23/04/10 - Reaction to Birch & McCabe Q&A

[Flatulent_Bob]

A couple of things, firstly I have never said we have only paid 750K. I said that was the initial payment, this is what Len wouldn't have insisting that it was £3 Million up front that is wrong.
Tricky Trev: Ched evans, initial down payment 750k already paid, 2.1million plus another 900k dependent on clauses.


As for the interest you keep saying he wants his wedge back, this goes against what he has said he doesn't want to sell up, he wants investment to water down his percentage control.

 

[Micalijo]

A couple of things, firstly I have never said we have only paid 750K. I said that was the initial payment, this is what Len wouldn't have insisting that it was £3 Million up front that is wrong.
Tricky Trev: Ched evans, initial down payment 750k already paid, 2.1million plus another 900k dependent on clauses.


As for the interest you keep saying he wants his wedge back, this goes against what he has said he doesn't want to sell up, he wants investment to water down his percentage control.

Yes - but why have you said repeatedly before this that it is appearance based for any cash payments above £750k. Do you accept that is not the case? It appears so from above.

 

[Flatulent_Bob]

It is appearance based for any cash payments above £750K, some of which have already been met.

KMc: It's on a set amount of money that's on appearances only.

Tricky Trev: Ched evans, initial down payment 750k already paid, 2.1million plus another 900k dependent on clauses.

This is getting boring now having to constantly requote what was said because neither you or Len could be bothered to turn up, listen or evidentially even read the transcripts.

 

[Micalijo]

It is appearance based for any cash payments above £750K, some of which have already been met.

KMc: It's on a set amount of money that's on appearances only.

Tricky Trev: Ched evans, initial down payment 750k already paid, 2.1million plus another 900k dependent on clauses.

This is getting boring now having to constantly requote what was said because neither you or Len could be bothered to turn up, listen or evidentially even read the transcripts.

Not boring, just ridiculous that you are still claiming that 'it is appearance based for cash payments above 750k.' That is not the case. We are paying City £2.1m regardless of whether he plays or not.

.

 

[Flatulent_Bob]

fine you are basing that on your opinion and no evidence.

Where as my figures are backed up with what KM and TB said over the weekend the transcripts of which can be seen in black and white on this forum.

 

[lenners]

fine you are basing that on your opinion and no evidence.

Where as my figures are backed up with what KM and TB said over the weekend the transcripts of which can be seen in black and white on this forum.

Bobby boy, you choose to believe what you want to.
Anyone else could see that obfuscating about Evans was pure comedy. Seth desperately wanting to prove the line Radio Sheffield has punted out all year, Kev and Trev seeing a lifeline about the worst big money signing we've ever made and thinking we'll grab on to that one.
Still think the comments about the 'deal' with Spurs were funniest of all though. Shame no-one asked when the friendly with Leeds is scheduled.
So far we're nearly 8,000 season tickets down on this season. How many of those you reckon will renew based on what they've told the fans in those forums?
It'll be a long time before we get the kind of crowd we got yesterday on a regular basis.
But we've done some kind of strange deal with Chengdu and we're going to do even better with the academy and the scouting's going to be beefed up.
The sad thing is that next season the division is there for the taking by any club that gets its act together with a decent manager and a modicum of investment.
Nothing Kev and Trev said suggested that would be us.

 

[shorehamview]

You see? Clapping fish say he correct, so he correct. Learn way of obfuscation, and you will see destination through much fog. Understand now, grasshopper?

Remember, wax on, wax off.



This makes no fucking sense whatsoever, but I didn't start it. And it's true, because I say so. That seems to be the main criteria for truth these days - ignore what the man has said, because you know his intentions and meaning better then he does himself.

Applauding haddock.

 

[Flatulent_Bob]

So, grasshopper no understand.

Did Ched Evans cost £3 Million up front as per Len said or was he wrong? Go on Len keep spinning!!
:fishy::fishy::fishy::fishy::fishy::fishy::fishy::fishy:

 

[shorehamview]

Well, lenners obviously knows everything that goes on everywhere, because lenner says so. Now, Kevin McCabe has answered the question.

But lenners says that McCabe is wrong. Thank fuck we have such trusty souls on hand to tell our chairman that he is wrong.

Er, you did go to the Q&A sessions, to point the truth out to Kevin McCabe, didn't you lenners?

Did you go?


A simple yes or no will do. Just yea or nay. Affirmation of attendance or admittance of non-attandance. One or the other.

Yes? Or no?

 

[lenners]

So, grasshopper no understand.

Did Ched Evans cost £3 Million up front as per Len said or was he wrong? Go on Len keep spinning!!
:fishy::fishy::fishy::fishy::fishy::fishy::fishy::fishy:

No, he cost ten bob and we also got a friendly with Leeds and first dibs on Danny Rose on loan chucked in.

 

[lenners]

Well, lenners obviously knows everything that goes on everywhere, because lenner says so. Now, Kevin McCabe has answered the question.

But lenners says that McCabe is wrong. Thank fuck we have such trusty souls on hand to tell our chairman that he is wrong.

Er, you did go to the Q&A sessions, to point the truth out to Kevin McCabe, didn't you lenners?

Did you go?


A simple yes or no will do. Just yea or nay. Affirmation of attendance or admittance of non-attandance. One or the other.

Yes? Or no?

Shoreham, remind us all again what the answers were...
It's going to be very easy for Lenners to tie the loyalists up in knots over the coming months but I suppose we may as well start now.

 

[shorehamview]

Shoreham, remind us all again what the answers were...
It's going to be very easy for Lenners to tie the loyalists up in knots over the coming months but I suppose we may as well start now.

First, it's shorehamview, thanks.

And secondly, I asked you for a simple answer to the question of wether you went to either of the two Q&A sessions. It seems that as you can't be bothered to answer even that one question simply with either YES or NO then why should we pay any attention to your witterings.

So let's try again lenners.

Did you go to either of the two Q&A sessions? After all, you would have had ample opportunity to put your questions to McCabe and Birch.

So please spare us the rhetoric, the babble and the general skirting around the issues.

Did you go? Yes or no, it's not too hard, is it?

Yes or no lenners? Or is that too a question you are willing to swerve?

Did you go? Or did you not go? After all, surely you wouldn't have wanted to miss the chance to question the men in charge. Did you go?

Now, call me cynical, but I reckon you didn't go.

Did you go lenners?

Yes or no?

That's all. Just yes or no.

 

[DuncDisorderly]

I am also astonished that you seem to think that just because we have not physically paid cash interest to McCabne that it is irrelavent for SUFC. We owe him more money and as we know he wants his wedge back. It is a very, very simple concept, confirmed by the accounts and confirmed by Bob th Builder taking the Tevez wedge straight out.

This is one of the things that astonish me too, but for the opposite reason. It is because you are making SUCH a massive issue out of very little. Kevin McCabe is the overwhelming majority share owner of the club. Its not 'us' having to pay 'him' back. Its two pockets in the same pair of trousers, his trousers. If he has repaid loans, or intends to repay loans that he has made to the club, then he is ENTIRELY WITHIN HIS RIGHTS TO DO SO, within the terms agreed at the time of the loan, whether it is done with the Tevez money, the gate money or whatever money. Its only money and you are getting confused by trying to mentally ringfence anything. One pound is the same as another pound.

He may choose to repay the loan and not the interest. He may choose to captitalise the interest or the interest along with part or the whole of the loan. What exactly is wrong with that? At the end of the day it is numbers in the balance sheet and makes not a flying fig of difference to the club or the team. Seeing as everyone seems to have a favourite fact to quote at the moment, here is mine.

Kevin McCabe effectively owns the club. We don't. It is his money, his investment and largely his decision within the constraints of board responsibilities. Anything else is just hot air.

 

[Micalijo]

This is one of the things that astonish me too, but for the opposite reason. It is because you are making SUCH a massive issue out of very little. Kevin McCabe is the overwhelming majority share owner of the club. Its not 'us' having to pay 'him' back. Its two pockets in the same pair of trousers, his trousers. If he has repaid loans, or intends to repay loans that he has made to the club, then he is ENTIRELY WITHIN HIS RIGHTS TO DO SO, within the terms agreed at the time of the loan, whether it is done with the Tevez money, the gate money or whatever money. Its only money and you are getting confused by trying to mentally ringfence anything. One pound is the same as another pound.

He may choose to repay the loan and not the interest. He may choose to captitalise the interest or the interest along with part or the whole of the loan. What exactly is wrong with that? At the end of the day it is numbers in the balance sheet and makes not a flying fig of difference to the club or the team. Seeing as everyone seems to have a favourite fact to quote at the moment, here is mine.

Kevin McCabe effectively owns the club. We don't. It is his money, his investment and largely his decision within the constraints of board responsibilities. Anything else is just hot air.

Not saying there's owt wrong with it. I'm trying to get Bob to understand things a bit better. I agree with you but using my example he could take £2.2 out rather than £2m which means £200k less on the team.

 

[Micalijo]

fine you are basing that on your opinion and no evidence.

Where as my figures are backed up with what KM and TB said over the weekend the transcripts of which can be seen in black and white on this forum.

No evidence? I copied a bit of the transcript where Birch said £2.1m with rest based on appearances. What more can I do.

I'll ask again, how much will we pay for Evans if he never plays again for us? £750k or £2.1m?

 

[lenners]

Shoreham,
I couldn't give a flying whether you're bothered about my witterings. If you're not, simply don't bother replying.
The 'answers', in the loosest form of the word, have been provided.
Turns out Ched's cost £750,000, £2.1m and £3m at the same time.
We also have 'the 4th highest wage bill in the league', have sold or not sold Chengdu, don't have a clue about our deal with Spurs, Billy Sharp's coming back to a manager he can't work with etc, etc.
You're free to stay on Gullible's Travels.

 

[SE1Blade]

Micalijo, I'll spell it out to you.

Ched Evans cost £2.1m, with an extra 900k based on appearances.

£750k of that £2.1m was paid up front. The remaining £1.35m is spread along the length of the contract.

If his contract is 4 years, thats roughly £440,000 per year.

Therefore, if we were to sell Ched Evans this summer, we will have paid £1.19m for him, but are still committed to paying the extra £910k over the next 3 years. Obviously, whatever fee we got would be used to pay this, bearing in mind that the fee received would also be paid in instalments (as most fees are).

However, I don't think we'll sell him, and certainly hope we don't. I think he has a lot of potential.

 

[Micalijo]

Micalijo, I'll spell it out to you.

Ched Evans cost £2.1m, with an extra 900k based on appearances.

£750k of that £2.1m was paid up front. The remaining £1.35m is spread along the length of the contract.

If his contract is 4 years, thats roughly £440,000 per year.

Therefore, if we were to sell Ched Evans this summer, we will have paid £1.19m for him, but are still committed to paying the extra £910k over the next 3 years. Obviously, whatever fee we got would be used to pay this, bearing in mind that the fee received would also be paid in instalments (as most fees are).

However, I don't think we'll sell him, and certainly hope we don't. I think he has a lot of potential.

It's Bob you need to spell it out to, not me! I agree with every word you've said.

 

[shorehamview]

Shoreham,
I couldn't give a flying whether you're bothered about my witterings. If you're not, simply don't bother replying.
The 'answers', in the loosest form of the word, have been provided.
Turns out Ched's cost £750,000, £2.1m and £3m at the same time.
We also have 'the 4th highest wage bill in the league', have sold or not sold Chengdu, don't have a clue about our deal with Spurs, Billy Sharp's coming back to a manager he can't work with etc, etc.
You're free to stay on Gullible's Travels.

I asked if you went to the meetings. You have so far refused to answer. Why should we bother with your missives when the basic concept of "yes" or "no" seems to have eluded you?
And how the hell can you tie anybody in knots? You can't answer yes or no. Knots? On current form it looks like shoelaces would be a step too far.

 

[JohnDenver]

It's going to be very easy for Lenners to tie the loyalists up in knots

Does that make you the rebel alliance? Len Skywalker?

Renewing your season ticket then? In spite of the evil empire?

 

[lenners]

I asked if you went to the meetings. You have so far refused to answer. Why should we bother with your missives when the basic concept of "yes" or "no" seems to have eluded you?
And how the hell can you tie anybody in knots? You can't answer yes or no. Knots? On current form it looks like shoelaces would be a step too far.

Shoreham, the transcripts are on this site.
Did I need to see the looks on Kev and Trev's faces to see the real meaning?

 

[DuncDisorderly]

Not saying there's owt wrong with it. I'm trying to get Bob to understand things a bit better. I agree with you but using my example he could take £2.2 out rather than £2m which means £200k less on the team.

No it doesn't. The team budget is seperate to any ad-hoc loan re-payments. He has stated that he is not drawing down the loan repayment anyway, so the number might keep ticking up on the balance sheet, but it doesn't make a penny piece difference to the team budget.

 

[shorehamview]

Shoreham, the transcripts are on this site.
Did I need to see the looks on Kev and Trev's faces to see the real meaning?

lenne, you could have asked them a question yourself.

Now answer this one. Try your hardest. Leave the tasty glazing alone for a while and try.

Did you go? Just type yes or no, depending on which one it is. If you get stuck then ask a responsible adult to help you.

Yes or no? That's all I want to know.

 

[alcoblade]

This is one of the things that astonish me too, but for the opposite reason. It is because you are making SUCH a massive issue out of very little. Kevin McCabe is the overwhelming majority share owner of the club. Its not 'us' having to pay 'him' back. Its two pockets in the same pair of trousers, his trousers. If he has repaid loans, or intends to repay loans that he has made to the club, then he is ENTIRELY WITHIN HIS RIGHTS TO DO SO, within the terms agreed at the time of the loan, whether it is done with the Tevez money, the gate money or whatever money. Its only money and you are getting confused by trying to mentally ringfence anything. One pound is the same as another pound.

He may choose to repay the loan and not the interest. He may choose to captitalise the interest or the interest along with part or the whole of the loan. What exactly is wrong with that? At the end of the day it is numbers in the balance sheet and makes not a flying fig of difference to the club or the team. Seeing as everyone seems to have a favourite fact to quote at the moment, here is mine.

Kevin McCabe effectively owns the club. We don't. It is his money, his investment and largely his decision within the constraints of board responsibilities. Anything else is just hot air.

I disagree entirely. Based on your logic we may as well all pack up and go home. Clearly he can do what he wants. That's not the point. We're judging his stewardship of the club we support. If he loans money and takes that money back plus "£20M", clearly we'll view him far less favourably. Does or should he care? Enough to make a point of it himself.

I don't know or understand what's happeining with the interest, but to suggest it makes no difference if he's bleeding the coffers dry, or doing an Abramovich style write off, is a bit baffling.

UTB

 

[lenners]

lenne, you could have asked them a question yourself.

Now answer this one. Try your hardest. Leave the tasty glazing alone for a while and try.

Did you go? Just type yes or no, depending on which one it is. If you get stuck then ask a responsible adult to help you.

Yes or no? That's all I want to know.

Shoreham son, the questions were asked, the answers were given.
No amount of wiggling from you or anyone else is going to make any difference to the waffle, obfuscation, pretence and inaccuracies put forward by the Kev and Trev double act.
Don't blame the messenger kiddo.

 

[DuncDisorderly]

I disagree entirely. Based on your logic we may as well all pack up and go home. Clearly he can do what he wants. That's not the point. We're judging his stewardship of the club we support. If he loans money and takes that money back plus "£20M", clearly we'll view him far less favourably. Does or should he care? Enough to make a point of it himself.

I don't know or understand what's happeining with the interest, but to suggest it makes no difference if he's bleeding the coffers dry, or doing an Abramovich style write off, is a bit baffling.

UTB

Sorry Alco, but the bit that seems to be baffling you is the easiest bit. He does, effectively, own the club, and can within the boundaries of the law, do what the hell he likes with it. If he wants to change our name to Gay Boys Thursday and play in fluorescent green and purple, he could. But of course he won't. So far as the loans are concerned, he has stepped in and put money into the club rather than getting it from the bank. The bank would charge interest, so why shouldn't he if he wanted? Well it appears that he doesn't want to take it out of the club, and it is just accruing on the balance sheet which has no effect on the cash in the club. There have been lots of talk about the levels of interest he is getting being much higher than bank lending rates, that we are selling players to pay him back etc etc etc. None of these things appear to be happening. We dont need to be concerned about him spending the players budget on his yacht because he isn't doing it. Therefore what he is actually doing makes all the speculation irrelevant.

 

[Flatulent_Bob]

KMc: It's on a set amount of money that's on appearances only.

Tricky Trev: Ched evans, initial down payment 750k already paid, 2.1million plus another 900k dependent on clauses

 

[alcoblade]

Sorry Alco, but the bit that seems to be baffling you is the easiest bit. He does, effectively, own the club, and can within the boundaries of the law, do what the hell he likes with it. If he wants to change our name to Gay Boys Thursday and play in fluorescent green and purple, he could. But of course he won't. So far as the loans are concerned, he has stepped in and put money into the club rather than getting it from the bank. The bank would charge interest, so why shouldn't he if he wanted? Well it appears that he doesn't want to take it out of the club, and it is just accruing on the balance sheet which has no effect on the cash in the club. There have been lots of talk about the levels of interest he is getting being much higher than bank lending rates, that we are selling players to pay him back etc etc etc. None of these things appear to be happening. We dont need to be concerned about him spending the players budget on his yacht because he isn't doing it. Therefore what he is actually doing makes all the speculation irrelevant.

I'm baffled that you're so intent on seeing everything within the garden as rosy that you wouldn't distinguish McCabe charging £30M for his money from giving it for free. Of course he can do what he wants. But of course it matters. Two completely separate things, and merging them is baffling, to me anyway. It's not a Len style standpoint by any means - I'm pleased that, it seems, he isn't charging - though I have to remain slightly suspicious while ever it's accruing in the accounts. And I can't feel so delighted that he's "leaving the money in the club" because the reality is that it isn't there to take out. If it's saleable, we';ve sold it.

I'm quite pleased with the general gist from the Q&A, far from Mic and Len. But I seem equally as far from your standpoint which if you didn't seem so astute generally, comes off as gullible in the extreme.

UTB

 

[lenners]

Sorry Alco, but the bit that seems to be baffling you is the easiest bit. He does, effectively, own the club, and can within the boundaries of the law, do what the hell he likes with it. If he wants to change our name to Gay Boys Thursday and play in fluorescent green and purple, he could. But of course he won't. So far as the loans are concerned, he has stepped in and put money into the club rather than getting it from the bank. The bank would charge interest, so why shouldn't he if he wanted? Well it appears that he doesn't want to take it out of the club, and it is just accruing on the balance sheet which has no effect on the cash in the club. There have been lots of talk about the levels of interest he is getting being much higher than bank lending rates, that we are selling players to pay him back etc etc etc. None of these things appear to be happening. We dont need to be concerned about him spending the players budget on his yacht because he isn't doing it. Therefore what he is actually doing makes all the speculation irrelevant.

Another one who needs to look in the accounts.

 

[Micalijo]

Sorry Alco, but the bit that seems to be baffling you is the easiest bit. He does, effectively, own the club, and can within the boundaries of the law, do what the hell he likes with it. If he wants to change our name to Gay Boys Thursday and play in fluorescent green and purple, he could. But of course he won't. So far as the loans are concerned, he has stepped in and put money into the club rather than getting it from the bank. The bank would charge interest, so why shouldn't he if he wanted? Well it appears that he doesn't want to take it out of the club, and it is just accruing on the balance sheet which has no effect on the cash in the club. There have been lots of talk about the levels of interest he is getting being much higher than bank lending rates, that we are selling players to pay him back etc etc etc. None of these things appear to be happening. We dont need to be concerned about him spending the players budget on his yacht because he isn't doing it. Therefore what he is actually doing makes all the speculation irrelevant.

This really is quite incredible.

Have you heard of Carlos Tevez, Duncs? well, he played for West Ham and he was quite good and it transpired that he wasn't properly registered and kept WHU up at our expense. As a result Bob the Builder and SUFC sued WHU and the end result was an £18m net payout to SUFC.

In the June 2009 accounts it clearly says that as and when this wedge comes in (or the first instalment) it is going to McCabe or McCabe's companies. Now nobody is saying he can't do that - but these loans carry interest and what makes you think the interest won't eventually be paid - at the expense of team building?