Jim Phipps on Facebook

[William Henry Foulkes]

I can't find the bit where I says you have to spend the other 40%.

A superficial reading of this would be that if you only spend 60% and don't spend 40% then that 60% becomes 100% doesn't it?

Genuine question.

Not for the first time I may have missed something.

 

[Sean Thornton]

I wasn't talking about McCabes losses. Would admin affect McCabes rights over the ground? Wouldn't that be just marvellous should a new investor come in shortly after administration has been imposed and McCabe decides he's retaining the ground. Please tell me there isn't a loop hole that allows him to do that. The Scarborough Group are in need of a few more central Sheffield apartment blocks....

I said that because you questioned why any succesful businessman would throw money away. McCabe certainly fits that bill.

Scarborough Group effectively own the ground as it owns Sheffield United Ltd.

Sheffield United Football Club Ltd is owned by Blades Leisure Ltd which is owned 50/50 the Prince and McCabe/McCabes businesses. If the football club went into admin, the ground doesn't come with it. That's a seperate deal.

All of this was announced to shareholders some time ago and is all legal and above board before the Rumpoles come on all bewigged and gowned up.

I'm not being funny when I say I am amazed you didn't know this.

 

[Barney]

I said that because you questioned why any succesful businessman would throw money away. McCabe certainly fits that bill.

Scarborough Group effectively own the ground as it owns Sheffield United Ltd.

Sheffield United Football Club Ltd is owned by Blades Leisure Ltd which is owned 50/50 the Prince and McCabe/McCabes businesses. If the football club went into admin, the ground doesn't come with it. That's a seperate deal.

All of this was announced to shareholders some time ago and is all legal and above board before the Rumpoles come on all bewigged and gowned up.

I'm not being funny when I say I am amazed you didn't know this.

I must have been confused with Sheffield United Ltd. and Sheffield United Football Club Ltd.

I thought the ground was owned by Scarborough Group under McCabes 50% of Sheffield United Football Club Ltd.

 

[BushBlade]

A superficial reading of this would be that if you only spend 60% and don't spend 40% then that 60% becomes 100% doesn't it?

Genuine question.

Not for the first time I may have missed something.

Can't you just keep it as 'working capital' or 'reserves'?

 

[MobileBlade]

So you admit it's a matter of the owners not wanting to spend the money, rather than being prohibited to do so?

How willing would you be to effectively piss that amount of money in the shower?

 

[MobileBlade]

I can honestly see the Prince cutting his losses and looking elsewhere if we don't go up this season. How any successful business person would want to continue losing the sort of money he is, is baffling. His dream of the premier league money dispenser isn't quite panning out as he'd hoped. If McCabe couldn't "come to the rescue", why is administration such a feared prospect? Look at where some other clubs have got to shortly after going down that route.

Yep. Like Darlington, Rushden & Diamonds, Halifax Town, Maidstone United. How many clubs have actually gone into administration in the last three seasons?

 

[MobileBlade]

Can you buy a company back after you've put it into administration? Genuinely didn't know that.

Happens more often than you may realise. Generally it is to get rid of the debt and buy back the assets. Don't do it right and you have problems, though. Sports Direct is best recent example with UTC.

 

[BushBlade]

How willing would you be to effectively piss that amount of money in the shower?

That's not the point I'm making.
To answer your question, it depends on how much I had in the first place. I certainly wouldn't want to do a 'Mark Golberg' nor would I expect anyone else to.

 

[BushBlade]

Happens more often than you may realise. Generally it is to get rid of the debt and buy back the assets. Don't do it right and you have problems, though. Sports Direct is best recent example with UTC.

Cheers, I'll read up on it.

 

[MobileBlade]

I'd start off with those with contracts ending June 2016 which if my observations of that contract thread are correct are:

Long
Willis
Kennedy
Collins
Alcock
McEveley
JCR
Cuvelier
Flynn
McFadzean
Higdon
Sammon - wouldn't have been here in the first place
Edgar - as above
Woolford - as above
Hammond - as above


Then, if it looked do-able and worth it I'd look to offload those that are on lengthier contracts but still not good enough.

Which equates to anyone other than Brayford, Che, Done, Sharp, Harris, Freeman and K.Wallace(?).

And for a realistic answer ....

Remember you can only sign 3 between now and January.

 

[BushBlade]

Yep. Like Darlington, Rushden & Diamonds, Halifax Town, Maidstone United. How many clubs have actually gone into administration in the last three seasons?

I thought they were liquidated? I know R&D were unsustainable with Max Griggs' contribution and I think that ex-con chairman at Darlo saddled them with a stadium they couldn't afford making them an unsustainable business. Halifax seem to go into administration regularly and I think they've been liquidated a couple of times. Maidstone were a former non league club who overstretched themselves.

I don't think it likely that a club that can attract 20k fans after five long years in this agricultural division would be liquidated. Even if KM kept hold of the Lane. Not now. But I do think the football bubble may be close to bursting. Then, all bets will be off. Clubs will be going into admin left, right and centre. But that's for another thread, probably on 'other sport and football'.

 

[GRUMPY BLADE]

Because its done, gone, finished. Maguire is not coming back. Murphy is not coming back. Quinn is not coming back (maybe). Jones, Currie and Sabella are not coming back. Done (as in dun not Matty), finished, Dusted. What do we need and how are we going to finance it? Simples.

Currie came back.

 

[Barney]

And for a realistic answer ....

Remember you can only sign 3 between now and January.

Eh? I'm talking about how the prince could have provided the funds for this prior to the start of the season.

 

[MobileBlade]

Eh? I'm talking about how the prince could have provided the funds for this prior to the start of the season.

Thought it was too much to ask to try and have a sensible debate about moving forward.

 

[Woodwardfan]

Moving forward, who has a view about the amount of shares the prince owns now?

How much was SUFC worth when he was given 50% of the shares; bear in mind freehold assets are not under the ownership of the club.

The prince has injected £13m. Does he still own only half? At some stage any loans he has made will have to be converted into equity, if they have not already. At what stage does the prince become sole owner?

That will be a day for rejoicing for many on this forum, but now that the prince and Phipps have been running the show for over 2 years are they so confident that getting KM out of the way is the cure for all evils? KM was subbing the club to the tune of £1m per month until he drew a line in the sand. The prince has injected £13m in 27 months and we are where we are.

I think we'll go up but a number on here have given up. Simply throwing money at the problem does not guarantee success as KM well knows. Hillsborough of all places is now being held up as a success model because they've spent some dosh - it's a fraction of what KM has spent over the years, £3m, £4m footballers et al...been there done that a number of times.

It's all about appointing the right football manager. No matter how much you spend the manager has to sign the right players and set them up right and motivate them to win football matches.

Was it about 99.5% of posters on here who agreed Adkins was a great appointment? and Clough before him? What more can the prince do? With KM we all had doubts about all his manager appointments. The prince has done better, considering our league status but from the day the manager is appointed it's down to him, not the prince - just as it was with all KM's appointments.

My worry is that harrassing Phipps on Facebook could well encourage the prince to bail out before he throws more good money after bad. Km has been a martyr all these yaers, writing cheques and only getting abuse. Supporters like you and me should get on Facebook and support the owners, encourage them to stay. Success has to be earned and as a club we have not earned it since 2006, but we have spent a small fortune, multi millions more than SWFC. It's not just about money.

 

[Grappler]

Happens more often than you may realise. Generally it is to get rid of the debt and buy back the assets. Don't do it right and you have problems, though. Sports Direct is best recent example with UTC.

Closer to home I think this is what happened with Nonna's on Ecclesall Road. Closed down and reopened with the same people, slightly different company name, hey presto, no debt.

 

[Sean Thornton]

Moving forward, who has a view about the amount of shares the prince owns now?

How much was SUFC worth when he was given 50% of the shares; bear in mind freehold assets are not under the ownership of the club.

The prince has injected £13m. Does he still own only half? At some stage any loans he has made will have to be converted into equity, if they have not already. At what stage does the prince become sole owner?

That will be a day for rejoicing for many on this forum, but now that the prince and Phipps have been running the show for over 2 years are they so confident that getting KM out of the way is the cure for all evils? KM was subbing the club to the tune of £1m per month until he drew a line in the sand. The prince has injected £13m in 27 months and we are where we are.

I think we'll go up but a number on here have given up. Simply throwing money at the problem does not guarantee success as KM well knows. Hillsborough of all places is now being held up as a success model because they've spent some dosh - it's a fraction of what KM has spent over the years, £3m, £4m footballers et al...been there done that a number of times.

It's all about appointing the right football manager. No matter how much you spend the manager has to sign the right players and set them up right and motivate them to win football matches.

Was it about 99.5% of posters on here who agreed Adkins was a great appointment? and Clough before him? What more can the prince do? With KM we all had doubts about all his manager appointments. The prince has done better, considering our league status but from the day the manager is appointed it's down to him, not the prince - just as it was with all KM's appointments.

My worry is that harrassing Phipps on Facebook could well encourage the prince to bail out before he throws more good money after bad. Km has been a martyr all these yaers, writing cheques and only getting abuse. Supporters like you and me should get on Facebook and support the owners, encourage them to stay. Success has to be earned and as a club we have not earned it since 2006, but we have spent a small fortune, multi millions more than SWFC. It's not just about money.

There has been a further share allotment. I said yesterday.,

 

[Sean Thornton]

Closer to home I think this is what happened with Nonna's on Ecclesall Road. Closed down and reopened with the same people, slightly different company name, hey presto, no debt.

Exactly what happened. And no secret it was going to.

 

[Rodders]

Closer to home I think this is what happened with Nonna's on Ecclesall Road. Closed down and reopened with the same people, slightly different company name, hey presto, no debt.

What's it called now, out of interest?

 

[Grappler]

What's it called now, out of interest?

Restaurant is the same name, I think the company is called something like "Nonna's (Sheffield) Ltd".

 

[MobileBlade]

Restaurant is the same name, I think the company is called something like "Nonna's (Sheffield) Ltd".

Actually I think Fancies (the cup cake woman) did it three times over a four year period. Left a trail of debt and local companies owed ten of thousands.

 

[Grappler]

Actually I think Fancies (the cup cake woman) did it three times over a four year period. Left a trail of debt and local companies owed ten of thousands.

That is pretty bad, it is a common story though.

 

[PeteBlade]

Surely the Directors have to change at least?
Or won't they fall foul of trading under similar name, HMRC would surely follow up?

 

[Woodwardfan]

There has been a further share allotment. I said yesterday.,

Oh you mean you expect everybody to read all these bickering posts word for word eh Sean. No way.

Anyway I've found your oblique reference to a £3m share allotment and it says nothing.

 

[Grappler]

Surely the Directors have to change at least?
Or won't they fall foul of trading under similar name, HMRC would surely follow up?

Directors don't have to change, at least I don't think so, although they sometimes distance themselves from their new venture (as "emplyees" in the new company). Trading under a similar name is murky, they are not supposed to, but adding a year or (Sheffield) to the name seems to be the norm.

"......
A phoenix company is the idea where a new business rises from the ashes of the old one. Or put it another way, the old company goes bust, creditors are not paid and then the directors start a new company with the assets of the old and the customer contacts. This can breed suspicion and resentment from creditors, and in the case of larger businesses, the public at large.

As such, there has to be a transfer of assets from the old to the new.



Is it legal?

Provided the following sets of rules are complied with.

• The best possible price is obtained for the old assets and they have been marketed properly
• The trading name of the new company is not the same or similar to the liquidated company. This is in accordance with section 216 of the Insolvency Act

The first point can normally be covered if a Chartered Surveyor has valued the assets prior to the liquidation and has made attempts to sell them. If this is the case then the assets of the firm can be sold to a "connected party" In many cases this will be the previous directors....."

 

[madeinsheffield]

Closer to home I think this is what happened with Nonna's on Ecclesall Road. Closed down and reopened with the same people, slightly different company name, hey presto, no debt.

They'd even protected the two villas they'd bought in Tuscany as a result in not paying their debts, makes a mockery out of people trying to do things the right way. First bar to charge £5 a pint on Ecclesall Road, makes you wonder doesn't it

 

[Grappler]

They'd even protected the two villas they'd bought in Tuscany as a result in not paying their debts, makes a mockery out of people trying to do things the right way. First bar to charge £5 a pint on Ecclesall Road, makes you wonder doesn't it

And they opened another restaurant in Chesterfield!

 

[Bladesway]

Moving forward, who has a view about the amount of shares the prince owns now?

How much was SUFC worth when he was given 50% of the shares; bear in mind freehold assets are not under the ownership of the club.

The prince has injected £13m. Does he still own only half? At some stage any loans he has made will have to be converted into equity, if they have not already. At what stage does the prince become sole owner?

That will be a day for rejoicing for many on this forum, but now that the prince and Phipps have been running the show for over 2 years are they so confident that getting KM out of the way is the cure for all evils? KM was subbing the club to the tune of £1m per month until he drew a line in the sand. The prince has injected £13m in 27 months and we are where we are.

I think we'll go up but a number on here have given up. Simply throwing money at the problem does not guarantee success as KM well knows. Hillsborough of all places is now being held up as a success model because they've spent some dosh - it's a fraction of what KM has spent over the years, £3m, £4m footballers et al...been there done that a number of times.

It's all about appointing the right football manager. No matter how much you spend the manager has to sign the right players and set them up right and motivate them to win football matches.

Was it about 99.5% of posters on here who agreed Adkins was a great appointment? and Clough before him? What more can the prince do? With KM we all had doubts about all his manager appointments. The prince has done better, considering our league status but from the day the manager is appointed it's down to him, not the prince - just as it was with all KM's appointments.

My worry is that harrassing Phipps on Facebook could well encourage the prince to bail out before he throws more good money after bad. Km has been a martyr all these yaers, writing cheques and only getting abuse. Supporters like you and me should get on Facebook and support the owners, encourage them to stay. Success has to be earned and as a club we have not earned it since 2006, but we have spent a small fortune, multi millions more than SWFC. It's not just about money.

I'm on message for 99% of this but to use your phrase its actually about everything you say "appointing the right football manager" and giving them time to do the job. While the managers and the players change, the one thing that never alters is the increasing pressure on the managers we employ. Lets say we sack this one at the end of the season, do we think we will get another one of anything like the same quality?

One thing I am sure about it shows that while some of his methods of motivation are questionable, Clough wasn't actually getting it anything like as wrong as some on here would have you believe. Even with a pre-season behind him and new players in the only thing we are doing is scoring more goals. We aren't winning more games by percentage and neither are we marching up the league as some thought would happen. Proves it is quite difficult this football lark. Unless your called Barny of course.

 

[Sean Thornton]

Oh you mean you expect everybody to read all these bickering posts word for word eh Sean. No way.

Anyway I've found your oblique reference to a £3m share allotment and it says nothing.

There were no bickering posts. It as all very civilised yesterday so you clearly haven't read them before deciding in your smug way what they said. Rather typical.

It says nothing or you don't understand ? A man of your vast experience of, well, everything it seems, will no doubt be able to track down said document, cast your eye over it and then reconcile it to Jims statement. At length.

 

[Darren]

Directors don't have to change, at least I don't think so, although they sometimes distance themselves from their new venture (as "emplyees" in the new company). Trading under a similar name is murky, they are not supposed to, but adding a year or (Sheffield) to the name seems to be the norm.

"......
A phoenix company is the idea where a new business rises from the ashes of the old one. Or put it another way, the old company goes bust, creditors are not paid and then the directors start a new company with the assets of the old and the customer contacts. This can breed suspicion and resentment from creditors, and in the case of larger businesses, the public at large.

As such, there has to be a transfer of assets from the old to the new.



Is it legal?

Provided the following sets of rules are complied with.

• The best possible price is obtained for the old assets and they have been marketed properly
• The trading name of the new company is not the same or similar to the liquidated company. This is in accordance with section 216 of the Insolvency Act

The first point can normally be covered if a Chartered Surveyor has valued the assets prior to the liquidation and has made attempts to sell them. If this is the case then the assets of the firm can be sold to a "connected party" In many cases this will be the previous directors....."

Isn't that a way limited liability can be used to effectively and legally cheat creditors: you set up a limited company, which then goes insolvent. Creditors can only get access to the company's assets, not the assets of the shareholders in their personal capacity, which may be substantial. The owners of the liquidated company can then legally use those assets to buy the assets of the liquidated company whilst the creditors get 4p in the pound.