 10-point deduction suspended until the following season. If the club is relegated the points will be deducted from their tally at the start of next season. If the club stays up the 10 points will be taken off their final total'

Link to post
Share on other sites

Christ almighty!

 

 

 

'The Football League saw both cases as clubs trying to exploit a loophole, and changed the rules. From 2007–08, any club entering administration after the fourth Thursday in March would have their 10-point deduction suspended until the following season. If the club is relegated the points will be deducted from their tally at the start of next season. If the club stays up the 10 points will be taken off their final total'

 

Ouch!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Christ almighty!

 

 

 

'The Football League saw both cases as clubs trying to exploit a loophole, and changed the rules. From 2007–08, any club entering administration after the fourth Thursday in March would have their 10-point deduction suspended until the following season. If the club is relegated the points will be deducted from their tally at the start of next season. If the club stays up the 10 points will be taken off their final total'

 

Oooof, Preston and Barnsley wins this weekend will get Mr Short pondering if he is even slightly considering it!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mackem at work (kinda like a mag at work but real), reckons theres to be some big announcement today.

 

As much as I am enjoying their plummet I'm not sure I'd like to see them go out of business (which I dont think would happen).

 

40% off season tickets for 3 years.

Link to post
Share on other sites

League 1 is without doubt an appropriate platform for Chicken towns finest.

 

On the Brightside, they cannot be subjected to the spikey chant of "You`re not famous anymore" that was levelled at us on our brief flirtation with the Championship.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

They're not going into administration this season like. Would make absolutely no financial sense whatsoever.

 

There is no foreseeable prospect of their finances improving, the club is running at a huge loss and there's no realistic prospect of being able to refinance the debt at the end of the loan term. There are no assets or income of equal value to secure it against once the parachute payments end and there almost certainly won't be enough not enough income to cover repayments.

 

For both Short and the loan company cutting their losses at this point makes sense because the longer they leave it the larger their losses are likely to be.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For both Short and the loan company cutting their losses at this point makes sense because the longer they leave it the larger their losses are likely to be.

 

Not sure how you come to that conclusion. In fact, it will result in a greater loss of value than would otherwise occur because assets will be sold on a disorderly basis and decided by a third party rather than over a period of time and as decided by the board.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For both Short and the loan company cutting their losses at this point makes sense because the longer they leave it the larger their losses are likely to be.

 

Not sure how you come to that conclusion. In fact, it will result in a greater loss of value than would otherwise occur because assets will be sold on a disorderly basis and decided by a third party rather than over a period of time and as decided by the board.

 

Assets? Short is reportedly willing to write off his part of the debt and give the club away for nothing and he can't even find anyone willing to take it off his hands.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They're not going into administration this season like. Would make absolutely no financial sense whatsoever.

 

There is no foreseeable prospect of their finances improving, the club is running at a huge loss and there's no realistic prospect of being able to refinance the debt at the end of the loan term. There are no assets or income of equal value to secure it against once the parachute payments end and there almost certainly won't be enough not enough income to cover repayments.

 

For both Short and the loan company cutting their losses at this point makes sense because the longer they leave it the larger their losses are likely to be.

 

I'm not sure they are running at a "huge loss" anymore, at least nothing in comparison to what they have been in previous seasons. That's why the spending has completely dried up, because Short has decided they need to get their house in order or at least stop the hemorrhaging of money that has been happening over the past few years. Obviously they've had to this because their income has fallen off a cliff, but business-wise they've acted sensibly this season. However that's had a disastrous knock-on to the football side.

 

I would also disagree that there's "no realistic prospect of being able to refinance the debt". They'll get it refinanced, but at a worse rate, allowing them to survive, but making it even harder to get out of their current malaise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Free season tickets for the Under 8s next season for them apparently. A cost effective punishment if true

Aye there’s going to be a lot of kids eating their greens with that hanging over them

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Howaythetoon

I will never knock them for making going to the game affordable, it’s obviously designed to get them spending some money inside the stadium, but anything that makes taking kids to the game affordable should be applauded, after all they are the lifeblood of the club.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will never knock them for making going to the game affordable, it’s obviously designed to get them spending some money inside the stadium, but anything that makes taking kids to the game affordable should be applauded, after all they are the lifeblood of the club.

 

Agree with that. It's just when they go on about being the best fans in the country because they were getting 40000 most weeks  (up until the desertion this season) ignoring the fact that 9000 were on free tickets and many of the others were cheap kids season tickets.  Most clubs competing in the Premier League could pull in similar or greater numbers with that ticketing policy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...