Let me spell it out for you Clappers

[Crouchy]

Of course I believe my own points - I think McCabe is charging rent to get some wedge back. Is that really an outlandish statement?

McCabe was not obliged to separate the land from the club but has done so in order to maintain control over the assets should he be successful in "attracting investment" - ie selling all or part of the football club to some other poor bastard. He is obliged to charge rent under transfer pricing rules. There is no other reason to do so as the rent obligation makes the club less attractive to a potential purchaser / "investor".

If McCabe wanted "some wedge back" would he:

(a) use cash generated by the SUFC Limited business to repay some of his loans, of which the lending person / entity would receive 100%

(b) pay rent upwards through a corporate chain through which it will attract corporate taxes and then personal taxes when finally dividended up to him?

(b) will leave the loans untouched. The higher the value of the loans, the less attractive the club is to a potential investor. In order to make the club more attractive he capitalises or writes off all of or a proportion of the loans. This does not really get him "some wedge back".

 

[Pinchy]

The idea that Kevin McCabe has, or ever had, any intention or hope of making money out of SUFC defies all the logic of football finance. Even if he did now claw back a little of the massive (sorry) sum of his own money; the money that has kept this club afloat for years, how can that, in any sensible universe, be described as 'ripping us off'"?

 

[beightonblade]

The idea that Kevin McCabe has, or ever had, any intention or hope of making money out of SUFC defies all the logic of football finance. Even if he did now claw back a little of the massive (sorry) sum of his own money; the money that has kept this club afloat for years, how can that, in any sensible universe, be described as 'ripping us off'"?

Who says he's ripping us off ?
His mistakes and we pay ...seems fair enuff !

 

[Revolution]

The idea that Kevin McCabe has, or ever had, any intention or hope of making money out of SUFC defies all the logic of football finance. Even if he did now claw back a little of the massive (sorry) sum of his own money; the money that has kept this club afloat for years, how can that, in any sensible universe, be described as 'ripping us off'"?

Pinchy, I don't agree with all you say on this topic but your arguments are certainly cogent and well thought out, so I'm interested in your view on one point: would you be comfortable with McCabe selling the club but retaining ownership of the stadium and the academy and charging the new owners rent to use them?​

 

[Patrick Suffaux]

Pinchy, I don't agree with all you say on this topic but your arguments are certainly cogent and well thought out, so I'm interested in your view on one point: would you be comfortable with McCabe selling the club but retaining ownership of the stadium and the academy and charging the new owners rent to use them?

If I may.....its a good question and I suppose depends on how you view McCabe. I realise the question is directed elsewhere but personally I would be happy with that for as long as it benefited SUFC on the pitch.

His mistakes and we pay ...seems fair enuff !

That's life.....for a prime example see Labour and the Great British public. Its his money anyway and his club effectively.

 

[Pinchy]

Pinchy, I don't agree with all you say on this topic but your arguments are certainly cogent and well thought out, so I'm interested in your view on one point: would you be comfortable with McCabe selling the club but retaining ownership of the stadium and the academy and charging the new owners rent to use them?​

As Patrick says - it depends on how you view McCabe. It would also inevitably depend upon the identity of the new owners. I'm not starry-eyed about McCabe, He has made too many serious errors. I firmly believe, though, that he will do everything he can to protect us from the wolves; not throw us to them. That includes not selling up, as I'm sure he could have, to the first bunch of charlatans to wave a rubber cheque book. The likes of Beighton Blade would, simplistically and recklessly, have him do just that. That way lies Samantha Hashimi, chaos and ultimately, ruination.

Kevin McCabe has spent a large slice of his personal fortune on (literally) supporting our club. None of us have the right to demand that he continue to do so to the point of financial exhaustion. Owning a football club such as ours is a labour of love. It is a money-pit; not a gold mine.

In a boardroom previously inhabited by an eclectic collection of ten-bob millionaires, charlatans, drag queens, convicted fraudsters and international fugitives, he is indeed, for all his mistakes, and against less than stellar competition, the "best we've ever had". Simplistic, knee-jerk nonsense (without any realistic alternative plan or vision) will follow from Beighton shortly!

That, Rev, is my convoluted, tentative and conditional route to answering your question in the affirmative!!

 

[Darren]

As Patrick says - it depends on how you view McCabe. It would also inevitably depend upon the identity of the new owners. I'm not starry-eyed about McCabe, He has made too many serious errors. I firmly believe, though, that he will do everything he can to protect us from the wolves; not throw us to them. That includes not selling up, as I'm sure he could have, to the first bunch of charlatans to wave a rubber cheque book. The likes of Beighton Blade would, simplistically and recklessly, have him do just that. That way lies Samantha Hashimi, chaos and ultimately, ruination.

Kevin McCabe has spent a large slice of his personal fortune on (literally) supporting our club. None of us have the right to demand that he continue to do so to the point of financial exhaustion. Owning a football club such as ours is a labour of love. It is a money-pit; not a gold mine.

In a boardroom previously inhabited by an eclectic collection of ten-bob millionaires, charlatans, drag queens, convicted fraudsters and international fugitives, he is indeed, for all his mistakes, and against less than stellar competition, the "best we've ever had". Simplistic, knee-jerk nonsense (without any realistic alternative plan or vision) will follow from Beighton shortly!

That, Rev, is my convoluted, tentative and conditional route to answering your question in the affirmative!!

I generally agree.

His most monumental mistake, from which everything else has followed, was appointing Robson as manager. Any halfway decent manager would have got us straight back into the PL with the squad we had in 07-08 (as shown my when a no more than a halfway decent manager in Blackwell suddenly got that squad getting automatic promotion form results).

 

[Micalijo]

McCabe was not obliged to separate the land from the club but has done so in order to maintain control over the assets should he be successful in "attracting investment" - ie selling all or part of the football club to some other poor bastard. He is obliged to charge rent under transfer pricing rules. There is no other reason to do so as the rent obligation makes the club less attractive to a potential purchaser / "investor".

If McCabe wanted "some wedge back" would he:

(a) use cash generated by the SUFC Limited business to repay some of his loans, of which the lending person / entity would receive 100%

(b) pay rent upwards through a corporate chain through which it will attract corporate taxes and then personal taxes when finally dividended up to him?

(b) will leave the loans untouched. The higher the value of the loans, the less attractive the club is to a potential investor. In order to make the club more attractive he capitalises or writes off all of or a proportion of the loans. This does not really get him "some wedge back".

That all makes sense - apart from the almost certain fact that losses would be available elsewehere in the group to reduce tax on the rent received by plc - but my worry is over the future of BDTBL and the question of whether or not SUFC will be playing there in the long term. I am now - following the split - far from certain that this is the case.

 

[Micalijo]

If Mic posts his home address, I'll send him the letter. Then we'll get all the answers we need.

27 Rue de la Valad
Brussels
Belgium

 

[Micalijo]

My personal view is that a man who has put £xmillion into the bottomless pit that is SUFC and who could have shafted the club at any time he chose is hardly going to start doing the latter now.

If you send the letter two things can happen:

1. You get a genuine reply which will put minds at rest; or
2. You will get some corporate bullshit which can be posted on here, disseminated amongst the fans and thus show that you were right all along, and put pressure on McCabe to actually come out with a genuine answer.

Either way you (and the rest of us) are winners. So I repeat, why not send the letter? It couldn't be that you are not actually really interested in finding out what is going on, but are actually far more interested in expressing your ego on here and lording it over us lesser beings who can't see the truth with your penetrating insight?

Could it?

Why don't you send it? Get one of your pals who is a shareholder to send it. Foxy or someone like that. I don't want to - simple as that.

Quite how you have engineered this daft, childish situation where you draft a factually incorrect letter and vehemently expect me to send it is beyond me.

 

[Crouchy]

That all makes sense - apart from the almost certain fact that losses would be available elsewehere in the group to reduce tax on the rent received by plc.

Possibly but not necessarily - it depends the trading position of the rest of the group but there may well be losses that can be group relieved (if indeed the company receiving the rents is profitable itself at the moment, which is in no way certain).

Anyway, as I continue to point out - the rent is not an extraction device, it is an obligation. Optimal extraction is loan repayment.

 

[Darren]

Why don't you send it? Get one of your pals who is a shareholder to send it. Foxy or someone like that. I don't want to - simple as that.

Quite how you have engineered this daft, childish situation where you draft a factually incorrect letter and vehemently expect me to send it is beyond me.

I don't have any pals who are shareholders (I am not sure why you think Foxy is my pal) and I have corrected it to make it accurate (keep up).

Obviously, any other shareholder who would like to send it can do so, but as you seem to be the person most concerned about this issue, it puzzles me somewhat why you so vehemently refuse to actually make the most basic enquiries to find out what is actually going on.

 

[Darren]

Possibly but not necessarily - it depends the trading position of the rest of the group but there may well be losses that can be group relieved (if indeed the company receiving the rents is profitable itself at the moment, which is in no way certain).

Anyway, as I continue to point out - the rent is not an extraction device, it is an obligation. Optimal extraction is loan repayment.

So to cut a long story short, if McCabe wanted to stuff SUFC and extract some money , there are much more certain and much less convoluted ways of doing so?

 

[Patrick Suffaux]

I generally agree.

His most monumental mistake, from which everything else has followed, was appointing Robson as manager.

Wasn't it just. This was the catalyst for a series of poor decisions that followed.

 

[alcoblade]

II am not sure why you think Foxy is my pal

Because neither of you hate Sheffield United?

UTB

 

[Crouchy]

So to cut a long story short, if McCabe wanted to stuff SUFC and extract some money , there are much more certain and much less convoluted ways of doing so?

It's complicated because repaying loans to directors / directors' interests can be fraudulent if there are other creditors who are not being paid, but that appears unlikely to be the case because McCabe has loaned the money to the club so that the ordinary creditors are paid and thus no third party creditor can bring the club down.

Charging rent from one company to another doesn't extract money from the group or settle any loans, all it does is move money around the group - which McCabe controls anyway. However, it may still be in his interests to do so - a lot depends upon the structure of the group, whether it is owned directly by McCabe personally or through offshore companies etc etc. Stuff I don't know and really couldn't give a shit about.

It is also important to recognise that McCabe seeking repayment of his loan is not "stuffing" SUFC. I don't moan at the iniquity of actually having to repay my mortgage.

However, in simple terms, if you were , say, a builder, and you needed a few quid to take the missus to Whitby for a mucky weekend, would you find it easier to do some building work for someone and hope to be paid for it (with the prospect of paying tax on those earnings in the future) or would you ask the mate who owes you £100 for your money back?

 

[Crouchy]

Wasn't it just. This was the catalyst for a series of poor decisions that followed.

What you said

 

[Crouchy]

However, in simple terms, if you were , say, a builder, and you needed a few quid to take the missus to Whitby for a mucky weekend, would you find it easier to do some building work for someone and hope to be paid for it (with the prospect of paying tax on those earnings in the future) or would you ask the mate who owes you £100 for your money back?

Darren, apologies. I realise that if I had tailored my example to your personal circumstances properly, the line "take the missus to Whitby for a mucky weekend" would have read "take the missus and her sister..........."

Mea culpa

 

[Pinchy]

Because neither of you hate Sheffield United?

UTB

Because both of them are sex people?

 

[Darren]

Darren, apologies. I realise that if I had tailored my example to your personal circumstances properly, the line "take the missus to Whitby for a mucky weekend" would have read "take the missus and her sister..........."

Mea culpa

Actually, it would be my missus and my fiery Spanish lodger

 

[Darren]

Because both of them are sex people?

I think Adam Ant put it best...

Ant music for sexpeople
Sexmusic for antpeople
Get off your knees and hear the insect prayer.....

 

[Darren]

It's complicated because repaying loans to directors / directors' interests can be fraudulent if there are other creditors who are not being paid, but that appears unlikely to be the case because McCabe has loaned the money to the club so that the ordinary creditors are paid and thus no third party creditor can bring the club down.

Charging rent from one company to another doesn't extract money from the group or settle any loans, all it does is move money around the group - which McCabe controls anyway. However, it may still be in his interests to do so - a lot depends upon the structure of the group, whether it is owned directly by McCabe personally or through offshore companies etc etc. Stuff I don't know and really couldn't give a shit about.

It is also important to recognise that McCabe seeking repayment of his loan is not "stuffing" SUFC. I don't moan at the iniquity of actually having to repay my mortgage.

However, in simple terms, if you were , say, a builder, and you needed a few quid to take the missus to Whitby for a mucky weekend, would you find it easier to do some building work for someone and hope to be paid for it (with the prospect of paying tax on those earnings in the future) or would you ask the mate who owes you £100 for your money back?

By "stuffing", I meant destroying Sheffield United, which he could quite legally do ( think) by calling in his loans.

 

[Crouchy]

By "stuffing", I meant destroying Sheffield United, which he could quite legally do ( think) by calling in his loans.

He could. I would think that message boards full of people accusing in him in so many words of either fraud or profiteering on the back of the club are more likely to make him do it than not.

I think we can all agree that he has made some major (Robson) mistakes, but the constant drip of vitriol against him really annoys me. But of course if he was the massive Blade he claims to be he'd have already sold his daughters into prostitution to buy us a 20 goal striker. What has he done instead? He's built a hotel! What a cunt!

 

[Maidenhead]

He could. I would think that message boards full of people accusing in him in so many words of either fraud or profiteering on the back of the club are more likely to make him do it than not.

I think we can all agree that he has made some major (Robson) mistakes, but the constant drip of vitriol against him really annoys me. But of course if he was the massive Blade he claims to be he'd have already sold his daughters into prostitution to buy us a 20 goal striker. What has he done instead? He's built a hotel! What a cunt!

Just for you Crouchy............

...... LOL

 

[Darren]

He could. I would think that message boards full of people accusing in him in so many words of either fraud or profiteering on the back of the club are more likely to make him do it than not.

I think we can all agree that he has made some major (Robson) mistakes, but the constant drip of vitriol against him really annoys me. But of course if he was the massive Blade he claims to be he'd have already sold his daughters into prostitution to buy us a 20 goal striker. What has he done instead? He's built a hotel! What a cunt!

I'm with you on that. He's a very rich tax exile, so not exactly in my list of "people I fundamentally morally approve of", but I can't see that, vis-a-vis Sheffield United he has ever done anything other that what he perceived to be in the best interests of the club. Has he made horredndous mistakes? yes. Has he been dishonest or greedy? No. Are people who believe the latter arses? Yes.

 

[Kenilworth]

I'm with you on that. He's a very rich tax exile, so not exactly in my list of "people I fundamentally morally approve of", but I can't see that, vis-a-vis Sheffield United he has ever done anything other that what he perceived to be in the best interests of the club. Has he made horredndous mistakes? yes. Has he been dishonest or greedy? No. Are people who believe the latter arses? Yes.

Absolutely Darren -

BTW what did you think of Sean Bean's drama aired on BBC1 last night?

 

[JohnDenver]

Has he been dishonest or greedy? No. Are people who believe the latter arses? Yes.

Brace! Brace!

(I think you've extended the life of this thread even further)

 

[Rodley]

Some insightful stuff on this thread. I still don't understand it, but insightful nonetheless. ;o)

 

[Kenilworth]

Some insightful stuff on this thread. I still don't understand it, but insightful nonetheless. ;o)

Don't you mean incite-ful (even though it's not a proper word)?

 

[judge]

Some insightful stuff on this thread. I still don't understand it, but insightful nonetheless. ;o)

Do you mean inciteful ? :-D