Letter to shareholders

[Harrisblade]

Seems a bit like he had taken the prince for a fool and tried to bully him and now its all going wrong he is throwing about allegations of bribes etc in the hope of prolonging the proceedings ...

I think you should read the 2 articles again without the "I hate McCabe" specs on
Especially read the outline of the original deal.

 

[Maidenhead]

As SBB posted, the summary suggests McCabe has to sell now the Prince has made the counter offer. McCabes offer was for 50%. The Prince says UTB no longer holds 50%, so how can the Prince be making the same offer as McCabe?

If UTB now only owns 10% of the total shares and Kev bid £5m then that would make Kev's 50% worth £25m.

By sheer coincidence this is the figure that Kev was wanting the Prince to pay for his shares and all the property.

Maybe Drunk blade is right and he is a devious little tinker, he can get his £25m and keep his properties.

 

[Revolution]

If UTB now only owns 10% of the total shares and Kev bid £5m then that would make Kev's 50% worth £25m.

By sheer coincidence this is the figure that Kev was wanting the Prince to pay for his shares and all the property.

Maybe Drunk blade is right and he is a devious little tinker, he can get his £25m and keep his properties.

I would caution against coming to this conclusion. That might not be the way the buyout clauses are drafted or the notices were framed. We don't know from the judgment.

 

[Maidenhead]

I would caution against coming to this conclusion. That might not be the way the buyout clauses are drafted or the notices were framed. We don't know from the judgment.

And maybe I'm just being a cheeky little tinker

 

[Sean Thornton]

If UTB now only owns 10% of the total shares and Kev bid £5m then that would make Kev's 50% worth £25m.

By sheer coincidence this is the figure that Kev was wanting the Prince to pay for his shares and all the property.

Maybe Drunk blade is right and he is a devious little tinker, he can get his £25m and keep his properties.

£25m for the shares AND £20m for the property. Be some tears on here if Kev pulls that off.

 

[Sean Thornton]

I would caution against coming to this conclusion. That might not be the way the buyout clauses are drafted or the notices were framed. We don't know from the judgment.

Wasn't he joking?

 

[Maidenhead]

Wasn't he joking?

Can't pull the wool over you Sean

 

[ShockingBadBuy]

Any scenario where the club and the property are owned by warring factions is surely a bad thing.

Partly for that reason, I'm now coming down on the side of McCabe.

I appreciate the argument, and I’m with you on the side you’re taking. But it was Kev who engineered the split ownership of club and estate. Out of all the mistakes he’s made, could this end up being one of the biggest?

 

[Sean Thornton]

Wonder what people will say when the freehold is in Nevis rather than Scarborough?

 

[Revolution]

I appreciate the argument, and I’m with you on the side you’re taking. But it was Kev who engineered the split ownership of club and estate. Out of all the mistakes he’s made, could this end up being one of the biggest?

All of that flannel about how the split of ownership of ground and club was no big deal seems a bit embarrassing now to say the least.

 

[JayGreen17]

So......does this mean that Wilder doesn’t have a pot to piss in and we’re fooooked, expect Wilder to jump ship mid season, and who could blame him.

Personally don’t want either of these clowns in charge, both need to piss off and let someone who has the ambition and funds to progress this great club. There’s been plenty of suitors over the years and the real reason we are one of only a handful of big clubs that haven’t been taken over is Mcabes unwillingness to sell, well football has now out grown the mcabes and if they think they can continue to take on and fund a champ club then they’re kidding themselves.

Sort it out and get the club sold to someone who can, or we’ll find ourselves setting to our financial level - League 1.

 

[ShockingBadBuy]

Wonder what people will say when the freehold is in Nevis rather than Scarborough?

“The dynasty is in transition”?

 

[Drunk blade]

?

Maybe underhand is a bit strong he's retaliating to what he sees as being shafted ... but would the allegations have come to light if the Prince had paid the £5m for the shares and agreed to buy the ground and training facilities at market value? you would hope so but who knows

would he have agreed to sell the club ground etc to someone who he alleges is corrupt and takes bribes if the money was right? you would hope not

 

[snootyfenooty]

Wonder what people will say when the freehold is in Nevis rather than Scarborough?

The latter is based in Leeds. That's even worse.

 

[Revolution]

Wasn't he joking?

I've seen him make dafter posts

 

[South Bucks]

Unless Mate A is, say, a politician who needs everything to be above board and can't be associated with any underhand dealings.
You are, say, a policeman in a high up position.
Mate B says forget it, your position could be useful to me one day, let's just say you owe me a favour.

That is, as I understand it, the gist of the problem.

Yes, sometimes things can be a bit more complicated than B helps out others. In unrelated cases monies are sometimes moved around to make it hard to follow like this article from the Guardian with Arabian finger prints all over it (not related to this case of course) https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ory-worlds-biggest-financial-scandal-malaysia

 

[Maidenhead]

I've seen him make dafter posts

Only one that I can think of

 

[Sean Thornton]

I've seen him make dafter posts

Sorry Maidenhead but I had to laugh....

 

[Maidenhead]

Sorry Maidenhead but I had to laugh....

That's alright.

I laughed too

 

[Sean Thornton]

All of that flannel about how the split of ownership of ground and club was no big deal seems a bit embarrassing now to say the least.

That's pure hindsight. If the properties were still in the club HRH would presumably have paid half to McCabe. Instead he seems to want to get out of paying for it.

 

[Revolution]

That's pure hindsight. If the properties were still in the club HRH would presumably have paid half to McCabe. Instead he seems to want to get out of paying for it.

It's not hindsight. It was pointed out at the time that problems arise out of these splits all of the time.

 

[Pinchy]

Question for Pinchy

KMc offers to buy the Princes shares for £5m. The Prince in turn says no [KM’s offer is closed. It is as though he never made it though he can revive it at will], I'll buy yours [A counter offer. Unless specifically time constrained, alive for a reasonable time. Prince can revoke at any time prior to acceptance]. As there is no acceptance of Kevin's offer, does that mean that the offer is now off the table?

Yes, but (forgive the pedantry) because it has been declined not because it has ‘not been accepted’.

 

[South Bucks]

There are a number of excellent posts around this subject of which this is one however like all the rest the pivotal fact that this omits is embedded in the court papers which is that Wilder was lied to regarding the fact that both owners had agreed to an "uplifted" transfer budget. The likely reality before him "taking matters to the brink via his media comments" was that Wilder had been given no transfer budget whatsoever for the Summer and then post his media threats he was advised that £2M had been "agreed" which clearly it had not. He will not tolerate this for 18 weeks never mind 18 months . His departure will herald the worst outcomes we all know that - why do the owners not understand the certainty of decline without CW ??

Difficult to know without the facts but its quite possible CW had been promised a budget by both but without the funds in place to support it at the time.
I suspect one of our owners is decent and would not knowingly mislead and was pushing for more input to part fund it but we've now seen the tricks of the other.
The subsequent sale of Brooks then seemed inevitable to me and the main question is if the first instalment from his transfer will be made available to CW or not.
It would appear the python is trying to squeeze the financial life out of its victim and tried to take us close to insolvency.

 

[Barney Rubble]

Thanks SBB. How is this affected by the offer originally being for ALL 50% of UTBs shares when HRH "knew" he didn't have 50% to sell. The offer was for something that wasn't available, which McCabe didn't know.

Why would those terms apply when McCabe couldn't buy enough shares to gain control? HRH appears to have made on offer for 50^. Something McCabe couldn't achieve as it turned out.

Isn't this all tied into the timing of the transfer of the shares from UTB to UTB 2018, which took place after Sheffield's offer As far as I can make out when the offer was made to UTB they still owned 50% of the club, which met the terms of the agreement between the two parties. By transferring the shares to UTB2018 just before making the counter offer was made by UTB to Sheffield the part of the agreement requiring the counter bidder to buy the associated properties became invalid.

 

[Pollingtonblade]

I’m just thankful we have a club.

 

[Bladesman]

I’m just thankful we have a club.

 

[Snowman]

Seems a bit like he had taken the prince for a fool and tried to bully him and now its all going wrong he is throwing about allegations of bribes etc in the hope of prolonging the proceedings ...

I really don't understand where you get that conclusion from. I am reluctantly forced to the position that you haven't a clue.

 

[Hamburg Blade]

All of that flannel about how the split of ownership of ground and club was no big deal seems a bit embarrassing now to say the least.

At the time I was very concerned. I couldn't understand why he needed to do it or what benefits it could bring, whilst allowing for the future separation of the two.

 

[Pinchy]

Yes, but (forgive the pedantry) because it has been declined not because it has ‘not been accepted’.

Addendum.

I should add that is a simple ‘law of contract’ analysis. This is, self-evidently, not a simple case. Parties to a commercial contract at arm’s length and with equality of arms, can agree just about what they want. So a clause saying one party must sell and deliver something if the other renders an agreed consideration will generally be upheld. In a sense it is a contract within a contract.

As I say, the courts are loath to interfere in business agreements unless necessary to give them ‘business efficacy’ [the Moorcock case, 1889 as it happens!]. The court’s job will be to interpret the contract, aided by decades of precedent, not to vary it. However each contract is a piece of new law and the parties will be held to what they’ve agreed not what they think or thought they’d agreed. Their intentions will be deduced from the document itself, not what they now say about it. Again this is over-simplified and doesn’t address, for example, the issues of deceit or fraudulent misrepresentation. As Revolution rightly said, and I paraphrase, that’s why we have the High Court...

Ask me one about robbery...

 

[SandyMcBlade]

And, where does HRH buying a club in Belgium was it, fit into all this ?