Confusing messages, contradiction and accusations - why Sunderland fans are again calling for #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 Parkinson 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 protest was not universally shared and the surge in results at the turn of the year lifted the mood in part.

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 the many issues where 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 Methven 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.

There were, too, some claims that raised eyebrows.

Most notably, an insistence that they had played absolutely no part in the sacking of Chris Coleman (announced just minutes before news of their deal) and that they could even move to reappoint him.

They were also asked about those reports on parachute payments.

Methven intervened and said that they would be used by Short as a ‘security’.

Essentially, it was argued (not unreasonably) that the vast cash requirements of dealing with 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 invested where required.

What is important about the claims from the Daily Mail and The Times is that in draft versions of last year’s accounts (supporters will not be able to see these until July after the club opted to delay their publication), this money has now been written off as an ‘exceptional operating expense’.

This means the money does not have to be repaid.

The owners insist that it will, and that they continue to do so.

In a statement released to those newspapers, the club said: “Madrox has continued to invest funds as required, (which will be reflected in next year's figures) and in a way to ensure the club remains debt free, as promised.

“This has resulted in SAFC receiving around £11.5M since the year end, from Madrox. The funds are interest free and replace a significant portion of the parachute monies.

“This takes the total Madrox investment to around £25M, to date. This investment, two years into their five year plan, is ahead of schedule.”

Fans will wonder why, in that case, the step has been taken to 'write off’ the money owed.

The thorny issue of that parachute payment has been one of many where supporters feel they have not had open or clear communication.

This is at the heart of the desire for change and the examples are wide-ranging.

One of the most significant is confusion over the role and influence of Juan Sartori.

Sartori was a visible presence in the months following his arrival, singing with fans in the Roker End, taking penalties with Colin Murray at the Valley.

That began to change as he launched his political career in Uruguay, but last year supporters were told they could expect ‘to see a lot more of him’.

This, just as he was elected as a senator, was said to be one of the reasons why the FPP loan was the best deal for the club, and also one of the reasons why Charlie Methven’s departure from the board would not affect the running of the club.

Sartori has not been seen on Wearside 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 fortnight later, Donald said that interested parties were ‘pausing for breath’ in light of the crisis, and even raised the possibility that he could stay at the club.

Donald’s appearance in Sunderland ‘Til I Die had been well received, and in particular one scene in which he recalled his memories of supporting Oxford United growing up and wanting to run a football club in a ‘old-fashioned way’.

Many have felt reconnected, through the regular talk-ins in the city and the regular podcasts conducted with fans in the first 18 months.

For many, though, the lack of clarity raised major concerns over the future of the club, particularly when on two occasions it has come close to being sold without doing so.

That has collided with events on the pitch, where the impact of the decisions made early in the tenure (the cutting back of the scouting network, the loss of key academy players) has become more visible and obvious.

There have been steps taken to address many of these areas this season, but it has by and large been a bitterly disappointing campaign.

As it stands, when the matters of promotion are settled in League One, Sunderland do not look like being part of the discussion in the campaign when they were urged to win 100 points by the ownership.

The COVID-19 crisis has finally forced the club to appoint a CEO, bringing day-to-day leadership on Wearside where it has largely been absent.

Jim Rodwell will be tasked with navigating the club through a deeply uncertain period when so much is unknown.

It has, without question, been a tumultuous since Ellis 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 what lies on the horizon.