McCabe Time For You To INVEST or GO

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?


Sean Thornton said:
No because that wasn't part of the deal which is why it's not in the FC.
He still owns half the FC even if the ground doesn't belong to it so your claim that he technically owns half but in reality doesn't, makes no sense.
Click to expand...
Don't worry not another tit for tat, but you did say that it not being in the FC doesn't affect what the Prince owns, it does. As you've just said, it wasn't part of the deal and not in the FC, so the Prince doesn't own it.

It makes a lot of sense. He might own half the FC but if he doesn't have anything to do with SU Ltd and the ground he doesn't own half, in reality, does he? Otherwise McCabe would have wanted more than a quid for half BL Ltd, at a guess.
 
Sean Thornton said:
He actually sold half of BL for £1. A dormant company, which then had the FC share. The Prince put in £10m initially to match KM's investment ( transferring loans to shares).

The hotel is in a separate company to the ground etc.
Click to expand...

...and when McCabe generously 'wrote off' the £34 million owed, SUFC Ltd gained an asset of roughly the same value, ( in some people's opinion) Bramall Lane!

Eureka!
 
Is anyone able to peer through all the accounting smoke and mirrors and confirm how much brass the prince has stumped up in each glorious year of his involvement?
 
Barney said:
You said it not being in the FC doesn't affect what the Prince owns, it does. As you've just said, it wasn't part of the deal and not in the FC, so the Prince doesn't own it.

It makes a lot of sense. He might own half the FC but if he doesn't have anything to do with SU Ltd and the ground he doesn't own half, in reality, does he? Otherwise McCabe would have wanted more than a quid for half BL Ltd, at a guess.
Click to expand...


Eh? What's your point, that he doesn't own 50% of the FC, technically, because the ground isn't in there?

If it's not in the FC balance sheet he doesn't own it. It doesn't affect his ownership of the FC via BL and UTB LLC
 
Esablade said:
...and when McCabe generously 'wrote off' the £34 million owed, SUFC Ltd gained an asset of roughly the same value, ( in some people's opinion) Bramall Lane!

Eureka!
Click to expand...

Lol. The ground isn't in SUFC's account.
The transfer of the ground is an entirely different transaction to the capitalisation of loans.

Sort it out with Barney, you're on the same wavelength.
 
Sean Thornton said:
Lol. The ground isn't in SUFC's account.
The transfer of the ground is an entirely different transaction to the capitalisation of loans.

Sort it out with Barney, you're on the same wavelength.
Click to expand...

Ooo..where's it gone! :o

Are we talking about the same SU Ltd?
 
Sean Thornton said:
Eh? What's your point, that he doesn't own 50% of the FC, technically, because the ground isn't in there?

If it's not in the FC balance sheet he doesn't own it. It doesn't affect his ownership of the FC via BL and UTB LLC
Click to expand...
Not that he doesn't own 50% of the FC, but that he doesn't have an overall stake of 50% whole when the ground is under SU Ltd and nothing to do with him. It's quite simple really, if the ground is nothing to do with you, you certainly don't have a 50% stake in the club (as a whole, not SUFC Ltd).
 
Esablade said:
Ooo..where's it gone! :eek:

Are we talking about the same SU Ltd?
Click to expand...

You said SUFC. You need to decide which company you are going to use as an example.

Mind you, the point was wrong whichever company you decide suits your comment.
 
Barney said:
Not that he doesn't own 50% of the FC, but he doesn't have an overall stake of 50% whole when the ground is under SU Ltd and nothing to do with him. It's quite simple really, if the ground is nothing to do with you, you certainly don't have a 50% stake in the club (not the FC).
Click to expand...

Of course he has a 50% stake. FFS, The SUFC IS the club.
 

itsinyerblood said:
Which then takes you into the realm of pervy fetish.....there are sites for that sort of interest, unless of course there's a small interest group already in existence on here?
Click to expand...


What do you think? I thought it was a wrestling term, but you've taught me something new :)
 
Sean Thornton said:
You said SUFC. You need to decide which company you are going to use as an example.

Mind you, the point was wrong whichever company you decide suits your comment.
Click to expand...

You see, I told you it was consulted :D
 
Barney said:
Oh dear Sean. So you really think he owns half the club (not SUFC Ltd, calm down) as a whole, when the ground is nothing to do with him? What's a club without a ground?
Click to expand...

I wish I had a club.
 
Sean Thornton said:
What do you think? I thought it was a wrestling term, but you've taught me something new :)
Click to expand...

You're a lightweight Sean ;). This has to be one of the most expansive and liberal football forum's around, dig deep enough and you'll uncover all manner of curiosity beneath being a Blade.
 

I suppose SU Ltd is the club then, as it has a ground. Only trouble is it doesn't have FL membership and never has had.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

William Carey
The new owners are letting us down!
5 6 7
Replies
208
Views
13K
Sean Thornton
Sean Thornton
JayGreen17
No Excuses Not to GO to Wembley
6 7 8
Replies
229
Views
21K
Koh Samui Blade
Koh Samui Blade
Foxy
  • Sticky
S24SU.com Fantasy Premier League - 25/26
Replies
3
Views
1K
Foxy
Foxy
U
You are the board
2
Replies
51
Views
4K
Gin&Juice
Gin&Juice
ucandomagic
A Few Thoughts on Strategy & Tactics
Replies
13
Views
1K
MiserableBlader
MiserableBlader

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Back
Top Bottom