In court

[Selly]

Yes. The original agreement it would seem. McCabe gets £25m, writes off around £40m and rides off into the sunset. HRH didn't, for whatever reason, want to buy the ground. Which for me, is a worry.

I suspect this boils down to the prince not wanting (or rather having) to buy the ground for £20m. He is probably looking at this as an opportunity to get the club and ground on the cheap (as what use is owning the ground to McCabe if it isn`t generating income).

The original clause was put there so that McCabe wouldn`t be left with the ground not generating anything.

Equally, I suspect that the prince is hacked off that McCabe tried to excise the clause at all - seeing it as an attempt to get him to put up the cash or sell his shareholding - at a time when we looked (and still do) like we could be in the PL in a matter of months (now weeks)

This is not me defending the Prince - it seems to me that McCabe has attempted to do things "by the book" - albeit in a timescale that might have riled the Prince - it is the prince who has played jiggery pokery with his shareholding to try and get out of the clause. Morally he is in the wrong.

I know who I would rather have at the helm of this club - and it isn`t the me, me, me, my profit above all else businessman...

 

[Peter Dornan]

In my amateur understanding of contract law I always believed that the parties had to treat each other with "good faith". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_faith_(law)

In contract law, the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is a general presumption that the parties to a contract will deal with each other honestly, fairly, and in good faith, so as to not destroy the right of the other party or parties to receive the benefits of the contract.

I would suggest (from what I've read) that the Prince has broken that 'implied covenant' by his share switch, but I'm not sure whether KM's first move in starting the whole process has also done the same thing. Any legal minds out there who can shed more light on this aspect?

 

[Hamburg Blade]

Yes. The original agreement it would seem. McCabe gets £25m, writes off around £40m and rides off into the sunset. HRH didn't, for whatever reason, want to buy the ground. Which for me, is a worry.

One of the blackest marks against McCabe is that he separated the club from the ground. I remember thinking at the time that it could lead to problems in the future. I have no idea why he did but more importantly I have no idea why the Prince doesn't want the ground.

 

[Sean Thornton]

I suspect this boils down to the prince not wanting (or rather having) to buy the ground for £20m. He is probably looking at this as an opportunity to get the club and ground on the cheap (as what use is owning the ground to McCabe if it isn`t generating income).

The original clause was put there so that McCabe wouldn`t be left with the ground not generating anything.

Equally, I suspect that the prince is hacked off that McCabe tried to excise the clause at all - seeing it as an attempt to get him to put up the cash or sell his shareholding - at a time when we looked (and still do) like we could be in the PL in a matter of months (now weeks)

This is not me defending the Prince - it seems to me that McCabe has attempted to do things "by the book" - albeit in a timescale that might have riled the Prince - it is the prince who has played jiggery pokery with his shareholding to try and get out of the clause. Morally he is in the wrong.

I know who I would rather have at the helm of this club - and it isn`t the me, me, me, my profit above all else businessman...

McCabes offer wasn’t made this season.

 

[Champagneblade]

View attachment 52068 Hmmm.

They cut the last bit out. PS are we still ok for Golf on Sunday, Kev?

 

[Sam_blades]

I think.... and i'm sure someone will correct me, there's solidarity sell on clauses when a player is trained as a youth at a club, I think it's a very small percentage but is applicable to subsequent transfers, but i'm not sure how many that equates to?

Pretty sure we would get over a million in 'Training compensation' if Harry sold for a fee in the region of £65 million as he was with us between the ages of 12 and 23. The regulations for this are here;
https://resources.fifa.com/image/up...2018-2925437.pdf?cloudid=c83ynehmkp62h5vgwg9g

 

[Harry's Game]

Rules don't allow teams to move that sort of distance any more - it's something like 6 miles max these days.

I’m not going to Rotherham to watch us FFS!

I have to go there two or three tines a year for work and it’s like something out of the Hills have eyes.

 

[guancheblade]

It seems those running the day to day are seeing a need for a further 7m investment in the summer for Chris with only 600k incoming to offset that. This seems to be disputed on the Prince's side and for that reason I'd rather Kev wins.

It is stated that one player sale could offset this. Let's hope that Che goes for 20m and Brooks gets offloaded for 40m and Maguire gets his move to Man U!

It also mentions how the Prince moved shared from one company to another to disrupt McCabe's attempt to get shares back. With all those shares not in one place it would diminish the Prince's need to outright acquire everything.

All very messy and acrimonious.

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2019/914.html

We'r not going to receive any benefit from Maguire moving on anywhere. His sell on clause got used when he moved to Leicester.

 

[sheffielder]

We'r not going to receive any benefit from Maguire moving on anywhere. His sell on clause got used when he moved to Leicester.

I thought the rules had changed and that the academy club would get 5% of any future sale, past the sell on clause

 

[guancheblade]

I thought the rules had changed and that the academy club would get 5% of any future sale, past the sell on clause

If so how does that affect a potential Brooks sale? Does he technically count as an academy product and if so, would it be 5% on top of whatever sell on clause we already agreed with Bournemouth?

 

[sheffielder]

If so how does that affect a potential Brooks sale? Does he technically count as an academy product and if so, would it be 5% on top of whatever sell on clause we already agreed with Bournemouth?

I am not sure he counts as an academy product, so wouldn't be in this case.

If he was

1st Sale from Bournemouth we would get just the sell on fee as agreed.
If he was sold again then we get 5%

* I could be talking shit

 

[JJ Sefton]

Jeez, this takes me back to the daily courtroom drama of young Chedwyn Evans!

Young 'un, it takes me back to the Halcyon days of Woolhouse vs Brealey.

 

[hidesbehindapseudonym]

If the Prince wins this is what we will become known as. FFS

شيفيلد المتحدة

 

[Selly]

McCabes offer wasn’t made this season.

I know - it was made Nov/Dec last season - when we were equally well placed (at the time)

 

[Selly]

I would suggest (from what I've read) that the Prince has broken that 'implied covenant' by his share switch, but I'm not sure whether KM's first move in starting the whole process has also done the same thing. Any legal minds out there who can shed more light on this aspect?

I'd agree - but surely one cannot break "good faith" by doing something expressly allowed for in the contract (i.e. making an offer for shares)?

Whereas the moving around of shares was not specifically allowed for (i.e. its a bit of a loophole)...

 

[ChemEngBlade]

Why would we want Maguire to be sold? We sold to Hull who sold to Leicester, can’t imagine we’d be entitled to anything at all in form of a sell on clause from 2nd move since leaving us

 

[The Crab]

Young 'un, it takes me back to the Halcyon days of Woolhouse vs Brealey.

Those were the days, quibbling over the £85'000 fee for Paul Wood.....................

 

[Sean Thornton]

I know - it was made Nov/Dec last season - when we were equally well placed (at the time)

29 December2017. We’d dropped to six points behind the play off places, not battling for second place.

 

[Davalon]

For those scared about the prospect of owners other than Kevin McCabe, how much longer do you think we can go before we have no choice?

A change is coming in a few years or so, whatever the outcome of this case.

We'll see then if the doom mongers are right.

 

[Selly]

29 December2017. We’d dropped to six points behind the play off places, not battling for second place.

Fair point - I can`t imagine that our start of the season didn't play some part though.

 

[Sean Thornton]

Fair point - I can`t imagine that our start of the season didn't play some part though.

We just don’t know do we? That’s what bothers us all. He could have thought “i’m not Funding another season” or had got someone to sell to.

The barrack room lawyer in me thinks that Kevs offer should be legally off the table as he was offering £5m for 50% when according to the other side 50% wasn’t available as it had been,let’s say disposed of, to a third party owned by God know who..

As Revolution says, the £5m share price will go in legal fees and one side may end up footing the bill for the lot. Wonder if they both have a 50% uplift in place for doing their job right, sorry, winning? The robbing bastards .

 

[Tom Bott]

Are dogs allowed in the courtroom?

Yes, but not allowed as part of the legal team, and not counted as part of the attendance figures.

 

[Sean Thornton]

Yes, but not allowed as part of the legal team, and not counted as part of the attendance figures.

What about the case of Rex v Jones then?

 

[Tom Bott]

Rex was just a ringer though to distract Jones, while me and Mrs Jones had a thing going on.

 

[Sean Thornton]

Rex was just a ringer though to distract Jones, while me and Mrs Jones had a thing going on.

Did you meet every day at the same cafe?

 

[Snowman]

29 December2017. We’d dropped to six points behind the play off places, not battling for second place.

And I think it was in response to Prince showing no interest in pursuing a push in January.

 

[Sean Thornton]

Rex was just a ringer though to distract Jones, while me and Mrs Jones had a thing going on.

Did you mean Springer?

 

[Tom Bott]

Did you mean Springer?

Your thinking of Pearl, she was the Springer.

 

[Tom Bott]

Pearl was also full of wisdom, when, Dawn, broke on the morning of the night before she, tied a yellow ribbon around an old oak tree. Ever since that day, she has been, Associated, with canines of all forms taking the a piss at the base of this tree.

 

[Blade58]

What an absolute omini shambles. I read through it last night understanding little of the legal jargon, I did read a bit (now attached) which suggested McCable wanted to put money into the Jan transfer kitty, but the Prince didn't feel it was needed.

With the above and the way HRH has seemingly transferred his stake of the Football Club to another company to avoid having to buy the whole club (ground etc) worries me. It seems very underhand and I'm not entirely sure I'd want such a person in charge of OUR club.

Either way this is going to run and run and most probably still be running as a) the summer transfer window opens and/or b) next season starts. This can only give massive uncertainty to Wilder and his staff, and we all now what that could result in.

It's only my opinion, but anyone wanting the Prince taking over our club needs their bumps feeling

McCabe is far from perfect, but I don't trust the Prince to run our club as it's meant to be run

The underhanded moving of shares doesn't sit well with me at all. What else is he capable of doing?