Letter to shareholders

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Snowman said:
I knew I should have said "loophole", but then you might have posted a picture of a Polo!
Click to expand...

Nah. Crabby’s puns are better than that...

vw_242.jpg
 

Classof85 said:
my view on reading that is the prince wants to gift the money to the club i.e putting money in with no return and mccabe wants to loan the money and then get it back in the future

from a conversation i had a month ago with a sports journo with links to the club he said the only 1 of the 2 parties has money ready available to invest and it isnt mccabe
Click to expand...
Who is it then.:rolleyes:
 
The Crab said:
You should see what's on mine. He thinks I need company whilst Ms Crab is in hospital and he won't fuck off home until The Shawshank Redemption has gone off...……………

Click to expand...


Have you forgotten the original rear end of that is in my garage n San Sebastián.

Attached to a lovely five year newer frontage!

I'm still waiting for the V5C's
 
Sean Thornton said:
Have you forgotten the original rear end of that is in my garage n San Sebastián.

Attached to a lovely five year newer frontage!

I'm still waiting for the V5C's
Click to expand...

Runs like a dream though. Dante's Inferno anyway...………………..
 
Sean Thornton said:
I thought the sale of shares price was already agreed? HRH wanted McCabe to gift the money required, which would do the opposite of what you're thinking. McCabe has no property assets in the FC or BL.
Click to expand...
I got you. I was more wondering if you had property associated with a PL team than a Championship one it may be deemee more prestigious and then a ‘fair value’ for the property may seem more.
 
Ben_1982 said:
What if Mandaric bought them both out? He’s on the look out , allegedly heading a consortium that wanted to buy villa
Click to expand...

He'd sell us to another even shadier "businessman" in 2 years. Not worth the hassle.
 
Champagneblade said:
I got you. I was more wondering if you had property associated with a PL team than a Championship one it may be deemee more prestigious and then a ‘fair value’ for the property may seem more.
Click to expand...

The property value would be reflective of the price of the land and buildings on it and it's leasable value rather than whether we're a PL or Championship club. The only thing that might change it if we get to the PL is if it triggers some kind of rental increase clause in the lease agreement, at which point you are right, the assets would be worth more. It all comes back to whether the Prince wants the ownership of the land for the right reasons or not.
 

Classof85 said:
my view on reading that is the prince wants to gift the money to the club i.e putting money in with no return and mccabe wants to loan the money and then get it back in the future

from a conversation i had a month ago with a sports journo with links to the club he said the only 1 of the 2 parties has money ready available to invest and it isnt mccabe
Click to expand...

Read some more and you will see that the Prince hasn't been putting the money in in time and landed the club in debt.

McCabe is right to not want to drop another 1.25mil in Imo the manovering by UTB meant the Prince can aquire the club for 5mil, and screw him out of the property value as he gets it All on a long term cheap lease.

Would you want to drop such "pocket change" into the club knowing you are now unlikely to get anything close to market value of your assets.

Some folks are letting their blind hatred of McCabe tint their vision and need to look at the big picture.
 
Why oh why are people still calling that wanker Prince or HRH, unless you are a Saudi citizen you call don’t have to be in deference to him. His name is Abdullah and he isn’t deserving of my respect to call him Prince or HRH.

The other thing is that fucking pissing me off is the fact that between them, they have wrecked any chance we had of moving forward, and i hope Wilder walks as I like him enough and think he deserves better than this shit, and I wouldn’t want to see his career and reputation suffer because of McCunt or the Saudi Wanker
 
brownie said:
Why oh why are people still calling that wanker Prince or HRH, unless you are a Saudi citizen you call don’t have to be in deference to him. His name is Abdullah and he isn’t deserving of my respect to call him Prince or HRH.

The other thing is that fucking pissing me off is the fact that between them, they have wrecked any chance we had of moving forward, and i hope Wilder walks as I like him enough and think he deserves better than this shit, and I wouldn’t want to see his career and reputation suffer because of McCunt or the Saudi Wanker
Click to expand...
HRH is easier to spell :)
 
I would summarise the underlying dispute as follows:
  1. Each party (let’s call them McCabe and the Prince for convenience, though there are corporate vehicles used) owns 50% of the company that owns the club. McCabe is the sole owner of the company that owns the Lane and the Academy. The Prince paid 10 million quid for his stake.


  2. The relationship between the two sides is governed by an agreement which has the following provisions in it
(a) Control of the club is to be shared equally – no one has a casting vote. If there is deadlock, either side can serve a notice on the other offering to buy their shares at a certain price. The other side may accept this offer or offer to buy the offeror’s own shares at the same price (in which case the offeror is bound to sell them). Such offers for purchase of shares can also be made at other times.

(b) The club cannot borrow over 25 grand without both sides’ approval.

(c) If either shareholder gets more than 75% of the share capital of the company that owns the club, then that company is obliged to by the Lane and the Academy from the McCabe company that owns them (currently they are rented on long leases at a low rate). This would be at market value, so the property owning company, ie McCabe, would make a lot of cash from this.

3. The parties fell out and by the end of 2017, McCabe wanted to end the relationship and was even prepared to give up his involvement in the club. Hence McCabe served a notice offering to buy the Prince’s shares for 5 million pounds. This is a low price. McCabe expected the Prince to serve a notice offering to buy him out at the same price, but he thought this would be fine because Prince would then have to buy the property, worth 20 million quid.

4. The Prince did indeed offer to buy McCabe’s shares for 5 million – but before doing so, he transferred 80% of his own shares to a different company than the one that was party to the agreement. Hence he claimed that he would not own more than 75% and would not have to buy the properties [this situation could, I think, have been prevented with better drafting, but I don’t know whether this was considered at the time].

5. If the Prince is right, he gets the club and long term leases on the ground and academy at a cheap rate.

6. McCabe feels he has been tricked.

7. The proceedings involve:

  • A claim by the Prince that McCabe should honour the agreement and sell the shares

  • A claim by McCabe that he does not have to sell the shares and, alternatively, that he can buy the Prince’s shares and, failing that, that the Prince has to buy the properties.
The bit that is most important to us – funds for the team – is a sideshow. There was a disagreement as to whether funds were needed, how much was needed, and the basis on which it can be put in. McCabe sought an order that the Prince be compelled to lend the club 1.25 million (with McCabe lending the same). This application failed.

There are loads of interesting things in there about the background to the dispute and the club’s financial position, but I will leave others to say something about that.
 
LoughboroBlade said:
Could anyone with a bit more knowledge on the matter explain the issues around the appointment of Simon Ratcliffe, and whether this is just a token thing to object to or whether there are legit concerns about him or his appointment?
Click to expand...

My best guess is that the objection was that whatever changes were made to Ratcliffe's contract were made without consulting with the Prince, which seems to be a requirement under the agreement.

It looks to me that the Princes' people seem to have been trying to build a case for some time that the parties cannot work together for tactical reasons. This is an example of that.
 
brownie said:
Why oh why are people still calling that wanker Prince or HRH, unless you are a Saudi citizen you call don’t have to be in deference to him. His name is Abdullah and he isn’t deserving of my respect to call him Prince or HRH.

The other thing is that fucking pissing me off is the fact that between them, they have wrecked any chance we had of moving forward, and i hope Wilder walks as I like him enough and think he deserves better than this shit, and I wouldn’t want to see his career and reputation suffer because of McCunt or the Saudi Wanker
Click to expand...

I like BRP as his handle
 
Good summary.......Sounds like McCabe tried to be clever with the low offer for the Princes shares knowing he would get Market value for the property and be rid of his ‘beloved’ blades or in his eyes, worst case scenario he’s had £5m or so investment for nothing and is rid of the Prince.

Reading between the lines the prince has completely outsmarted McCabe and he is now faced with his shares going for next to nothing and him owning the ground and academy subject to long term unfavourable leases

McCabe knows he’s probably lost because he will only put the additional £1.25m in as a loan rather than a gift (as suggested by the prince), i.e. he would just be gifting the cash to the new owner (the Prince)

Hence McCabe has started mud-slinging about the prince taking potential bribes etc and trying to galvanise support from the fans in the hope of recouping his investment …

In the meantime, this drags on for 18 months or so the club is left in limbo
 
Topplayersleave said:
I just wonder whether there is any other football club that is run on the same basis as this one.
One joke of a boardroom after another after another after another
Click to expand...

I can think of one a few miles way in South Barnsley that ripped off a not for profit co-operative venture for millions of pounds, by threatening to go into administration.

They also twisted the local council's arm to grant them a safety certificate even when there were serious known issues with their shithole of a ground. 96 people died and finally one of this club's officials will face prosecution.
That's 96 people who came for a day out and a football match, killed by wanton neglect.

They also had a culture where 3 of their players felt it appropriate to take money to throw a game. These players were banned for life and it gives you some insight into what a shitty rotten culture pervades at this club.

I'm glad we just have a player with dodgy sexual morals and a bit of handbags between our owners, to be frank.
 
Revolution said:
I would summarise the underlying dispute as follows:
  1. Each party (let’s call them McCabe and the Prince for convenience, though there are corporate vehicles used) owns 50% of the company that owns the club. McCabe is the sole owner of the company that owns the Lane and the Academy. The Prince paid 10 million quid for his stake.


  2. The relationship between the two sides is governed by an agreement which has the following provisions in it
(a) Control of the club is to be shared equally – no one has a casting vote. If there is deadlock, either side can serve a notice on the other offering to buy their shares at a certain price. The other side may accept this offer or offer to buy the offeror’s own shares at the same price (in which case the offeror is bound to sell them). Such offers for purchase of shares can also be made at other times.

(b) The club cannot borrow over 25 grand without both sides’ approval.

(c) If either shareholder gets more than 75% of the share capital of the company that owns the club, then that company is obliged to by the Lane and the Academy from the McCabe company that owns them (currently they are rented on long leases at a low rate). This would be at market value, so the property owning company, ie McCabe, would make a lot of cash from this.

3. The parties fell out and by the end of 2017, McCabe wanted to end the relationship and was even prepared to give up his involvement in the club. Hence McCabe served a notice offering to buy the Prince’s shares for 5 million pounds. This is a low price. McCabe expected the Prince to serve a notice offering to buy him out at the same price, but he thought this would be fine because Prince would then have to buy the property, worth 20 million quid.

4. The Prince did indeed offer to buy McCabe’s shares for 5 million – but before doing so, he transferred 80% of his own shares to a different company than the one that was party to the agreement. Hence he claimed that he would not own more than 75% and would not have to buy the properties [this situation could, I think, have been prevented with better drafting, but I don’t know whether this was considered at the time].

5. If the Prince is right, he gets the club and long term leases on the ground and academy at a cheap rate.

6. McCabe feels he has been tricked.

7. The proceedings involve:

  • A claim by the Prince that McCabe should honour the agreement and sell the shares

  • A claim by McCabe that he does not have to sell the shares and, alternatively, that he can buy the Prince’s shares and, failing that, that the Prince has to buy the properties.
The bit that is most important to us – funds for the team – is a sideshow. There was a disagreement as to whether funds were needed, how much was needed, and the basis on which it can be put in. McCabe sought an order that the Prince be compelled to lend the club 1.25 million (with McCabe lending the same). This application failed.

There are loads of interesting things in there about the background to the dispute and the club’s financial position, but I will leave others to say something about that.
Click to expand...
Good summary but a couple of thoughts from my reading of it.
1) £20 m is not the value of the assets, its a nominal sum equivalent to the sum of the £10 m they each put in initially and also equivalent to the difference between the value of the assets with current cheap leases and full market value leases. Suggests the value of the assets is perceived to be well above £20 m but there's not much else a person can do with a football ground so value is what someone will pay for it.
2) After the first £10 m they each put they were obliged to match each others future cash injections but it appears Mr Invisible started to lapse on this from around 2016 by £1.6 m which is what started the whole disagreement.
After I read all the docs posted yesterday I came to the opinion one of the parties is a nasty untrustworthy thing trying to get the club on the cheap and showing all the characteristics of an asset stripper just in it for profit and nothing else.
The idea that person has loads of dosh and is just waiting in the wings to invest seems a nonsense to me as he had the chance to buy the club for £5m plus asset value but chose not to and now seems to be trying to get it on the cheap through any means. The tricks being used make me feel sick but are not a surprise having worked with similar from the region.
Interesting how in that region the king has been detaining people in hotels for dodgy dealings so I can only assume the guy is well connected and immune or the king doesn't know about where the signs are pointing re the loan.
I can understand why the party being slowly stitched up would only want to loan and not gift money as he is probably concerned he might lose the bigger case.
In short were screwed for years as I can't see either backing down any time soon and the really daft thing is Mr Invisible could see his investment fall to zero if we get relegated after all this.
 
As much as I want to read this thread I keep having to look away abit like a gruesome car crash (up to page 8).
 
It looks to me like the Prince wants to get the club to the premiership and then probably sell at a massive profit ... why else would he be trying to get control of the club as cheap as possible without the assets... he would rather invest his cash in chasing the big money of the premier league than buying a ground etc that the club can use anyway on a very favourable lease.

His tactics in getting there seem underhand but so do McCabes and the main worry is that the team is dismantled and we are relegated whilst the court case is on going

It would be disastrous for the McCabes but I don't think it would be the worst thing for the club if the prince takes ownership...
 
raul said:
Thing that troubles me most in all of this - exactly how long are the people of Whitby supposed to carry on without the Internet?
Click to expand...

The people of Whitby are currently engaged in more elevated matters. These are unlikely to include much mirror gazing about this Quality Thread:

https://www.s24su.com/forum/index.php?threads/praise-the-board-especially-the-prince.59089/

However, a stern letter telling our leaders to sort themselves out and taking the credit for finding a solution is on its way to the club. Rest assured, raul We are in good hands.

Harrisblade said:
HRH is easier to spell :)
Click to expand...

I prefer Saudi Wanker, as per brownie

Blade56 said:
I like BRP as his handle
Click to expand...

I used to like BRP. Not sure it quite captures his recent transition to full-on Bond villain, though.
 
Revolution said:
I would summarise the underlying dispute as follows:
  1. Each party (let’s call them McCabe and the Prince for convenience, though there are corporate vehicles used) owns 50% of the company that owns the club. McCabe is the sole owner of the company that owns the Lane and the Academy. The Prince paid 10 million quid for his stake.


  2. The relationship between the two sides is governed by an agreement which has the following provisions in it
(a) Control of the club is to be shared equally – no one has a casting vote. If there is deadlock, either side can serve a notice on the other offering to buy their shares at a certain price. The other side may accept this offer or offer to buy the offeror’s own shares at the same price (in which case the offeror is bound to sell them). Such offers for purchase of shares can also be made at other times.

(b) The club cannot borrow over 25 grand without both sides’ approval.

(c) If either shareholder gets more than 75% of the share capital of the company that owns the club, then that company is obliged to by the Lane and the Academy from the McCabe company that owns them (currently they are rented on long leases at a low rate). This would be at market value, so the property owning company, ie McCabe, would make a lot of cash from this.

3. The parties fell out and by the end of 2017, McCabe wanted to end the relationship and was even prepared to give up his involvement in the club. Hence McCabe served a notice offering to buy the Prince’s shares for 5 million pounds. This is a low price. McCabe expected the Prince to serve a notice offering to buy him out at the same price, but he thought this would be fine because Prince would then have to buy the property, worth 20 million quid.

4. The Prince did indeed offer to buy McCabe’s shares for 5 million – but before doing so, he transferred 80% of his own shares to a different company than the one that was party to the agreement. Hence he claimed that he would not own more than 75% and would not have to buy the properties [this situation could, I think, have been prevented with better drafting, but I don’t know whether this was considered at the time].

5. If the Prince is right, he gets the club and long term leases on the ground and academy at a cheap rate.

6. McCabe feels he has been tricked.

7. The proceedings involve:

  • A claim by the Prince that McCabe should honour the agreement and sell the shares

  • A claim by McCabe that he does not have to sell the shares and, alternatively, that he can buy the Prince’s shares and, failing that, that the Prince has to buy the properties.
The bit that is most important to us – funds for the team – is a sideshow. There was a disagreement as to whether funds were needed, how much was needed, and the basis on which it can be put in. McCabe sought an order that the Prince be compelled to lend the club 1.25 million (with McCabe lending the same). This application failed.

There are loads of interesting things in there about the background to the dispute and the club’s financial position, but I will leave others to say something about that.
Click to expand...


McCabe isn't the sole owner of the company that owns the property. He's the majority shareholder in SU Ltd.
 

Sean Thornton said:
McCabe isn't the sole owner of the company that owns the property. He's the majority shareholder in SU Ltd.
Click to expand...

The judgment says that Sheffield United Limited (a) owns the Lane and the Academy and (b) is a subsidiary of the Scarborough group, owned and controlled by McCabe and his family.

The point I was (perhaps clumsily) trying to make is that this company is on the McCabe side, not the Prince's side, of the ownership structure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Ndiayewillalwaysloveyou
Out of contract/Loan player's
2
Replies
32
Views
1K
loyalblade95
loyalblade95
LudlamBlade
Important Derby Day Safety Warning
Replies
18
Views
2K
DifferentClass
DifferentClass
S
Fuck Sunderland.
2 3
Replies
83
Views
9K
United Aren't Back.
U
DroitwichBlade
Alternate playoffs
2
Replies
34
Views
2K
bonobo
B
mattbianco1
Spare ticket for Burnley
Replies
2
Views
805
Flumps
F

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Back
Top Bottom