Praise for McCabe, The Prince and SUFC

[Sean Thornton]

For any who doubt McCabe/HRH's input the accounts to 30/6/16 for Blades Leisure ltd show some one put £8 million into this company by it issuing new shares. This company seems to be a holding company which then bought £9 million of shares in SUFC ltd on 24/5/16 and another £4 million the following September.

Its complicated, others will have a better understanding of the accounts, but from this my assumption is McCabe/HRH have been putting in many millions each year so many thanks and I would support any decent ideas on how we fans can show our thanks.

Yes mistakes have been made in the past but it would appear they have continued to pump money in so should be applauded for sticking at it IMO.

They've both put £14m in up to June 2016.
McCabe a mix of debt swap/cash, HRH cash. McCabe has also transferred, from memory, around £27m into a share premium account which is effectively worthless without a return to the PL and someone wants to buy the club.

 

[Harrisblade]

For any who doubt McCabe/HRH's input the accounts to 30/6/16 for Blades Leisure ltd show some one put £8 million into this company by it issuing new shares. This company seems to be a holding company which then bought £9 million of shares in SUFC ltd on 24/5/16 and another £4 million the following September.

Its complicated, others will have a better understanding of the accounts, but from this my assumption is McCabe/HRH have been putting in many millions each year so many thanks and I would support any decent ideas on how we fans can show our thanks.

Yes mistakes have been made in the past but it would appear they have continued to pump money in so should be applauded for sticking at it IMO.

If it's complicated it can't be admitted as evidence of anything but chicanery!

 

[Harrisblade]

Nah. Just happy that you are retracting inwards. Just give up Fred. Your posts are getting more and more desperate and silly.

pommpey

 

[Esablade]

They've both put £14m in up to June 2016.
McCabe a mix of debt swap (of debt he created)/cash, HRH cash. McCabe has also transferred, from memory, around £27m (of debt he created in exchange for moving the ownership of asset's to his other companies) into a share premium account which is effectively worthless without a return to the PL and someone wants to buy the club.

Fixed it for ya!

Do you happen to know the ratio of 'debt swap' to cash?

 

[Sean Thornton]

Fixed it for ya!

Do you happen to know the ratio of 'debt swap' to cash?

Four million cash I believe.

You've not actually fixed anything though. The debt on the assets that were transferred went with them from the FC to SU Ltd. It's been shown to be the case more than once but if you need for whatever reason to peddle untruths there's nothing anyone can do about it.

The debt is to him don't forget, not a bank or whatever.

 

[Esablade]

Four million cash I believe.

You've not actually fixed anything though. The debt on the assets that were transferred went with them from the FC to SU Ltd. It's been shown to be the case more than once but if you need for whatever reason to peddle untruths there's nothing anyone can do about it.

The debt is to him don't forget, not a bank or whatever.

Where have I stated an untruth?

 

[Sean Thornton]

Where have I stated an untruth?

You said he'd exchanged created debt by transferring assets out of the company. That's not true. Feel free to explain how that works though, I'm intrigued.

 

[Sean Thornton]

Debit credit and all that

 

[Barney]

They've both put £14m in up to June 2016.

Is this taking into account the monies received from key player sales?

Not a smarmy comment btw I'm genuinely unsure.

 

[Esablade]

You said he'd created debt by transferring assets out of the company. That's not true. Feel free to explain how that works though, I'm intrigued.

Nope, that's not what I said at all, but nice to see you still up to your old tricks.

I said, he created the debts in the first place and then transferred the (worthless, unless someone wants to buy the club ) debt out of the club...

 

[Barney]

The debt on the assets that were transferred went with them from the FC to SU Ltd. .

This isn't true.

 

[Sean Thornton]

Is this taking into account the monies received from key player sales?

Not a smarmy comment btw I'm genuinely unsure.

No. That goes into the club. ones trading, the others investment.

 

[Sean Thornton]

This isn't true.

Link?

 

[Sean Thornton]

Nope, that's not what I said at all, but nice to see you still up to your old tricks.

I said, he created the debts in the first place and then transferred the (worthless, unless someone wants to buy the club ) debt out of the club...

No old tricks just your lack of understanding. How has he transferred debt out of the club. Please explain.

 

[Sean Thornton]

Link?

Edit. Try the 2013 SU Ltd accounts, then the Plc. It quite clearly shows additions to tangible assets in excess of £20m AND increased debt - creditors on the Balance Sheet - from the previous year.

But your "this isn't true" statement must be based on something, can we see it?

 

[Esablade]

No old tricks just your lack of understanding. How has he transferred debt out of the club. Please explain.

Nice try at diversion, where are the untruths in my post?

 

[Barney]

Edit. Try the 2013 SU Ltd accounts, then the Plc. It quite clearly shows additions to tangible assets in excess of £20m AND increased debt - creditors on the Balance Sheet - from the previous year.

But your "this isn't true" statement must be based on something, can we see it?

No old tricks just your lack of understanding. How has he transferred debt out of the club. Please explain.

Exactly, but you made this very claim in post 95 in saying the debt had been transferred out of the FC.

 

[Sean Thornton]

Nice try at diversion, where are the untruths in my post?

Here we go, down the childish route.

, around £27m (of debt he created in exchange for moving the ownership of asset's to his other companies)

There it is. "Of debt he created IN EXCHANGE" "

Your wording. I can't see where it can have some other meaning though I'm sure you'll try.

 

[Sean Thornton]

Exactly, but you made this very claim in post 95 in saying the debt had been transferred out of the FC.

Yes. The accounts points shows that this is what happened. Which is what said happened in post 95. You said it wasn't true. Are you now saying it is? Or if it isn't true, tell me why.

 

[Esablade]

Here we go, down the childish route.

, around £27m (of debt he created in exchange for moving the ownership of asset's to his other companies)

There it is. "Of debt he created IN EXCHANGE" "

Your wording. I can't see where it can have some other meaning though I'm sure you'll try.

So McCabe didn't take debt out of the football club in exchange for assets?

McCabe took debt of an equivalent amount to the freehold value when the ground was transferred. He didn't take as repayment of debt owed to him. If that was the case he wouldn't have had to write so much off.

 

[Sean Thornton]

So McCabe didn't take debt out of the football club in exchange of assets?

The debt referred to in the post about share issues, the £27m is nothing to do with the transfer of the assets. And the only person linking those two things is you, because until you "fixed" it, asset transfers hadn't been mentioned, certainly not by me.

This will now go down the inevitable Esablade route of trolling as it always does when you make a fool of yourself and arent man enough to admit it.

So I'll bid you goodbye while you add to your internet win trophies and see what your wingman has to say about his notion of something being untrue for three posts and then agreeing with me whilst still having to pretend I'm wrong.

 

[Esablade]

The debt referred to in the post about share issues, the £27m is nothing to do with the transfer of the assets. And the only person linking those two things is you, because until you "fixed" it, asset transfers hadn't been mentioned, certainly not by me.

This will now go down the inevitable Esablade route of trolling as it always does when you make a fool of yourself and arent man enough to admit it.

So I'll bid you goodbye while you add to your internet win trophies and see what your wingman has to say about his notion of something being untrue for three posts and then agreeing with me whilst still having to pretend I'm wrong.

Simply stop telling lies about people and then accusing them of lying.
Have good day.

UTB!

 

[Sean Thornton]

Simply stop telling lies about people and then accusing them of lying.
Have good day.

UTB!

If what you said was untrue, what's another word for it?

Edit. Possibly unfair. It could be that you just don't know what you're talking about. Meh.

Thanks for admitting you were wrong though. Appreciated.

 

[Esablade]

If what you said was untrue, what's another word for it?

Edit. Possibly unfair. It could be that you just don't know what you're talking about. Meh.

Thanks for admitting you were wrong though. Appreciated.

It's a LOL from me.
you'll never catch that whale...

 

[Barney]

Yes. The accounts points shows that this is what happened. Which is what said happened in post 95. You said it wasn't true. Are you now saying it is? Or if it isn't true, tell me why.

Asset debt cannot just be 'transferred' out of a club. As you contradict your post 95 by admitting in post 104.

 

[Sean Thornton]

Asset debt cannot just be 'transferred' out of a club. As you contradict your post 95 by admitting in post 104.

Define what you mean by "asset debt" as a starting point. Post 104 asks a question. It says debt not asset debt.

The starting points on this are the accounts, the timelines an understanding of a balance sheet and a basic knowledge of double entry book-keeping.

Befor you answer that though, there's a question still boiling on the pot. Why my post wasn't true. You've not answered other than to post something that showed it was.

If you aren't going to answer properly, maybe you ought to fall on your sword like your pal, and self consciously laugh the embarrassment off?

 

[Sean Thornton]

It's a LOL from me.
you'll never catch that whale...

First a lack of understanding of accounts now literature. It was a marlin. Surely you could have checked Google first?

Barney needs help, why not PM him your expertise. You must have it on one subject at least.

As you say UTB.

 

[JohnDenver]

Battle of the accountants.

 

[Barney]

Define what you mean by "asset debt" as a starting point. Post 104 asks a question. It says debt not asset debt.

The starting points on this are the accounts, the timelines an understanding of a balance sheet and a basic knowledge of double entry book-keeping.

Befor you answer that though, there's a question still boiling on the pot. Why my post wasn't true. You've not answered other than to post something that showed it was.

If you aren't going to answer properly, maybe you ought to fall on your sword like your pal, and self consciously laugh the embarrassment of?

The fact I have just stated shows it isn't true. A fact which you agreed with btw which contradicts your earlier post as shown.

But if you're just going to revert to type A and get personal whenever whatever you've decided to peddle today gets called out as bollocks then there's not much point in further dialogue is there?

Better to just leave you to it.

 

[Sean Thornton]

Battle of the accountants.

Only one accountant involved. Which I thought would be pretty obvious