Transfer embago and almost going into administration?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

No idea when either owner became somebody to rally around without question.

McCabe is a local businessman with a huge ego who loves the limelight. His arrogance has been highlighted by the court case. He's been disingenuous, underhanded and devious. He's operated in a dictatorial manner when he only owns half the club. And he was stupid to bid such a low amount for the shares. But fear not, there's no bigger Blade than him 😂😂

The Prince appears to have a lot less money than he made out. His motives are unknown and while he convinced the Judge he is mainly on the level, we dont really know.

Basically, two men who can't afford to independently fund a Premier League club without Premier League cash windfalls had a public argument over who gets to sell the club. The new bloke won. Anything else is bluster and bullshit
 

Ainsley Harriott said:
SUL had to input 600k to stop the club reaching insolvency. A club of our size that close to insolvency? Having read it back, it was the Prince who didn't front the money meaning McCabe had to put in that 600k. A club of our size being that close to insolvency is pathetic. And yes, I am speaking Layman's and don't need a lecture on accounting. But again, McCabe brought in the Prince.
Click to expand...


The number of times you've "heard" and you still fall for shite from "experts".

Who did we owe that money to who was seeking a winding up order against the club?

Instead of believing everything negative you hear, have a look at auditors reports on insolvency and financial support of the directors rather than bandwagon jumping on something you don't understand when it's about a personal grievance rather than fact based.
 
BigBed said:
Heard on radio, that last season we were under a transfer embago due to almost going into administration, only to be saved by the Prince finding some cash to put in, as McCabe wasn't going to put anymore in???

Ok, I've heard we were struggling a bit at one point, but did anyone know about the embago???
Click to expand...

I'd recommend reading the publicly accessible documents relating to the judgement and previous court dates... It makes things awfully clearer than 'what you've heard', even if some of it is opinion/one sides representation of 'fact'.

There were times during the disagreement, that according to representations, a perceived lack of funds forthcoming, one or the other had to blink first in order to meet obligations on wages/other payments in order to avoid embargo, FFP contraventions or indeed insolvency - Again, if you read the documents, you can make your own opinion on how realistic or grave the danger was.
 
How could we possibly have been in an embargo in our 1st season in being back in the championship? The only thing I can think of is that you don't pay the wages you go into an embargo, however as mentioned by a previous poster we signed 6 players in July 2017.

I also thought you could only be in an embargo after 3 years of accounting a loss of more than £39m.
 
Ainsley Harriott said:
SUL had to input 600k to stop the club reaching insolvency. A club of our size that close to insolvency? Having read it back, it was the Prince who didn't front the money meaning McCabe had to put in that 600k. A club of our size being that close to insolvency is pathetic. And yes, I am speaking Layman's and don't need a lecture on accounting. But again, McCabe brought in the Prince.
Click to expand...

Dear god man, have you heard yourself. Do you blame McCabe's mum for having him or was that his fault too.
 
Sheffield United being 'insolvent' over 600k? Apart from this last year when the owners loaned the money to the business (due to the court case) they have been putting money in to make sure debt hasn't accrued. If the business becomes insolvent over a figure like that it is to make a point, ie somebody not fulfilling their obligation and not because the club can't find/borrow the money.
 
Bill Johnson said:
We were.
Ffs.
Just get that tiny word right if you're going to post on a huge issue.
Click to expand...

I've written what must probably must be several thousand sentences on this message board over the course of several years, and out of all that, if a minor grammatical error is the only thing a random, angry halfwit like yourself who is making a half arsed attempt at provoking a reaction, is all you can pull me up on, then I'll take that a ringing endorsement of the quality of my output.
 
BigBed said:
Heard on radio, that last season we were under a transfer embago due to almost going into administration, only to be saved by the Prince finding some cash to put in, as McCabe wasn't going to put anymore in???

Ok, I've heard we were struggling a bit at one point, but did anyone know about the embago???
Click to expand...
I smell pork 🤫
 
brownie said:
I've written what must probably must be several thousand sentences on this message board over the course of several years, and out of all that, if a minor grammatical error is the only thing a random, angry halfwit like yourself who is making a half arsed attempt at provoking a reaction, is all you can pull me up on, then I'll take that a ringing endorsement of the quality of my output.
Click to expand...

Two 'musts' in the first 6 words, an overlong sentence and too many commas.

I think we are all with Bill Johnson on this one.

3/10 - needs to try harder
 

Just read it. Particularly the ‘Undisputed Factual Narrative’

Extracts. Already posted several times.

62. On 20 June 2016, Mr Bettis asked each owner for an injection of £1m to meet SUFC’s tax bill. The request had an amended cash flow forecast attached and was said to contain suggested dates for injection of capital by UTB and SUL, but the spreadsheet was not in evidence. SUL paid its £1m on 22 July 2016 but UTB did not pay. Prince Abdullah explained, when chased for his contribution at that time, that he would need a month in which to raise further cash for investment in the Club. But he paid only £200,000 on 23 August 2016, £400,000 on 21 September 2016 and a further £400,000 on 2 November 2016. At this time, Prince Abdullah had no spare cash because Saudi Paper had stopped paying dividends the previous year. SUL was reluctant to pay more money into Blades at a time when Project Beta was progressing. SUFC was in real danger of being unable to pay its employees’ wages on a monthly basis. Mr Bettis called for another £1m from each owner in November 2016 but SUL paid only £450,000 on 29 November, £50,000 on 1 December and a further £500,000 on 12 December. When Prince Abdullah was called upon to equalise contributions by paying £1m in January 2017 he did not do so, and SUL had to pay a further £600,000 urgently on 27 January 2017 in order to save SUFC from insolvency.


75. By that time, the parties had received some bad news. On 6 June 2017, Mr Alsaady informed Mr Giansiracusa and Mr Hawasli that his principal had decided not to proceed with Project Delta. That was not unexpected: both sides had realised in about mid-May that the deal was not progressing as it should have been. Mr Giansiracusa confirmed the bad news to Kevin McCabe on 11 June and suggested that, when dealing with any future would-be investors (that Prince Abdullah was already seeking), changes needed to be made to the due diligence and legal processes. The collapse of Project Delta meant that annual debt finance was once again an overriding issue for SUL and UTB.

76. Apart from the need for more money going forward, Blades had to deal with the implications of the £3 million Charwell debt. To comply with the Salary Costs Management Protocol of the English Football League, part of the debt had to be taken off Blades’ balance sheet by the end of the season. Mr Tutton ingeniously suggested that that problem and the imbalance in the equity contributions of UTB and SUL in 2016/17 could be addressed together, by UTB taking on liability for £2.3 million of the debt and SUL for £0.7 million (i.e. UTB contributing £1.6 million more than SUL). It was later decided that, instead, £1.6 million of the Charwell loan should be novated to UTB, leaving Blades liable to repay £1.4 million. That suggestion was rather indelicately put to Mr Alsaady, on behalf of Charwell, who initially was uncooperative, with the result that no resolution was achieved in time to avoid a temporary embargo on the Club’s transfer activity. Had the issue not been resolved (as it later was, on 25 July 2017) it could have had a damaging impact on the Club’s ability to position itself for the new season in the Championship
 
I have a feeling that the prince was more shocked with the outcome of the court case than McCabe.The enormity of managing a successful premiership club with allegedly only limited personal wealth is a daunting task and even the revenue provided from TV coverage and sponsership is simply not enough on it's own.If we are to continue after this season with life in the premiership we need an owner who has substantial personal wealth or access to it and i fear that our Saudi Prince is a pauper in the world of 'big bucks'football,let's hope he has a plan,a very cunning one.
 
brownie said:
I've written what must probably must be several thousand sentences on this message board over the course of several years, and out of all that, if a minor grammatical error is the only thing a random, angry halfwit like yourself who is making a half arsed attempt at provoking a reaction, is all you can pull me up on, then I'll take that a ringing endorsement of the quality of my output.
Click to expand...


That's like saying you normally remember to wipe your arse after having a shit but forgot this time.
No faux anger gets you a pass out.
Quality and my output in your final sentence is an oxymoron.
Hope this helps.:cool:
 

'Doc' Pace my hero said:
I have a feeling that the prince was more shocked with the outcome of the court case than McCabe.The enormity of managing a successful premiership club with allegedly only limited personal wealth is a daunting task and even the revenue provided from TV coverage and sponsership is simply not enough on it's own.If we are to continue after this season with life in the premiership we need an owner who has substantial personal wealth or access to it and i fear that our Saudi Prince is a pauper in the world of 'big bucks'football,let's hope he has a plan,a very cunning one.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure I agree with that. In fact I’m reasonably sure that the last Deloitte report on football finances showed most clubs in the PL made a profit. So it should be possible to survive and remain in the PL without a billionaire owner, as Burnley have done. Will we compete with the top six? No chance in the near future. Is it realistic to expect to do so? No, IMO.
 
Tom Bott said:
So it was Kevin McCabe's fault that HRH failed to contribute his share, unusual reasoning but all opinions are considered equal unless thought otherwise.
Click to expand...
You mean "all NEGATIVE opinions are considered equal"......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Back
Top Bottom