£4m up front for Brooks

[GuangzhouBlade]

Bourmemouth COMMIT to the agreed "down payment" but actually pay it in installments.

It's the way teansfer business is done.

Just because we don't get all the £12m now it doesn't mean we cant commit to spend it over a similar 3 yr period.

Exactly if we buy a player now at £4 million and structure the deal similarly to Bournemouth it makes no difference wether we get it all now or some on an iTunes gift card in 6 months time

 

[Houston_Blade]

That's completely unworkable. You have only have a contract of sale with club you're selling to.

If you put something in that they have to get a fee and ours comes out of that. Highly improbable I know.

 

[GuangzhouBlade]

That's completely unworkable. You have only have a contract of sale with club you're selling to.

Contacts like that do exist but they can get messy and usually involve retaining a fixed proportion of the asset. Rather than stipulating a percentage of future sale value, to like you say, someone who is essentially a third party in the deal. Although from a football point of view they make sense and would seek to reward lower league clubs that develop players and make an attempt to redress the balance of power. Which means there is absolutely no way the FA or Premier League clubs would agree to it.

 

[BushBlade]

Isn't that the crux of the matter?

It’s easier to think of two separate court cases. I’ll call the current one the ‘little’ case and the forthcoming one the ‘big’ case.

The little case is about whether UTB should be compelled to loan Blades £1.25m to cover running costs for the next six months plus our transfer budget (transfer fees and increased wage bill). Sheffield requested that UTB loan the money and he would match it as a loan, so Blades get £2.5m in total.

UTB said no, I’ll gift £1.25m but Sheffield said no. Then UTB said ‘if you’re insisting it must be a loan, then you loan them the full £2.5m’. Sheffield said no, no, no.

The judge said ‘you’re a pair of shithouses using litigation as a game of oneupmanship’.

Part of UTB’s legal argument is that the judge can’t compel UTB to loan the money because now the Brooks deal is done the money isn’t necessary to prevent insolvency and anyway, whilst buying players is desirable, it isn’t a necessity.

These are legal arguments in connection with under what circumstances the judge could force UTB to loan the money. They are not necessarily representative of the Prince’s actual views on how the club should be run.

The big case is the one to determine whether moving the shares to get out of a contractual obligation is legal or not.

 

[grafikhaus]

It's quite normal.

Of course it is. It's the normal cash flow of any large organisation. Does anybody pay cash for a house? Or even a car*? Brooks knows he'll be paid £1.5m a year, but he won't be getting all of it on day one.

* Quite the opposite, in fact:

 

[BushBlade]

Of course it is. It's the normal cash flow of any large organisation. Does anybody pay cash for a house? Or even a car*? Brooks knows he'll be paid £1.5m a year, but he won't be getting all of it on day one.

* Quite the opposite, in fact:

View attachment 41441

And when it all goes tits up the irresponsible lenders will come crying to the government for another hand out of taxpayers’ money.

 

[Sean Thornton]

It’s easier to think of two separate court cases. I’ll call the current one the ‘little’ case and the forthcoming one the ‘big’ case.

The little case is about whether UTB should be compelled to loan Blades £1.25m to cover running costs for the next six months plus our transfer budget (transfer fees and increased wage bill). Sheffield requested that UTB loan the money and he would match it as a loan, so Blades get £2.5m in total.

UTB said no, I’ll gift £1.25m but Sheffield said no. Then UTB said ‘if you’re insisting it must be a loan, then you loan them the full £2.5m’. Sheffield said no, no, no.

The judge said ‘you’re a pair of shithouses using litigation as a game of oneupmanship’.

Part of UTB’s legal argument is that the judge can’t compel UTB to loan the money because now the Brooks deal is done the money isn’t necessary to prevent insolvency and anyway, whilst buying players is desirable, it isn’t a necessity.

These are legal arguments in connection with under what circumstances the judge could force UTB to loan the money. They are not necessarily representative of the Prince’s actual views on how the club should be run.

The big case is the one to determine whether moving the shares to get out of a contractual obligation is legal or not.

I just stated that KMc said we needed more cash, HRH says we didn't. Is that wrong?
Is McCabe suggesting HRH won't honour the alleged pledge to Wilder about the £2m? Signing players isn't a necessity? Is that really his argument.

I do understand the distinction between the two cases btw.

The preferred option comment related to our owners.

 

[Balham]

That's completely unworkable. You have only have a contract of sale with club you're selling to.

Is it? Say we worded it as 20% of any future income from transfers of Maguire's registration: we sold Maguire to Humberside Jungle Cats for £2.5m. We then got around £3m when HJC sold him to Leicester (£17m less original £2.5m = £14.5m x 20% = £2.9m). If Leicester sell him on for, for argument's sake, £52m and Hull have a 20% sell on clause it could be argued that we're due 20% of their 20% (so £52m less £17m = £35m x 20% = £7m x 20% = £1.4m).

 

[Sean Thornton]

Of course it is. It's the normal cash flow of any large organisation. Does anybody pay cash for a house? Or even a car*? Brooks knows he'll be paid £1.5m a year, but he won't be getting all of it on day one.

* Quite the opposite, in fact:

View attachment 41441

I find it hard to believe some didn't know. And easier to believe that some did know but started swinging the baseball bat anyway.

 

[Deleted member 1486]

Contacts like that do exist but they can get messy and usually involve retaining a fixed proportion of the asset

Similar to the co-ownership model of the Italian leagues before they banned it. It was a total clusterfuck. The big clubs bought up all the players and sent them out on co-owned "loans" to all the rest of the teams (to a far greater degree than has happened even now in English football).

 

[BushBlade]

I just stated that KMc said we needed more cash, HRH says we didn't. Is that wrong?
Is McCabe suggesting HRH won't honour the alleged pledge to Wilder about the £2m? Signing players isn't a necessity? Is that really his argument.

I do understand the distinction between the two cases btw.

The preferred option comment related to our owners.

Yes, in simplistic terms and without context, UTB has said the injection is not necessary. He said the cash injection is not necessary [to prevent the club from insolvency]. The argument in court isn’t about how to run the club, it’s whether the financial circumstances are such that a judge can intervene and determine what the form of cash injection is, whether he has the right to force UTB to loan the club £1.25m.

As I understand it, if there was a real danger the club would become insolvent the judge is able to grant relief. UTB are arguing there is no danger of that so the judge can’t get involved. The judge agreed.

 

[sheffielder]

Looks like a few people are going to be losing up football manager and negotiating transfers in a whole new way!

 

[sheffielder]

Similar to the co-ownership model of the Italian leagues before they banned it. It was a total clusterfuck. The big clubs bought up all the players and sent them out on co-owned "loans" to all the rest of the teams (to a far greater degree than has happened even now in English football).

Not sure how well that’s working for the smaller clubs. Don’t all the big clubs just sign the youngsters and loan them out now?

 

[Sean Thornton]

Yes, in simplistic terms and without context, UTB has said the injection is not necessary. He said the cash injection is not necessary [to prevent the club from insolvency]. The argument in court isn’t about how to run the club, it’s whether the financial circumstances are such that a judge can intervene and determine what the form of cash injection is, whether he has the right to force UTB to loan the club £1.25m.

As I understand it, if there was a real danger the club would become insolvent the judge is able to grant relief. UTB are arguing there is no danger of that so the judge can’t get involved. The judge agreed.

Mmm.

So, slasher head on, Brooks cash solves any cash flow issues, covers the losses and Wilders budget doesn't stretch to four players we almost all agree we need. Let alone top of the Championship players.

It may not be needed to stave of insolvency. Relegation or at least a slide towards it could be a different matter.

Fuck them both. Let's give Chinese Dave a ring.

 

[sheffielder]

Whatever it is, I can’t see wilders negotiations with the prince going well. Probably have to hide some players At another club for a month or two in case they get sold

 

[GuangzhouBlade]

Similar to the co-ownership model of the Italian leagues before they banned it. It was a total clusterfuck. The big clubs bought up all the players and sent them out on co-owned "loans" to all the rest of the teams (to a far greater degree than has happened even now in English football).

The Italians are known for their transparency

 

[BushBlade]

Mmm.

So, slasher head on, Brooks cash solves any cash flow issues, covers the losses and Wilders budget doesn't stretch to four players we almost all agree we need. Let alone top of the Championship players.

It may not be needed to stave of insolvency. Relegation or at least a slide towards it could be a different matter.

Fuck them both. Let's give Chinese Dave a ring.

That’s the argument UTB are using to say that the judge can’t intervene.

If you want to take an anti UTB stance you can take that at face value.

If you want to take an anti Sheffield stance, then you can say ‘why dunt Kev just lend us the £2.5m then so we can on with business?’

Or you can look at it as a game of poker where UTB are grinning and telling Sheffield they’ve got a good hand.

 

[Topplayersleave]

But Hey we might also buy a player with a small down payment

Yes, it's nice to know that we can now get Gallagher, Hogan and whoever else we want for about a million upfront
Or is it only other clubs that are allowed to use HP

 

[Addison]

Can't recall the player but when Villa went to shit they rang a club up (Burnley?) who owed them a final instalment on a transfer fee. Offered them a 10% discount on the amount due if they paid immediately as Villa were gagging for the cash.

It was Ashley Westwood

 

[diplomat]

Normal transfer is normal.

The proposed and supposed deal was explained in the link I posted on this thread - https://www.s24su.com/forum/index.php?threads/ownership-developments.64814/

As is a potential budget and that the Prince argues we don't need to spend owt on players to not go backwards.

Which page was that on Foxy

 

[Addison]

Yes, in simplistic terms and without context, UTB has said the injection is not necessary. He said the cash injection is not necessary [to prevent the club from insolvency]. The argument in court isn’t about how to run the club, it’s whether the financial circumstances are such that a judge can intervene and determine what the form of cash injection is, whether he has the right to force UTB to loan the club £1.25m.

As I understand it, if there was a real danger the club would become insolvent the judge is able to grant relief. UTB are arguing there is no danger of that so the judge can’t get involved. The judge agreed.

I agree with your interpretation of events. This is about funding the Club whilst the Court battle is going on. It seems this dispute has arisen over the need to increase CW's budget and probably cover his new contract costs as well. T

 

[Addison]

I agree with your interpretation of events. This is about funding the Club whilst the Court battle is going on. It seems this dispute has arisen over the need to increase CW's budget and probably cover his new contract costs as well. T

The Prince wanted to gift money to cover the costs. KM wanted to opt for loans and explained in Court the risks associated with losing the contractual dispute and put forward the argument the Club's future was at risk. Prince said no it doesn't need the injection to survive financially. That does not mean he is unwilling to increase CW's budget. As you say the Judge realising there is brinkmanship going on ruled in favour of the Prince.

What that does mean is that we are back to the status quo with both parties unable to agree a way to inject money into the Club whilst they are in litigation. The only solution appears to be to use the Brooks money to fund the budget increase and day to day running costs. That may cover the increase that CW was promised but unlikely to give him any extra on top of that.

They may have to go back to the Court again later in the year as this preliminary hearing was about financing the first half of the season.

 

[BushBlade]

I agree with your interpretation of events. This is about funding the Club whilst the Court battle is going on. It seems this dispute has arisen over the need to increase CW's budget and probably cover his new contract costs as well. T

My interpretation is that it’s about how the funding is done, rather than the need for it. UTB’s comments about it not being necessary should be taken in the strictest sense (i.e the club won’t go bust if the money isn’t provided) and the context of the court case.

 

[Topplayersleave]

Does it even matter how much we're getting for him ?

 

[BushBlade]

The Prince wanted to gift money to cover the costs. KM wanted to opt for loans and explained in Court the risks associated with losing the contractual dispute and put forward the argument the Club's future was at risk. Prince said no it doesn't need the injection to survive financially. That does not mean he is unwilling to increase CW's budget. As you say the Judge realising there is brinkmanship going on ruled in favour of the Prince.

What that does mean is that we are back to the status quo with both parties unable to agree a way to inject money into the Club whilst they are in litigation. The only solution appears to be to use the Brooks money to fund the budget increase and day to day running costs. That may cover the increase that CW was promised but unlikely to give him any extra on top of that.

They may have to go back to the Court again later in the year as this preliminary hearing was about financing the first half of the season.

Am I missing something or are you arguing with yourself?

 

[BushBlade]

Does it even matter how much we're getting for him ?

Not to you Porky.

 

[Topplayersleave]

Paying wages is completely different to the capital investment in purchasing the player's registration. Do you buy your vans up front in cash?

FWIW Barcelona used to pay their players' salaries in two installments, one in July and one in January.

My God how did they manage ?
Just think Christmas with no wages for five months, it must be awful

 

[Topplayersleave]

Not to you Porky.

Ahhhh, I wondered how long it'd take for someone to read something they don't like and use that old chestnut

 

[I should coco]

Ahhhh, I wondered how long it'd take for someone to read something they don't like and use that old chestnut

Well your username is the hardly the most positive is it?

When someone joins in the last few days and all 11 of their posts are negative about the club, then one has to wonder.

BushBlade has been around the block and developed a 'nose' for bullshit.

At the moment my money is very much on him, but please show us what a big Blade you are.......

 

[Topplayersleave]

Topplayersleave
Is there any untruth in that ?

I am a United fan, if you think I'm not because a few hometruths come out well that's up to you.
Slagging the "club" off in the context I am using is actually slagging off the boardroom