So lets see what we're left with

[lenners]

Could you tell me which bank would have lent it us cheaper?

Banks generally do not want to deal with football clubs at the moment, for very good reason.

I'm not getting this.
Banks wouldn't lend to us so our directors and chairman have to lend to us at a rate well above LIBOR?
I can't see the connection.

 

[Foxy]

Banks wouldn't lend to us so our directors and chairman have to lend to us at a rate well above LIBOR?
I can't see the connection.

The don't have to, but choose to.

If we are comparing interest rates, surely in the interests of fairness we should compare them with actual realistic and available options?



Sorry Rustyblade, it wasn't intentional to move the goalposts

Surely someone like Kevin McCabe could make money a little easier or in a "safer" way than putting it into a football club and then later taking it back in chunks?

Now which 'one of them' could that be?

Plenty to choose from last night, however your favourite choice didn't really join the comedy gifting party.

 

[lenners]

The don't have to, but choose to.

If we are comparing interest rates, surely in the interests of fairness we should compare them with actual realistic and available options?



Sorry Rustyblade, it wasn't intentional to move the goalposts

Surely someone like Kevin McCabe could make money a little easier or in a "safer" way than putting it into a football club and then later taking it back in chunks?



Plenty to choose from last night, however your favourite choice didn't really join the comedy gifting party.

Exactly, they chose to.
They didn't have to.
Are those interest rates really helpful or warranted when you're actually running a business which is losing a fortune?

 

[Foxy]

Exactly, they chose to.
They didn't have to.
Are those interest rates really helpful or warranted when you're actually running a business which is losing a fortune?

Ask Mr McCabe or provide the loans/money yourself. Those are the two options.

Do you seriously think his best plan for continuing to build his empire is chuck a load of money into a football club and then later on take it back in bits, if it's physically possible, with a bit of a markup?

 

[lenners]

Ask Mr McCabe or provide the loans/money yourself. Those are the two options.

Do you seriously think his best plan for continuing to build his empire is chuck a load of money into a football club and then later on take it back in bits, if it's physically possible, with a bit of a markup?

Er no, another option would have been not to have directors deciding they would lend money to a business they were running badly at an interest rate out of kilter with either their own performance, that of the company or the interests of supporters.
What would be the problem with loaning the club money at much lower interest rates?
I didn't understand what relevance your second comment had.

 

[Rustyblade]

Ask Mr McCabe or provide the loans/money yourself. Those are the two options.

Do you seriously think his best plan for continuing to build his empire is chuck a load of money into a football club and then later on take it back in bits, if it's physically possible, with a bit of a markup?

That is exactly what he's doing though, isn't it? To the letter. Everybody keeps asking where the money has gone. It has primarily gone in loan repayments to McCabe and his many companies. Without the cashflow from these, his other businesses might be in real trouble so yes, it is his best plan.

You can't have it both ways. He's either a good businessman and making money from the club or he's not in the sense that he's running the Blades out of the kindness of his heart.

 

[Foxy]

Er no, another option would have been not to have directors deciding they would lend money to a business they were running badly at an interest rate out of kilter with either their own performance, that of the company or the interests of supporters.
What would be the problem with loaning the club money at much lower interest rates?

Again, ask the directors.

What would be the problem in just giving Sheffield United FC all their money?

People moan when people won't put money in, people moan when people do put money in... Where is the acceptable middle ground in deciding what someone else does with their money?

That is exactly what he's doing though, isn't it? To the letter. Everybody keeps asking where the money has gone. It has primarily gone in loan repayments to McCabe and his many companies. Without the cashflow from these, his other businesses might be in real trouble so yes, it is his best plan.

You can't have it both ways. He's either a good businessman and making money from the club or he's not in the sense that he's running the Blades out of the kindness of his heart.

McCabe and his companies are intrinsically linked with United. Money going in either direction is not necessarily at the benefit or detriment of Sheffield United. Do you know just where the money is going and what is going to be done with it?

Like you say, you can't have it both ways...

When he's giving money, it's all okay, although it should be more.

When he's taking money back, it's out of order and he shouldn't take so much of it back?

In all honesty, who, in the entire world, thinks Football clubs are a cracking way to make yourself some more money?

 

[lenners]

Again, ask the directors.

What would be the problem in just giving Sheffield United FC all their money?

People moan when people won't put money in, people moan when people do put money in... Where is the acceptable middle ground in deciding what someone else does with their money?

I wasn't asking the directors, I was responding to your comment.
I wouldn't expect any criticism of Blackwell to warrant a response of 'ask Blackwell'.
The issue I'm getting at is the level of interest involved and the poor performance of the company which has led to directors then putting their hands in their pockets and creating loans at handy levels of interest.
That concerns me.

 

[Foxy]

I wasn't asking the directors, I was responding to your comment.
I wouldn't expect any criticism of Blackwell to warrant a response of 'ask Blackwell'.
The issue I'm getting at is the level of interest involved and the poor performance of the company which has led to directors then putting their hands in their pockets and creating loans at handy levels of interest.
That concerns me.

But like I said, could we have got the loans anywhere else for a lower interest rate?

I don't think we could.

So what is the answer? why should they loan their money at a lower rate just because you think it's too high?

You asked "Are those interest rates really helpful or warranted when you're actually running a business which is losing a fortune?"

Who else could tell you that, other than the directors? If we need money, getting money helps. If we can't get free money, it has to come at whatever the party willing to give it us think is acceptable.

 

[Rustyblade]

I have no problem at all with what he's doing. It's his club and his business. He is making money out of it. For him, it's a cracking way of keeping the cash flowing.

The problems I have are two, mainly. The first is that he spins away like a bleeding top which is an insult to my intelligence and really gets my goat. The second is that he gets an incredibly easy ride, hiding behind Blackwell and seemingly getting immense credit due to the facts we aren't exactly bankrupt and not yet in administration.

All I heard for the last few years was how well run we were and now suddenly we're 43/50 million in debt. Most of it apparently to McCabe('s companies) and he is taking it back right now. Quite entitled to of course. But lay off the 'substantial funds' guff, please. And all that stuff about Chengdu, Fradi, Sao Paolo the Hotel - smoke and mirrors all of it.

 

[lenners]

But like I said, could we have got the loans anywhere else for a lower interest rate?

I don't think we could.

So what is the answer? why should they loan their money at a lower rate just because you think it's too high?

You asked "Are those interest rates really helpful or warranted when you're actually running a business which is losing a fortune?"

Who else could tell you that, other than the directors? If we need money, getting money helps. If we can't get free money, it has to come at whatever the party willing to give it us think is acceptable.

I'm not asking you as a director, I'm expressing a view in response to your own.
You don't seem to have an opinion on whether the interest rates were warranted or reasonable.
I think it's reasonable to question why directors who are running the company in such a way as to lose loads of money then think it's right to lend that business money at a level way above LIBOR.
Personally, I'd feel that wasn't reasonable.

 

[Foxy]

I have no problem at all with what he's doing. It's his club and his business. He is making money out of it. For him, it's a cracking way of keeping the cash flowing.

Surely a man of his experience could make much more off the cash he's put in than the percentage interest charged?

Plus, like I said, do you know what he's doing with the money?

And all that stuff about Chengdu, Fradi, Sao Paolo the Hotel - smoke and mirrors all of it.

If you go back to our transcript of the Q&A, all of that is answered with honesty. I'm not entirely sure how it can be classed as smoke and mirrors.

 

[lenners]

Surely a man of his experience could make much more off the cash he's put in than the percentage interest charged?

Plus, like I said, do you know what he's doing with the money?





If you go back to our transcript of the Q&A, all of that is answered with honesty. I'm not entirely sure how it can be classed as smoke and mirrors.

How was the Fradi connection explained? I seem to recall that we don't own Fradi and that McCabe does.

 

[Foxy]

You don't seem to have an opinion on whether the interest rates were warranted or reasonable.

Because I have absolutely no idea what other options were on the table at the time (and I'd imagine neither do you). I also have absolutely no idea where the recalled money is going to or what it's being used for... Nor how the loan is/was being used in attempts to generate further income and assets for Sheffield United.

I'd love it if they'd just given us the money, but like I said, just where is the benchmark on deciding what is "reasonable" to happen with other peoples money?

I think it's reasonable to question why directors who are running the company in such a way as to lose loads of money then think it's right to lend that business money at a level way above LIBOR.
Personally, I'd feel that wasn't reasonable.

It certainly is, but you aren't asking the directors. If you ask the directors, then you may find you get an acceptable answer and it's fairer than critisising them without a full picture of the facts.

 

[lenners]

Because I have absolutely no idea what other options were on the table at the time (and I'd imagine neither do you). I also have absolutely no idea where the recalled money is going to or what it's being used for... Nor how the loan is/was being used in attempts to generate further income and assets for Sheffield United.

I'd love it if they'd just given us the money, but like I said, just where is the benchmark on deciding what is "reasonable" to happen with other peoples money?




It certainly is, but you aren't asking the directors. If you ask the directors, then you may find you get an acceptable answer and it's fairer than critisising them without a full picture of the facts.

It has nothing to do with what else was on the table.
The directors chose to set the interest rate. It doesn't matter if no-one in the whole wide world was going to offer money, it was still their choice.
Some of the loans have been used for cashflow and I think it's odd that directors run a business in a way that can't fund itself then decide they should set the interest rates they have.

 

[Rustyblade]

It's smoke and mirrors to the extent that it enables McCabe to continue the spin that what is basically a property venture and good for McCabe is somehow good for SUFC on the playing side, too. A bone for the fans in other words. Jam tomorrow even.

 

[Foxy]

It has nothing to do with what else was on the table.

Of course it has. If the only other option was on the same terms but half the interest, you'd be furious and most likely have a much more serious need to critisise the rate.

The directors chose to set the interest rate. It doesn't matter if no-one in the whole wide world was going to offer money, it was still their choice.
Some of the loans have been used for cashflow and I think it's odd that directors run a business in a way that can't fund itself then decide they should set the interest rates they have.

And again, I think the best method of understanding why this was the case would be to ask the directors. There are many facts and situations we are unaware of, as much as you like to say they have "nothing to do with it".

Being directors/owners you get the lovely responsibility of making these decisions, but much more information to work on. As much as we can question their decisions, the simple way to put it right is to become a director/owner.

 

[Foxy]

It's smoke and mirrors to the extent that it enables McCabe to continue the spin that what is basically a property venture and good for McCabe is somehow good for SUFC on the playing side, too. A bone for the fans in other words. Jam tomorrow even.

But what is the "spin"?

What has he hidden/misled us on regarding our overseas "links"?

 

[lenners]

Of course it has. If the only other option was on the same terms but half the interest, you'd be furious and most likely have a much more serious need to critisise the rate.



And again, I think the best method of understanding why this was the case would be to ask the directors. There are many facts and situations we are unaware of, as much as you like to say they have "nothing to do with it".

Being directors/owners you get the lovely responsibility of making these decisions, but much more information to work on. As much as we can question their decisions, the simple way to put it right is to become a director/owner.

I was assuming there was no other option Foxy. There are no facts or situations or anything that meant the directors could not choose to charge a lower rate of interest.
Unless, of course, the club is in danger of going bust but we know that's not true.

 

[Foxy]

There are no facts or situations or anything that meant the directors could not choose to charge a lower rate of interest.

Is the money just in a pot earmarked "Blades playfund"? or does it come from companies/budgets which all have their own contraints, projections and situations?

There are many facts that will have been taken into consideration when deciding such a thing.

 

[Rustyblade]

But what is the "spin"?

What has he hidden/misled us on regarding our overseas "links"?

Did you look at KyoPityus' link to the Fradi stadium plans? Did you see all the surrounding development stuff - about 4 or 5 times as big as the stadium itself? There's the real business.

Okay, but the spin you need, yes? Right, I'll try. Ah, and I'm limited to the overseas links which rules out the Beattie's got flu, the substantial funds, Europe in five years, other clubs' debts etc etc but I'll have a go all the same.

There might not be any outright in your face lying but the salesman spiel is definitely there as is spinning by ommision. The full facts of any of these ventures is never made known up front, they are discovered or revealed later.

With Fradi, for example, the impression that SUFC had bought them was and is pretty widespread. Noises were made about first dibs on young Hungarian talent and even that Fradi might be useful in obtaining work permits for promising players that otherwise would not have been allowed direct into SUFC. Turns out that SUFC does not own Fradi and yet our youngsters are shipped out there to form part of their squad as are some of our staff. Are we paid a transfer fee for these players? Who is paying their wages? Who pays for the trips out there and back? And where are the promising youngsters who were so eagerly implied at the time?

Same with Sao Paulo. We were led/allowed to believe that we would be able to harvest their crop, too. Nowt came of that either.

Chengdu? Again, we were told that it was a great opportunity to ensure that the cream of Chinese talent would be skimmed off by the global behemoth SUFC.

Seen any of these yet?

Spin is not necessarily about outright fibbing, porkies and blatant lies. It's more about insinuation, ommision and allowing impressions to persist that are not necessarily accurate. He's also bloody good at it.

 

[Foxy]

Did you look at KyoPityus' link to the Fradi stadium bid? Did you see all the surrounding development stuff - about 4 times as big as the stadium itself? There's the real business.

As part of one of the news stories people moan about on the Blades site, it was stated that there were plans to redevelop the ground and the real estate. Why is that spin?

Okay, but the spin you need, yes? Right, I'll try. Ah, and I'm limited to the overseas links which rules out the Beattie's got flu, the substantial funds, Europe in five years, other clubs' debts etc etc but I'll have a go all the same.

The Beattie stuff was a particular problem and parts of it are probably the biggest blemish for me on a man who usually speaks very well. He openly spoke about the details regarding the Beattie situation after the event (as you said) and also gave his reasons for not being able to communicate that to fans at the time.

The full facts of any of these ventures is never made known up front, they are discovered or revealed later.

The full facts of any venture are never outlined in every tiny detail to "customers" of a company. I struggle to see how any core factors have not been communicated?

With Fradi, for example, the impression that SUFC had bought them was and is pretty widespread. Noises were made about first dibs on young Hungarian talent and even that Fradi might be useful in obtaining work permits for promising players that otherwise would not have been allowed direct into SUFC. Turns out that SUFC does not own Fradi and yet our youngsters are shipped out there to form part of their squad as are some of our staff. Are we paid a transfer fee for these players? Who is paying their wages? Who pays for the trips out there and back? And where are the promising youngsters who were so eagerly implied at the time?

Most of the impression was from press talk and interpretations of the actual comments was it not? As is often the case, press comments are often mistaken from the words of the man himself.

Same with Sao Paulo. We were led/allowed to believe that we would be able to harvest their crop, too. Nowt came of that either.

Again, where is the lie? We were working on the partnership until our main link and close personal friend of Kevin McCabe sadly passed away. McCabe explained that this had obviously stalled any plans/discussions on the link up but that they'd explore the possibility of reigniting it.

Chengdu? Again, we were told that it was a great opportunity to ensure that the cream of Chinese talent would be skimmed off by the global behemoth SUFC.

Seen any of these yet?

We've had the odd trialist, but they've taken a bit of a knock recently.

Spin is not necessarily about outright fibbing, porkies and blatant lies. It's more about insinuation, ommision and allowing impressions to persist that are not necessarily accurate. He's also bloody good at it.

He cannot control peoples impressions or their opinions. Is it his fault if people get the wrong end of the stick/misinterpret something?

He let himself down with part of the Beattie issue in my opinion, but other than that, I don't think he's really done a lot wrong... Other than perhaps not been more vocal during periods of slight discontent.

 

[Rustyblade]

You're right in a way. It isn't his fault that people get the wrong impression. My feeling is though that he encourages and allows that wrong impression and at no time does he take any opportunity, and there have been plenty of interviews, to correct it.

It's very similar in essence, by which I mean the manipulation involved, to the idea that the best way of persuading somebody around to your idea is to convince them that they thought of it themselves.

By passively allowing an idea to persist, one actively promotes it.

 

[Pollingtonblade]

Surely if everyone is of this opinion, they shouldn't need to be asked to join in?

Can I request that if anyone is tempted to shout during the game, they actually wait while after?

The players heads drop enough whenever one of them makes the tradional comedy error, what would we achieve by alienating them and causing a worse atmosphere for them to play in?

gonna stay in boozer on saturday and get bolloxed.

 

[Foxy]

You're right in a way. It isn't his fault that people get the wrong impression. My feeling is though that he encourages and allows that wrong impression and at no time does he take any opportunity, and there have been plenty of interviews, to correct it.

It's very similar in essence, by which I mean the manipulation involved, to the idea that the best way of persuading somebody around to your idea is to convince them that they thought of it themselves.

By passively allowing an idea to persist, one actively promotes it.

Thing is though, he cannot do that without spending all his days correcting people that refuse to listen/read.

Just for one example, I've mentioned the Sao Paulo stuff plenty of times myself over the past week (a number of times to the same person!), we published the full unedited transcript of the Q&A which included it as he explained it in full then... What would you have him do, trawl the internet all week bumping my posts or explaining to people himself? Or get on with doing the job, safe in the knowledge that not everyone will think up a conspiricy theory about his intentions?

 

[Rustyblade]

Not quite that, no.

An extensive press release with full details to the Star and Radio Sheffield would do me.

But surely you can't deny that he was responsible for a lot if not all of the stuff about pick of the crop, work permits etc?

 

[Foxy]

But surely you can't deny that he was responsible for a lot if not all of the stuff about pick of the crop, work permits etc?

No, but you can't say that this will never happen.

The key words in his take on it would have been something like "could see", "the aim is" or "the plan would be".

 

[lenners]

Thing is though, he cannot do that without spending all his days correcting people that refuse to listen/read.

That's being extremely generous in relation to Ferencvaros.
The club/McCabe has been more than happy for it to seem it's 'our' venture.
In reality, it seems it isn't and yet we are spending valuable resources for what?

 

[Foxy]

That's being extremely generous in relation to Ferencvaros.
The club/McCabe has been more than happy for it to seem it's 'our' venture.

and which part of:

Well let me just say, I'll answer you but, Ferencvaros is not in fact owned by Sheffield United but Sheffield United get the benefits, it's owned by my own group. It's probably not quite recognised by fans.

...suggests anything but Fradi is owned by Kevin McCabe's group and not Sheffield United?

Again, the idea is, we clone our academy over there and get first refusal on anyone we like like the look of.

 

[Micalijo]

No doubt McCabe is the ultimate in corporate bollocks when he talks - it is an insult to us loyal fans every time he opens his gob in my opinion. I love Foxy's amazement that people can talk so disparagingly about SUFC and McCabe and Blackwell but that's jyst my reading of the great stuff above. Some great points. McCabe and Blackwell are always contradiciting eachother and it can't help when a manager has his agenda (skint) and chairman has his agenda (4th highest wage bill - buy a season ticket. How do yiou square that one Foxy?

Just one thing though - McCabe doesn't take appear to take a salary out of SUFC and although the interest will outweigh a £100k salary (for a let's say a couple of days a week) it is fair to say he can rightly take some remuneration, whether it be in interest or salary.