BDTBL freehold.

[beightonblade]

BB, if you know or at least have an idea of what will be occurring then in the words of the bloke trying to shag the really fat bird, "fart and give us a clue". If you have a theory then please share it with us, rather than give us less of an idea than the Times cryptic crossword.









7 Across - Island in Sheffield.(4,6,10)



Park Square Roundabout.

I have no idea whats happening, but in my opinion the freehold is vunerable and shud be protected.

 

[alcoblade]

I have no idea whats happening, but in my opinion the freehold is vunerable and shud be protected.

all the fuss over several months on here and bladesmad, and you "have no idea whats happening"?




UTB

 

[beightonblade]

all the fuss over several months on here and bladesmad, and you "have no idea whats happening"?




UTB

don't believe everything you read

 

[Revolution]

The Land Registry records are way behind time and don't tell the fullstory.

Er, no and no.

 

[Houso]

So, let me see. The hint is that Kevin McCabe will take the freehold in lieu of the debt that was leant to us. He will then sell the land that it is relevant to and move us to a new purpose built stadium.

Let's see...
a) is the land in S2 really worth that much?
b) are we going to knock down the hotel and enterprise centres too?
c) has the club got so much money they'll make plans to redevelop the ground with the intention of not carrying them through?

:facepalm:

 

[Bladesway]

So, let me see. The hint is that Kevin McCabe will take the freehold in lieu of the debt that was leant to us. He will then sell the land that it is relevant to and move us to a new purpose built stadium.

Let's see...
a) is the land in S2 really worth that much?
b) are we going to knock down the hotel and enterprise centres too?
c) has the club got so much money they'll make plans to redevelop the ground with the intention of not carrying them through?

:facepalm:

Houso, you seem intelligent enough to know that this bloke is just speculating on the dark side of everything. Knowing full well that if he throws enough negative shit around it will stick and he will be seen as some sort of visionary.

Why waste the pixels on him? Or are the questions rhetorical?

 

[Darren]

Houso, you seem intelligent enough to know that this bloke is just speculating on the dark side of everything. Knowing full well that if he throws enough negative shit around it will stick and he will be seen as some sort of visionary.

Why waste the pixels on him? Or are the questions rhetorical?

I have to say that BB seems very much to have the persona of a poor man's Len, throwing pointless innuendo around but without half the humour or verbal agility. I am sure in reality BB is a very nice guy, but he doesn't do himself any favours on here.

From what I remember of land law (studied a few years back), any sale of landed property has to be registered with the Land Registry. If it isn't any sale is null and void. it follows that if the Bramall Lane freehold is held by McCabe rather than SUFC, the evidence will be there at the Land Registry. If it isn't he doesn't own it.

Anyway, it seems to me that this is a pointless argument anyway. McCabe owns - what - 80% of the shares in SUFC plc. This means that if he wanted to sell off BL to pay back his loan he could do this quite properly and lawfully vis decisons made by the plc (for which read McCabe) rather than McCabe personally.

 

[beightonblade]

The Land Registry records are way behind time and don't tell the fullstory.

Er, no and no.

Er yes and yes. presonal experience tells me i'm reight !

 

[beightonblade]

I have to say that BB seems very much to have the persona of a poor man's Len, throwing pointless innuendo around but without half the humour or verbal agility. I am sure in reality BB is a very nice guy, but he doesn't do himself any favours on here.

From what I remember of land law (studied a few years back), any sale of landed property has to be registered with the Land Registry. If it isn't any sale is null and void. it follows that if the Bramall Lane freehold is held by McCabe rather than SUFC, the evidence will be there at the Land Registry. If it isn't he doesn't own it.

Anyway, it seems to me that this is a pointless argument anyway. McCabe owns - what - 80% of the shares in SUFC plc. This means that if he wanted to sell off BL to pay back his loan he could do this quite properly and lawfully vis decisons made by the plc (for which read McCabe) rather than McCabe personally.

I value your opinion but don't agree with it.

 

[Revolution]

Er yes and yes. presonal experience tells me i'm reight !

Okay. As Darren says, the transfer must be registered to take effect, and that has to happen within a certain (short) time period, but you're right and the Land Registration Act 1925 is wrong. Whatever.

 

[Darren]

I value your opinion but don't agree with it.

S4(1) of the Land Registration Act 2002 says that for a transfer of land to be valid the transfer must be registered at the Land Registry. S6(4) says that this must be done with 2 months S7(1) says that if registration does not take place within 2 months then the sale is void.

https://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts2002/ukpga_20020009_en_2#pt2-ch1-pb2-l1g6

Tell me now why you disagree with my opinion. I am genuinely intrigued.

 

[The Fox]

Darren you have quite obviously made up this legislation and doctored the the goverments website ( we all .gov is compiled on the same basis as wikipedia) just to suit your argument - Typical

 

[Bladesman]

I value your opinion but don't agree with it.

BB

You could of gone to the Q & A meeting with the chairman and just asked him.

 

[derrywan]

BB

You could of gone to the Q & A meeting with the chairman and just asked him.

asked him what though? all i've read so far is that the man who owns almost everything about the club has an enormous amount of influence and power over what happens to its ground. That is not news and it is not suspicious. I own my house and garden, and if I choose to I can move my shed. Is that news?

 

[Oreyt]

I value your opinion but don't agree with it.

Excellent. I'm going to copy and paste that and use it in my work signature block

 

[FleaPitBlade]

I suspect what Beighto is getting at is that McCabe is building up an empire of hotels, gyms, student accommodation and corporate facilities amidst a top-drawer football stadium just so he can flog it all of for a packet and walk out of the car park counting his reddies.

He thinks this because he suspects McCabe is a crook.

Beighto also thinks he knows better how to run a football club and multi million pound, high profile property investment business than the man who started with 10 bob in his pocket and has turned it into a billion pound worldwide empire.

 

[beightonblade]

Well i've said enuff on this subject so i'll say no more except:

I'm in the propertry game misen.

Sorry to have bored you. :hello:

 

[Darren]

Well i've said enuff on this subject so i'll say no more except:

I'm in the propertry game misen.

Sorry to have bored you. :hello:

Lol. So it was all complete bollocks then.

I'm in the law game misen by the way.

 

[beightonblade]

Lol. So it was all complete bollocks then.

I'm in the law game misen by the way.

Well you shud know the potential pitfalls as well as me.

 

[Darren]

Well you shud know the potential pitfalls as well as me.

I am obviously stupid as I don't know the "potential pitfalls" at all. As far as I can see it there are only 3 possibilities.

1. McCabe has bought the freehold less than 2 months ago, so it isn't yet registered
2. McCabe (and his lawyers) are complete no hopers and have overlooked the vital fact that the purchase isn't valid unless it is registered.
3. You are talking complete and utter and unmitigated bollocks

If I have overlooked something, pray enlighten me. In the meantime, my money is on no.3

 

[Micalijo]

BB

You could of gone to the Q & A meeting with the chairman and just asked him.

Bad mistake that Bladesman - you obviously think that McCabe gives straight answers to straight questions. He most certainly does not. Asking such a question would be a complete waste of time.

I'll guess that the answer would have been 'everything we do here is in the best interests of Sheffield United. I will do whatever I can to ensure that football is played on this famous ground long after we have all gone. I have a team of 53 property executives and general nobodies earning £200k each from SUFC and they will work out for me how best I can preserve my wealth at the expense of signing a centre-back - oops sorry slip of the tongue - I meant my staff will ensure that the freehold remains where we want it to be.'

I'm not suggesting McCabe has to make a comment on what is his private business - but to suggest he would meaningfully answer that question is wrong I think.

 

[Ted Danson]

I have a team of 53 property executives and general nobodies earning £200k each from SUFC and they will work out for me how best I can preserve my wealth at the expense of signing a centre-back - oops sorry slip of the tongue

Hasnt the property side of things actually brought in 6 mil to the club so how could that be at the expense of signing a centerback?

 

[alcoblade]

I am obviously stupid as I don't know the "potential pitfalls" at all. As far as I can see it there are only 3 possibilities.

1. McCabe has bought the freehold less than 2 months ago, so it isn't yet registered
2. McCabe (and his lawyers) are complete no hopers and have overlooked the vital fact that the purchase isn't valid unless it is registered.
3. You are talking complete and utter and unmitigated bollocks

If I have overlooked something, pray enlighten me. In the meantime, my money is on no.3

It's 3. I'll bare my arse on the town hall steps if it's any other.

UTB

 

[Micalijo]

I obviously don't know, but I would be absolutely amazed if our property ventures had brought in £6m profit to the club. I assume you are talking about profit, not income which is totally different.

I think the situation is alot more complex than - build office block on corner of Kop, earn £1m rental income a year, pay off bank loans/interest on construction costs, pay general overheads and hopefully make profit of £200k which goes directly towards player budget. I just don't see the benefit of it all - it's all very well gearing up and investing in property but I don't think SUFC are any more viable investment post McCabe because we have a few office blocks and income stream from a hotel. I stress income stream not profit stream.

I want to re-iterate that I am not suggesting McCabe has to fund SUFC. He can do what he wants with a company or set of companies that he controls. What I disagree with is the 'McCabe can do no wrong' crowd and the 'his only mistake was Robson' crowd - well wasn't that quite a big mistake?

 

[Houso]

'his only mistake was Robson' crowd - well wasn't that quite a big mistake?

Do these views have to be mutually exclusive? Because that's my view in a couple of phrases.

 

[Ted Danson]

yes I do mean profit and Im sure it was stated during the summer that the property division had made 6 mil that was going directly into the team. I think its quite clear that an SUFC which has income streams is a better option than one without. If as KM has stated that the property division is seperate and so costs us (the footballing side of the business) nothing and makes us money then how can that be a bad thing in anyway. Also it gives us extra funding sources to borrow from other than Banks and so I would guess we would get a more favourable rate.

 

[beightonblade]

I am obviously stupid as I don't know the "potential pitfalls" at all. As far as I can see it there are only 3 possibilities.

1. McCabe has bought the freehold less than 2 months ago, so it isn't yet registered
2. McCabe (and his lawyers) are complete no hopers and have overlooked the vital fact that the purchase isn't valid unless it is registered.
3. You are talking complete and utter and unmitigated bollocks

If I have overlooked something, pray enlighten me. In the meantime, my money is on no.3

go an have a word with your senior partner.

 

[Darren]

go an have a word with your senior partner.

Why should I bother my senior partner? You raised this point, so I am asking you. Of course, you can continue to refuse to answer and enhance your reputation on here as being nothing more than a troll.

 

[alcoblade]

I obviously don't know, but I would be absolutely amazed if our property ventures had brought in £6m profit to the club. I assume you are talking about profit, not income which is totally different.

I think the situation is alot more complex than - build office block on corner of Kop, earn £1m rental income a year, pay off bank loans/interest on construction costs, pay general overheads and hopefully make profit of £200k which goes directly towards player budget. I just don't see the benefit of it all - it's all very well gearing up and investing in property but I don't think SUFC are any more viable investment post McCabe because we have a few office blocks and income stream from a hotel. I stress income stream not profit stream.

I want to re-iterate that I am not suggesting McCabe has to fund SUFC. He can do what he wants with a company or set of companies that he controls. What I disagree with is the 'McCabe can do no wrong' crowd and the 'his only mistake was Robson' crowd - well wasn't that quite a big mistake?

no, it's £6M profit into the club, not turnover. The enterprise center alone would have generated over £6M of income.

UTB