Confusion and contradiction – why fans want #DonaldOut...
In December last year, thousands of Sunderland supporters took to social media to urge Stewart Donald to relinquish his control of the club.
It may have felt seismic and sudden to those looking in from afar, given the immense popularity the chairman had enjoyed for most of his first year in charge.
On Friday night #DonaldOut was trending again as supporters voiced their concerns over revelations in national newspapers surrounding the club's parachute payment for the 2018/19 season.
Events on the pitch had of course played a big part back in December.
Sunderland were languishing in their lowest-ever position,Phil Park in son was deeply unpopular after a start to his tenure in which the style was tough to watch and the end result ineffective.
The sentiment of the protestwas not universally shared and the surge in results at the turn of the year lifted the mood.
The protest, though, was not just about football.
At the heart of it was a mistrust over the running of the club and the intentions of the hierarchy in both the short and long term.
The issue of Sunderland’s £25 million parachute payment was one of them anywhere supporters were left feeling they had not been presented with an accurate picture.
Friday’s investigation from the Daily Mail and The Times has magnified this deep unease and concern over the club’s direction of travel.
As Donald and Charlie Methv en prepared to take control of the club in 2018, reports emerged that Ellis Short would be taking the club’s parachute payment for the following season with him.
Short, of course, was clearing all debts outstanding from his time at the club. This included a vast debt to himself, and more importantly, an external debt on which Sunderland were paying significant sums on interest.
Donald and Methven’s first press conference was a day in which they set the tone for their early months in charge; a blaze of proactive PR and a seemingly searing honesty on the matters at hand.
They were asked about those reports on parachute payments.
Methven said that they would be used by Short as a ‘security’.
Essentially, it was argued (not unreasonably) that the vast cash requirements of dealingwith the major legacy issues in the coming months meant that Donald needed capital.
As such, the press were told that Short would be paid the agreed £40 million price over a period of time, allowing these short-term issues to be addressed. The inference was clear. One, that Donald would be paying Short £40 million for the purchase of the club.
Two, when that process was concluded, the parachute payment money would return.
In September, the picture looked to have changed when Methven wrote in a stark set of programme notes that the club had been in a ‘near-death state’ upon their arrival (again, not unreasonably). But Methven now also said that the parachute payments had been ‘promised away’ to settle legacy issues.
In May of 2019, Donald issued a statement on the issue following an investigation from the Daily Mail.
Donald now confirmed on the record that £25 million of parachute payment money was part of the £40 million to ultimately pay Short.
He also offered a defence of this and gave his view on why the deal remained good business for Sunderland and its supporters.
The stance then and now was that the money would gradually be paid back into the club by the owners as they worked through those legacy issues, and re-invested.
What is important about the claims from the Daily Mail and The Times is that in draft versions of last year’s accounts, this money has now been written off as an ‘exceptional operating expense’.
This means the money does not have to be re paid. The owners insist that it will, and that they continue to do so.
Fans will wonder why, in that case, money owed has been 'written off ’.
Fans feel they have not had open or clear communication.
One of the most significant examples is confusion over the role of Juan Sartori.
Sartori was a visible presence in the months following his arrival, but he has not been see non Wear side since and has not attended a game since the opening day of the season.
In the investigation from The Daily Mail and The Times, they also claim to have seen documents which suggest Sartori paid just £1 for his shares in Madrox.
In response, the club said:
“The club is not privy to the detail of arrangements between the shareholders and directors of its parent company. This is a matter for Madrox.”
Madrox, of course, exists solely as a vehicle for the ownership of Sunderland AFC, which is its only asset.
The scope of Sartori's involvement and commitment remains entirely unclear over 18 months after his arrival.
This argument was also used when supporters pressed for more information on the terms of the deal struck between Madrox and the FPP group, a deal which was secured against the club’s assets.
The terms of that arrangement remain unknown, another source of unease, concern and confusion on Wearside.
Even talks around the current sale have been confusing. In late March, Methven said that while the COVID-19 crisis had slowed the process, he still expected the club to be sold by the end of May. Just a fort night later, Donald said that interested parties were‘ pa using for breath’ in light of the crisis, and even raised the possibility that he could stay at the club.
It has, without question, been tumultuous since Short departed and what the upcoming accounts are also expected to show is a remarkable drop in the club’s cost base. But these latest claims only serve to underline the unease for supporters as to what lies on the horizon.