Ownership developments

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


Briefly goes into the finer details but the gist of it is mainly what we already know.

My months have all blended into one this year. Was the start of June around when the budget was settled upon and Wilder decided to stay? Seem to recall him thanking the owners regarding settling upon a budget. Sounds like they did no such thing...Judge Whatshisface did it for them :D
 
Addison said:
More here in the Stir. Looks like we won't be getting this settled some time soon. Sad that both owners are dragging this through the Courts it seems personal interests are outweighing the good of the Club. The fact the funding of the Club for this season is being discussed in open court probably explains why CW is waiting for permission to spend some of the Brooks money.

https://www.thestar.co.uk/sport/foo...ourt-battle-for-control-of-the-club-1-9241928
Click to expand...

Beat me to it SB
 
Read the article and essentially there's not much new in there - its more of a summary of how McCabe and the Prince got to be where we are now. I notice the main comment is the disagreement about team spending. I can't figure out if that's referring to last summer, last January or this summer, because they fell out late 2017 according to the article and that became public as we know not long after. So presumably the disagreement on team spending doesn't relate to team spending this summer? It does say in the coming months though regarding the disagreement in transfer budget. here's the quote:

One area of disagreement was about how much the club needed to spend on players in the coming months.

It's all a total mess it seems and when you consider the leagal system this might not be sorted till next summer - who knows.
 
Booker4 said:
Read the article and essentially there's not much new in there - its more of a summary of how McCabe and the Prince got to be where we are now. I notice the main comment is the disagreement about team spending. I can't figure out if that's referring to last summer, last January or this summer, because they fell out late 2017 according to the article and that became public as we know not long after. So presumably the disagreement on team spending doesn't relate to team spending this summer? It does say in the coming months though regarding the disagreement in transfer budget. here's the quote:

One area of disagreement was about how much the club needed to spend on players in the coming months.

It's all a total mess it seems and when you consider the leagal system this might not be sorted till next summer - who knows.
Click to expand...

Rob Staton just posted no news waffle that has been rehashed in The Stir. You know things are a bit slow on the football front at both clubs when the local hacks are just repeating information everyone has known for a while.
 
Main thing is that Wilder must have known all of this when he signed a new deal. It's interesting but no new info, really, other than us knowing that it won't be sorted for some time and there's been disagreement over transfer spending. The latter suggests that it won't have been easy for Wilder to find out how much he'll get to spend of the Brooks money, which is a pain.
 
Booker4 said:
One area of disagreement was about how much the club needed to spend on players in the coming months.
Click to expand...

From what I gather that was what was decided at this hearing in June, which is why I asked if it tallied up with when Wilder signed a new deal i.e when a budget was settled upon. Unless I'm reading that incorrectly?

It's not a well-worded statement.
 

From that I assume that it's Blades Leisure owned by the Prince that is propping up the club and covering the losses?
"UTB had responded with a "manoeuvre" which would mean that "UTB was entitled to purchase all Sheffield's shares at a low price" I also assume the word "entitled" in that means that this was contractually agreed that this could take place?

So essentially McCabe is happy to leave and give up the club, but doesn't want the Prince to get it cheaply as previously had been agreed?
 
South Bucks said:
Explains why Brooks was sold and its pretty obvious to me who the villain is and it isn't Kev.
Click to expand...

You never know do you.

It could've panned out that HRH said, we own 50% each, you match me and vice-versa. Then all of a sudden, another January passes by with HRH wanting to put £5m in but KMc says "£5m :eek:, nah, what about £300k?"

At which point HRH says, "Fuck this clown, he's not keeping his end of the bargain, unfortunately, i'm not a majority share holder, so my only option is to take the tight bastard to court!"

Everybody then starts rooting for the local guy and this evil foreigner is being unreasonable, when in fact, it may be HRH that wants to "Spend big" and "think Liverpool", but he's not funding it all himself, and rightly so.

Just a thought.
 
South Bucks said:
Explains why Brooks was sold and its pretty obvious to me who the villain is and it isn't Kev.
Click to expand...

I would disagree. If the dispute is about funding for player acquisition then this means one of them wants to shovel some money in and the other doesn't. It doesn't take much imagination to decipher which one doesn't.
 
To be fair to the Stir and I'm not usually they have tried to provide information on the Court process that none of us knew about. Problem is they haven't said what the ruling on the actual funding of the Club is for the first half of the season 2018/19. You have to assume both parties made submissions and the Judge was required to rule on these. If it is accurate that the Judge ruled on the financing for the first half of the season then it follows they will have to do this again sometime in December. Not the best way to run a football Club but probably explains why Bettis has been brought back.
 
mattbianco1 said:
You never know do you.

It could've panned out that HRH said, we own 50% each, you match me and vice-versa. Then all of a sudden, another January passes by with HRH wanting to put £5m in but KMc says "£5m :eek:, nah, what about £300k?"

At which point HRH says, "Fuck this clown, he's not keeping his end of the bargain, unfortunately, i'm not a majority share holder, so my only option is to take the tight bastard to court!"

Everybody then starts rooting for the local guy and this evil foreigner is being unreasonable, when in fact, it may be HRH that wants to "Spend big" and "think Liverpool", but he's not funding it all himself, and rightly so.

Just a thought.
Click to expand...

Nah mate, it ain't king Kev's fault.
 
I read that as Kev wanting to put something in and Prince not liking it and then Kev wanting to get him out.

Just from the way it's written obviously I don't know nowt.

As for the Prince having the option to buy out being part of his agreement to buy half the club from an old geezer who had previously resisted relinquishing control I imagine. Kev had found the right investor so obviously wouldn't mind him taking complete control when he retires but then they started arguing.
 
snootyfenooty said:
I would disagree. If the dispute is about funding for player acquisition then this means one of them wants to shovel some money in and the other doesn't. It doesn't take much imagination to decipher which one doesn't.
Click to expand...

How do you read the situation? Genuine question - I’m not sure who’s wanting what.
 
mattbianco1 said:
You never know do you.

It could've panned out that HRH said, we own 50% each, you match me and vice-versa. Then all of a sudden, another January passes by with HRH wanting to put £5m in but KMc says "£5m :eek:, nah, what about £300k?"

At which point HRH says, "Fuck this clown, he's not keeping his end of the bargain, unfortunately, i'm not a majority share holder, so my only option is to take the tight bastard to court!"

Everybody then starts rooting for the local guy and this evil foreigner is being unreasonable, when in fact, it may be HRH that wants to "Spend big" and "think Liverpool", but he's not funding it all himself, and rightly so.

Just a thought.
Click to expand...

Careful MB you'll be having to write the Alternative View from John Street soon. :D
 
mattbianco1 said:
You never know do you.

It could've panned out that HRH said, we own 50% each, you match me and vice-versa. Then all of a sudden, another January passes by with HRH wanting to put £5m in but KMc says "£5m :eek:, nah, what about £300k?"

At which point HRH says, "Fuck this clown, he's not keeping his end of the bargain, unfortunately, i'm not a majority share holder, so my only option is to take the tight bastard to court!"

Everybody then starts rooting for the local guy and this evil foreigner is being unreasonable, when in fact, it may be HRH that wants to "Spend big" and "think Liverpool", but he's not funding it all himself, and rightly so.

Just a thought.
Click to expand...

Nah, Kevin "There's no bigger" McBlade is definitely the hero of the day.
 
LondonBlade89 said:
Main thing is that Wilder must have known all of this when he signed a new deal. It's interesting but no new info, really, other than us knowing that it won't be sorted for some time and there's been disagreement over transfer spending. The latter suggests that it won't have been easy for Wilder to find out how much he'll get to spend of the Brooks money, which is a pain.
Click to expand...
Thats why that Betts bloke has been brought in, got his work cut out.
 

JohnDenver said:
How do you read the situation? Genuine question - I’m not sure who’s wanting what.
Click to expand...

The way I look at it, by his own admission Kev wants out so he's not going to be ploughing any more money in. Neither would I in his situation. He hasn't got to where he is in life by missing an opportunity though, again good for him, but now that United are on their uppers maybe he's keen to collect 100% of the proceeds of getting shut rather than 50%.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

BiggerBladeThanThou
The New Ownership
2 3 4
Replies
95
Views
7K
Balham
Balham
T
Retained list tomorrow
12 13 14
Replies
397
Views
38K
Keen Blade
Keen Blade
AlienWoodward
RIP Reg Brearley
2
Replies
52
Views
5K
Cappy
Cappy
JayGreen17
VAR SUBS AND WILDER OUT
Replies
0
Views
508
JayGreen17
JayGreen17
Ball_Sup (Phil)
Ball Sup Blog... v Swansea City (a)
Replies
0
Views
141
Ball_Sup (Phil)
Ball_Sup (Phil)

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