It can't get any worse.

[Micalijo]

But that is what groups of companies do, lenners. That is precisely why group structures operate, and transfer pricing policies and all the rest of it exists. They are separate, which is why they report as they do. They are under common ownership, but there are a lot of accounting regulations they have to observe about inter group transactions. So no, you are wrong to describe it as ridiculous. What would be ridiculous is to bundle everything up into just the one business.

What is happening is that the football business is now having to subsidise the rest, which is the exact opposite of what was intended. But if it wasn't for those directors loans, at the rates that they are at, we would be in a far worse position than we are in. Like it or not, them's the facts.

I haven't got a clue what point you are trying to make.

Are you sugesting, by having a go at Len, that the debt of Blades Realty is of no concern to SUFC Ltd?

You say above 'it is ridiculous to bundle it all up into the one business' - well that is exactly what Bob the Builder has done isn't it? I don't understand your comment about Groups of companies at all.

I work in accountancy, sounds like you do but from some of your comments about separate entities and separation (even when under common ownership) I might have to rethink what I always thought was the case.

 

[Micalijo]

No, once again you are saying one thing, then completely denying it or claiming you meant something completely different and/or going off at another tangent.

Which is why, today, I can't be bothered to continue to try and have a discussion with you, as it is completely and utterly pointless.

I'll let Nick Jansky take over, as giving my full attention to working would seem to be more productive.

Foxy when you say our debt has been caused by relegation, have you totally ignored the existence of Blades Hotel Ltd and Blades Realty Ltd.

 

[Foxy]

Foxy when you say our debt has been caused by relegation, have you totally ignored the existence of Blades Hotel Ltd and Blades Realty Ltd.

I didn't say that our debt had been caused by relegation, I said that it had been substantially effected by our relegation.

 

[Micalijo]

Fair enough.

I don't understand Foxy how Len's comments about Tevez money cause you so much irritation.

I assume being such a devout follower of Bob the Builder that when we won the case you assumed alot of it would go towards providing Blackwell with a top end CCC squad?

Clearly that isn't happening. I think that is what Len is getting at and I don't see why you should get yer sen in such a tizzy over it. McCabe has put us in deep shite - very easy concept.

 

[DuncDisorderly]

Aye, that's the spirit.
None of us have been professional managers or players either so you all best shut up about them as well.
Don't say anything. Don't criticise. Don't question. You have no right.
When you're told McCabe's put £50m in, accept it.
When you think it's odd how much transfer fee income and money from Tevez there's been, shut it because you couldn't possibly understand.
When you query the interest levels our directors are charging, shut it. You just don't understand that's how directors are.
When you think it's odd that we have no monetary interest in Hungary and yet send resources over there, shut it. You couldn't possibly understand.
And so on and on.

It was simply a light hearted comment, Len, not intended to start a discussion with you, although I know you like to show me what a clever lad you are. (Its probably a good thing for such ignorant people like me to be educated, or so they say).

Anyway. Keep going laddie. You're doing a grand job, and we should all be grateful to you...

 

[Nick Jansky]

I haven't got a clue what point you are trying to make.

Are you sugesting, by having a go at Len, that the debt of Blades Realty is of no concern to SUFC Ltd?

You say above 'it is ridiculous to bundle it all up into the one business' - well that is exactly what Bob the Builder has done isn't it? I don't understand your comment about Groups of companies at all.

I work in accountancy, sounds like you do but from some of your comments about separate entities and separation (even when under common ownership) I might have to rethink what I always thought was the case.

I'm not having a go at Len. He often makes good points but, on issues of corporate governance, he was wide of the mark, so I pointed it out.

Group structures are used for many things, not least as a vehicle for tax planning, but certainly a very common use is to ringfence assets, debts, trading divisions etc in separate legal entities so that if one bit of the business goes tits up, other bits can remain relatively unscathed. Properties and other assets are very commonly held in separate companies to that in which the trade sits, for lots of very sound reasons.

I haven't studied the accounts for any of the Blades companies in any detail at all, although I suspect that you have, so you will be able to correct me if I am wrong. But I would have thought that SUFC Ltd, being the football club business, could be sold on from the group without the encumbrance of Blades Realty Ltd hanging around its neck.

Of course the current state of Realty is of concern to the football club as it is having to support it at the moment, whereas it was always expected that it would be the other way around. But I would have thought it a good thing that the group structure, as I understand it to be, is as it is.

 

[alcoblade]

McCabe has got away with 'murder' at BDTBL ....... remember the de-listing ?

\
About 2 weeks ago you said (with the obligatory wink) that you knew that everything McCabe did was in the interests of SUFC.

Does somebody else have access to your login details?

UTB

 

[lenners]

I'm not having a go at Len. He often makes good points but, on issues of corporate governance, he was wide of the mark, so I pointed it out.

Group structures are used for many things, not least as a vehicle for tax planning, but certainly a very common use is to ringfence assets, debts, trading divisions etc in separate legal entities so that if one bit of the business goes tits up, other bits can remain relatively unscathed. Properties and other assets are very commonly held in separate companies to that in which the trade sits, for lots of very sound reasons.

I haven't studied the accounts for any of the Blades companies in any detail at all, although I suspect that you have, so you will be able to correct me if I am wrong. But I would have thought that SUFC Ltd, being the football club business, could be sold on from the group without the encumbrance of Blades Realty Ltd hanging around its neck.

Of course the current state of Realty is of concern to the football club as it is having to support it at the moment, whereas it was always expected that it would be the other way around. But I would have thought it a good thing that the group structure, as I understand it to be, is as it is.

Sorry mate, it's got ferk all to do with corporate governance.
And it isn't all to do with McCabe either - and attempts to dress it up in trust speak or anything else are nonsense.
Other directors have loaned money.
If you want to loan a company money, you can decide what level of interest (unless the company says no thanks, interest too steep.)
In this case, we have directors of the same company deciding to help out with cashflow and deciding what that's worth to them.
They made a choice and group structures, tax planning, company units has got ferk all to do with it.

 

[lenners]

No, once again you are saying one thing, then completely denying it or claiming you meant something completely different and/or going off at another tangent.

Which is why, today, I can't be bothered to continue to try and have a discussion with you, as it is completely and utterly pointless.

I'll let Nick Jansky take over, as giving my full attention to working would seem to be more productive.

It's actually hard to have a discussion with you as you seem unable to understand relatively simple concepts.
I said, for the third time, that the Tevez money has barely had a mention in the midst of all our debt talk and wasn't mentioned by Birch at all.
I did not say it was being hidden in any accounts and pointed out to you that it had been accounted for up front in the 'profit' announced in December.
None of that is hard to grasp, involves me moving goalposts or talking in French.
Being £48m in debt when you have had a £20m bonus not available to other peers who've spent two years down is a pretty poor performance by our club.

 

[lenners]

It was simply a light hearted comment, Len, not intended to start a discussion with you, although I know you like to show me what a clever lad you are. (Its probably a good thing for such ignorant people like me to be educated, or so they say).

Anyway. Keep going laddie. You're doing a grand job, and we should all be grateful to you...

I know it was Dunc. I just think your intelligence could be put to better use.

 

[alcoblade]

It's actually hard to have a discussion with you as you seem unable to understand relatively simple concepts.
I said, for the third time, that the Tevez money has barely had a mention in the midst of all our debt talk and wasn't mentioned by Birch at all.
I did not say it was being hidden in any accounts and pointed out to you that it had been accounted for up front in the 'profit' announced in December.
None of that is hard to grasp, involves me moving goalposts or talking in French.
Being £48m in debt when you have had a £20m bonus not available to other peers who've spent two years down is a pretty poor performance by our club.

I agree with the gist of your argument Len. But we've blown the £48M on properties and other non SUFC related stuff. It may or not pay off over time, and the recession is exposing the achilles heel of the plan.

Under different circumstances we'd probably be hailing a masterstroke - as it is McCabe's legacy could be taking the club to the brink. For that reason alone, the directors are very exposed to criticism on the level of interest they're receiving.

In fact, in my naivety, I think McCabe should be giving the money interest free. As it stands, I now rate him as just another banker, sadly.

UTB

 

[silverfox]

It's actually hard to have a discussion with you as you seem unable to understand relatively simple concepts.

You really enjoy trying to patronise people don't you?

You are becoming known as the "Blackwell of the forum"

Always right...never willing to change or alter your opinion....no matter what anyone else may think and very boring with it.

I know of at least 6 forum members who can't be bothered to post anymore.

Just like the people who dont go to the Lane.

I give you Lenners......Blackwell of the forum!

Killing this forum!

 

[alcoblade]

You really enjoy trying to patronise people don't you?

You are becoming known as the "Blackwell of the forum"

Always right...never willing to change or alter your opinion....no matter what anyone else may think and very boring with it.

I know of at least 6 forum members who can't be bothered to post anymore.

Just like the people who dont go to the Lane.

I give you Lenners......Blackwell of the forum!

Killing this forum!

I can't agree fella. I've disagreed with Len on 90% of issues. But he has an opinion and makes his case. Are these six others so unconvinced about their argument that they don't fancy a written debate with Len?

That's the whole point of these things, isn't it?

UTB

 

[broomhillblade]

I can't agree fella. I've disagreed with Len on 90% of issues. But he has an opinion and makes his case. Are these six others so unconvinced about their argument that they don't fancy a written debate with Len?

That's the whole point of these things, isn't it?

UTB

This has been a debate?

Could have fooled me.

 

[silverfox]

I can't agree fella. I've disagreed with Len on 90% of issues. But he has an opinion and makes his case. Are these six others so unconvinced about their argument that they don't fancy a written debate with Len?

That's the whole point of these things, isn't it?

UTB

Debate is fine......patronising people is not so fine......can't you see that.

Accepting peoples view is also part of a debate.

What is the point of debate if you always think you are right before you begin????

 

[Nick Jansky]

Sorry mate, it's got ferk all to do with corporate governance.
And it isn't all to do with McCabe either - and attempts to dress it up in trust speak or anything else are nonsense.
Other directors have loaned money.
If you want to loan a company money, you can decide what level of interest (unless the company says no thanks, interest too steep.)
In this case, we have directors of the same company deciding to help out with cashflow and deciding what that's worth to them.
They made a choice and group structures, tax planning, company units has got ferk all to do with it.

Can't comment on the other directors, no idea how much they have loaned or how much they are charging for it. I really must get up to speed on some of this stuff! Don't worry, I will catch up.

As far as McCabe is concerned (and I must say that I have no vested interest whatsoever in fighting his corner) I would have thought that much of his personal wealth sits in various family trusts, and that there will be professional Trustees in place who will be obligated legally to operate the trusts in the best interests of the benificiaries. If these are the vehicles through which he has made loans, and I am guessing that they might be, I am simply pointing out that the rate of interest probably hasn't been determined by him, and it is possible that he couldn't have lent at a lower rate even if he wanted to.

Len, I share most of your frustrations. I have been hugely entertained by you on the forums over the years, and I know exactly how much you have the Blades at heart. For my part, I have taken direct personal action to try & improve the lot of our club in the past. One Xmas Eve in the 90s I sat in Reg Brealey's living room in Lincolnshire telling him, exactly, why we needed him to get out of our club as quickly as possible. I also once sat in the Rising Sun on Abbey Lane for a couple of hours as Steven Hinchliffe tried, unsuccessfully, to explain to me why the supporters should endorse his attempts to take over the club.

But, whoever the target might be at any particular time, lets make sure that we use the right ammunition. The loans, and interest rates on them, aren't it.

 

[alcoblade]

Debate is fine......patronising people is not so fine......can't you see that.

Accepting peoples view is also part of a debate.

What is the point of debate if you always think you are right before you begin????

I can see that, and that's why you are right to take him (if you see it that way) to task. I can't see how leaving the forum to those who disagree with you helps.

UTB

 

[alcoblade]

This has been a debate?

Could have fooled me.

Better than it would have been is it was endless unchallenged posts by Len, with the rest of the membership now watching the Coronation Street Omnibus.....

UTB

 

[silverfox]

I can't see how leaving the forum to those who disagree with you helps.

UTB

Isn't that down to choice.......respect their choice.

 

[Foxy]

It's actually hard to have a discussion with you as you seem unable to understand relatively simple concepts.

It's not simple concepts I struggle to understand, it's you.

You said:

Unfortunately, the Tevez money already appears to be being airbrushed out of history.

Now, correct me if i'm wrong, but surely it's perfectly reasonable to think that by you claiming someone is "airbrushing out of history", you mean that they are attempting to remove, alter or cover the fact at hand? otherwise known as hiding?

Perhaps you'd care to explain what "airbrushing out of history" actually is in the world of intellectuals?

I said, for the third time, that the Tevez money has barely had a mention in the midst of all our debt talk and wasn't mentioned by Birch at all.

So by not mentioning it, what is he in effect doing? Bringing it out in the open or choosing to ignore it so that people do not notice it? Hiding?

None of that is hard to grasp, involves me moving goalposts or talking in French.

It is hard to grasp, because you use a turn of phrase that is most likely interpreted as one thing, then decide eventually when questioned about it, that it means something else entirely.

Rather than debating your opinion, you'd rather ignore or twist any direct question/opinion unless it is incredibly easy to counter or it supports your apparent opinion.

Any "discussion" therefore turns into "Len is correct, anyone else is stupid. I'm not going to tell you why your opinion is incorrect. If it looks like your opinion might have any form of point, I'll say I meant something else entirely or move onto my next piece of wisdom. Failing that, I'll pick some technicality or debatable definition and focus on that."

 

[beightonblade]

The £50 million debt doesn't worry me half as much as the lack of ambition and waste.......

owd trick have the property asset in one company and lease it to the trading company.

 

[lenners]

It's not simple concepts I struggle to understand, it's you.

You said:



Now, correct me if i'm wrong, but surely it's perfectly reasonable to think that by you claiming someone is "airbrushing out of history", you mean that they are attempting to remove, alter or cover the fact at hand? otherwise known as hiding?

Perhaps you'd care to explain what "airbrushing out of history" actually is in the world of intellectuals?



So by not mentioning it, what is he in effect doing? Bringing it out in the open or choosing to ignore it so that people do not notice it? Hiding?




It is hard to grasp, because you use a turn of phrase that is most likely interpreted as one thing, then decide eventually when questioned about it, that it means something else entirely.

Rather than debating your opinion, you'd rather ignore or twist any direct question/opinion unless it is incredibly easy to counter or it supports your apparent opinion.

Any "discussion" therefore turns into "Len is correct, anyone else is stupid. I'm not going to tell you why your opinion is incorrect. If it looks like your opinion might have any form of point, I'll say I meant something else entirely or move onto my next piece of wisdom. Failing that, I'll pick some technicality or debatable definition and focus on that."

Your main problem Foxy is that when the going gets tough, you simply seem to want to cuddle up to the club and can't have an opinion of your own.
This manifests itself in responses like yours today.
You struggle to debate because I do base my arguments on what we do know, what is in accounts, what the club has or hasn't said or commented on.
When our club is £48m in debt you'd better believe that we need to be asking questions more than ever about our finances.
It's our club and as it's been shown countless times over the years, the people who run football clubs often deserve the greatest scrutiny.
I think McCabe's done some good things at United but that does not mean we just sit there and believe any old bobbins that's thrown our way.
Looking back at the way the accounts were presented in December by the club should give anyone cause for reflection.
And to those who think that posts like this one are somehow driving people away from posting on forums, why?
If you don't want to talk about the money, post about the greatest five goals or how loud the PA is. It's your choice.

 

[Bladeloyal]

tony curries west ham goal ,steve wigleys dribble goal,woodwards corner goal,speedy mackeedies goal,deanes nearpost flick goal from a corner ,the pa systems gone like the team downhill

 

[Nick Jansky]

The £50 million debt doesn't worry me half as much as the lack of ambition and waste.......

owd trick have the property asset in one company and lease it to the trading company.

You know much more about all of this than you let on, Beighton!

Wondering if I know you? I lived in Sothall at one time, used to drink in the Belfry a bit.

 

[lenners]

Mine's always going to be the pinball effort at Leicester...

 

[beightonblade]

You know much more about all of this than you let on, Beighton!

Wondering if I know you? I lived in Sothall at one time, used to drink in the Belfry a bit.

no i'm just a thick fooker who can hardley spell reight ....always supped in Fox...Belfry was for rich folk

oh here are a few Beighton Blades i know......

Lenny,Scroggs,Percy,Kwangoo thats enuff for now.

 

[Bladeloyal]

You know much more about all of this than you let on, Beighton!

Wondering if I know you? I lived in Sothall at one time, used to drink in the Belfry a bit.

belfry hang your head in shame never been beighton lol

 

[Bladeloyal]

no i'm just a thick fooker who can hardley spell reight ....always supped in Fox...Belfry was for rich folk

oh here are a few Beighton Blades i know......

Lenny,Scroggs,Percy,Kwangoo thats enuff for now.

thought that lot had past away years ago

 

[Bladeloyal]

Mine's always going to be the pinball effort at Leicester...

thinking about it ,id go with edwards pele goal.

 

[lenners]

thinking about it ,id go with edwards pele goal.

You're going ability, I'm going emotion and importance of the goal.