£4m up front for Brooks

[I should coco]

I am a United fan,

So you say....

if you think I'm not because a few hometruths come out well that's up to you.

One man's 'hometruths' is another man's 'pig on the wind up'.

Anyhow, what do they say about not feeding the .........

 

[Sean Thornton]

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.

I thought Kev was willing to loan but HRH wants gifts? It's not hard to see why when the share price appears to be agreed at £5m.

 

[Barney Rubble]

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.

Surely more concerning is what the judge said later on in the court paper

'In my judgement it is wrong for UTB to characterise the spending on new players as something that is unnecessary. I accept Sheffield's evidence that in practical terms, in order to sustain morale at the club and to avoid a collapse in confidence it is important to invest in new players to strengthen the squad. That is obviously so if one of the club's best players is about to be sold.'

My initial reading of the UTB argument matched yours. However it looks as if the judge believed that UTB were using the term necessary in the strictest sense. Even hints Wilder now needs an increase in budget to buy a repacement for Brooks.

 

[BushBlade]

I thought Kev was willing to loan but HRH wants gifts? It's not hard to see why when the share price appears to be agreed at £5m.

1. 
   When pressed as to why a loan arrangement was unacceptable to UTB, as opposed to being less attractive to Blades than an outright gift, Mr Gledhill could not add to what was said in this letter, save to say that it was possible that UTB took a more positive view about the likely outcome of the litigation than Sheffield did. It is fair to UTB to record that it also, quite recently, made a further proposal to Sheffield that Sheffield was not willing to accept, namely that Sheffield should make a repayable interest-free loan of the whole of the £2.5 million.
   
   
   
2. I asked Mr Downes why Sheffield was willing to lend Blades £1.25 million interest free, matched by a loan from UTB, but not to donate £1.25 million in the way that UTB proposed. He said, frankly, that Sheffield recognised that there was a real prospect (in the sense of the summary judgment test) that Sheffield would lose the litigation and that it was not willing to invest further money in Blades, on a non-recourse basis, until the outcome was known.
   
   
3. I am driven to the conclusion that this litigation is being used, by both parties to an extent, to seek to apply commercial pressure to the other, and not simply to resolve the issues that are raised in it. Each side can comfortably afford to provide the necessary funding to keep Blades and FC afloat, pending the trial, yet neither is willing to give ground. Despite its protestations, there is no possible detriment to UTB in agreeing to lend Blades money rather than donate money, but it declines to do so in order to maintain pressure on Sheffield, presumably hoping that it will either give ground in the litigation or agree to put a further £1.25m of its money at risk, for the potential benefit of UTB. UTB did express concern that Sheffield's application threatened to become the thin end of the wedge, by establishing a precedent for further such applications if it succeeded. If that were so, it could have avoided any precedent by agreeing particular terms for lending money, but now it is risking a precedent being established by contesting the application. Both sides are risking further reputational or financial damage by exposing the financial weakness of FC to the public gaze.

 

[Sean Thornton]

1. 
   When pressed as to why a loan arrangement was unacceptable to UTB, as opposed to being less attractive to Blades than an outright gift, Mr Gledhill could not add to what was said in this letter, save to say that it was possible that UTB took a more positive view about the likely outcome of the litigation than Sheffield did. It is fair to UTB to record that it also, quite recently, made a further proposal to Sheffield that Sheffield was not willing to accept, namely that Sheffield should make a repayable interest-free loan of the whole of the £2.5 million.
   
   
   
2. I asked Mr Downes why Sheffield was willing to lend Blades £1.25 million interest free, matched by a loan from UTB, but not to donate £1.25 million in the way that UTB proposed. He said, frankly, that Sheffield recognised that there was a real prospect (in the sense of the summary judgment test) that Sheffield would lose the litigation and that it was not willing to invest further money in Blades, on a non-recourse basis, until the outcome was known.
   
   
3. I am driven to the conclusion that this litigation is being used, by both parties to an extent, to seek to apply commercial pressure to the other, and not simply to resolve the issues that are raised in it. Each side can comfortably afford to provide the necessary funding to keep Blades and FC afloat, pending the trial, yet neither is willing to give ground. Despite its protestations, there is no possible detriment to UTB in agreeing to lend Blades money rather than donate money, but it declines to do so in order to maintain pressure on Sheffield, presumably hoping that it will either give ground in the litigation or agree to put a further £1.25m of its money at risk, for the potential benefit of UTB. UTB did express concern that Sheffield's application threatened to become the thin end of the wedge, by establishing a precedent for further such applications if it succeeded. If that were so, it could have avoided any precedent by agreeing particular terms for lending money, but now it is risking a precedent being established by contesting the application. Both sides are risking further reputational or financial damage by exposing the financial weakness of FC to the public gaze.

As I said. Fuck both of them.

 

[Scooter_mcgavin]

I've an idea...

I'll buy Princey out for the quid he invested.

I'd save Kev 60m (running losses over 10 years) and give him a quid too.

Then I'd put the assets up as collateral to loan 40m from the bank. Stick it in the team and I believe Wilder would get us promoted.

I'd then sell for 100m when we went up.

'Malcom Glazer of S21'.

 

[BushBlade]

My initial reading of the UTB argument matched yours. However it looks as if the judge believed that UTB were using the term necessary in the strictest sense. Even hints Wilder now needs an increase in budget to buy a repacement for Brooks.

He also said, immediately after the bit you quoted;

. However, I do not consider the evidence, as it currently stands, to be strong that £2.5m is needed immediately in order to keep FC afloat. It appears to be very likely that any purchases in the transfer market can be funded (to the extent that payment is not deferred) by receipts from likely player sales. It is however evident that Blades's finances would be more comfortable, and FC freer to move swiftly and effectively in the market, if the funds were immediately available. It is therefore desirable that further monies be injected, though as things stand not essential.

As I’ve said previously, this case is about whether the judge can force UTB to loan the club money. The judge has applied a number of ‘tests’ based on precedent cases to decide whether he can intervene, one of those tests being ‘necessity’. He has ruled that it is not a necessity.

 

[Harrisblade]

1. 
   When pressed as to why a loan arrangement was unacceptable to UTB, as opposed to being less attractive to Blades than an outright gift, Mr Gledhill could not add to what was said in this letter, save to say that it was possible that UTB took a more positive view about the likely outcome of the litigation than Sheffield did. It is fair to UTB to record that it also, quite recently, made a further proposal to Sheffield that Sheffield was not willing to accept, namely that Sheffield should make a repayable interest-free loan of the whole of the £2.5 million.
   
   
   
2. I asked Mr Downes why Sheffield was willing to lend Blades £1.25 million interest free, matched by a loan from UTB, but not to donate £1.25 million in the way that UTB proposed. He said, frankly, that Sheffield recognised that there was a real prospect (in the sense of the summary judgment test) that Sheffield would lose the litigation and that it was not willing to invest further money in Blades, on a non-recourse basis, until the outcome was known.
   
   
3. I am driven to the conclusion that this litigation is being used, by both parties to an extent, to seek to apply commercial pressure to the other, and not simply to resolve the issues that are raised in it. Each side can comfortably afford to provide the necessary funding to keep Blades and FC afloat, pending the trial, yet neither is willing to give ground. Despite its protestations, there is no possible detriment to UTB in agreeing to lend Blades money rather than donate money, but it declines to do so in order to maintain pressure on Sheffield, presumably hoping that it will either give ground in the litigation or agree to put a further £1.25m of its money at risk, for the potential benefit of UTB. UTB did express concern that Sheffield's application threatened to become the thin end of the wedge, by establishing a precedent for further such applications if it succeeded. If that were so, it could have avoided any precedent by agreeing particular terms for lending money, but now it is risking a precedent being established by contesting the application. Both sides are risking further reputational or financial damage by exposing the financial weakness of FC to the public gaze.

And to finish with:

1. In my judgment, the relief sought is of an invasive character, as Mr Gledhill described it, given the rights that UTB has as a result of its prior agreements with Sheffield. I should therefore only grant the relief if satisfied that it is really necessary to prevent a substantial risk of serious damage to the value of the shares in Blades. I have already given my reasons for finding that it is not necessary on the basis of the evidence that is before me. It is, in my judgment, no answer to say that granting the relief is better for UTB than something that it is conditionally willing to do, or that there is no prejudice caused to UTB in any event. Those are factors that are relevant but they do not of themselves justify granting the mandatory order sought. It is for Sheffield to justify the grant of such unusual relief in the circumstances of the case.
   
   
2. For the reasons that I have given, I will not make the order sought by Sheffield

It would seem that using this means of obtaining additional funds (although relatively minor) by expecting a partner shareholder to stump up a matching amount to that provided by the other partner is not covered by any existing prior agreement and for that reason the judge can not rule that it must happen.

(probably)

 

[BushBlade]

And to finish with:

1. In my judgment, the relief sought is of an invasive character, as Mr Gledhill described it, given the rights that UTB has as a result of its prior agreements with Sheffield. I should therefore only grant the relief if satisfied that it is really necessary to prevent a substantial risk of serious damage to the value of the shares in Blades. I have already given my reasons for finding that it is not necessary on the basis of the evidence that is before me. It is, in my judgment, no answer to say that granting the relief is better for UTB than something that it is conditionally willing to do, or that there is no prejudice caused to UTB in any event. Those are factors that are relevant but they do not of themselves justify granting the mandatory order sought. It is for Sheffield to justify the grant of such unusual relief in the circumstances of the case.
   
   
2. For the reasons that I have given, I will not make the order sought by Sheffield

It would seem that using this means of obtaining additional funds (although relatively minor) by expecting a partner shareholder to stump up a matching amount to that provided by the other partner is not covered by any existing prior agreement and for that reason the judge can not rule that it must happen.

(probably)

He could, under certain circumstances but he’s determined that those circumstances, the ‘tests’ that he has applied, have not been met.

This is a link to the Shelfer case, which set a precedent in respect of awarding injunctions.

http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/cases/Shelfer-v-City-of-London-Electric-Lighting.php

It gives a good example of how judges apply their thinking to the interpretation of law and is a bit more easily digestible than the Court transcript of ‘our’ case.

 

[Sean Thornton]

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

Live one?

 

[Maidenhead]

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

And the responsible one will be delivering the post because they wouldn't compromise their beliefs to hit ridiculous targets set by their bosses.

 

[Ainsley Harriott]

..... for the moment.

Well yeah

 

[Deleted member 1486]

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?

The problem with the Italian leagues was that the top clubs hoovered up ALL the promising players. They knew lower status clubs (not necessarily lower league clubs!) would have to do a deal with them to get a player.

The result of this was Juventus/Milans/Roma/etc having a couple of hundred players on their books, and if you were not a "giant' and had ambition and wanted to get a good player you had to buy half of that player (therefore funding the bigger clubs buying even more players). At the end of the 'loan' the big club either bought the player out (if successful), or left the inflated contract + remaining transfer fee to the smaller club (again, funding additional purchases for the giants).

For sure there are examples of clubs getting millions in transfer fees for their 50% at the end of these deals, but many of these players would have come through the ranks from lower league clubs at some point if they hadn't gone through the co-ownership system. This was a system that robbed lower league clubs of players, not gifted them to them.

The loan system in England IS a mess, but it's nothing compared to Italy a few years ago, when the vast majority of players owned by big teams were (effectively) on loan to the "minnows".

 

[Pollingtonblade]

Can we change our song slightly

“We have got a barrel of some money ,,,.,

 

[Moan? Nope-I saw Longhorn]

As a general point, it might the way things are done, but it’s alway a risk losing ownership of an asset when full payment has not been made. Southampton found that with Theo Walcott. Also, as the seller you are selling at the present value of money & excepting payment with the future value, without adding interest for the privilege. Innit.

But irrespective of any (mythical) interest we knew what we 'signed up' to
ie instalments & no 'interest'
Or can we anticipate Tufty moaning that nobody told him it was 'only' 4 mill & then Knill chuntering about being 'robbed' of the 'expected' interest

 

[Nicolaus_Copernicus]

But irrespective of any (mythical) interest we knew what we 'signed up' to
ie instalments & no 'interest'
Or can we anticipate Tufty moaning that nobody told him it was 'only' 4 mill & then Knill chuntering about being 'robbed' of the 'expected' interest

Moan?!?! If the remainder is being paid annually over the next three years, we'll be losing a full ryan leonard through inflation.

 

[finlaytheblade]

But irrespective of any (mythical) interest we knew what we 'signed up' to
ie instalments & no 'interest'
Or can we anticipate Tufty moaning that nobody told him it was 'only' 4 mill & then Knill chuntering about being 'robbed' of the 'expected' interest

It's. very rare for transfers to be paid up front,even the big clubs don't do. it.
Wilder would be well aware .of that and new it wouldn't be game changing

 

[1889]

We buy players in the same way so it's no skin off our nose. The £12m "up front" relates to the guaranteed sum from Bournemouth, the rest is performance related. The one I'd like to see us do is to insert perpetual sell on clauses into contracts as a way of playing a bit more hardball, not many teams will go for it but think on the Maguire deal if we'd now got even 5% of his next fee as a sell on, we'd be laughing and Leicester could add this to the transfer price to cover themselves.

I agree, I think it would be fair if every players original club, who scouted them and nurtured them through their academy years, were entitled to a career long sell on clause of at least 5%.

It also might encourage clubs to invest a bit more in their academies and develop young local talent

 

[Pinchy]

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

It’s not a chestnut; It’s a truffle.

 

[stringer]

I agree, I think it would be fair if every players original club, who scouted them and nurtured them through their academy years, were entitled to a career long sell on clause of at least 5%.

It also might encourage clubs to invest a bit more in their academies and develop young local talent

City with Brooks?

 

[mancunianblade]

I’m amazed at how many people seem to want to believe that down payment means the following

£4m upfront with the rest optional, like we might get it if Bournemouth feel like it.

Think some people need to check that they’ve actually been paying their mortgage off..

I’d be very very surprised if we have paid off any of the January deals..

It’s just not in a clubs interest to pay any fee in full

 

[Ainsley Harriott]

If anyone on here thinks £4m upfront from a team in the ‘BPL/EPL’ is either acceptable or justifiable then let me sell you some tubs of elbow grease (£39.99 per 5l tub)

Because you are an idiot.

Idiot.

 

[I should coco]

If anyone on here thinks £4m upfront from a team in the ‘BPL/EPL’ is either acceptable or justifiable then let me sell you some tubs of elbow grease (£39.99 per 5l tub)

How many times do you have to be told, that this is the way transfers are done.

Nobody, repeat NOBODY, pays 100% cash up front. That includes Manyoo, Real Madrid and any other club you want to name.

BTW, what colour is the elbow grease and does it smell nice?

 

[Ainsley Harriott]

How many times do you have to be told, that this is the way transfers are done.

Nobody, repeat NOBODY, pays 100% cash up front. That includes Manyoo, Real Madrid and any other club you want to name.

BTW, what colour is the elbow grease and does it smell nice?

Why not ask for 100%? Break the mould? The club needs (allegedly) £10m to survive this season (them court paper things). So why not get that £10m and have done with it?

The club can’t survive because it’s fucked itself over.

 

[I should coco]

Why not ask for 100%? Break the mould?

Because as soon as the buyer realise you are cash strapped, they shaft you.

"Did we say £12m? Er, we meant £6m but we'll give it you all now and some of last season's 'Bournemouth for Europe' flags"

 

[1889]

City with Brooks?

No, not City with Brooks, because they released him. The team have to nurture the player through their academy and give him his first team break to qualify. (It’s my rule and I reserve the right to amend it as and when I see fit.)
In the case of David Brooks, neither team would qualify for the career long sell on clause.

 

[broomhillblade]

Brooks appears to have had a decent start in a pre-season friendly against Sevilla today. From the AFC Bournemouth site:

"David Brooks had his first run-out for the Cherries since joining the club from Sheffield United earlier this month, and the 21-year-old showed plenty of promise.

Brooks looked every bit a Premier League player in his 45-minute display, with a handful of eye-catching moments including one mazy, early run down the right flank.

The Wales international almost had a goalscoring opportunity, too, but having been picked out inside the six-yard box by Joshua King, was denied by a great challenge.

However, on first glance, Brooks’ technical skill and intelligence on the ball look a great fit for Eddie Howe’s side."

 

[robbiez666]

£4 million upfront makes perfect sense if you own the club.

£4 million a year for the next 3 years goes a long way to covering the running costs and as it's a low figure there's no real expectation to use it for transfer funds. Ingenious.

 

[bromtom]

Brooks appears to have had a decent start in a pre-season friendly against Sevilla today. From the AFC Bournemouth site:

"David Brooks had his first run-out for the Cherries since joining the club from Sheffield United earlier this month, and the 21-year-old showed plenty of promise.

Brooks looked every bit a Premier League player in his 45-minute display, with a handful of eye-catching moments including one mazy, early run down the right flank.

The Wales international almost had a goalscoring opportunity, too, but having been picked out inside the six-yard box by Joshua King, was denied by a great challenge.

However, on first glance, Brooks’ technical skill and intelligence on the ball look a great fit for Eddie Howe’s side."

Has Brooks played a competitive game for Wales? Wonder if his career progresses rapidly he'll go back to England. That's how it works isn't it?

 

[Angef1Blade]

That's what I thought, some clubs might ask for the lot up front if they are desperate for the money ASAP, but that would probably reduce the overall fee received.

Anyway what's the issue? We are going to be getting £12m over a few years, what difference does it make if we don't get it in one lump sum?

Grass growing, horse starving situation ??