18th December 10.30 a.m. Copthorne Hotel

[lenners]

Len, I understand your concerns about the transfer of the hotel from SUFC to KM. And I'm going to ignore your your wittering about where the AGM is being held this year (despite a very logical explanation from Essex pages back).

Now, what I'd like to know is if the AGM was held at Bramall Lane, would you have attended? Raul suggests that the reason you don't attend is that all that shareholders receive after tough questions is spin, and not real answers. That may be the case, but asking the tough questions brings such issues to the foreground and makes other shareholders more aware of such worries.... even if there are no actual answers received in exchange. This is a great forum, but it represents a tiny tiny percentage of all SUFC supporters and SUFC shareholders.

Why would you willingly turn down the chance to help save this club via a matchday visit that would take an hour tops?

Kin 'ell, if you understand the point about the hotel it's pretty self-evident why it is ridiculous for us to be hosting our agm there.
As I said before, I wouldn't ever go there now and think any Blade that does is a mug.
I wouldn't expect any real answers at the agm at all. More answers will be found in the accounts though as regards the hotel, the principle is already established.
And it stinks.

 

[Yossarian]

Funny that len. Because everyone else here thinks that YOU'RE the mug.

 

[Houso]

Kin 'ell, if you understand the point about the hotel it's pretty self-evident why it is ridiculous for us to be hosting our agm there.
As I said before, I wouldn't ever go there now and think any Blade that does is a mug.
I wouldn't expect any real answers at the agm at all. More answers will be found in the accounts though as regards the hotel, the principle is already established.
And it stinks.

And the point about using such a public channel for some accountability and making other shareholders aware of your concerns?

 

[Highbury_Blade]

Highbury,
I don't think it's that complicated.
SUFC is out of pocket on a hotel we built and which was intended to be a revenue stream for us and which is now owned by McCabe, not us.
That's before you start to consider the implications of McCabe controlling both entities in the transaction.

I understand it. You understand it, it's not good, so if you've got objections go to the AGM and raise them

 

[CopenhagenBlade]

Another thread ruined by 'Leyton Orient' Len and his pathetic attempts for attention.

Until McCabe sells out completely there is never going to be any transparency with our accounts. I don't be believe that we are at any great financial risk, McCabe as a businessman knows that we have to be seen as viable to be sold but I think that it is hard for him to gain investors when SUFC and Scarborough are so intertwined. I would guess that this has been his biggest problem recently not that we are not seen as a better investment than any other club but what are they investing in, property or a football club?

We as fans see SUFC on its own but McCabe sees it as part of his portfolio and has made the big mistake of ignoring the emotions that run round the club that are not part of his other businesses. In bsiness you take the emotion out of decisions but you can't do that we have a football club, which is a very emotional product. In principle he is/was correct in his strategy that in the whole the club has to have diverse income streams to survive and prosper, unfortunately for him and for us he chose property and then we had the financial crisis and we failed to get promoted to the Premier League again.

 

[beightonblade]

as soon as McWobblegob had over 50% of the Blades he could do what he wanted............ as dunc mentioned he can shuffle things from one pocket to another as he pleases.

 

[Tuns]

From reading these and other threads I think the reality is that none of us truly understand why and what has gone on over the last few months and years regarding some of the huge transactions and changes to share ownership and organisation that have taken place at United.

A lot of what is going on is guesswork, fuelled by some understandable nagging doubts - in the absence of any independent, knowledgable voice or a strong board - telling us that it's all ok and always has been and still is in the club's best interests.

McCabe will put up one of his great performances at the AGM and win round the audience. Anyone who queries the financial issues, the hotel etc will be told in no uncertain terms that McCabe has transformed the club and pumped millions into it - he may even throw in a bit of financial speak and a touch of jargon to convince the masses.

That will be enough to convince many but will leave some of us still looking for answers because what we really need in a complex situation like this is an indpendent expert to explain what has happened and why and who has benefitted etc

We can forget The STar and unfortunately our profile is not high enough for the national media or football finance experts to cast their eyes over what has happened.

So in this vacuum the arguments about the hotel etc will never truly be resolved. Though it is fun reading them - though I'm now not entirely sure what the point of my post was.

 

[Deleted member 1486]

It's his company, his money, he can do what he wants

as soon as McWobblegob had over 50% of the Blades he could do what he wanted............ as dunc mentioned he can shuffle things from one pocket to another as he pleases.

Not so: fiduciary duty

 

[beightonblade]

Not so: fiduciary duty

Prove it !

 

[Deleted member 1486]

Prove it !

Quote (Profit Rule): "Secret profits are also recoverable. They may take the form of an appointment to a new employment or consultancy role; acquisition of shares in a company; using trust property for their own benefit; receiving commission on contracts from his principal’s assets; taking advantage of corporate opportunities, amongst any other situation where the touchstone of the profit is the fiduciary connection to the principal."

The fiduciary in this case being a board member (or indeed the entire board) and the principal being the Limited Company (which is a separate legal entity from its shareholders).

edit: I'm not stating or even hinting that there's been any wrongdoing. Just disproving the theory that a controlling party in a company can do whatever he likes.

---------- Post added at 01:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:12 PM ----------

To take this out of legal jibber-jabber and put a more real world slant on it let's live in fantasy world for a minute.

Suppose I owned 51% of Google and you owned the other 49%. If I could do what I liked (through having the majority share holding) I could sell the domain name for billions (or transfer it to another company which I solely owned), sell the search engine database for billions, sell all the buildings/IT equipment/other assets for billions and pocket the lot without selling the Google company (effectively making Google a worthless company) and just say to you "hey, you still own 49% of the company, what's the issue?".

Clearly that kind of situation can't exist, because nobody would ever invest into a company unless they could buy 51% of the shares.

 

[super_pig]

do you think that we could move this stuff to an 'arguments with lenners' thread

 

[lenners]

I note the accounts state that SUFC closed the hotel gym in October 2010 to make way for new conference facilities.
Wonder if that's where the agm will be held.
I thought we had conference facilities at the Lane but mebbes they'll now be in competition with the Copthorne.
It's a funny old world.

 

[SwissBlade]

I note the accounts state that SUFC closed the hotel gym in October 2010 to make way for new conference facilities.
Wonder if that's where the agm will be held.
I thought we had conference facilities at the Lane but mebbes they'll now be in competition with the Copthorne.
It's a funny old world.

Always good to have competition.

---------- Post added at 02:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:50 PM ----------

No shareholder with an ounce of common should be setting foot inside the Copthorne for the reasons stated.
I suspect this will be one of the issues that I will be right about in the months to come boys and girls.

So.... does that mean you'll be there then Lenners?

 

[lenners]

Always good to have competition.

Of course. I wonder if SUFC paid for the conference facilities which will now be owned by McCabe which we will be competing with.
It's a funny old world.

 

[Micalijo]

I assume Copthorne will be running the new conference facility. In that sense any profit they make on that will be not going to McCabe. McCabe will get is fixed lump sum per annum just like SUFC Hotel Ltd did.

What puzzles me is that the accounts go on about room occupancy struggling and government away days down or whatever it was but I always thought that full occupance would be to Copthorne's benefit not SUFC Hotel Ltd.

I was told by people on here that the payments from Copthorne covered interest and capital? Why then did we make losses on it?

 

[SwissBlade]

Of course. I wonder if SUFC paid for the conference facilities which will now be owned by McCabe which we will be competing with.
It's a funny old world.

Who know's Lenners?

As you know about these things, Where did the money come from to fund the Academy?

---------- Post added at 03:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:58 PM ----------

I assume Copthorne will be running the new conference facility. In that sense any profit they make on that will be not going to McCabe. McCabe will get is fixed lump sum per annum just like SUFC Hotel Ltd did.

What puzzles me is that the accounts go on about room occupancy struggling and government away days down or whatever it was but I always thought that full occupance would be to Copthorne's benefit not SUFC Hotel Ltd.

I was told by people on here that the payments from Copthorne covered interest and capital? Why then did we make losses on it?

This is the great thing Mic, how can anyone know the ins and outs of the contract with Copthorne unless they're on the inside?

 

[lenners]

I assume Copthorne will be running the new conference facility. In that sense any profit they make on that will be not going to McCabe. McCabe will get is fixed lump sum per annum just like SUFC Hotel Ltd did.

What puzzles me is that the accounts go on about room occupancy struggling and government away days down or whatever it was but I always thought that full occupance would be to Copthorne's benefit not SUFC Hotel Ltd.

I was told by people on here that the payments from Copthorne covered interest and capital? Why then did we make losses on it?

I don't think we made losses as such. It appears the pre-tax profit was so negligible it nowhere near covered the capital repayments.
As for the conference facilities, if we took the decision to close the gym, it is unlikely Copthorne will be taking all the wedge from conference facilities.
Either way, it doesn't detract from a hotel we built, now owned by McCabe, being in direct competition for business with our club.
Pretty clear to me why all Blades should be steering well clear of a McCabe-owned business that is competing with our club.

And Swiss, we still own the academy.

 

[raul]

Wonder if the payments (if any) made to SUFC for programme advertising will change to refelct the change in the relationship?

 

[Flatulent_Bob]

I was told by people on here that the payments from Copthorne covered interest and capital? Why then did we make losses on it?

Because they were going on information provided by the club.

It must be a fun time for you at the minute Mica, chuffed to fuck that the club is losing money and Christmas around the corner.

 

[shorehamview]

I don't think we made losses as such. It appears the pre-tax profit was so negligible it nowhere near covered the capital repayments.
As for the conference facilities, if we took the decision to close the gym, it is unlikely Copthorne will be taking all the wedge from conference facilities.
Either way, it doesn't detract from a hotel we built, now owned by McCabe, being in direct competition for business with our club.
Pretty clear to me why all Blades should be steering well clear of a McCabe-owned business that is competing with our club.

But if you go to the AGM you don't have to spend any money in the hotel. They won't be charging you a pound a question. You can ask McCabe all the questions you like and what's more, they won't charge you on the day. So you won't be giving any money directly to any McCabe owned business if you attend the AGM. You might even get a free sweetie, thus Sticking It To The Man in a small way. Hell, even if you just ask a question but go for a poo too you'll actually be using hotel resources without paying for them, to whit some bog roll, and on past evidence that might well be a hell of a lot of bog roll. It's like not liking Wednesday. You can still go to Hillsborough for United matches even if you don't like Wednesday.

Pretty clear to everyone that any self-respecting Blade with a share or more can go to the AGM, let their feelings be known, and not spend any money there on the day.

Unless they are all gob and no action, of course. Totally clear, that one.

 

[Micalijo]

Because they were going on information provided by the club.

It must be a fun time for you at the minute Mica, chuffed to fuck that the club is losing money and Christmas around the corner.

Yep, enjoying me sen, has to be said Bob.

Fancy going on info provided by the club - big mistake.

It was pointed out that the said asset was highly likely to be 'underwater' and that the bank would bet getting a bit twitchy. It was also pointed out that Copthorne would not pay in full for a hotel that would be owned by SUFC

 

[Flatulent_Bob]

Ah sorry I missed it first time round, it's all about point scoring.

Sorry missed that one. Go on lad fill yer boots give your fragile ego a boost.

 

[lenners]

Shoreham,
A much more eloquent statement would be made by shareholders refusing to attend any meeting at the hotel.
Going along with it provides tacit endorsement.

 

[Highbury_Blade]

So if all, Bramall lane facilities are being used for Matchday duties, what would be your preferred alternative venue?

 

[lenners]

So if all, Bramall lane facilities are being used for Matchday duties, what would be your preferred alternative venue?

I've never known an agm held on a matchday before - if anyone wants to put me right on that I'd be curious to know when it was.
Even if it has, I don't recall any being held away from our club.
I don't want any alternative venue to where our club's agm has been held in all the years I can remember which is at our club.

 

[shorehamview]

Shoreham,
A much more eloquent statement would be made by shareholders refusing to attend any meeting at the hotel.
Going along with it provides tacit endorsement.

Lenny, I would have thought that the most eloquent statement would be a statement rather than no statement.

After all, if your house is on fire you dial 999 and make a statement that you'd quite like the fire brigade to arrive, once they've finished their jobs as cabbies and plasterers, rather than sitting there while the house burns down, being all superior and eloquent and mysterious and hot and crispy round the edges.

Going to a meeting to display your dissatisfaction and actually saying something says much more than staying at home and doing your Hannah Montana jigsaw or some light colouring in.

If I was a shareholder I'd go. And I'd be asking questions of McCabe, Birch and all other committee members there.


From Wiktionary...

Adjective

eloquent (comparative more eloquent, superlative most eloquent)

1.fluently persuasive and articulate.
2.effective in expressing meaning by speech.

That's expressing meaning by speech, rather than not.

 

[Highbury_Blade]

I've never known an agm held on a matchday before - if anyone wants to put me right on that I'd be curious to know when it was.
Even if it has, I don't recall any being held away from our club.
I don't want any alternative venue to where our club's agm has been held in all the years I can remember which is at our club.

As usual question the question has been deftly avoided

I'll reword it for you.

The AGM is being held on a matchday. If all conference facilities are being used at Bramall Lane, where should the AGM be held?

 

[SotonBlade]

Len, if you're not going fine, but then don't come on here and moan about it if you don't plan to do anything about it. Learn to reply yes or no to questions too, it's one of the main reasons you cause friction. Politicians don't say yes or no, and they aren't particularly liked either!

You'd gain a lot more respect for your points if you answered a straight question with a straight answer and didn't always use hindsight to back up points.

Also, noticed you came back directly after a defeat, how original and predictable. Sod off to Swillsboro if all you're going to do is bad mouth the club that most on here LIKE to support!

 

[beightonblade]

Well no shortage of questions that need answering thats for sure..................

I'll bet there is not one clear annswer to any 'awkward' questions asked !

 

[shorehamview]

From supporters-direct.org

Regarding the location of a football club's AGM.

"Location

As important as timing in running an effective AGM is the issue of location. An obvious convenient location is the football club ground, and indeed this is typically the main venue for football company AGMs - though this is not always the case. For example, in December 2000 Newcastle United PLC held their AGM in the City of London early in the morning. The board argued that this was to make it easier for institutional investors to attend the meeting. Supporter groups argued that the real motive was to make it more difficult for large numbers of shareholding supporters to attend the meeting. Previous AGMs had witnessed hundreds of shareholding supporters in attendance, many of whom had raised difficult questions for the board of the PLC. A group of independent Newcastle United shareholders in the process of forming a Supporters’ Trust had also managed to have a resolution put on the AGM agenda paper calling on the PLC to support the establishment of a Supporters’ Trust.

Supporters’ Trusts should be arguing strongly for the company AGM to be held at a location easily accessible to the majority of supporter-shareholders."

I would suggest that the nearest hotel to the football ground in question would satisfy the criteria. Of course, there are some who will use it as an excuse for action or lack thereof, but as the AGM is being held on a matchday then all of the meeting rooms at Bramall Lane, as has been pointed out, are in use.

Some supporters have been given every opportunity to express their forthright opinions to the board and/or chairman of Sheffield United, but have declined the opportunity. That's their loss. I can see the point about the hotel though, after all it's not as if they'll be anywhere near Bramall Lane on a matchday.

---------- Post added at 04:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:10 PM ----------

Again, from the same site regarding timing of an AGM.

"In the case of football companies, where there are large numbers of supporters who are small shareholders likely to be at their workplace during normal working hours, it is clearly not convenient to hold the company AGM other than at weekends or in the evenings. For clubs to hold their company AGMs during working hours clearly discriminates against small shareholders and makes it more difficult to exercise their rights."

So that's why they have them at weekends, and probably chose a matchday so that fans travelling from a long way away wouldn't have to make an extra journey.