Pigs to move to BDTBL?

[snootyfenooty]

5-6 years left on the lease?
WYEDP?

P.S- So you think if Princey wins and makes a go of it ( or not) McCabe should damage the club by ‘squeezing Princey by the balls’?

Charming

He certainly won't be offering to rent the Lane to him for £250k pa.

 

[finlaytheblade]

Now I've got your attention, bear me out on this possible scenario:

The outcome of the legal battle results in the Prince taking over the club on his terms. He fucks McCabe off completely and builds a meccano bowl wherever. This leaves KM millions out of pocket and a load of land worth relatively little compared to the value it would have realised as a going concern as a football club.

Trouble is, there's little demand in Sheffield for a football ground. Except maybe one. The one with a decrepit rusting hulk which is prone to flooding, has no room for expansion within it's perimeter, has the stigma of death attached to it and sits on the edge of Europe's biggest council estate.

They have the backers, the delusions of grandeur and would probably die for the location Bramall Lane has, not to mention the ready-made premier class academy at Shirecliffe.. It would be the biggest coup in the history of Sheffield football and the city would finally be theirs.

Ah but McCabe wouldn't sanction that I can hear you saying. Well, either he turns down £40m or he says bollocks to it and scoops the loot.

Think about it.

In ya dreams.

 

[snootyfenooty]

In ya dreams.

It was a hypothetical scenario, food for thought and all that. One of them is going to win control of the club. Perhaps you could give me your thoughts on how it will all turn out?

 

[Esablade]

He certainly won't be offering to rent the Lane to him for £250k pa.

Where did you hear there is 5-6 years left on the lease?

 

[snootyfenooty]

Where did you hear there is 5-6 years left on the lease?

Normal business practice. No idiot's going to set a peppercorn rent on a 25 yr lease. Could ask you the same question where you got this figure from, mine is more plausible. But then it's McCabe and SUFC we're dealing with so anythings possible I guess.

 

[Esablade]

Normal business practice. No idiot's going to set a peppercorn rent on a 25 yr lease. Could ask you the same question where you got this figure from, mine is more plausible. But then it's McCabe and SUFC we're dealing with so anythings possible I guess.

‘Normal business practice’..right-o

It’s in McCabe’s Skeleton argument ( which you read)

I don’t know when these leases started but I’d suggest it wasn’t 20 years ago?

SUL owns the Bramall Lane Stadium (“the Stadium”) at which the Football Club plays, and the football academy associated with the Football Club (“the Academy”). It leases the Stadium and Academy to SUFC at favourable rates on long-term (25-year) leases as a means of providing financial assistance to SUFC (Petition paras 26b, 27 [1/12/99]).

 

[Sean Thornton]

Normal business practice. No idiot's going to set a peppercorn rent on a 25 yr lease. Could ask you the same question where you got this figure from, mine is more plausible. But then it's McCabe and SUFC we're dealing with so anythings possible I guess.

Some on here reckon they're au fait with the various entities accounts Snooty. Sadly they don't have a clue hence why you have been asked the question. As you say, normal business practice but specifically referenced if you genuinely have even half a clue. You're correct btw, the lease at current rates has 5/6 years to run.

 

[Esablade]

Some on here reckon they're au fait with the various entities accounts Snooty. Sadly they don't have a clue hence why you have been asked the question. As you say, normal business practice but specifically referenced if you genuinely have even half a clue. You're correct btw, the lease at current rates has 5/6 years to run.

Here it is again:

The ISA
14. Further to the ISA, “Property Call Options” were granted to SUFC, giving it the right to buy properties including the Stadium and the Academy at a price based on the market value of the properties without the leases (Sewell 2 para 26 [3/23/455]). These Property Options are of great value to SUL because at present the Stadium and the Academy are leased to SUFC at well below market value rents subject to 25 year leases. The Defendant has estimated that a purchase of the properties by SUFC by way of the Property Call Options would give rise to a consideration of around £20m above their present market value with the leases in place

Think you’re going to have to break it to him snootyfenooty ...be gentle....

 

[Sean Thornton]

Here it is again:

The ISA
14. Further to the ISA, “Property Call Options” were granted to SUFC, giving it the right to buy properties including the Stadium and the Academy at a price based on the market value of the properties without the leases (Sewell 2 para 26 [3/23/455]). These Property Options are of great value to SUL because at present the Stadium and the Academy are leased to SUFC at well below market value rents subject to 25 year leases. The Defendant has estimated that a purchase of the properties by SUFC by way of the Property Call Options would give rise to a consideration of around £20m above their present market value with the leases in place

Think you’re going to have to break it to him snootyfenooty ...be gentle....

I viewed ignored content to see if you'd got your facts wrong again. I wasn't disappointed. Have a look at the last SU accounts for details of current rents payable under the lease. Nowhere does it say that rent is are payable for 25 years. Certainly not in the skeleton arguments you rely on nor in the accounts. Feel free to argue against the facts though.

A little knowledge and all that.

 

[super_pig]

I was talking to an ex colleague (footballer) last week. I have not seen him for years and he doesn't really know of my support for the Blades. Without prompting he said he could not understand why Sheffield, the home of football (his words) persisted with two very well supported teams, with little success. He wondered why they hadn't combined or at the very least, shared a ground. I explained about history etc and deep felt feelings held for both teams. He accepted that but felt a ground share was imperative if both were to survive. I didn't get all parochial and emotional, it's not me but it did make me wonder and consider something I had not thought about before.

because having the 'one' team with crowds of 45000 'still' doesn't guarantee success .. ask Newcastle.. Leeds.. Sunderland..
and frankly they'd have a better chance of the Russians joining NATO

 

[super_pig]

Both Sheffield clubs are now renowned for their lack of investment and forward thinking.
pommpey

just like the city itself.

 

[derfblade.3]

 

[Esablade]

I viewed ignored content to see if you'd got your facts wrong again. I wasn't disappointed. Have a look at the last SU accounts for details of current rents payable under the lease. Nowhere does it say that rent is are payable for 25 years. Certainly not in the skeleton arguments you rely on nor in the accounts. Feel free to argue against the facts though.

A little knowledge and all that.

This is from McCabes skeleton argument:

These Property Options are of great value to SUL because at present the Stadium and the Academy are leased to SUFC at well below market value rents subject to 25 year leases.

So is this:


The ISA
14. Further to the ISA, “Property Call Options” were granted to SUFC, giving it the right to buy properties including the Stadium and the Academy at a price based on the market value of the properties without the leases (Sewell 2 para 26 [3/23/455]). These Property Options are of great value to SUL because at present the Stadium and the Academy are leased to SUFC at well below market value rents subject to 25 year leases. The Defendant has estimated that a purchase of the properties by SUFC by way of the Property Call Options would give rise to a consideration of around £20m above their present market value with the leases in place.

https://shepwedd.com/sites/default/files/UTB v SUL - D_s SA for 20.6.18.pdf

P.S-Where does it say in the accounts that there are 5-6 years left on the leases?

 

[snootyfenooty]

Here it is again:

The ISA
14. Further to the ISA, “Property Call Options” were granted to SUFC, giving it the right to buy properties including the Stadium and the Academy at a price based on the market value of the properties without the leases (Sewell 2 para 26 [3/23/455]). These Property Options are of great value to SUL because at present the Stadium and the Academy are leased to SUFC at well below market value rents subject to 25 year leases. The Defendant has estimated that a purchase of the properties by SUFC by way of the Property Call Options would give rise to a consideration of around £20m above their present market value with the leases in place

Think you’re going to have to break it to him snootyfenooty ...be gentle....

If you've ever seen a lease document you'll notice it contains break clauses, escalation clauses and clauses nullifying any previous agreement due to change of ownership etc. The first break re-negotiation clause will probably come into effect in 5-6 years, hence the basis of my argument.The purpose of this thread is to create discussion on the future of SUFC once the court case is settled, not to start another one of your silly arguments.

 

[Esablade]

If you've ever seen a lease document you'll notice it contains break clauses, escalation clauses and clauses nullifying any previous agreement due to change of ownership etc. The first break re-negotiation clause will probably come into effect in 5-6 years, hence the basis of my argument.The purpose of this thread is to create discussion on the future of SUFC once the court case is settled, not to start another one of your silly arguments.

There is no mention of any ‘break clauses’ in the skeleton argument..you appear to be the bloke making up ‘silly arguments’ based on guesswork...just like yer ‘whac-a-mole’ pal.

P.S-In your scenario, do you think it would be a good thing for the club if McCabe whacked the rent up five years down the line?

 

[snootyfenooty]

There is no mention of any ‘break clauses’ in the skeleton argument..you appear to be the bloke making up ‘silly arguments’ based on guesswork...just like yer pal ‘whac-a-mole’ pal.

P.S-In your scenario, do you think it would be a good thing for the club if McCabe whacked the rent up five years down the line?

Commercial leases are pretty standard and there's no need for a skeleton argument to detail the whole draft. It's not guesswork, it's based on experience. The insults are typical and unnecessary. Once again I've attempted to engage you in an adult discussion and you resort to trolling.

When McCabe jacks the rent up in five years time it will be a commercial decision based on current market sentiment as he will no longer be associated with the club. If it's the Prince in charge he will be doing him no favours. The Prince knows this and hence my suggestion that he will look elsewhere if he ends up the victor in the courtroom battle.

 

[Esablade]

Commercial leases are pretty standard and there's no need for a skeleton argument to detail the whole draft. It's not guesswork, it's based on experience. The insults are typical and unnecessary. Once again I've attempted to engage you in an adult discussion and you resort to trolling.

When McCabe jacks the rent up in five years time it will be a commercial decision based on current market sentiment as he will no longer be associated with the club. If it's the Prince in charge he will be doing him no favours. The Prince knows this and hence my suggestion that he will look elsewhere if he ends up the victor in the courtroom battle.

You’re repeating yourself pal and you didn’t answer whether you thought it would be a good thing for Sheffield United Football Club if McCabe were to whack the tent up?

P.S-Do you support SUFC or Kevin McCabe?
I am beginning to wonder...

 

[snootyfenooty]

You’re repeating yourself pal and you didn’t answer whether you thought it would be a good thing for Sheffield United Football Club if McCabe were to whack the tent up?

P.S-Do you support SUFC or Kevin McCabe?
I am beginning to wonder...

Why should I answer the question, it's irrelevant to the discussion. Do you eat shit?

 

[super_pig]

Why should I answer the question, it's irrelevant to the discussion. Do you eat shit?

 

[fuerstenberger]

because having the 'one' team with crowds of 45000 'still' doesn't guarantee success .. ask Newcastle.. Leeds.. Sunderland..
and frankly they'd have a better chance of the Russians joining NATO

Pretty much what I said to him, not the Russian bit. However, those teams you mention have had more recent 'success' than both Sheffield teams put together. The next 20 years, for most English teams, will be interesting. Personally I hate the way football is going and I fear for the future. Having a long term plan is the only way clubs are going to fend off disaster. One of the Inter players is reported, here, to have praised SUFC (he actually said an old Championship club in England, I assumed it was us, having just played us) being a club with football at its heart. Players are recognising that football is losing its heart. Worrying time.

 

[Esablade]

Why should I answer the question, it's irrelevant to the discussion. Do you eat shit?

The only shit I’m eating at the moment are your replies...

 

[Tom Bott]

Be gentle with them.

They are still reeling from, having to pay.

Membership - £90
Replica shirts - £ 99
OTD tickets - £ 40

Loosing to Mansfield " we never do well against lesser teams"
Loosing to Villa Real " we won't have to play teams that good in the Championship"

Being £ 50 million in debt and in a transfer embargo.

I suspect some of their 'stars' leaving in the next few days.

Telling them that they might have to come to BDTBL might just tip them over the edge.


Love it.

UTB + FTO.

 

[super_pig]

Pretty much what I said to him, not the Russian bit. However, those teams you mention have had more recent 'success' than both Sheffield teams put together. The next 20 years, for most English teams, will be interesting. Personally I hate the way football is going and I fear for the future. Having a long term plan is the only way clubs are going to fend off disaster. One of the Inter players is reported, here, to have praised SUFC (he actually said an old Championship club in England, I assumed it was us, having just played us) being a club with football at its heart. Players are recognising that football is losing its heart. Worrying time.

indeed mate. might even be a good thing.. but it will never happen here. there is too much water under the bridge.. it would be like trying to merge Rangers and Celtic.. if it happens i'm off to Graves Park to watch Brunsmeer or whatever..

 

[Tom Bott]

Pretty much what I said to him, not the Russian bit. However, those teams you mention have had more recent 'success' than both Sheffield teams put together. The next 20 years, for most English teams, will be interesting. Personally I hate the way football is going and I fear for the future. Having a long term plan is the only way clubs are going to fend off disaster. One of the Inter players is reported, here, to have praised SUFC (he actually said an old Championship club in England, I assumed it was us, having just played us) being a club with football at its heart. Players are recognising that football is losing its heart. Worrying time.

Indeed we could end up with American football model where a team like the Oakland Raiders is 'moved' to Los Angeles, though they later moved back to Oakland.

They are now moving to Las Vegas in 2020.

The club is just a commodity.

Worryingly the Prince being a big SF 49ers fan...

 

[Sean Thornton]

If you've ever seen a lease document you'll notice it contains break clauses, escalation clauses and clauses nullifying any previous agreement due to change of ownership etc. The first break re-negotiation clause will probably come into effect in 5-6 years, hence the basis of my argument.The purpose of this thread is to create discussion on the future of SUFC once the court case is settled, not to start another one of your silly arguments.

Does he seem upset? He often is when he shows his, rather widespread it must be said, ignorance, based on a single article he's read and misinterpreted. The lack of any commercial or financial expertise normally results in posters asking questions rather than making statements of "fact".

It's odd though, he's claimed before he's fully cognoscent about what's in the accounts. I didn't believe him when he said it and the passage of time proved me right.

The questions are a swerve. 300 posts down the line, should you be daft enough to make his life worth living, it'll be you that's made his silly claims and him that's put you straight with facts about lease breaks and the accounts. It was ever thus

 

[Hamburg Blade]

I was talking to an ex colleague (footballer) last week. I have not seen him for years and he doesn't really know of my support for the Blades. Without prompting he said he could not understand why Sheffield, the home of football (his words) persisted with two very well supported teams, with little success. He wondered why they hadn't combined or at the very least, shared a ground. I explained about history etc and deep felt feelings held for both teams. He accepted that but felt a ground share was imperative if both were to survive. I didn't get all parochial and emotional, it's not me but it did make me wonder and consider something I had not thought about before.

That has to have been a German.

 

[Esablade]

Does he seem upset? He often is when he shows his, rather widespread it must be said, ignorance, based on a single article he's read and misinterpreted. The lack of any commercial or financial expertise normally results in posters asking questions rather than making statements of "fact".

It's odd though, he's claimed before he's fully cognoscent about what's in the accounts. I didn't believe him when he said it and the passage of time proved me right.

The questions are a swerve. 300 posts down the line, should you be daft enough to make his life worth living, it'll be you that's made his silly claims and him that's put you straight with facts about lease breaks and the accounts. It was ever thus

Blimey! It looks like you’ve another meltdown coming on...relax, don’t do it..or better still, pop yer head out yer hole and engage in dialogue on the issue.

I take it you didn’t find where it states there are five-six years left on the lease in the accounts?
Tsk, never mind...

Did you read McCabe’s Skeleton argument again and notice the bits where it says SUFC is on a 25 lease, you know, the bits I quoted you and which you denied?

Nowhere does it say that rent is are payable for 25 years. Certainly not in the skeleton arguments you rely on nor in the accounts.

#makingshitupagain

 

[snootyfenooty]

I take it you didn’t find where it states there are five-six years left on the lease in the accounts?
Tsk, never mind...

Did you read McCabe’s Skeleton argument again and notice the bits where it says SUFC is on a 25 lease, you know, the bits I quoted you and which you denied?

You just don't get it do you?

 

[finlaytheblade]

It was a hypothetical scenario, food for thought and all that. One of them is going to win control of the club. Perhaps you could give me your thoughts on how it will all turn out?

Pigs won't be at the lane and McCabe will win through the prince will get the message in the end us fans won't tolerate some owner who speaks with forked tongue and tries to get ownership by foul means

 

[Esablade]

You just don't get it do you?

It’s a sad state of affairs where a bloke feels the need to have a pop through an intermediary such as yourself because they’re too scared to engage in a bit of dialogue on a football forum...I get that bit, so what am I missing?

p.S-Funny thing is, considering he’s got me on ignore he appears to read every word!