In praise of Mccabe

[Esablade]

You're a sad man. I've never mentioned the budget he had. Not once. You've referenced the entire budget as "not spending the second lowest budget in the league appropriately". I've talked about the £7 million an amount which I believe you brought to the table, and in fact originally only referred to transfer fees of three million, which did us no good at all however anyone tries to call it.

So IF the wages for those three was £4m, (7-3- highly unlikely spent in four months but let's run with it), that leaves another £14m on which Ive passed no comment on whatsoever and the difference in total transfer fees less three million, again which outside your own head Ive made no reference too. Got it?

I don't no whether it's some insecurity that makes you do this, or your the troll that quite a few posters tell me you are, you just enjoy lying, or you didn't put your head guard on when sparring in the gym all those times.

Whatever it is, you aren't worth conversing with, even though I gave it another try and more fool me. You really need to grow up or get help.

Stop diverting please and there's no need for insults.
If you'd like to point out any lies on this thread that I've posted, I'd appreciate that.

I'll ask again,:

Do you know what the board did with the other £5 million they raised with the Issue of Convertible Loan Notes in Dec 2006?

 

[Esablade]

Even with only £7m Warnock didn't do much with it did he?

I've never mentioned the budget he had. Not once.

You mention the budget here, in a derogatory manner, with reference to Warnock:
Post #142

 

[Sean Thornton]

You mention the budget here, in a derogatory manner with reference to Warnock:
post 142

That's not the second lowest budget in the league is it? £7m. Is that all we had. That's what was avaiable to him by your article in January. Derogatory? Definitely. He fucked up and didn't spend however much he had in January on strengthening the team for a relegation battle.

Last chance though, found anything where I referenced the seasons overall budget to which YOU refer, as being spent "inappropriately".

 

[Esablade]

That's not the second lowest budget in the league is it? £7m. Is that all we had. That's what was avaiable to him by your article in January. Derogatory? Definitely. He fucked up and didn't spend however much he had in January on strengthening the team for a relegation battle.

Last chance though, found anything where I referenced the seasons overall budget to which YOU refer, as being spent "inappropriately".

I posted the full league wage budget here, as you're aware, the figure listed is £22.4 million:

Second lowest wage bill in Prem that season...take note of 2005-6 Championship winners Reading's figures, who managed to finish 8th in their first Prem season and also Watford's who finished bottom.

View attachment 22020

The £7 million figure is what McCabe said Warnock had to spend in the January transfer window (to include wages, fee's etc), as you well know...£2 million carried forwards from summer and £5 million from the £10 million Convertible Loan Notes issued.

I asked you what the board spent the other £5 million on...why are you getting so angry about this when it's just plain fact?

 

[Sean Thornton]

I posted the full league wage budget here, as you're aware, the figure listed is £22.4 million:



The £7 million figure is what McCabe said Warnock had to spend in the January transfer window (to include wages, fee's etc), as you well know...£2 million carried forwards from summer and £5 million from the £10 million Convertible Loan Notes issued.

I asked you what the board spent the other £5 million on...why are you getting so angry about this when it's just plain fact?

A figure which doesn't agree with the accounts.

Again I never mentioned any funding outside the £7m available in January. Or where it came from, JUST THAT COLIN WASTED £3M IF IT WITHOUT STRENGTHENING THE TEAM. Something you keep ignoring for "full season budgets"and now loan notes.
Why keep asking about loan notesanyway. (This was never about funding, why try to make it so? Because you can find nothing to back up your false assertion?) Aren't you the only one mentioning them? Look in the accounts, there's a section on refinancing. Assuage your hunger for knowledge and then apply it arse about tit as per normal.

I have no idea what it went on. You tell me. I'm not overly interested as its a different topic. Pointing out you're back to your pathetic old tricks isn't getting angry. It's stating the truth.

Anyway, if you can't find the quote about all the seasons budget being spent inappropriately, probably best to shut up.

 

[Esablade]

A figure which doesn't agree with the accounts.

Again I never mentioned any funding outside the £7m available in January. Or where it came from, JUST THAT COLIN WASTED £3M IF IT WITHOUT STRENGTHENING THE TEAM. Something you keep ignoring for "full season budgets"and now loan notes.
Why keep asking about loan notesanyway. (This was never about funding, why try to make it so? Because you can find nothing to back up your false assertion?) Aren't you the only one mentioning them? Look in the accounts, there's a section on refinancing. Assuage your hunger for knowledge and then apply it arse about tit as per normal.

I have no idea what it went on. You tell me. I'm not overly interested as its a different topic. Pointing out you're back to your pathetic old tricks isn't getting angry. It's stating the truth.

Anyway, if you can't find the quote about all the seasons budget being spent inappropriately, probably best to shut up.

The figures are quoted from McCabe in the press at the time...I've posted links if you'd like to check.
If you'd care to read back, I brought up the loan notes question in my OP on this topic here:

So just how do you 'reduce the wage bill' by spending 'probably' around £7 million on players, well, of course, that figure has to include all player contracts and wages also...the devil's in the detail I guess.

Here's a little more explanation on McCabe's process...loan note allocation's to raise the cash and all...wonder what the other £5 million they raised went on?


"But Warnock has been warned by plc chairman Kevin McCabe he will have to use the cash to help fund players' wages.

United are to raise £10million via a loan note allocation scheme to be approved by shareholders towards the end of the month.

Warnock is to be given half of the funds, plus he has a further £2million remaining from the summer transfer kitty.

McCabe confirmed: "If we're adding the £5million from the loan note allocation, plus the budget left over from the beginning of the season, he probably has something like £7million.

"It's a lot of money, although that's an allocation of money that is also for player contracts.

"My feeling is the squad we have now is good enough to keep us up, but I appreciate every team needs freshening up at some stage.

"We did that last season when we brought in four or five players in January.

"You can look back and say Neil didn't need some of them, but we were promoted, so it worked.

"This time around we maybe need to freshen things up a little, but don't ask me with who because I haven't a clue.

"When you look at who we can recruit, the list is pretty small if the criteria is that we need players who are better than those we have. It's not easy."


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-424167/Warnock-gets-money-spend.html

People can make their own minds up with the facts I guess...McCabe felt the squad was 'good enough to stay up'...say's it all really...well, that and the 'don't ask me, I haven't got a clue' bit...

I think you may have misunderstood and gone off on the wrong tangent (deliberately?) re: the January budget. You quite clearly state that 'Colin' "Even with only £7m Warnock didn't do much with it did he?"

Those are your words are they not? I'm perfectly clear as to what I said.

Look, if you don't know what the board spent the other £5 million on at the time then just say so...if you do know, but you'd rather not say, then that's fine...I'm sure you have your reason's...

...and as you say, in your rather uncouth manner, I can always have a look for myself and post what I find.

 

[blade too long]

Houses do not always appreciate in value.

I'm not sure there's that much difference. It's debt servicing.

thing is if your boiler doesnt work it costs 1500 or so to replace it
an expense but do able
if your strikers not working it can cost 4m
its a matter of scale

 

[blade too long]

Burnley went up knowing fairly certainly theyd be relegated, so didnt overspend , hoping gradual improvement from the extra income used wisely might keep them up on a second or even 3rd visit
its a model west brom used
we tried but warnocks buys werent good enough , it really is that simple

 

[Sean Thornton]

The figures are quoted from McCabe in the press at the time...I've posted links if you'd like to check.
If you'd care to read back, I brought up the loan notes question in my OP on this topic here:



I think you may have misunderstood and gone off on the wrong tangent (deliberately?) re: the January budget. You quite clearly state that 'Colin' "Even with only £7m Warnock didn't do much with it did he?"

Those are your words are they not? I'm perfectly clear as to what I said.

Look, if you don't know what the board spent the other £5 million on at the time then just say so...if you do know, but you'd rather not say, then that's fine...I'm sure you have your reason's...

...and as you say, in your rather uncouth manner, I can always have a look for myself and post what I find.

The £22.4m isn't from McCabes figure as you've stated. It's from the schedule you posted. Which doesn't agree with the accounts. Check.

I can't see how Ive gone off tangent when i referenced the three pkayers as being a bit toss in post 64 long before budgets and loan notes - post 106- became your nonsense. It would appear the one off tangent - definitely deliberately- is you.


None of that relates to anything I've said. You brought up loan notes although what they had to do with Fathi Shelton and Seck not being up to much is anyone's guess. As Ive said and you've ignored, I don't know. I've never said I did and until you came along they were never mentioned. Nor was the funding for the three players. Rather like you not knowing where Ive said the full seasons budget was spent inappropriately. So you ignore that and ramble on.

Maybe you could have a view on whether Colin's three signings brought any value to the side?

As long as you post what you find rather than what you want people to believe you've found.

Uncouth? Better than a liar any day of the week.

 

[Esablade]

The £22.4m isn't from McCabes figure as you've stated. It's from the schedule you posted. Which doesn't agree with the accounts. Check.

I can't see how Ive gone off tangent when i referenced the three pkayers as being a bit toss in post 64 long before budgets and loan notes - post 106- became your nonsense. It would appear the one off tangent - definitely deliberately- is you.


None of that relates to anything I've said. You brought up loan notes although what they had to do with Fathi Shelton and Seck not being up to much is anyone's guess. As Ive said and you've ignored, I don't know. I've never said I did and until you came along they were never mentioned. Nor was the funding for the three players. Rather like you not knowing where Ive said the full seasons budget was spent inappropriately. So you ignore that and ramble on.

Maybe you could have a view on whether Colin's three signings brought any value to the side?

As long as you post what you find rather than what you want people to believe you've found.

Uncouth? Better than a liar any day of the week.

You're clutching at straw's...where are the lies? please link...

I note you still haven't answered the question, which is it, don't know or prefer not to say?

P.S- The £7 million in January is the figure reported in the press from McCabe (as linked)..The £22.4 is form Deloitte's on Prem wage bills for the season 2006-07 (as linked)...it's probably out by 0.3 or something right?

You're being very disingenuous here when you know the figures full well...

 

[blade too long]

weve always been a club with finite resources
the extra money we got in that one year in the prem was at best 10 m above normal
but then you need the parachute payments to ease wage payments in subsequent years, this extra 25 m is facade as it only helps prevent admin
So
if we cleared 10 m for warnock to pay 7m or so for claude fathi and shelton can only ever be described as squandering the finite resources at any one point in time

 

[Sean Thornton]

You're clutching at straw's...where are the lies? please link...

I note you still haven't answered the question, which is it, don't know or prefer not to say?

The lies are in your posts. As they invariably are.

If you read post 159 , although there are others, you'll see the words, "I don't know". Even you can't pretend to be that dumb, so trolling it is. A fine hobby for a middle aged gent, but as existences go, I suppose it's better than having many many cats. Possibly.

 

[Esablade]

weve always been a club with finite resources
the extra money we got in that one year in the prem was at best 10 m above normal
but then you need the parachute payments to ease wage payments in subsequent years, this extra 25 m is facade as it only helps prevent admin
So
if we cleared 10 m for warnock to pay 7m or so for claude fathi and shelton can only ever be described as squandering the finite resources at any one point in time

The £10 million wasn't TV or Prem money..it was raised by way of proposed Issue Of Convertible Loan Notes by the Sheffield United plc board...£5 million went towards players in January with £5 million going elsewhere...

 

[Esablade]

The lies are in your posts. As they invariably are.

If you read post 159 , although there are others, you'll see the words, "I don't know". Even you can't pretend to be that dumb, so trolling it is. A fine hobby for a middle aged gent, but as existences go, I suppose it's better than having many many cats. Possibly.

If they are there, then please link to them instead of vaguely insinuating...in that way, hopefully, I'll be able to clear up any misunderstanding you may be having.

I'll check out the £5 million bit for you then...it's just that you seem to have set yourself up as some kind of expert on the matter, I thought you might know,

 

[Esablade]

You brought up loan notes although what they had to do with Fathi Shelton and Seck not being up to much is anyone's guess.

What the £10 million issue loan notes have to do with the players in January is that the money raised enabled us to buy them..surely you understand this much?

...or are you simply being facetious?

 

[blade too long]

The £10 million wasn't TV or Prem money..it was raised by way of proposed Issue Of Convertible Loan Notes by the Sheffield United plc board...£5 million went towards players in January with £5 million going elsewhere...

I never said the 10 m we had above was solely from the prem , I did put the bulk , parachute money was spread over 3 years to cover wages
I said we had finite resources, to complex to put in a post , that gave us around 10 m in that season as player recruitment fund
as you rightly posted a chunk of it from the loan notes

 

[Fanny magnet]

Burnley went up knowing fairly certainly theyd be relegated, so didnt overspend , hoping gradual improvement from the extra income used wisely might keep them up on a second or even 3rd visit
its a model west brom used
we tried but warnocks buys werent good enough , it really is that simple

 

[blade too long]

just for you
even if we realised relegation was a strong possibility , we could have bought with a plan of getting incrementally stronger on a quick return
ie improving slightly on what we had in what were our weaker positions

he failed to improve on what we had, the 3 mentioned he bought were not better than what we had

you can take a punt on an old stager like sunderland did with defoe
but warnock got in 3 with no prem experience or quality to suggest they would help

 

[boo radley]

I've said it many times but if people want to keep singing his praises then then need reminding that he had presided over the worst period in Blades history. Therefore I see him as the worst chairman in our history.
I really do not have a clue about what he has put in/ taken out over the years and I believe no one but K Mc himself does. It is far too complicated for any fan unless you have some access to the family.
Do fans really believe that the club would have gone bust without him? I'm sure some do. My own view is that when has a club of our size ceased to exist?
We may not have had quite such a good ground but the football wouldn't/ couldn't have been any worse.
It seems we are now on the way back but few of us will not believe it until it happens.
If he takes us to the Premier and maintains us there then he may actually get some credit at last but the hurt and heartache he has caused over the Last 9 years us going to take some forgiving for a great many Blades.
COYRAWW.....AAAHHHHRR.

 

[1danewhitehouse]

Well lets just say in the grand scheme of things, selling murphy for 1.5 and blackman for 1 is peanuts
just about covers the clubs insurance premiums
again we sell players , we buy players the NETT income from selling and buying players nearly levels out

buying ched for 3m , lost it all when he got sent down takes out maguire and adams sale for example

tonnes of players we sell them by weight now,
who were the tonnes we sold last season

these sweeping generalisations you post are always one way, a clubs accounts has 2 sides
you only ever mention cash coming in
like we never buy anyone or pay wages

Well done for talking about loads of stuff that's irrelevant to what I said. Are you ready to admit yet that the "sole source of income" comment was a stupid thing to say?

 

[blade too long]

Well done for talking about loads of stuff that's irrelevant to what I said. Are you ready to admit yet that the "sole source of income" comment was a stupid thing to say?

When you admit you only ever see sales as lining mccabes pocket .which is as wrong as wrong can be

 

[Sean Thornton]

When you admit you only ever see sales as lining mccabes pocket .which is as wrong as wrong can be

i bet you can't post a link to him saying that.

 

[pommpey]

i bet you can't post a link to him saying that.

No one - not even me - will accuse McCabe of being crooked, of lining his pockets. I don't think that has ever, or ever will be the case. As much as I criticise him, I will never say he is bent. There is no evidence to support this.

I think he has been disingenuous. naive and in many ways economic with the truth regarding his businesses with the club. Sure, we haven't gone bust and sure we are top of the third division at the moment.

But much of this hasn't been through canny strategising by McCabe, more of a painful journey of disappointment and crisis (mainly on the pitch) which is what fans pay their money to see. Anyone who deigns to defend that seems to fall at the first fence, especially when challenged about results, appointments and direction of the club.

pommpey

 

[1danewhitehouse]

When you admit you only ever see sales as lining mccabes pocket .which is as wrong as wrong can be

Please tell me where I said, or even insinuated anything of the sort?

 

[1danewhitehouse]

just for you
even if we realised relegation was a strong possibility , we could have bought with a plan of getting incrementally stronger on a quick return
ie improving slightly on what we had in what were our weaker positions

he failed to improve on what we had, the 3 mentioned he bought were not better than what we had

you can take a punt on an old stager like sunderland did with defoe
but warnock got in 3 with no prem experience or quality to suggest they would help

That completely contradicts your suggestion of getting incrementally better and suggests we should have looked for a short term fix (like defoe) to keep us up. Warnock signed players for the future but wasn't here in the future to use them and his replacements didn't fancy them. Shelton's pace and age meant there appeared to be a lot of potential. Unfortunately, he just didn't seem to improve on the weak areas of his game. Fathi went on to have a good career. Seck was a flop.

 

[BushBlade]

Please tell me where I said, or even insinuated anything of the sort?

Well done for talking about loads of stuff that's irrelevant to what I said. Are you ready to admit yet that McCabe is a fucking thief who's been robbing us blind for years, lining his pockets to pay for his swimming pool?

Was it this one?

 

[1danewhitehouse]

where the fuck did I change the subject , just pointed out we dont only sell players , we buy them
its changing the subject in danes eyes has hes got blinkers on

all our players are paid by the wages fairy dane thinks we have

Talking about buying players, player wages and wages fairy when the subject being discussed was “has Kevin McCabe been our sole source of income for the last 15 years” is very much changing the subject. You’ve started rambling about expenditure when I had said absolutely nothing about it. You have accused me of thinking “wage fairies” pay our wages. That is an unmitigated lie. I have said absolutely nothing about that. I have merely pointed out in response to your very silly and incorrect comment about our income that our sources of income are various.

 

[Sean Thornton]

Talking about buying players, player wages and wages fairy when the subject being discussed was “has Kevin McCabe been our sole source of income for the last 15 years” is very much changing the subject. You’ve started rambling about expenditure when I had said absolutely nothing about it. You have accused me of thinking “wage fairies” pay our wages. That is an unmitigated lie. I have said absolutely nothing about that. I have merely pointed out in response to your very silly and incorrect comment about our income that our sources of income are various.

In any event, McCabe funding losses isnt "income" in the first place.

Len apart its a peculiarity on here to deliberately accuse someone of saying something they clearly haven't and then running with it regardless that hardly ever happened on BM.

 

[1danewhitehouse]

Was it this one?

Shit.... you got me.

 

[Maidenhead]

Stop diverting please and there's no need for insults.
If you'd like to point out any lies on this thread that I've posted, I'd appreciate that.

I'll ask again,:

Do you know what the board did with the other £5 million they raised with the Issue of Convertible Loan Notes in Dec 2006?

Errrrmmm correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it the board that fully underwrote the loan stock?

In which case are you suggesting that they put 10m in and then took 5m back out just to look good or something?

If not where do you think the other 5m went?