In court

[Espania blade]

I'd want the McCabe family to keep the club in a heartbeat.

I have witnessed what a fellow compatriot of the Prince has done to Malaga FC, trust me you don't want the Prince running our club.

UTB

 

[Mojo]

A "lowball offer" that committed him to sell at the same price if the Prince rejected the offer?

That's the daftest suggestion I've heard in a long time, and I've seen some daft ones on here.

With the stipulation you have to buy all the assets for market value. You don't have to be rude.

 

[Maidenhead]

I'd want the McCabe family to keep the club in a heartbeat.

I have witnessed what a fellow compatriot of the Prince has done to Malaga FC, trust me you don't want the Prince running our club.

UTB

 

[Maidenhead]

With the stipulation you have to buy all the assets for market value. You don't have to be rude.

That's what it said in the contract.

Both parties knew that so effectively McCabe said give me £5m and buy the properties at market value and it's all yours.

Should he have said I'll give you £20m but if you offer me the same and buy all the assets then I'm out of here?

The low offer is an indicator of McCabe being willing to go at a very reasonable cost yet some people manage to see it as an affront to the Prince.

 

[Mojo]

That's what it said in the contract.

Both parties knew that so effectively McCabe said give me £5m and buy the properties at market value and it's all yours.

Should he have said I'll give you £20m but if you offer me the same and buy all the assets then I'm out of here?

The low offer is an indicator of McCabe being willing to go at a very reasonable cost yet some people manage to see it as an affront to the Prince.

I'm not taking any sides, but clearly the prince wasn't happy with it so can't have been that great and fair an offer.

I don't know the exact figures but I believe the prince put in about 20 mill when we were towards the bottom of league 1, so to then offer him 5 mill for his shares when we are near the top of the championship is a bit of a low offer in that context is it not? Obviously it's not clear cut hence it's at the high court.

 

[Revolution]

That's what it said in the contract.

Both parties knew that so effectively McCabe said give me £5m and buy the properties at market value and it's all yours.

Should he have said I'll give you £20m but if you offer me the same and buy all the assets then I'm out of here?

The low offer is an indicator of McCabe being willing to go at a very reasonable cost yet some people manage to see it as an affront to the Prince.

The low offer was part of McCabe's plan to get rid of the Prince. He thought that the Prince wouldn't have the cash to buy the shares and the ground, and hence McCabe could pick up the shares for the same money,

This isn't speculation. It's in the judgment from last year.

The dispute arose because the Prince argues that because he's split the shareholding he doesn't have to buy the ground.

 

[Maidenhead]

I'm not taking any sides, but clearly the prince wasn't happy with it so can't have been that great and fair an offer.

I don't know the exact figures but I believe the prince put in about 20 mill when we were towards the bottom of league 1, so to then offer him 5 mill for his shares when we are near the top of the championship is a bit of a low offer in that context is it not? Obviously it's not clear cut hence it's at the high court.

The Prince knowingly put it into a loss making business.

He knew the risks, and he knew that there was no way he would ever recover that money unless we made it to the Premiership.

 

[Maidenhead]

The low offer was part of McCabe's plan to get rid of the Prince. He thought that the Prince wouldn't have the cash to buy the shares and the ground, and hence McCabe could pick up the shares for the same money,

This isn't speculation. It's in the judgment from last year.

The dispute arose because the Prince argues that because he's split the shareholding he doesn't have to buy the ground.

So McCabe has inside knowledge of the Prince's finances and his credit rating within the Saudi community?

 

[I should coco]

I don't know the exact figures but I believe the prince put in about 20 mill when we were towards the bottom of league 1, so to then offer him 5 mill for his shares when we are near the top of the championship is a bit of a low offer in that context is it not?

That was to cover losses. Despite many on hear putting their fingers in their ears and shouting "Not listening!", these losses arose becasue player wages were substantially greater than our income.

That money has gone. Spent on Adkins, Hammond and other useless tossers.

If you fund a loss, then you simply get back to a break even situation - there is no 'investment' in the conventional sense of the word. The Prince does not have a jar with £20m in, waiting for him to withdraw, he chose to spend it on covering our operating loss and you wouldn't commit to doing that unless you have a few bob.

AFAIU, the £5m was a contractual figure and it simply means that the 'winner' then has to potentially shoulder all the losses. The reason KM invited the Prince in, was that he could not afford to cover all ongoing losses himself. If the Prince wins and we don't go up, then he has to 100% fund our losses and we WILL make losses. If he chooses not to put more money in, then wave goodbye to JOC, Stevens, Egan, Norwood and anyone else half saleable.

Obviously it's not clear cut hence it's at the high court.

They are both trying to outflank each other as trust has broken down. The £5m figure is about the only thing that is actually clear cut.

 

[Revolution]

So McCabe has inside knowledge of the Prince's finances and his credit rating within the Saudi community?

No, but he knows more than was in the public domain. The Prince had been reluctant to fund. McCabe thought that he didn't have the money to do it.

Read the 2018 judgment. It's all in there.

 

[Addison]

So McCabe has inside knowledge of the Prince's finances and his credit rating within the Saudi community?

No he doesn't as it seems he was desperate to find out when he made the disclosure applications. The Judge was having none of it and refused the application saying he took the view the Princes finances were not central to the issues in this case.

 

[Maidenhead]

No, but he knows more than was in the public domain. The Prince had been reluctant to fund. McCabe thought that he didn't have the money to do it.

Read the 2018 judgment. It's all in there.

Which is all fair enough BUT, McCabe could have been wrong about the Prince's lack of wherewithal so presumably he would have been happy to go at that price?

Also, if the Prince can't even raise the funds to buy the assets and honour his part of the deal, why the hell would we want him as sole owner of the club when it appears that he has even less disposable cash than K Mcabe?

 

[Maidenhead]

No he doesn't as it seems he was desperate to find out when he made the disclosure applications. The Judge was having none of it and refused the application saying he took the view the Princes finances were not central to the issues in this case.

Completely agree with that.

I refer you to my post above.

 

[Revolution]

Which is all fair enough BUT, McCabe could have been wrong about the Prince's lack of wherewithal so presumably he would have been happy to go at that price?

Also, if the Prince can't even raise the funds to buy the assets and honour his part of the deal, why the hell would we want him as sole owner of the club when it appears that he has even less disposable cash than K Mcabe?

Oh, I agree that McCabe is the better option, purely for the reason that he's not the Prince.

Re your first para - yes, because McCabe would get the price of the shares and the real estate.

 

[Mojo]

I don't think anyone does want the prince to be the sole owner of the club. Personally I just want them to settle thier dispute and sell the club on to someone who has the finances and the resolve to move the club forward, then we wouldn't have to sell our star young players for a pittance each season.

 

[Scott Blade]

Only read 50% of the posts on this thread so may be repeating what has already been said but seeing as there are different views on the whys of all this, the official reasons given in the judgement for McCabe's low offer is that he would be compensated by the fact that he would realise the full market value of the other property assets. So McCabe would either buy the shares at a low price or alternatively lose out on the shares but get market value on the property which is currently understood to be a bit of a burden financially (due to the reduced rent terms). A relative win/win situation for McCabe if it came off as the contract appears to have originally been intended to perform

In contrast, the reason suggested for the prince's manoeuvre is that he could equally get the shares for the low price (a win) whilst continuing to benefit from the reduced rent (a win) and not being obliged to buy the property (another win)

I don't think the prince not having the money to buy the property has ever really come into it other than some of the suggestions from McCabe's side in the latest judgement (which were kind of rejected). To me, his manoeuvre is unlikely to be driven by lack of funds and is more a case of why would you buy something for the going rate if it was many times cheaper to just continue renting it year after year? I suspect there may have also been an element of one-upmanship involved in finding an apparent loophole

But clearly is all a big mess and whilst McCabe is potentially looking like the side which has the club's interest more at heart, the latest judgement didn't exactly go his way so remains to be seen what will become of it all

 

[Snowman]

It won’t happen for various reasons, but I’d like to hear from JimPhipps on what he thinks the Prince’s intentions are. He’ll know better than most.

We know HRH ultimately wants to make a profit, but is this legal situation a chance for him to get out ASAP, a chance for him to maximise his share of the loot should we get promoted, or a sign he wants to take control in order to drive the club forward in his own way?

Chuff knows.

I think that's why Jim bailed out

 

[I should coco]

Only read 50% of the posts on this thread

McCabe didn't make a 'low' offer, he followed the provisions of their not-very-watertight agreement.

Perhaps you should read the 'other 50%' before pontificating at such length?

Just sayin' like.....

 

[Blade56]

McCabe triggered a clause that was in a contract agreed to and signed by the Prince, there's nothing underhand about that. The 5 million plus the value of the assets that the Prince would be required to buy is probably not unreasonable for the size of club and its position at the time. McCabe couldn't have known that the Prince couldn't raise the money and I think it was more an attempt to force him to buy him out - McCabe has said for a long time that he wanted out and I think his expectation was that the Prince was going to trigger the clause a long time ago. The contract is cleverly designed so that one party can't under or over value the other's share.
The error is having two separate parts with two different values linked to the purchase, which the Prince has tried to get around. We'll see how it turns out, but I think the court will rule that either the offer is void because of what the Prince has done, or that it is still in force in full despite what the Prince has done and I tend to the former. What that then means for the ownership and how one can buy the other out, I don't know. I don't think the court will rule that the offer is valid but the Prince doesn't have to buy the assets.

Jeez, Kev knows how to pick bad business partners. Just imagine how the temperature will rise if we get promoted and the stakes go from -£60m (whatever) up to +£120m minimum.

 

[blade67]

McCabe triggered a clause that was in a contract agreed to and signed by the Prince, there's nothing underhand about that. The 5 million plus the value of the assets that the Prince would be required to buy is probably not unreasonable for the size of club and its position at the time. McCabe couldn't have known that the Prince couldn't raise the money and I think it was more an attempt to force him to buy him out - McCabe has said for a long time that he wanted out and I think his expectation was that the Prince was going to trigger the clause a long time ago. The contract is cleverly designed so that one party can't under or over value the other's share.
The error is having two separate parts with two different values linked to the purchase, which the Prince has tried to get around. We'll see how it turns out, but I think the court will rule that either the offer is void because of what the Prince has done, or that it is still in force in full despite what the Prince has done and I tend to the former. What that then means for the ownership and how one can buy the other out, I don't know. I don't think the court will rule that the offer is valid but the Prince doesn't have to buy the assets.

This seems right to me. McCabe made the offer based on the original contract agreement that the other business had made to buy out the lot in those circumstances. That seems to be aggressive but not underhand. The fact that the other side have transferred shares secretly to get around the original agreement does feel underhand.

I guess the question I can't answer is, " does underhand mean, not lawful". That's what we will find out in e few weeks. The way HRH has behaved is not a good sign TBH

 

[mancunianblade]

McCabe wins and sells club to some proper minted lad from China with 48 hours

 

[Scott Blade]

McCabe didn't make a 'low' offer, he followed the provisions of their not-very-watertight agreement.

Perhaps you should read the 'other 50%' before pontificating at such length?

Just sayin' like.....

Pontificating?
There were lots of questions on the previous few pages and suggestions for why both parties had done stuff. I couldn't see any coverage of the official reasons given in the judgements so attempted to summarise them in case it helped anybody. I qualified that by making it known that I'd only read 50% of posts on this thread - just as way of apology in case somebody had alread done similar and I was repeating anything. I'd already read both judgements at length for the facts

The part you seem to have taken offence to is effectively the words of the court, not mine. I don't really care less whether it was a "low" offer or not as it doesn't affect me. The judgement considered it a low offer when it repeatedly referred to it as a low price

"Mr McCabe knew that that was a low price"

"The low price for its own shares would be compensated"

"would mean that UTB was entitled to purchase all Sheffield's shares at a low price"

Reading the other 50% of posts of an internet forum is in no way relevant to the official judgements so fail to see how that would have changed the summary. Suggest you take it up with the legal people if you don't like the terminology rather than doing a bit of pontificating yourself

 

[ucandomagic]

This judgement won’t happen until we know if we are up.

If we get promoted I reckon the Prince will try to say OK to the 25 million - if he still can. He would then sell on quick, while we’re still up.

If we don’t get promoted then shit hits the fan. Probably end up at square one with 2 owners, neither of whom can/will fund a loss-making Champ club.

I can’t see McCabe winning out whatever happens. Judge saying the Prince’s share-moving was not acceptable and letting McC buy him out for 5 million won’t happen if we go up, as the Prince would create a legal tsunami.

Interesting outcome would be if we don’t go up, and judge finds for McC. Prince may say fuck it and sell to McC, and then maybeMcC has a few Oriental shadows behind him.

As the Chinese curse goes - May you live in interesting times!!!

 

[Harrisblade]

Jeez, Kev knows how to pick bad business partners. Just imagine how the temperature will rise if we get promoted and the stakes go from -£60m (whatever) up to +£120m minimum.

Yep!
If we get promoted I'll immediately start worrying about ownership

 

[LoughboroBlade]

 

[Harrisblade]

If you have a court date imminent, it's probably not a great idea to socialise with your adversary.
Especially not in the very environment that is the source of the dispute.
I suspect that this case is at a slightly higher level than a tv episode of 'Judge Rinder'

 

[Mendi]

Have i missed something here, McCabe and Prince Abdullah Bin Moasaad Bin Abuldaziz al Saud, a co-owner since 2013, are locked in a fight for control and braced for a date in the High Court next month.

Why is this going to a court? have the fans lost they faith in Prince who has not been to any games if i am right, and is Kevin trying to become a owner? I hope someone can explain to me here. 3 points away from the big league and now a high court case to deal with

 

[Bartleby]

 

[JohnDenver]

Yup and Bruce Willis is a ghost.

 

[Mendi]

Come on guys dont be silly, but explain why it going to high court, because it seems i have missed something here, or not paid much attention to it