Ownership developments

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


Railway Blade said:
I don't have great knowledge of legal matters but how did McCabe get duped so easily ?.

Why was it not written into the mechanics of the agreement that neither party could change their shareholding between any offer and counter offer or it made the agreement void, unless both parties agreed to the changes ?

And also to do with the leases of Bramall Lane and the other related properties at reduced rents. Again why not have a clause stating that if the ownership structure changed the lessor has the right to revise the rents to full market value ?

I know hindsights a wonderful thing but when your dealing with big money it tends to be a belt and bracers approach I would have thought.
Click to expand...


It may well have been. HRH may have had legal advice telling him he could circumvent that.

At the end of the day, he's telling the Court he doesn't believe we need investment to improve, or, it seems, that £2m previously agreed to be released to Wilder isn't necessary either.
 
itsinyerblood said:
Maybe if posters engaged him in what you might call more a restrained fashion, or even without an opinion already formed, then you might find Pinchy being prepared to communicate in the same fashion.
Click to expand...

I like to think I post in a restrained fashion, but unfortunately I've never managed to get anything out of Pinchy: he seems to have a few rehearsed opinions and stock derogatory nicknames (Morgan, Ironside, Reed) but when I actually tried to engage he would quickly stop replying.
 
Chali 2na said:
I like to think I post in a restrained fashion, but unfortunately I've never managed to get anything out of Pinchy: he seems to have a few rehearsed opinions and stock derogatory nicknames (Morgan, Ironside, Reed) but when I actually tried to engage he would quickly stop replying.
Click to expand...

Like I've said mate, I'm not a spokesperson for Pinchy, although in the eyes of some I seem to have that title, incorrectly I must repeat, bestowed upon me.

Of course I'm familiar with everything you mention. The only thing I can suggest is that you write to Pinchy again, this time mentioning what appeared to be an oversight on his behalf when it came to replying to yourself. If he doesn't respond then yes, that would be bad form, but as with many things there may be reasons that you or I are unaware of. By all means you can remove yourself from writing to him, or, as I suggested, you might choose to write in the hope that Pinchy chooses to respond.
 
itsinyerblood said:
Like I've said mate, I'm not a spokesperson for Pinchy, although in the eyes of some I seem to have that title, incorrectly I must repeat, bestowed upon me.

Of course I'm familiar with everything you mention. The only thing I can suggest is that you write to Pinchy again, this time mentioning what appeared to be an oversight on his behalf when it came to replying to yourself. If he doesn't respond then yes, that would be bad form, but as with many things there may be reasons that you or I are unaware of. By all means you can remove yourself from writing to him, or, as I suggested, you might choose to write in the hope that Pinchy chooses to respond.
Click to expand...

Absoloutely, I wouldn't expect you to speak for Pinchy. It was more a case of me adding to what you said as opposed to challenging you.

Ultimately, it's quite obvious that Pinchy isn't a moron; far from it. I just think he enjoys the limelight of being the forum's resident contrarian.
 
Chali 2na said:
Absoloutely, I wouldn't expect you to speak for Pinchy. It was more a case of me adding to what you said as opposed to challenging you.

Ultimately, it's quite obvious that Pinchy isn't a moron; far from it. I just think he enjoys the limelight of being the forum's resident contrarian.
Click to expand...

AKA a troll.
 
Chali 2na said:
Absoloutely, I wouldn't expect you to speak for Pinchy. It was more a case of me adding to what you said as opposed to challenging you.

Ultimately, it's quite obvious that Pinchy isn't a moron; far from it. I just think he enjoys the limelight of being the forum's resident contrarian.
Click to expand...

For what it's worth, I think it's more a case of posters suggesting that Pinchy needs something, anything......in fact, what I think floats his boat is the fact that people take him seriously. Yes, he'll dig, sometimes crossing lines that some posters find outrageous...but in all seriousness, it's just a forum. That's not to appear disrespectful to either Foxy or Linz, but in the scheme of things that's exactly what it is. A place where Blades gather to share thoughts and opinions, often arguing, sometimes taking matters to a point that's regarded as going too far, but for all of this we have the forum owners to thank for their liberal approach to forum management.

I'd return to my previous suggestion - write to Pinchy and see if you can engage him in something close to coherent, intelligent conversation. It may prove unsuccessful but at least you'll have tried.
 

Rights or wrongs of the individuals fighting, SUFC cannot afford to have HRH win this:
When HRH first arrived he stated over and over that it was purely an investment.
McCabe has grown into football club ownership learning his lessons the hard way (and here's another).
HRH doesn't understand SUFC.
Anybody who thinks a £20m investment will guarantee Premiership football is wrong whether it's me or a prince.
If we make it to the Premiership it is so he can reap the profits. People who do that inevitably get greedy take too much and we will get relegated.
If we don't get to the Prem or when we get relegated we will (IMO) be asset stripped.
 
8lade said:
Rights or wrongs of the individuals fighting, SUFC cannot afford to have HRH win this:
When HRH first arrived he stated over and over that it was purely an investment.
McCabe has grown into football club ownership learning his lessons the hard way (and here's another).
HRH doesn't understand SUFC.
Anybody who thinks a £20m investment will guarantee Premiership football is wrong whether it's me or a prince.
If we make it to the Premiership it is so he can reap the profits. People who do that inevitably get greedy take too much and we will get relegated.
If we don't get to the Prem or when we get relegated we will (IMO) be asset stripped.
Click to expand...

I think this is where people have got it wrong. United's assets don't add up to very much. They comprise a patch of land in inner city Sheffield, another patch of land in Shirecliffe and a hotel which has been losing money since it opened. The fact that they are associated with a football club means nothing in terms of their asset value. If the Prince wanted to asset strip he'd be very lucky to get the £20m that's being quoted. Considering the money he's put in already plus whatever he's trying to buy McCabe out for he wouldn't even break even.

So then, what is he in it for? The guy must be intelligent enough to realise that investing in a 3rd division club is going to lose him money in the short to medium term. So therefore he's looking at the long term, which might just be to take this club forward for the first time in a very, very long time. The guy was never going to buy into a relative non-entity of a football club with the crazy notion of making a killing, there's other means of doing that. There's also plenty of land available in Sheffield if his intentions are to build some houses and a retail park and without the farce of buying into a football club to enable him to do so.

I don't get the mistrust and animosity towards the guy, especially when there isn't a shred of evidence to suggest he's out to shaft us. By "us". I mean us the fans and us the club. I couldn't care less if McCabe loses a few million in a business deal, I'm more interested in the club winning something and McCabe's record to date suggests we won't as long as he's in charge. I'm prepared to let the Prince have a go, he certainly couldn't do any worse than what we've had for the past 40 years and may even surprise us.
 
8lade said:
Rights or wrongs of the individuals fighting, SUFC cannot afford to have HRH win this:
When HRH first arrived he stated over and over that it was purely an investment.
McCabe has grown into football club ownership learning his lessons the hard way (and here's another).
HRH doesn't understand SUFC.
Anybody who thinks a £20m investment will guarantee Premiership football is wrong whether it's me or a prince.
If we make it to the Premiership it is so he can reap the profits. People who do that inevitably get greedy take too much and we will get relegated.
If we don't get to the Prem or when we get relegated we will (IMO) be asset stripped.
Click to expand...
I may have missed it and I’m not prepared to read the full transcript again, but I don’t recall anyone saying £20m will guarantee promotion. Not since Jack Walker anyway.

The £20m is how much McCabe wants for BL, Shirecliffe etc.
 
snootyfenooty said:
I think this is where people have got it wrong. United's assets don't add up to very much. They comprise a patch of land in inner city Sheffield, another patch of land in Shirecliffe and a hotel which has been losing money since it opened. The fact that they are associated with a football club means nothing in terms of their asset value. If the Prince wanted to asset strip he'd be very lucky to get the £20m that's being quoted. Considering the money he's put in already plus whatever he's trying to buy McCabe out for he wouldn't even break even.

So then, what is he in it for? The guy must be intelligent enough to realise that investing in a 3rd division club is going to lose him money in the short to medium term. So therefore he's looking at the long term, which might just be to take this club forward for the first time in a very, very long time. The guy was never going to buy into a relative non-entity of a football club with the crazy notion of making a killing, there's other means of doing that. There's also plenty of land available in Sheffield if his intentions are to build some houses and a retail park and without the farce of buying into a football club to enable him to do so.

I don't get the mistrust and animosity towards the guy, especially when there isn't a shred of evidence to suggest he's out to shaft us. By "us". I mean us the fans and us the club. I couldn't care less if McCabe loses a few million in a business deal, I'm more interested in the club winning something and McCabe's record to date suggests we won't as long as he's in charge. I'm prepared to let the Prince have a go, he certainly couldn't do any worse than what we've had for the past 40 years and may even surprise us.
Click to expand...


The hotel is nothing to do with the football club Snooty.
 
Sean Thornton said:
The hotel is nothing to do with the football club Snooty.
Click to expand...

Then the assets are worth even less, but that's not the main tenet of my post. However, the hotel is an integral part of the ground and no one is going to buy that if someone else's property is attached to it are they? McCabe needs to let go.
 
snootyfenooty said:
Then the assets are worth even less, but that's not the main tenet of my post. However, the hotel is an integral part of the ground and no one is going to buy that if someone else's property is attached to it are they? McCabe needs to let go.
Click to expand...

You've never lived in a semi?

You're seeking to point out the valuation of the assets but didn't know what the assets were.
 
Sean Thornton said:
You've never lived in a semi?

You're seeking to point out the valuation of the assets but didn't know what the assets were.
Click to expand...

Quite the opposite. If the hotel is not included in the assets it makes them worth a lot less which kind of reinforces the point I made in my original post.
 
If either of them have mega rich backers waiting in the wings, could those people be looking at this situation and thinking, "fuck me, what a pippy show, let's have another look at those other Championship clubs" ?
 
snootyfenooty said:
Quite the opposite. If the hotel is not included in the assets it makes them worth a lot less which kind of reinforces the point I made in my original post.
Click to expand...

The assets are worth what they are worth based on current usage. The last valuation is in the accounts. The hotel wasn't included. You appear to be trying to undervalue them and then when realising the hotel isn't included, writing them down some more when your basic claim was a few million out to start with. God knows how you can claim to be right.

There are plenty on here thinking the land at BL is prime residential land, ready for six bedroom mansions to be built with a huge waiting list of people desperate to relocate from Dore. Now it's just an inner city shithole worth peanuts.

Was it the News of the World that had the strapline "All human life is here"?


Oh, and those differing land values are dreamt up by anti McCabists. FFS.
 

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
Loco Blade
Get Behind em Saturday
Replies
2
Views
387
Bladesthorpe
B
JayGreen17
VAR SUBS AND WILDER OUT
Replies
0
Views
508
JayGreen17
JayGreen17

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