Bitter battle for the Blades - Daily Mail Article

[Jonboy60]

Thought it was 1 signing and 2 loans or have I missed something?

McGoldrick, Egan and Kean Bryan with caveats, signed, although not confirmed at the time of my post to be fair.
And Woodburn on loan.

 

[Sean Thornton]

TV deal, sponsorship, new merchandise, the offloading of at least ten players and most importantly TICKET SALES whether season tickets or paying for individual games
YES, the fans make a very large contribution to the running of this club contrary to the belief of some who believe that nothing else exists apart from the boardrooms contributions

Of course we do. But we get something back for the money. The owners have been in charge and have made decisions which have cost them millions. That's why there's a court battle to see who can scrape some of it back. As it stands, both will lose one way or another. Little sympathy to be honest but the boardroom contributions are large and ongoing. The problem many on here have is not understanding the difference between profit and cash flow.

It's been stated we haven't even touched the Brooks money even though it's coming in staged payments and only £4m up front. Someone must know the wage bill etc to say that. Highly unlikely.

 

[I should coco]

Just becomes tiresome when every slightly negative (or not even negative as this thread shows) thing that’s written automatically ‘must have been written by a pig’

I'm as bad as the next man for having a dig at your employer (the Basegreen residents messy verge story that I repeat with monotonous regularity), but I agree with you.

Hang on in there Danny04

 

[SwissBlade]

I mean as much as anyone can say weve spent money were still what +8 million after brooks so the board have made a profit and that’s without the original transfer budged .

Still think we’re in an awful position just been Helped by the brooks sale in terms of budget and boardroom level

8 million hasn’t been received yet, we can be pretty confident know that we received 4 million as this was stated in the court docs

So we’ve allocated approx 4 million of the brooks money on Egan (however the amount received so far is likely to be 1 million max)

Plus wages for 2 loans, McGoldrick 1 year deal, improved deals for several current players.

So we’re keeping within our means whilst improving the squad.

 

[cjx blade]

McGoldrick, Egan and Kean Bryan with caveats, signed, although not confirmed at the time of my post to be fair.
And Woodburn on loan.

Cheers forgot Mcgoldrick, dont forget Henderson loan as well which is a bit of a coup.

 

[Bartleby]

To be honest, I can’t see anything in that article that is either inaccurate or particularly Anti-United.

The same things have been said a million times on here by Blades fans.

Would a Pig Fan describe United as “one of English football’s most famous clubs”?

"After Chris Wilder signed a new deal, all seemed well at Sheffield United but behind the scenes a feud between co-owners is paralysing further progress " hardly seems to reflect the signings we have made since CW signed his new deal, and comes across as sensationalist crap to me.

edit: I retract my statement about him being a pig though having researched further

 

[Jonboy60]

Cheers forgot Mcgoldrick, dont forget Henderson loan as well which is a bit of a coup.

Yes, forgot him.

 

[grafikhaus]

Please refrain from clicking the link. That piece of shit paper is possibly Wendy in disguise.

And more than a few politicians and slebs are deperate to gag the free press. No need when some on here want to do the job for them.

 

[Liverpool blade]

The article says nothing new that most blades didn’t know already!!.
We’ve had a good transfer window IMO.
It’s just a story to fill space in a shit newspaper!!.

 

[super_pig]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...oardroom-dispute-threatens-derail-season.html

Sheffield United boardroom dispute threatens to derail season as co-owners enter legal proceedings with one another

• After Chris Wilder signed a new deal, all seemed well at Sheffield United
• But behind the scenes, a feud between co-owners is paralysing further progress
• Kevin McCabe and his family, and Prince Abdullah Bin Mosaad Bin Abdulaziz Al Saud own 50 per cent each of Sheffield United after a deal between them in 2013
• Offers and counters have led to legal proceedings between Prince and McCabe
• It may now be a testing season for Wilder due to the power struggle at the club

Etc

been going on months pal please keep up
(not you SB)

 

[super_pig]

Assuming we get similar levels of performance from everyone then we're stronger on the pitch so far this window and that's what matters, not how much you spent doing it.

The board are fighting but not in a way that necessarily has to disrupt the football. If it were one wanting to fuck off but the other not being able to afford his shares or something that would be worse. As it is, it seems like they both want us to progress and their issues are with each other.

I'd rather have a board fighting about who loves us more than a board that's fucked us for the next 2 years with FFP or a board that's just skint full stop.

As long as we have a go between like Bettis and Wilder is happy with his budget, then there's no reason we can't still move forward.

nicely put Tom

 

[BushBlade]

"After Chris Wilder signed a new deal, all seemed well at Sheffield United but behind the scenes a feud between co-owners is paralysing further progress " hardly seems to reflect the signings we have made since CW signed his new deal, and comes across as sensationalist crap to me.

edit: I retract my statement about him being a pig though having researched further

It’s a newspaper with a reputation for publishing sensationalist crap (as most do). So no surprise really.

 

[Sothall_Blade]

been going on months pal please keep up
(not you SB)

True. First time it's been reported in the National Press though. The rest of the country has been oblivious to it.
The really big story is McCabe accusing Prince Abdullah of accepting bribes while he was a member of the Saudi Government.
But nobody in the media has picked up on that part yet either.

 

[BushBlade]

True. First time it's been reported in the National Press though. The rest of the country has been oblivious to it.
The really big story is McCabe accusing Prince Abdullah of accepting bribes while he was a member of the Saudi Government.
But nobody in the media has picked up on that part yet either.

Remember that libel case a couple of years ago with that daft lass, was it Bercow? She retweeted something libellous and got sued for it. I can’t remember the full details but I think you have to be careful when reporting on potentially libellous accusations. I’m sure they have weasel words to get round it but is it worth it? No one outside of Sheffield is that interested.

 

[I should coco]

It’s a newspaper with a reputation for publishing sensationalist crap (as most do). So no surprise really.

Was it the gypos or the assylum seekers wot done it?

 

[BushBlade]

Was it the gypos or the assylum seekers wot done it?

It was the virtue signalling snowflakes, the equality loving twats.

 

[I should coco]

It was the virtue signalling snowflakes, the equality loving twats.

BTW, who are the 'litigous idiots'?

 

[BushBlade]

BTW, who are the 'litigous idiots'?

Really? Is it too hot for you in Jakarta or have you forgotten about the little bit of suing the fuck out of each other that our loveable owners are partaking in?

 

[I should coco]

Really? Is it too hot for you in Jakarta or have you forgotten about the little bit of suing the fuck out of each other that our loveable owners are partaking in?

Sorry, my turn for a 'woosh'.

I thought you were the one in Jakarta? I think I'm something to do with Noah's Ark or something.

 

[BushBlade]

Sorry, my turn for a 'woosh'.

I thought you were the one in Jakarta? I think I'm something to do with Noah's Ark or something.

Yeah but I was portside this morning and saw an odd looking bloke in piss stained shorts shouting abuse at random sailors so I assumed you were here on holiday.

 

[Sean Thornton]

Rumours of a move from someone based in London for a strawberry blond cub reporter based in Sheffield following positive comments from him on a football forum.

 

[Sean Thornton]

Yeah but I was portside this morning and saw an odd looking bloke in piss stained shorts shouting abuse at random sailors so I assumed you were here on holiday.

Well he's not at work because no ones brought the milk in.

Abuse or his phone number?

 

[I should coco]

Yeah but I was portside this morning and saw an odd looking bloke in piss stained shorts shouting abuse at random sailors so I assumed you were here on holiday.

Nice imagery but my I'm not abandoning my post defending the KM barricades. Think Stalin, 1941 and the defence of Moscow but without Hitler, the Wermacht, the Red Army or the snow.

Quite a piss poor analogy actually, when all told.

 

[BushBlade]

Nice imagery but my I'm not abandoning my post defending the KM barricades. Think Stalin, 1941 and the defence of Moscow but without Hitler, the Wermacht, the Red Army or the snow.

Quite a piss poor analogy actually, when all told.

With Pommpey dressed in lederhosen wandering around the front line shouting ‘vere is mein u-boat?’

Fuck this, I’m going out.

 

[super_pig]

With Pommpey dressed in lederhosen wandering around the front line shouting ‘vere is mein u-boat?’

Fuck this, I’m going out.

can't use a U boat in Moscow mate

 

[stringer]

True. First time it's been reported in the National Press though. The rest of the country has been oblivious to it.
The really big story is McCabe accusing Prince Abdullah of accepting bribes while he was a member of the Saudi Government.
But nobody in the media has picked up on that part yet either.

It’s libellous.

 

[Snowman]

It’s libellous.

Why?

 

[BushBlade]

can't use a U boat in Moscow mate

 

[Sothall_Blade]

It’s libellous.

Potentially libellous, if it’s not true do you mean? It’s McCabe’s legal team making that claim, not me.

I can see why papers might steer clear of it though.

Not sure how this is any different to “me too” type stores where papers report that certain unproven accusations have been made?

 

[stringer]

Potentially libellous, if it’s not true do you mean? It’s McCabe’s legal team making that claim, not me.

I can see why papers might steer clear of it though.

Not sure how this is any different to “me too” type stores where papers report that certain unproven accusations have been made?

How would you intend on proving it was true, if challenged?