Let me spell it out for you Clappers

[Foxy]

Loving the two tier system here. Agree or disagree with Mic but the level of abuse directed his way would get others a ban. I don't agree with his view in total but he actually has a point. until anyone knows what we are going to pay and how he couod well be stripping the club, comments like this are relevant.

Everyone, regardless of their viewpoint or opinion is treated equally on here.

I'd like to remind that personal abuse won't be tolerated and as usual, infractions/warnings will be given to anyone doing so.

 

[TarquinDelouche]

Loving the two tier system here. Agree or disagree with Mic but the level of abuse directed his way would get others a ban. I don't agree with his view in total but he actually has a point. until anyone knows what we are going to pay and how he couod well be stripping the club, comments like this are relevant.

No, theories like this could be relevant - worth debating, even. Stating it as fact and patronising or insulting those who don't subscribe to such theories is definitely not helpful and completely worth pulling up as such. Open a thread labelling people as "clappers" is asking for trouble, and deserves to be ridiculed.

 

[Micalijo]

Sorry Mic, I'm usually up for a spot of McCabe bashing because I simply don't like the man. On this occasion though, we've all openly admitted that we don't have any details, so how can we have a meaningful discussion about something we don't know what we're discussiong? No point arguing for the sake of it mate, I'm sure as the season developes there'll be plenty of talking points without getting all riled up over something that may or may not be overly important in the scheme of things.

We do have details - the ground isno longer owned by SUFC Ltd. We are debating the rest.

 

[Micalijo]

So asking a question about something you are talking about now counts as "smart arse"?

I was more than happy for you to enlighten me and to therefore take the discussion further with some substance, rather than just a spat about being a "smart arse" because I had the audacity to ask you to expand upon your opinion.



I have absolutely no idea of his intentions and have never once suggested such. As I keep saying, the proof will be in the pudding and if he screws us I'll be first in line to question him directly.

Yes it does when you 100% know I don't know the answer. As you said,I haven't posted anything outrageous.

 

[Flatulent_Bob]

We aren't debating the rest. You are saying it is one thing without any evidence or inclination that your figures are related to the reality. Anyone who disagrees is a clapper whom you seem to feel the need to educate with your made up numbers.

Basically you should have started a thread called, "My baseless assumptions" rather than patronising bollocks you decided to go with.

Given you opening paragraph;

Your beloved chairman is charging our beloved football club for playing at BDTBL. And you think there is no problem? Do you grasp this very simple concept? If you rent a home, pay a mortgage, it is very similar to that - it uses your cash up. SUFC Ltd pays cash to SUFC plc which channels it upwards in the chain to Scarborough etc to cover property losses. Fine, perfectly OK business and accounting wise etc but not fine if you support SUFC and have a pride in its history and an interest in its future.

How much is being charged seems a fair question to commence the debate. If indeed we are supposed to debate it, which I'm doubting, as I think we are just supposed to agree with you despite the great holes in your argument.

Lets try another one. How much more are we paying out this season for this rent compared with last season?

 

[moDtheGod]

As I keep saying, the proof will be in the pudding ...

NO!

The proof will not be in the pudding. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating. Sorry, but this really annoys me.

 

[Princess Annes Dog]

We aren't debating the rest. You are saying it is one thing without any evidence or inclination that your figures are related to the reality.

Sorry Mic, I have to agree with the above. Debating facts and figures is one thing, debating..........well..........nothing really is a bit pointless.

 

[Micalijo]

We aren't debating the rest. You are saying it is one thing without any evidence or inclination that your figures are related to the reality. Anyone who disagrees is a clapper whom you seem to feel the need to educate with your made up numbers.

Basically you should have started a thread called, "My baseless assumptions" rather than patronising bollocks you decided to go with.

Given you opening paragraph;


How much is being charged seems a fair question to commence the debate. If indeed we are supposed to debate it, which I'm doubting, as I think we are just supposed to agree with you despite the great holes in your argument.

Lets try another one. How much more are we paying out this season for this rent compared with last season?

It's been impossible to take anything you say seriously since you thought Evans cost £600k or somat like that and I aint going to change now, other than to say you are a great specialist in the spouting of patronising bollocks as you put it.

 

[SotonBlade]

now mudslinging....we're really in the playground now

 

[Patrick Suffaux]

What's a freehold?

 

[Flatulent_Bob]

That's a no then, you don't want to debate it.
Might I suggest a blog over a post next time.

PS Evans was 800k initially, not 600k. If you're going to use my post quote it correctly.

 

[Flatulent_Bob]

now mudslinging....we're really in the playground now

In balance I think the mud slinging started in the thread title.

 

[SotonBlade]

Fair point FB. But it's Mic's usual style....aggression

 

[alcoblade]

As he says, you haven't got a clue either what the rent is,.

So clappers - there might be something for you to worry about. Or there might not. Interesting...............

UTB

 

[Linz]

Loving the two tier system here. Agree or disagree with Mic but the level of abuse directed his way would get others a ban...

Is that a bit like calling someone a smart arse but putting it in quotation marks to show that you aren't "really" saying it?

 

[Revolution]

As far as I can tell, Sheffield United football club Ltd, which owns the team I support, used to own the freehold title to Bramall Lane, the Academy and (going back a bit) the land the hotel is built on.

It now appears to own none of these things. They are all now owned by other companies in the Scarborough group, of which Sheffield United plc is one.

Therefore "we" do not own the Lane anymore. Another company owns it. Common ownership, yes, but another company.

The way things are structured now one of the following scenarios will occur at some point:

- someone else buys the team and buys the ground (but not the hotel) back in return for a purchase price close to or at the level of McCabe's investment.

- someone buys the Ltd co and McCabe keeps the ground, and we are tenants forever more.

This sale and leaseback arrangement must have benefitted Sufc ltd in some way, or it would be a breach of directors' duties to put it through (see Wrexham, for example, where the High Court unwound a deal where there was nothing in it for the club). So one would assume that the Ltd co's debt to the plc has decreased significantly (that land is valuable) or the rent is a peppercorn one. As things stand at the moment, we do not know, it would appear.

I think it's fair enough for Mic and others to raise concerns about this and there should be greater transparency. This transaction involves the transfer of the club's major asset, and a historically significant one at that. More importantly, it is a transaction that often appears in the history of clubs who have been subject to asset stripping or insolvency. One hopes (and assumes) that is not going on here, but I'd sure as hell like to hear from McCabe or someone at the plc how much United are paying to rent something they used to own.

And Foxy, if it really made little difference, they wouldn't do it. It would be a waste of significant legal fees.

 

[Houso]

Great post Rev and think it's the most even handed thus far in the thread. I'm in that strange flux at the moment of:
a) thinking there's nothing to be particularly worried about,
b) worried about what may happen next

I don't think McCabe's intentions are in any way nefarious or bad-intentioned, but the fact remains that in recent years his decision making has been somewhat 'off' and therefore this could actually go very wrong.

Finally, without wanting to assist the forum in eating itself, Mic would get better responses and initiate better debate if his opening posts were like the one from Rev. Instead, we get the patronising tone and the little clapper digs - "Let me spell it out for you clappers" is just genius trolling. And then the complaints afterwards about being picked on are particularly amusing, including from those who stick up for him.

 

[Balham]

Revolution great post but you've missed one piece of clarifying information:

SUFC Ltd is one of several trading entities owned by SUFC plc, which is owned by The Scarborough Group.

SUFC plc used to own the hotel and business centre, and the debts and assets (the former greater than the latter) could be found on the balance sheet for the plc. When they were both transferred to Scarborough, it meant that they no longer affected United - although the historic impact of the repayments certainly did.

SUFC Ltd 'owned' the freehold for the stadium and training centre but as the Ltd is a wholly owned subsidiary of the plc this meant that in reality, the fixed assets (Bramall Lane and Shirecliffe) were owned by the plc anyway. In a way, this move hasn't changed anything.

I know that it's not great on the face of it that the ltd company doesn't own the stadium. However, that is what has got Portsmouth in such a mess: investors who seemed genuine getting a charge over the stadium and using that to drive the club almost to the wall. McCabe is looking for investment but at as low a risk as possible and this way, the plc can sell stake in the ltd company without the risk of losing the main assets.

Let's see what actually happens. When's the next fans' forum? I'm sure this question will be high up the list.

 

[Patrick Suffaux]

So clappers - there might be something for you to worry about. Or there might not. Interesting...............

UTB

Ohhhh but I need to know whether to be concerned or not! I need it spelling out for me.....I'm just a clapper you see

What a rubbish thread this is. Apart from the previous three posts it has been mainly utter dross from the start.

 

[Revolution]

SUFC Ltd 'owned' the freehold for the stadium and training centre but as the Ltd is a wholly owned subsidiary of the plc this meant that in reality, the fixed assets (Bramall Lane and Shirecliffe) were owned by the plc anyway. In a way, this move hasn't changed anything.

Balham, I know what you are getting at - indeed, I accounted for it in my post when I said that it was all common ownership - but this has changed something: It has separated legal ownership of club and ground.

There may be various reasons why this has been done - and I note your theory that one idea may be to sell a stake in the club without risk to the underlying assets (although, of course, a club without assets against which one can recover or take security would of course be less attractive to a potential investor...).

My view is that there are various reasons why you would split club and ground up. Some of them are good for the club. Some of them are good for McCabe and bad for the club. "Making the club more attractive to investors" is an inadequate response, and that's all we have at the present time.

 

[Darren]

SUFC Ltd 'owned' the freehold for the stadium and training centre but as the Ltd is a wholly owned subsidiary of the plc this meant that in reality, the fixed assets (Bramall Lane and Shirecliffe) were owned by the plc anyway. In a way, this move hasn't changed anything.

Balham, I know what you are getting at - indeed, I accounted for it in my post when I said that it was all common ownership - but this has changed something: It has separated legal ownership of club and ground.

There may be various reasons why this has been done - and I note your theory that one idea may be to sell a stake in the club without risk to the underlying assets (although, of course, a club without assets against which one can recover or take security would of course be less attractive to a potential investor...).

My view is that there are various reasons why you would split club and ground up. Some of them are good for the club. Some of them are good for McCabe and bad for the club. "Making the club more attractive to investors" is an inadequate response, and that's all we have at the present time.

The McCabe family have owned the club for years and could now and could have, at any time in the past, sold off BL for supermarket development. To that extent nothing has changed.

However, I am with you in thinking that some rational explanation for what has happened should be given.

Here's an idea. Why don't those of the people who are on here who are shareholders write to the club in their capacity as a concerned shareholder and ask for that explanation. They could then tell us all what was said. Seems to me that would be much more constructive than arguing the toss on here.

 

[Patrick Suffaux]

The McCabe family have owned the club for years and could now and could have, at any time in the past, sold off BL for supermarket development. To that extent nothing has changed.

However, I am with you in thinking that some rational explanation for what has happened should be given.

Here's an idea. Why don't those of the people who are on here who are shareholders write to the club in their capacity as a concerned shareholder and ask for that explanation. They could then tell us all what was said. Seems to me that would be much more constructive than arguing the toss on here.

Orrrr we could set a meeting up between Mic, Winter and Batho

 

[Balham]

Revolution I got that but you'd classed the ground and academy in with the hotel and business centre. The former two are still owned by Sheffield United (plc version now) where the latter two are owned by Scarborough. Small difference, yes, but I'm a pedant!

 

[Revolution]

Revolution I got that but you'd classed the ground and academy in with the hotel and business centre. The former two are still owned by Sheffield United (plc version now) where the latter two are owned by Scarborough. Small difference, yes, but I'm a pedant!

Oh, sorry, I did not appreciate the point that you were making. I knew they had gone but didn't realise they were not also owned by SUFC plc now.

 

[sheffielder]

Revolution I got that but you'd classed the ground and academy in with the hotel and business centre. The former two are still owned by Sheffield United (plc version now) where the latter two are owned by Scarborough. Small difference, yes, but I'm a pedant!

Oh, sorry, I did not appreciate the point that you were making. I knew they had gone but didn't realise they were not also owned by SUFC plc now.

This for me is where the concern is, however little people might think it makes a difference. If the 'land' leaves the PLC to Scarborough. What happens if Scarborough go belly up?

 

[Balham]

This for me is where the concern is, however little people might think it makes a difference. If the 'land' leaves the PLC to Scarborough. What happens if Scarborough go belly up?

If the scenario of the land being transferred to Scarborough happens then the questions about McCabe's motivations become fully justified.

The move of the assets to the plc changes nothing at all about the fall-out if Scarborough were liquidated: the administrators would seek to sell off any parts of the group which could be continued as going concerns (including SUFC) before selling the remaining assets separately; using the acquired funds to pay off the secured and then unsecured creditors.

 

[sheffielder]

Your beloved chairman is charging our beloved football club for playing at BDTBL. And you think there is no problem? Do you grasp this very simple concept? If you rent a home, pay a mortgage, it is very similar to that - it uses your cash up. SUFC Ltd pays cash to SUFC plc which channels it upwards in the chain to Scarborough etc to cover property losses. Fine, perfectly OK business and accounting wise etc but not fine if you support SUFC and have a pride in its history and an interest in its future.

Wake up, never mind the stale bread or the handdryers and use your supposed passion for the club in the only meaningful way which is somehow making it clear that this awful property speculator has to leave our beloved club alone.

The difference between you and most people on here is that we all share concern of some level, yet we don't know the facts. You're sound like Ed Milliband on coke on every post.

 

[sheffielder]

If the scenario of the land being transferred to Scarborough happens then the questions about McCabe's motivations become fully justified.

The move of the assets to the plc changes nothing at all about the fall-out if Scarborough were liquidated: the administrators would seek to sell off any parts of the group which could be continued as going concerns (including SUFC) before selling the remaining assets separately; using the acquired funds to pay off the secured and then unsecured creditors.

I believe the PLC made a profit of £18m up to February this year and this was wiped out by the costs of the 'football club' I could be wrong and it might be Scarborough, but to be honest I am not an accountant so I can't really comment on how this all helps or changes anything

 

[Foxy]

And Foxy, if it really made little difference, they wouldn't do it. It would be a waste of significant legal fees.

I'm not suggesting it makes no difference what-so-ever, just that from a McCabe screwing us over point of view it does absolutely nothing to change his power over us until one or the other are sold.

He could do what he wanted with both before, he can do what he wants with both now, it's just while he owns both he'd be screwing himself over.

 

[metalblade]

I'm not suggesting it makes no difference what-so-ever, just that from a McCabe screwing us over point of view it does absolutely nothing to change his power over us until one or the other are sold.

He could do what he wanted with both before, he can do what he wants with both now, it's just while he owns both he'd be screwing himself over.

I think it could be just a tad easier for him now should he want to "screw us over" but don't take my word for it maybe a Mr Booth in Rotherham could clarify matters.