Well, we were due some bad news. - Statement on property transfer

[PokerBlade]

I'm saying he's gutted that he has to sell his half of a company tentatively valued at 150m for 5m, effectively losing 70m. Ok he's getting market value for the other assets but he's still effectively losing out.
My comments about the prince are that it appears most people on here are singing his praises, whilst McCabe is now viewed as a c**t, not a view I share which is why I have not written it in full. Judge the prince after 10 years in charge at which point I suspect the same people will have the same view of him as they do McCabe.

Edit: and as regards the other assets he has been given a figure to sell those, for which he must comply and is doing. The problem is from the additional areas of land he has removed from the whole (correct me here but he always had plans to build student accommodation which always seemed a bit mad to me but has now worked in his favour).

It's utterly irrelevant what the company is now worth if it wasn't worth that at the time McCabe agreed to the sale. Because the company might have been worth £0 without the investment or expertise of the buyer.

 

[Davalon]

Don't even feel sorry for him anymore.

He thinks he should get paid for his own mistakes over years just because the club has become successful recently.

He needs to lie in the bed he made.

 

[8lade]

It's utterly irrelevant what the company is now worth if it wasn't worth that at the time McCabe agreed to the sale. Because the company might have been worth £0 without the investment or expertise of the buyer.

When the initial sale of 50% was agreed, it was for a pound and 50% of future investment. When McCabe has been forced to sell it was for £5m, when his half is actually worth £52m we were in the Premier League, he's going to be gutted. However McCabe owns parcels of land not accounted for in the judicial hearing, having just had his trousers down (and this is why I'm establishing why he would feel hard done by) he's going to want as much as he can get for that land, anybody who says they wouldn't do the same either cares nothing for wealth or is daft. Additionally anybody claiming they wouldn't do that to their club cares nothing for their dependants.

 

[PokerBlade]

When the initial sale of 50% was agreed, it was for a pound and 50% of future investment. When McCabe has been forced to sell it was for £5m, when his half is actually worth £52m we were in the Premier League, he's going to be gutted. However McCabe owns parcels of land not accounted for in the judicial hearing, having just had his trousers down (and this is why I'm establishing why he would feel hard done by) he's going to want as much as he can get for that land, anybody who says they wouldn't do the same either cares nothing for wealth or is daft. Additionally anybody claiming they wouldn't do that to their club cares nothing for their dependants.

The clauses under which the Prince has been caused to buy the club and its assets were not decided upon when we were in the Premier League.

 

[Sean Thornton]

When the initial sale of 50% was agreed, it was for a pound and 50% of future investment. When McCabe has been forced to sell it was for £5m, when his half is actually worth £52m we were in the Premier League, he's going to be gutted. However McCabe owns parcels of land not accounted for in the judicial hearing, having just had his trousers down (and this is why I'm establishing why he would feel hard done by) he's going to want as much as he can get for that land, anybody who says they wouldn't do the same either cares nothing for wealth or is daft. Additionally anybody claiming they wouldn't do that to their club cares nothing for their dependants.

McCabe made the £5m move. That was his mistake.

Playing devils advocate, how about he may have not included the additional land as a makeweight if he lost the case? Accepts an offer that's not included in the court case then ups the price as the settlement date approaches, guessing that HRH will jib and then goes to arbitration hoping Justice Fancourts valuation is increased.

 

[Caveblade]

Billionaires dont because billionaires by being generous. They are normally pretty hard nosed and would screw over a relative for cash.

If McCabe had been straight and rather than try to screw the Prince over to get 1/2 the club on the cheap he might be sitting on 1/2 of the American investers cash today instead of £5 million.

He has deliberately separated Land from the club and then separated it again so that he will always have a ransom strip. That what this land is. It was never going to be part of the deal, that would mean he was out of the picture.

As for the numbers around how much he has invested, I am slightly circumspect. He has no doubt put his hand on his pocket but the numbers get bigger with every Scarborough press release and take no account of player sales every year and cup runs.

Successful Business man yes, Bladey Blade absolutely not. I agree with the earlier quote about trusting what our kev says.

I would hold on if I was the Prince, I have a feeling land prices are about to plummet.

 

[Worksop II]

I have a feeling land prices are about to plummet.

As will the Clubs TV income, I can see us losing 1/2 a season now, and another 1/2 a season straightening up things sometime in the future

 

[8lade]

OK I'll go back to my opening statement in defence of McCabe

McCabe has lost the club for £5m (value of a PL club £150m) and is being forced to sell the ground for an agreed price. He's going to be millions, probably £100m out of pocket since taking United on. There are pockets of land which aren't included in that deal and he wants as much as possible for them (i suspect talk of flats is leverage) put yourself in his position, anybody who has just gone through the last 18 months that McCabe has would do the same, I would.

Corrected to £30-£35m (thank you Sean)

Re these pockets of land. My understanding is that Kev hasn't stripped these out of the whole shebang as such but that somehow these were owned by a "previous director" who sold to a Scarborough company. ( Defence - club didn't have the money etc) . Obviously he saw the potential there and they were ensconced safely within the Scarborough maze.

(Again thank you Sean)

So McCabe didn't amalgamate the land but why should he, it was purchased separately. McCabe sold half the club to the prince and then 'lost' the other half for 5m, or sold it for that money whichever way you want to look at it. The land without the extra bits has to be sold for an amount fixed in court but he doesn't have to sell the pockets of land that is now open for negotiation, and yet posters on here are expecting him to just give it up,very few people would do that.

 

[PokerBlade]

OK I'll go back to my opening statement in defence of McCabe


Corrected to £30-£35m (thank you Sean)


(Again thank you Sean)

So McCabe didn't amalgamate the land but why should he, it was purchased separately. McCabe sold half the club to the prince and then 'lost' the other half for 5m, or sold it for that money whichever way you want to look at it. The land without the extra bits has to be sold for an amount fixed in court but he doesn't have to sell the pockets of land that is now open for negotiation, and yet posters on here are expecting him to just give it up,very few people would do that.

I don't think anyone's expecting him to just give it up. I think people are saying that, especially in the light of a judge's summary that criticised his persistent bad faith action, he's being a dick again.

 

[8lade]

OK just one thing I would add to all this, if you've ever been to court it will dispel a lot of presumptions (things I presumed anyway):
Judges are not obviously clever.
Judges are not always fair or impartial.
They allow some ridiculous things but dismiss some sensible ones.
There's probably loads of other things I could come up with but these are off the top of my head, therefore I like to hear evidence in it's purist form rather than filtered through a judge.

 

[PokerBlade]

OK just one thing I would add to all this, if you've ever been to court it will dispel a lot of presumptions (things I presumed anyway):
Judges are not obviously clever.
Judges are not always fair or impartial.
They allow some ridiculous things but dismiss some sensible ones.
There's probably loads of other things I could come up with but these are off the top of my head, therefore I like to hear evidence in it's purist form rather than filtered through a judge.

OK, but this was a high court judge who went through point by point the ways and reasons why he didn't consider McCabe to be a credible witness and did consider him to be a bad faith actor.

I really can't be bothered to go point by point through the judge's summary but it's not something you can handwave away like this.

 

[8lade]

OK, but this was a high court judge who went through point by point the ways and reasons why he didn't consider McCabe to be a credible witness and did consider him to be a bad faith actor.

Again fair enough but I'm sure he had some harsh words for the prince too (I don't know) at the time many of us thought it was 2 wise guys trying to get the better of each other.

 

[PokerBlade]

Again fair enough but I'm sure he had some harsh words for the prince too (I don't know) at the time many of us thought it was 2 wise guys trying to get the better of each other.

If you don't know then I suggest reading the judge's summary rather than dismissing judges as stupid.

 

[Worksop II]

Again fair enough but I'm sure he had some harsh words for the prince too (I don't know) at the time many of us thought it was 2 wise guys trying to get the better of each other.

Here you are owd luv, have a quencher before you start, your Hero dont come out of it well

Here

Kev happily bottom feeding in League 1, 20 fuckin years of pissin around

 

[Sean Thornton]

OK just one thing I would add to all this, if you've ever been to court it will dispel a lot of presumptions (things I presumed anyway):
Judges are not obviously clever.
Judges are not always fair or impartial.
They allow some ridiculous things but dismiss some sensible ones.
There's probably loads of other things I could come up with but these are off the top of my head, therefore I like to hear evidence in it's purist form rather than filtered through a judge.

Mr Tutton. I think you need a nap......

 

[8lade]

If you don't know then I suggest reading the judge's summary rather than dismissing judges as stupid.

Now where did I do that?

 

[PokerBlade]

Now where did I do that?

I didn't use your exact terms but:

"Judges are not obviously clever.
Judges are not always fair or impartial.
They allow some ridiculous things but dismiss some sensible ones."

This was abject dismissal of a verdict and summary you apparently haven't read. Which is fine. It's not particularly exciting reading. It's just I don't see the relevance of this at all unless it's to call into question the character of someone you know nothing about. Maybe you didn't call him stupid outright but it is laughable to say high court judges aren't "obviously clever".

 

[8lade]

we're aside from the point here but what I mean by that is that not all judges strike you as being particularly clever, unlike some people you will meet. I made this statement as I expected people who have achieved that position to shine, they don't always. Of course Fancourt may be one of those who do, I haven't met him but it was more a warning not to take anything at face value unless you have heard/seen the underlying evidence.

 

[8lade]

Mr Tutton. I think you need a nap......

Was that McCabe's defence? As if a lawyer/barrister would be wasting his time arguing on here.
I could always add it to the bill I suppose...

 

[1889]

What land behind John street?

The first thirty yards of the pitch, from goal line to goal line? Once the flats are built everyone in John Street stand will have a similar view to those in Pukka Pie Corner. (Assuming the flats will have duel aspect living rooms)

 

[8lade]

and while we're on it Sean, call yourself a son?

 

[PokerBlade]

we're aside from the point here but what I mean by that is that not all judges strike you as being particularly clever, unlike some people you will meet. I made this statement as I expected people who have achieved that position to shine, they don't always. Of course Fancourt may be one of those who do, I haven't met him but it was more a warning not to take anything at face value unless you have heard/seen the underlying evidence.

So you were just absentmindedly pointing out that not all judges are geniuses and we should consider them individually. Okay. Weird thing to bring up in passing. Even more so at the same time as saying you haven't read his summary. I have no idea what relevance that post even has now in light of this one.

 

[JohnDenver]

As if a lawyer/barrister would be wasting his time arguing on here.

Calling Pinchy and Darren.

 

[8lade]

So you were just absentmindedly pointing out that not all judges are geniuses and we should consider them individually. Okay. Weird thing to bring up in passing. Even more so at the same time as saying you haven't read his summary. I have no idea what relevance that post even has now in light of this one.

Nothing I have posted on this thread has been absentminded, I was pointing out that even judges (who you might expect to be clever people) aren't always that samrt therefore Fancourt's rulings about McCabe are not to be taken as fact. They are a man's opinion of another man but you should observe the evidence and make up your own mind rather than trust somebody 'because he's a high court judge'. If you read the evidence and come to the same conclusion fair enough but as with the case of 'the one we don't talk about' don't expect everybody to have the same opinion of the same evidence.

 

[PokerBlade]

Nothing I have posted on this thread has been absentminded, I was pointing out that even judges (who you might expect to be clever people) aren't always that samrt therefore Fancourt's rulings about McCabe are not to be taken as fact. They are a man's opinion of another man but you should observe the evidence and make up your own mind rather than trust somebody 'because he's a high court judge'. If you read the evidence and come to the same conclusion fair enough but as with the case of 'the one we don't talk about' don't expect everybody to have the same opinion of the same evidence.

Yeah, I mean we're back to your abject dismissal by calling into question the intellect of a summary you haven't read. I don't know how to respond to that with much more than to say not all posts are obviously clever.

 

[8lade]

Yeah, I mean we're back to your abject dismissal by calling into question the intellect of a summary you haven't read. I don't know how to respond to that with much more than to say not all posts are obviously clever.

My guess and I could be wrong, is that you've had enough of this discussion since you are resorting to barely veiled name calling. All I'm saying and one or two people have reiterated this, is hang fire before damming the man who kept United going through some of our darkest history. All I can see at the moment is a business man trying to get the most money for his assets.

 

[bertieblade]

Nothing I have posted on this thread has been absentminded, I was pointing out that even judges (who you might expect to be clever people) aren't always that samrt therefore Fancourt's rulings about McCabe are not to be taken as fact. They are a man's opinion of another man but you should observe the evidence and make up your own mind rather than trust somebody 'because he's a high court judge'. If you read the evidence and come to the same conclusion fair enough but as with the case of 'the one we don't talk about' don't expect everybody to have the same opinion of the same evidence.

interesting attitude to life where you do not trust anything unless you see it with your own eyes, even though in this instance you have not.
I have read the transcript and needless to say it had not changed my opinion of McCabe that I have gathered from talking to ex players, managers and agents.
I find your thought process to be Understandable if you want to take things to the extreme, but you must put some real mileage in

 

[bertieblade]

Everyone is entitled to an opinion on every aspect of life, the best of which are usually based around personal experience. Failing that people you trust, admittedly everything you hear should not be taken as gospel but people’s experiences in life are a v good barometer and I would say JF is quite an expert in his field and formed a very damming view of mr McCabe.
Either way we all blades, just that you are prepared to give him more benefit if the doubt.
Stay safe and look forward to the time when We are all if one voice behind the team

 

[8lade]

interesting attitude to life where you do not trust anything unless you see it with your own eyes, even though in this instance you have not.

The first part of this statement (up to the comma) is absolutely true, I've been mislead too many times mistakenly and on purpose to act otherwise. After the comma, it doesn't matter whether I've seen it or not I'm just saying it's one man's opinion of another and I may have a different one. Having said all that if I agreed with the judge, that would mean that McCabe acted improperly in that instance and as we know the prince's actions (moving the shares to a different company) were not entirely in good faith.
McCabe for me has built up a lot of kudos and this from one of the guys who 10 years ago was shouting 'where's money gone?' It's quite sad if this forum is representative of the fan base that as soon as he was ousted and now wants paying for an asset he has gone back to being the villain.

 

[PokerBlade]

My guess and I could be wrong, is that you've had enough of this discussion since you are resorting to barely veiled name calling. All I'm saying and one or two people have reiterated this, is hang fire before damming the man who kept United going through some of our darkest history. All I can see at the moment is a business man trying to get the most money for his assets.

I hope you see the irony of picking up on "barely veiled namecalling" because at least I'm doing it on the basis of having actually read what you've written. If it's insulting for me to say it to you, it was insulting when you said it.