Letter to shareholders

[Topplayersleave]

How much for a giant banner for the Kop that reads "both of you, fuck off" haha

And a big banner for front of the South Stand "This club for sale".

I can get you one, but you see there's this agent...………..

 

[56yearsablade]

Does it say that in the skeleton arguments?

Not arguing about that. I was explaining why McCabe would loan but not gift.

In the HRH skeletal argument it states that he did not agree the extra funding and received an apology email from Andrew Birks apologising that he had not been reached out to to confirm his agreement

 

[Sean Thornton]

Life and business are about judgement . Do you think that any of these papers can be anything other than damaging for our club ? This is also the thin end of the dirty washing wedge , As an opinion McCabe should have matched the £1,25M gift offer from HRH and continued at least in the short term to try to negotiate an outcome away from the public eye.

And I've explained the perfectly reasonable explanation of why he wouldn't. Why wouldn't HRH agree to loans? Simple, he would , if he took over, have to pay McCabe back.

As I said, the majority wanted to know what was going on. A cat fight between our owners was always going to diminish the reputation of the club. I don't recall anyone wanting everything played behind closed doors, until a Judge has effectively poured scorn on the pair of them.

The Princes transfers if shares to UTB2018 may turn out to be legal. It certainly appears far more devious than anything McCabe has done.

 

[Sean Thornton]

In the HRH skeletal argument it states that he did not agree the extra funding and received an apology email from Andrew Birks apologising that he had not been reached out to to confirm his agreement

Yes, just read that, although it seems it happened without his knowledge, rather than against his wishes. I'm sure we'll hear more when the main case starts.

 

[Rodley]

And I've explained the perfectly reasonable explanation of why he wouldn't. Why wouldn't HRH agree to loans? Simple, he would , if he took over, have to pay McCabe back.

As I said, the majority wanted to know what was going on. A cat fight between our owners was always going to diminish the reputation of the club. I don't recall anyone wanting everything played behind closed doors, until a Judge has effectively poured scorn on the pair of them.

The Princes transfers if shares to UTB2018 may turn out to be legal. It certainly appears far more devious than anything McCabe has done.

I think a JV with a Russian Roulette style Option Agreement seems a bizarre deal structure. Always potential for fireworks there. FWIW I take some comfort from (a) Wilder signed a new deal having met both owners, and; (b) the Courts will ultimately resolve the matter. I hope the Brooks money has abrogated the pressing need for the cash injection and that the transfer money has been made available to Sir Chris.

Interesting times indeed.

 

[Rodley]

Yes, just read that, although it seems it happened without his knowledge, rather than against his wishes. I'm sure we'll hear more when the main case starts.

Didn’t spot that, not read the UTB skeleton Agreement yet. Switched straight to the judgement!

 

[Kev Gee]

All just abit to one sided for my liking.

 

[Danetheblade]

Not quite sure why the princey hasn't come out and said his piece.. surely would give balance to a stupid arguement..

 

[56yearsablade]

Yes, just read that, although it seems it happened without his knowledge, rather than against his wishes. I'm sure we'll hear more when the main case starts.

You are 100 per cent right that the dilution of shares in his acquiring vehicle to avoid having to buy the property assets is by far the worst actual act detailed within the papers , however what is almost as bad is the “sloppy “ approach taken to the original deal by McCabe and his lawyers which allowed this to happen . This has the long term feel of Brealey v Woolhouse

 

[LoughboroBlade]

(b) the Courts will ultimately resolve the matter.

Courts, there it is.

 

[Fraggle Blade]

It's got to the stage where I wouldn't be happy with either of them taking full control of the club, seems like neither can be trusted.
Get sold on and you're in the hands of the gods whether we get a good or useless owner next, if it happened.
We certainly know how to grab defeat from the jaws of victory.

 

[The Vicar]

That is salutary reading. Praise the Lord for being satisfied with my lot in life & not being hamstrung by money!

I like others am worried for our future, we could find ourselves fighting relegation very quickly with this lot going on in the background. Whilst not always agreeing with KM, he looks to have more honourable intentions than his adversary.

We need a quick resolution if this season is not to be undermined before it starts.

 

[raul]

Thing that troubles me most in all of this - exactly how long are the people of Whitby supposed to carry on without the Internet?

 

[Worksop II]

Not quite sure why the princey hasn't come out and said his piece.. surely would give balance to a stupid arguement..

Probably expecting Kev to take care of business for him ..............

I think the Shareholder Rallies are hilarious

How did he say it in the letter "we are in dispute" - fuckin "we"

 

[Snowman]

Not quite sure why the princey hasn't come out and said his piece.. surely would give balance to a stupid arguement..

Unfortunately it's not a stupid argument. It's a deadly serious argument with potentially far reaching consequences. I for one am starting my search for private finance to set up Sheffield United (2020) Limited to start our long haul back via the lower leagues and our tenancy at the Sheffield Olympic Legacy Park.

Now what depressing subject shall I use my 3,000th post for? I was hoping to use it on welcoming a new signing. Perhaps not.

 

[LoughboroBlade]

"A lawyer and director of both Blades Leisure Limited and Sheffield United Football Club since August 2017"

18. The relationship between UTB and SUL deteriorated in November and December 2017 as a result of disagreements in respect of, among other matters, the appointment of Mr Van Winckel to the Football Team’s technical committee; the appointment of Deloitte LLP as consultants; the terms on which a new chief financial officer, Simon Ratcliffe, was to be appointed; and the continuation of Mr Bettis as chief executive of SUFC after he had moved to Los Angeles.

19. The behaviour of Prince Abdullah and Mr Giansiracusa from November 2017, including a lengthy and vitriolic attack by Mr Giansiracusa on Mr McCabe in an email copied to directors of Blades on 19th November 2017 in which Mr Giansiracusa accused Mr McCabe of being a dishonest bully with an "extraordinary sense of entitlement" whose actions in respect of suggesting changes to the contract of Mr Ratcliffe had been "almost certainly illegal", who lacked intellectual integrity, who could not be trusted, and who was not very much liked by the people of Sheffield (see the quotation from the email in the Defence at para 26 [1/5/25/26]), suggested a concerted effort on the part of UTB to destroy the relationship between the owners.

Could anyone with a bit more knowledge on the matter explain the issues around the appointment of Simon Ratcliffe, and whether this is just a token thing to object to or whether there are legit concerns about him or his appointment?

 

[Fraggle Blade]

Unfortunately it's not a stupid argument. It's a deadly serious argument with potentially far reaching consequences. I for one am starting my search for private finance to set up Sheffield United (2020) Limited to start our long haul back via the lower leagues and our tenancy at the Sheffield Olympic Legacy Park.

Now what depressing subject shall I use my 3,000th post for? I was hoping to use it on welcoming a new signing. Perhaps not.

Think there's every chance it will get used up before a new signing.

 

[Fraggle Blade]

Could anyone with a bit more knowledge on the matter explain the issues around the appointment of Simon Ratcliffe, and whether this is just a token thing to object to or whether there are legit concerns about him or his appointment?

I don't think it's to do with his appointment, but McCabe trying to change his existing contract, unless there is some sort of timeframe for this having occurred. I wouldn't have thought it would be illegal to change someones contract before they have taken up the post and the contract signed.

 

[Danetheblade]

Unfortunately it's not a stupid argument. It's a deadly serious argument with potentially far reaching consequences. I for one am starting my search for private finance to set up Sheffield United (2020) Limited to start our long haul back via the lower leagues and our tenancy at the Sheffield Olympic Legacy Park.

Now what depressing subject shall I use my 3,000th post for? I was hoping to use it on welcoming a new signing. Perhaps not.

No no, of course it isn't, I didn't mean the argument in general. I meant the situation McCabe has put not just himself, but the club in.

 

[PaulHalfway]

Just gone through 6 years of hell getting relegated and stuck in division 1, first season in decades we start to get some optimism, excitement and great home and away followings again, we are going back to square one, totally embarrassing for the owners to let this situation arise and go public, shocking

 

[Sean Thornton]

Unfortunately it's not a stupid argument. It's a deadly serious argument with potentially far reaching consequences. I for one am starting my search for private finance to set up Sheffield United (2020) Limited to start our long haul back via the lower leagues and our tenancy at the Sheffield Olympic Legacy Park.

Now what depressing subject shall I use my 3,000th post for? I was hoping to use it on welcoming a new signing. Perhaps not.

Already tried by one who has been banished to his North Yorkshire quality secret headquarters ( not guarded by sharks) perchance to rise again.

 

[Pollingtonblade]

I advise anyone interested in this dispute to go to the link referred to in the letter and read the judgment that can be found there. It explains the background to the dispute in detail, and also explains why the parties fell out over exercise of options.

Can someone summise?

 

[Sean Thornton]

Can someone summise?

It's a fucking shambles.

 

[Lower Drop Blade]

Game Of Thrones......

 

[Classof85]

my view on reading that is the prince wants to gift the money to the club i.e putting money in with no return and mccabe wants to loan the money and then get it back in the future

from a conversation i had a month ago with a sports journo with links to the club he said the only 1 of the 2 parties has money ready available to invest and it isnt mccabe

 

[Snowman]

Can someone summise?

To summarise. Kev got kippered by what he feels is a bit of sharp practice by prince and his lawyer spotting a "lacuna" in the agreement between them. He's not happy and has started thrashing about with some legal action none of which so far has been successful and from reading the skellys I can see why. Needs to change his lawyers some may say. Main bout is going to be on the matter of the "sharp practice". However, on the undercard is a couple of minor bouts between them about the immediate need for funding which the Judge has decided he ain't going to get involved in because he prefers princes argument on the law. Judge basically says the undercard is an irrelevance and get yersen sorted aht for't big un.

 

[Snowman]

my view on reading that is the prince wants to gift the money to the club i.e putting money in with no return and mccabe wants to loan the money and then get it back in the future

from a conversation i had a month ago with a sports journo with links to the club he said the only 1 of the 2 parties has money ready available to invest and it isnt mccabe

See Sean Thornton helpful explanation as to why McCabe has to treat it as a loan.

 

[Sean Thornton]

my view on reading that is the prince wants to gift the money to the club i.e putting money in with no return and mccabe wants to loan the money and then get it back in the future

from a conversation i had a month ago with a sports journo with links to the club he said the only 1 of the 2 parties has money ready available to invest and it isnt mccabe

McCabe offered to loan it so it's unlikely he doesn't have it. He offered to loan it for reasons posted more than once.

 

[The Crab]

To summarise. Kev got kippered by what he feels is a bit of sharp practice by prince and his lawyer spotting a "lacuna" in the agreement between them. He's not happy and has started thrashing about with some legal action none of which so far has been successful and from reading the skellys I can see why. Needs to change his lawyers some may say. Main bout is going to be on the matter of the "sharp practice". However, on the undercard is a couple of minor bouts between them about the immediate need for funding which the Judge has decided he ain't going to get involved in because he prefers princes argument on the law. Judge basically says the undercard is an irrelevance and get yersen sorted aht for't big un.

A lacuna you say? Tsk, those bloody French...……………

 

[Snowman]

A lacuna you say? Tsk, those bloody French...……………

I knew I should have said "loophole", but then you might have posted a picture of a Polo!