It can't get any worse.

[Bladeloyal]

You're going ability, I'm going emotion and importance of the goal.

anyway back to more important matters the quality of peters pies !

 

[Micalijo]

You really enjoy trying to patronise people don't you?

You are becoming known as the "Blackwell of the forum"

Always right...never willing to change or alter your opinion....no matter what anyone else may think and very boring with it.

I know of at least 6 forum members who can't be bothered to post anymore.

Just like the people who dont go to the Lane.

I give you Lenners......Blackwell of the forum!

Killing this forum!

Someone talking sense and slagging the Blades off really does not go down well on here.

Just get over it Silverfox. There's only you who posts this type of drivel about the way individuals post their comments and about some magical lost world pre August 2009 where everyone was jolly and best buddies.

It's not the bleedin Oxford Debating Society or a Mansion House Speech by a top politician trying to please everyone. It's a forum to discuss whatever anyone wants. The only no no is swearing at other posters and that is very very rare.

 

[lenners]

anyway back to more important matters the quality of peters pies !

Pies are bad for you. United should be leading the fight against obesity and stop selling pies. And beer.
I want to be able to get a cuppuchino at half time and a piece of carrot cake.

 

[Micalijo]

I'm not having a go at Len. He often makes good points but, on issues of corporate governance, he was wide of the mark, so I pointed it out.

Group structures are used for many things, not least as a vehicle for tax planning, but certainly a very common use is to ringfence assets, debts, trading divisions etc in separate legal entities so that if one bit of the business goes tits up, other bits can remain relatively unscathed. Properties and other assets are very commonly held in separate companies to that in which the trade sits, for lots of very sound reasons.

I haven't studied the accounts for any of the Blades companies in any detail at all, although I suspect that you have, so you will be able to correct me if I am wrong. But I would have thought that SUFC Ltd, being the football club business, could be sold on from the group without the encumbrance of Blades Realty Ltd hanging around its neck.

Of course the current state of Realty is of concern to the football club as it is having to support it at the moment, whereas it was always expected that it would be the other way around. But I would have thought it a good thing that the group structure, as I understand it to be, is as it is.

Interesting stuff. I like your posts and you seem to be as worried as me about the finances.

I'm just a bit worried though about your understanding of group companies and the legalities etc in terms of how banks work with groups.

I apologise if this sounds like a lecture to you - it isn't meant to be. This is how I understand it:

If McCabe owns plc - he can have as many subsidiary companies as he likes underneath that.

He can have a football club, a property company, a travel company, a hotel, you name it anything.

I am worried that you don't seem to understand that if the property company is in trouble, the bank won't just say 'OK Bob, no problem - we'll just wait and see what happens.' Instead the bank will look at what other assets there are in the group - ie Kyle Naughton and Walker and politely suggest to Bob that if they don't get £8m cash pronto you will be getting some unpleasant letters and even though we've dealt with you for years business is business.

The fact that the assets are in different companies is to me totally irrelevant.

Plenty of factory owners have taken the factory out of a group of companies and into a standalone company. The trading company then pays rent to the individual now owning the factory. If the trade goes bust there may be some form of limited liability and the individual retains the factory but if thebank have any doubts they would not let the factory leave thegroup without retaining charges. Namely, if the trade has an overdraft, it will be secured on the factory, irrespective of who owns it and where.

I'd be very interested to learn what your precise take on it is and why you appear to think that the current set-up affords some protection from our creditors.

 

[Nick Jansky]

Interesting stuff. I like your posts and you seem to be as worried as me about the finances.

I'm just a bit worried though about your understanding of group companies and the legalities etc in terms of how banks work with groups.

I apologise if this sounds like a lecture to you - it isn't meant to be. This is how I understand it:

If McCabe owns plc - he can have as many subsidiary companies as he likes underneath that.

He can have a football club, a property company, a travel company, a hotel, you name it anything.

I am worried that you don't seem to understand that if the property company is in trouble, the bank won't just say 'OK Bob, no problem - we'll just wait and see what happens.' Instead the bank will look at what other assets there are in the group - ie Kyle Naughton and Walker and politely suggest to Bob that if they don't get £8m cash pronto you will be getting some unpleasant letters and even though we've dealt with you for years business is business.

The fact that the assets are in different companies is to me totally irrelevant.

Plenty of factory owners have taken the factory out of a group of companies and into a standalone company. The trading company then pays rent to the individual now owning the factory. If the trade goes bust there may be some form of limited liability and the individual retains the factory but if thebank have any doubts they would not let the factory leave thegroup without retaining charges. Namely, if the trade has an overdraft, it will be secured on the factory, irrespective of who owns it and where.

I'd be very interested to learn what your precise take on it is and why you appear to think that the current set-up affords some protection from our creditors.

I haven't taken it as a lecture! And you are spot on with all of the above.

Yes, I am concerned about the finances.

But........who are our creditors? My understanding is that the group is not particularly exposed to the banks to any great degree, considering the extent of the assets, albeit at their now rather distressed value. So the "normal" rules, which you set out above, apply to a much lesser extent. As far as I can tell, the whole pack of cards only comes tumbling down if KM seeks to completely withdraw the financial support he has provided to date, i.e pull out all of his loans. We know that he won't make any further investment, but there are currently no signs of him wanting to pull his money back out in the very near future.

My chief concern is the degree to which the football club appears to need to help to finance the rest of it, and I think that has cost us the Kyles, amongst others. But the fact that the football club exists in a separate entity from the real mess, I take as a positive - it opens up far more possibilities in terms of how any future investment or sale could be structured, and I think that this is what Birch has been brought in to achieve.

So although the finances do concern me, I'm probably not as worried as you because I think that things as they stand are sustainable in the short to medium term -as long as the football club continues to do its bit - and in the long term asset prices will stage some sort of recovery. But until that time, the sustainability will be at the expense of investment on the pitch, and that's going to hurt. Of course there is the risk that crowds, and thus income, could disappear, and that is, of course, a much bigger worry................

But Birch wasn't brought in just to deliver platitudes to the media, and he has an extremely proven track record, so perhaps things could become very interesting at some point soon.......

 

[Bladeloyal]

Interesting stuff. I like your posts and you seem to be as worried as me about the finances.

I'm just a bit worried though about your understanding of group companies and the legalities etc in terms of how banks work with groups.

I apologise if this sounds like a lecture to you - it isn't meant to be. This is how I understand it:

If McCabe owns plc - he can have as many subsidiary companies as he likes underneath that.

He can have a football club, a property company, a travel company, a hotel, you name it anything.

I am worried that you don't seem to understand that if the property company is in trouble, the bank won't just say 'OK Bob, no problem - we'll just wait and see what happens.' Instead the bank will look at what other assets there are in the group - ie Kyle Naughton and Walker and politely suggest to Bob that if they don't get £8m cash pronto you will be getting some unpleasant letters and even though we've dealt with you for years business is business.

The fact that the assets are in different companies is to me totally irrelevant.

Plenty of factory owners have taken the factory out of a group of companies and into a standalone company. The trading company then pays rent to the individual now owning the factory. If the trade goes bust there may be some form of limited liability and the individual retains the factory but if the bank have any doubts they would not let the factory leave the group without retaining charges. Namely, if the trade has an overdraft, it will be secured on the factory, irrespective of who owns it and where.

I'd be very interested to learn what your precise take on it is and why you appear to think that the current set-up affords some protection from our creditors.

lenny is to busy to reply hes having a cappuccino and some carrot cake .

 

[SotonBlade]

You really enjoy trying to patronise people don't you?

You are becoming known as the "Blackwell of the forum"

Always right...never willing to change or alter your opinion....no matter what anyone else may think and very boring with it.

I know of at least 6 forum members who can't be bothered to post anymore.

Just like the people who dont go to the Lane.

I give you Lenners......Blackwell of the forum!

Killing this forum!

I'm inclined to agree that those with strong opinions get very defensive and patronising as soon as they are challenged or come up against someone with a valid point against them on a previous post.

lenners and 10 are the main culprits. How the latter has not been banned yet is beyond my comprehension.

 

[beightonblade]

The debt forget it ....its only £50million.........

the truth is McCabe wants out hence Sir Clevor Trevor ... he don't cum cheap and hasn't been brought in to number crunch ..... i'm certain McCabe will do the reight thing an sell up.

McCabes a smart owd bugger as far as property is concerned hence his partnerships with the banks, local councils and other public projects, nice haven in these troubled times...... not to mention the few bob he took Valad for .......... or his interests in China the far east etc. he's minted !

 

[Foxy]

Your main problem Foxy is that when the going gets tough, you simply seem to want to cuddle up to the club and can't have an opinion of your own.
This manifests itself in responses like yours today.

I simply asked you a question, again, which you twisted and turned and never actually answered as per usual.

Can I ask how exactly not giving you an opinion can possibly be cuddling up to the club? I simply asked you some questions.

When our club is £48m in debt you'd better believe that we need to be asking questions more than ever about our finances.

Correct, only when I ask you questions about it, you decide to ignore or twist them unless they fit your "fact".

And to those who think that posts like this one are somehow driving people away from posting on forums, why?
If you don't want to talk about the money, post about the greatest five goals or how loud the PA is. It's your choice.

I'd imagine it's because people can't actually talk, they try to talk and then get condesending replies about how they are wrong, without any substance to back this claim up, nor any willingness to accomodate other peoples opinion.

Someone talking sense and slagging the Blades off really does not go down well on here.

Just get over it Silverfox. There's only you who posts this type of drivel about the way individuals post their comments and about some magical lost world pre August 2009 where everyone was jolly and best buddies.

Believe it or not, people used to slag the blades off, question the management/chairman and have completely contrasting opinions long before you decided who "talked sense". The difference is, certain people do it with respect, with an open mind, with an intention to discuss others thoughts and without categorising people into camps to points score against in a game of being right.

You've given a prime example here yourself.

It's a forum to discuss whatever anyone wants. The only no no is swearing at other posters and that is very very rare.

Correct, the key word is discuss. Silverfox's point is, that some people feel unable or unwilling to discuss because of the attitude of others and their unwillingness to discuss.

 

[lenners]

The thing with Birch though is his track record is all about clubs that are in financial meltdown. And the reality is that he has been brought in to deal with more and more cost-cutting and not investment.
The bit about crowds is highly relevant because we are going to struggle to get 20,000 in next season. People simply won't turn up to watch shyte week in, week out.
What is incalculable at the moment is how much damage has been done to the relationship with fans fullstop. Selling your best players, particularly the young players, and replacing them with a bunch who have no connection to the club or fans strips away at the heart of United. And not being straight with fans goes down particularly badly in Sheffield.
Once you start creating a team that no-one identifies with, you start to make people think 'what's the point?'

 

[lenners]

Foxy, it's not my fault if you can't understand what I think are relatively straightforward points.
It's not surprising that it's annoying for me, particularly when you usually say absolutely nothing about what you actually think or believe and are just content, usually, to trundle along with the party line.
And I always back up everything I write.
In the case of Tevez, I pointed out, now for about the 4th time I believe, that this wasn't mentioned once by Birch.
I also think it is odd that SUFC are £48m in debt when we've had a £20m get out of jail free card.
Put another way, where exactly would this club be without it? Still solvent?

 

[Foxy]

Foxy, it's not my fault if you can't understand what I think are relatively straightforward points.
It's not surprising that it's annoying for me, particularly when you usually say absolutely nothing about what you actually think or believe and are just content, usually, to trundle along with the party line.
And I always back up everything I write.
In the case of Tevez, I pointed out, now for about the 4th time I believe, that this wasn't mentioned once by Birch.
I also think it is odd that SUFC are £48m in debt when we've had a £20m get out of jail free card.
Put another way, where exactly would this club be without it? Still solvent?

Forget it, I'm completely wasting my time.

 

[lenners]

Forget it, I'm completely wasting my time.

Foxy, don't take it personally. My only advice would be to stick to the issues, the facts, and argue about them.
Trying to argue on any other basis is likely to be futile because I do try to stick to the facts. And they'll just keep coming back at you otherwise.

 

[Foxy]

Foxy, don't take it personally. My only advice would be to stick to the issues, the facts, and argue about them.
Trying to argue on any other basis is likely to be futile because I do try to stick to the facts. And they'll just keep coming back at you otherwise.

"Oh lenners"*.....

I'm taking nothing personally, I'd just rather not waste more time when you quite clearly have no intentions of ever being coaxed into any form of open discussion. By open discussion I mean being willing to have your own opinion questioned without belittling or ignoring the person doing so. That and listening to the other persons opinion.

Talk down to me all you like. I'd love a discussion with you where you did stick to facts, it might not be the same thing over and over then.

* - I'll stick the royalties in the post.

 

[Woodwaaard]

Foxy, as one of those who endured the poster known as Len deGoey on BU, you have my deepest sympathy.

Lenners is undoubtably a Blade and also appears to have a modicum of grey matter, However he will argue that black is white and then, when challenged, change tack and suggest that red is blue. This behaviour trait is repetetive.

He is, in forum parlance, a troll of the highest order.

He's sometimes correct and sometimes humorous but he's always trolling for a reaction and to seek attention. No-one will be happier to read this post than Lenners himself.

I've found that ignoring his posts is the usually the best way to retain ones sanity

 

[Isiah]

I don't have access to the accounts so could I clarify please that the debt to Mr Mc. stands at around £26M after the Tevez money? I had thought, probably incorrectly it would now seem, that the Tevez money, which I know has been ring-fenced to go to Mr. Mc. as and when received, would effectively bring this debt down to less than £10M in due course.

 

[Nick Jansky]

The thing with Birch though is his track record is all about clubs that are in financial meltdown. And the reality is that he has been brought in to deal with more and more cost-cutting and not investment.
The bit about crowds is highly relevant because we are going to struggle to get 20,000 in next season. People simply won't turn up to watch shyte week in, week out.
What is incalculable at the moment is how much damage has been done to the relationship with fans fullstop. Selling your best players, particularly the young players, and replacing them with a bunch who have no connection to the club or fans strips away at the heart of United. And not being straight with fans goes down particularly badly in Sheffield.
Once you start creating a team that no-one identifies with, you start to make people think 'what's the point?'

Good post Lenners, agree with all of that. A big drop in attendances is a huge worry.

But let's be straight - we are not in financial meltdown - yet, anyway. When clubs do get to that position, one of the first things to go is often the youth policy. The fact that the club is not making any noises about scaling back the Academy - well they could be making a calculated gamble on finding & selling another Kyle every season, but the fact that they can make that gamble suggests that things remain more or less sustainable. If the crowd disappears next season, I would expect the Academy to be one of the first things to go, and the fact that at the moment it is considered to be still viable suggests that things aren't completely desperate just yet.

I think that Birch's appointment, given his areas of expertise, are a clear indication that all is not well, but I also think that other indicators suggest that we brought him in at the right time - i.e. as a preventative measure against future meltdown, rather than to dig us out after it has happened.

I hope I am right.....

 

[lenners]

"Oh lenners"*.....

I'm taking nothing personally, I'd just rather not waste more time when you quite clearly have no intentions of ever being coaxed into any form of open discussion. By open discussion I mean being willing to have your own opinion questioned without belittling or ignoring the person doing so. That and listening to the other persons opinion.

Talk down to me all you like. I'd love a discussion with you where you did stick to facts, it might not be the same thing over and over then.

* - I'll stick the royalties in the post.

I do stick to the facts. I can't help people not liking what the facts are.
Some people like to shoot the messenger, c'est la vie.
And you weren't questioning my opinion - you simply seemed unable to understand it. There's a difference.
You do also very much want to believe in the club, its hiearchy and so on.
That's fine but you shouldn't get so upset when you find out people in power are often not always exactly what they seem. I can't be arsed to find what the club put on the website but thinking back, what they claimed about the accounts was spin of the highest order.
When you have a club willing to do that, the club is going to end up getting it back ten times over and deservedly so.

 

[Trigger Blade]

Foxy, don't take it personally. My only advice would be to stick to the issues, the facts, and argue about them.
Trying to argue on any other basis is likely to be futile because I do try to stick to the facts. And they'll just keep coming back at you otherwise.

Oh the irony, len lecturing somebody about facts, when there are those who've been trying to get him to come up with a fact, just one, for years, without success.

It's a real cop out for you to say you didn't really look at the accounts properly until after the AGM, the AGM is there for shareholders to seek clarity, much more effective surely than pontificating on here to no purpose. I feel let down that one of the intellectual titans of our age was there and you didn't wade in to the hopeless shower of incompetent millionaires on the podium.

len, on the Tevez money (and I'm sat in a Middle East airport at 2.30 in the morning, so I don't have the accounts to hand) my understanding is that the Tevez money appears under debt, but with most of it not falling due within 12months. That means it isn't included as profit until the year it's paid. I thought that's what was said at the AGM.

I stand to be corrected, as I'm sure you will. We need to put a call in to Crouchy who has an understanding of such matters.

 

[lenners]

Trig, I didn't read them, in fact I don't think I even had them until either on the day or afterwards.
You tell me which facts pointed out on this thread that you disagree with or can't grasp.
The Tevez money was accounted for up front - hence the claimed profit.
And seen any sheikhs you can kidnap? We could do with one over here.

 

[happyhippy]

Foxy, I'm not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse but it is a bit tiresome.
Any club receiving a £20m Brucie bonus that's £48m in debt at the same time should rightly have a few questions asked.
Unfortunately, the Tevez money already appears to be being airbrushed out of history. It didn't even figure in the Birch interview.

And as you know, the Tevez money was always coming in dribs and drabs. Don't make it sound as if there was a £20m immediate payout, because as you well know, it wasn't. There are still monies owed to us.

To insinuate that we had a "£20m Bricie Bonus" is disingenuous at best.

 

[happyhippy]

It's actually hard to have a discussion with you as you seem unable to understand relatively simple concepts.
I said, for the third time, that the Tevez money has barely had a mention in the midst of all our debt talk and wasn't mentioned by Birch at all.
I did not say it was being hidden in any accounts and pointed out to you that it had been accounted for up front in the 'profit' announced in December.
None of that is hard to grasp, involves me moving goalposts or talking in French.
Being £48m in debt when you have had a £20m bonus not available to other peers who've spent two years down is a pretty poor performance by our club.

OK then Len. What is that you want to know about the staggered payments from West Ham? Why do you think that there is a "£20m bonus", when it isn't paid at once?

How can you look at money we don't have against the debts incurred by other related companies, and include that money which we don't have, as an argument to say why we have no money?

 

[happyhippy]

The £50 million debt doesn't worry me half as much as the lack of ambition and waste.......

owd trick have the property asset in one company and lease it to the trading company.

To be honest, what worries me most is the shite we're having to watch ...... God(TM) save those hardy souls who still go away as well.

 

[happyhippy]

anyway back to more important matters the quality of peters pies !

I'm going to get one in a moment. They're hot, and available from a kiosk near me NOW! Just what i need for the third quarter of the Big American Advert

 

[shorehamview]

I want to be able to get a cuppuchino at half time and a piece of carrot cake.

I bet as well as annoying you're a bloody veggie too. Cappucino? Carrot cake? You'll be after tofu, soya-burgers and a sit down piss next.

Carrot cake? Jesus H. Tapdancing Christ.

Carrot cake instead of shit pies? We may as well all give up and watch netball now.

Carrot cake? Are you insane?*










Current evidence may have certain members of this forum leaning more towards answering "Yes" than "No", but there you go.

 

[silverfox]

Someone talking sense and slagging the Blades off really does not go down well on here.

Just get over it Silverfox. There's only you who posts this type of drivel about the way individuals post their comments and about some magical lost world pre August 2009 where everyone was jolly and best buddies.

It's not the bleedin Oxford Debating Society or a Mansion House Speech by a top politician trying to please everyone. It's a forum to discuss whatever anyone wants. The only no no is swearing at other posters and that is very very rare.

Only me?

Have a look at some posts in this thread.

It's not only me......and I'm posting what others are saying.

 

[Studge]

Jansky,
I'm pretty sure the football club made a big profit last year - that's what (just about) propped up everything else.
Attempts to uncouple the two businesses like they're magically separate are ridiculous.

The Profit/loss before taxation of £5.840M was analysed as follows:

Football UK 11.386
Football China ( 2.458)
Hotel ( 534)
Business Centre 329
Leisure ( 678)
Property ( 2,630)
Health Club 425

Total 5,840

Of course the football club profit included the WHUFC settlement of
£18,093M which meant 1n a normal year we would have lost £6,707M on football in the UK., clearly not substainable.

 

[alcoblade]

So, without the Tevez money and the sale of the 2 Kyles, we would now be £76M in debt.

Hang your heads in shame, all who have led Sheffield United to this.

UTB

 

[alcoblade]

The Profit/loss before taxation of £5.840M was analysed as follows:

Football UK 11.386
Football China ( 2.458)
Hotel ( 534)
Business Centre 329
Leisure ( 678)
Property ( 2,630)
Health Club 425

Total 5,840

Of course the football club profit included the WHUFC settlement of
£18,093M which meant 1n a normal year we would have lost £6,707M on football in the UK., clearly not substainable.

Though in actual fact, I can see how the football club could shed that £6M. Half or more of it has probably already left the books, we can still lose Naysmith and Speed with no effect.

It's not the football club, but property at home and in China that will drag us into the shit.

UTB

 

[happyhippy]

The Profit/loss before taxation of £5.840M was analysed as follows:

Football UK 11.386
Football China ( 2.458)
Hotel ( 534)
Business Centre 329
Leisure ( 678)
Property ( 2,630)
Health Club 425

Total 5,840

Of course the football club profit included the WHUFC settlement of
£18,093M which meant 1n a normal year we would have lost £6,707M on football in the UK., clearly not substainable.

Did the Tevez settlement include a lump sum of nearly £20m?