Really Kevin Really?

[Kenilworth]

Personal abuse? Where? You're having a laugh sunshine. Yours Micadildo.

"Sailing Close to" - but taking things out of context for your one track agenda is fair game though.
You have me on Micadildo - but it's still funny

 

[Foxy]

This portrayal of me as a keyboard warrior or such like is very amusing no doubt but I clearly said I have zero interest in meeting Winter, and likely he has zero interest in meeting me. I'm interested in SUFC and asked a fair question about what he does 9-5 - which you kindly attempted to answer.

Well it's just you seem to be more than willing to have a pop at people online, but seem to have absolutely no desire in speaking to them directly to air your concerns or to form an informed opinion, which, when you are bringing into question their employment is a little unfair in my opinion. I'd think the person best placed to answer your questions is the man himself, or the man he answers to... but you have absolutely no intention of entertaining dialogue with those people.

As for the rest of your post I haven't got a clue what you are on about. If you pass criticisms onto the club please let me know what they are.

Well I was responding to your opinions of myself, which usually results in a lack of response from you or you "not having a clue" what I'm on about, so that's pretty much par for the course.

I regularly bring concerns to people at the club, but to be perfectly honest, as you have "zero interest" of following up the points you raise with any form of substance then I have more important things to do than catalogue what I've discussed/brought to the table just for you to ignore or attempt to twist a pop at me out of.

 

[Sothall_Blade]

Darren the only potential difference is that Sheffield United plc could now divest an interest in Sheffield United FC Ltd to a third party without having to hand over control of its fixed assets. It's this which is getting a lot of the posters in this thread scared.

The scenario people are worried about is that McCabe, through SU plc, sells off his shareholding in SUFC Ltd but retains the fixed assets. He would then be free to charge rent to the new owner at whatever level he saw fit - and you could bet that there would be a clause in the contract guaranteeing that United would play at the Lane.

All the clubs people have quoted above - Leeds, Palace, Rotherham et al - have all run into trouble when the football club has changed hands, leaving the stadium with the previous owners. That's not happened here.

Personally, I'd rather McCabe own Bramall Lane than an investor I know nothing about.
If somebody wants to come and put money into the football side in the hope of reaching The Premiership and therefore making a packet, fair enough, we will all benefit.
If they wanted to buy the whole club including the stadium and training ground, I'd be worried that they had an ulterior motive.
If McCabe has ulterior motives he's took long enough to put his dastardly plans in motion.
Better the devil you know..

 

[sheffielder]

I think we need more clarification, however I hope the reason why McCabe is doing this is so that anyone who does buy SUFC doesn't own the ground and then sell it off.

I am more intrigued in how much we are going to be charged? I would have thought the plc would be unable to profit from the subsidiary company

 

[metalblade]

In the early 70's on the bus going to Bramall Lane we used to pass a huge wall near Newhall Road, this wall had graffiti on it it 3ft high letters. What was said is even more true today than it was 40 years ago, it said ...............



BIG BUSINESS BOOT BOYS RULE OK !

 

[sheffielder]

Apart from our ground and Shirecliffe, does anyone know what other 'real estate' the football club still has on the books?

 

[raul]

I go away for a week or two and look what fookin happens !

I hoped and prayed i was wrong BUT knew i was reight !

Sorry mi owds but thats me done with the Blades until he's fooked off !

. Never really cared for your Burgers anyway...

 

[beightonblade]

. Never really cared for your Burgers anyway...

nouvelle entreprise Olympique de Marseille toujours

 

[dingledog]

Good man BB, make your millions abroad in property, and that looks a substantial property, it even has its own gas supply, then invest in a small time british football club and watch the cash come to you.. Do you have the freehold on the stall?

 

[beightonblade]

Good man BB, make your millions abroad in property, and that looks a substantial property, it even has its own gas supply, then invest in a small time british football club and watch the cash come to you.. Do you have the freehold on the stall?

Heyup DD ......the freeholds in our gerts name and i bought the gas supply for 15 euros off French ebay !

 

[Rodley]

Mr Mc. is first and foremost a business man - a property developer. He is also a local lad and has an affinity for United, but in all his dealings with the club it sems that his business brain takes precedence over his United affinity.
This is clearly demonstrated in his insistence that the club owes him £50M or £70M or whatever figure can be placed on his financial " support" over the years.
He has reportedly been seeking either investment in, or a sale of, his interests in United for some time now without success. Various theories have been mooted as to why no such investment/sale has materialized when others have succeeded - perm any one from 6 or 7 here, but the most likely is the valuation placed on his interests for sale - remember we "owe" him £50M - or his continued controlling position over any sizeable investment.
Based on this scenario it is certainly possible that removing the property from SUFC Ltd and thereby reducing the value of that company would allow potential purchasers in at much lower cost and give them complete control over all football matters thus removing both stumbling blocks in one hit.
Much would depend on the terms of any lease agreement over BDTBL and it's this side of things - based on past experience - that we shall probably not get too much detail on.

Agreed and if he can safeguard the stadium, perhaps in some form of Trust, it may well be for the good of the club.

 

[beightonblade]

Life rent trust Rodley .................................... Blades as sole benificieries !

 

[broomhillblade]

Anyone who cannot see that we have just lost decades of heritage and our pride needs to have a strong look at em sens. This is nowt but an attempt by McCabe to get his wedge back over time. He's entitled to do it of course - no probelm with that.

Beighton - you are a legend pal and spot on as always.

Are you sure that shouldn't be "bell end?"

 

[alcoblade]

Are you sure that shouldn't be "bell end?"

Do you not speak Micalijo?

Say something negative about The Blades = Leg end
Say something positive about The Blades = Bell end

Complicated, isn't it?



UTB

 

[Foxy]

Life rent trust Rodley .................................... Blades as sole benificieries !

But wouldn't that mean whoever was in control of the Blades was the beneficiary?

and would it work like Graves Park? left to the people of Sheffield, but they can charge people to get into commercial events and charge them for parking?

 

[beightonblade]

But wouldn't that mean whoever was in control of the Blades was the beneficiary?

and would it work like Graves Park? left to the people of Sheffield, but they can charge people to get into commercial events and charge them for parking?

Complicated but it could work Foxy ........... decent lawyer/accountant essential Wording would need to be spot on.............. then it would keep the freehold 'safe' and work financially in the Blades favour.

 

[Foxy]

Complicated but it could work Foxy ........... decent lawyer/accountant essential Wording would need to be spot on.............. then it would keep the freehold 'safe' and work financially in the Blades favour.

I'd suggest more than decent

Where would it revert to if SUFC ended up like the new Rangers? how can you cover that one and still protect it?

 

[beightonblade]

I'd suggest more than decent

Where would it revert to if SUFC ended up like the new Rangers? how can you cover that one and still protect it?

.......I agree more than decent.........If done right the 'freehold' would be safe....... it's like having the heritable property in one Limited company and the trading bit in another....but more complicated and more secure.
Me and SF would be named as Trustees so the Blades would always win.

 

[Bedrock Blade]

Are you sure that shouldn't be "bell end?"

Yeah but .

 

[boo radley]

This portrayal of me as a keyboard warrior or such like is very amusing no doubt but I clearly said I have zero interest in meeting Winter, and likely he has zero interest in meeting me. I'm interested in SUFC and asked a fair question about what he does 9-5 - which you kindly attempted to answer.

As for the rest of your post I haven't got a clue what you are on about. If you pass criticisms onto the club please let me know what they are.

That's exactly the same position you took on RB. It seems to be that you wish to ask questions of SUFC or their representatives yet want others to find out the answers for you. I will judge your position as either lazy or cowardly because you will not ask them directly.

 

[StarBlade]

Hello all,

Long time listener, first time caller etc Decided to sign up yesterday to vent my spleen after the notice to shareholders, and the frustration not just with KM but also with us, the fans and the whole financial situation surrounding the club for the past few years.

Firstly, I don't believe this transfer of assets to be a good move, but with the total ambiguity of the statement it's hard to really know the whys, so as fans we jump to our own conclusions because that's the best we can do and all we've got. My take on it is that the FC will have a reduced debt as along with the assets, the debt will have moved to the PLC too. I'm no accountant, but the debt levels at SUFC in L1 are a)un-sustainable, and b) hardly attractive to an investor considering the £M's it would take to get pennies returned. I'm assuming the investment/sale of SUFC will be the debtless football club, and the debt-ridden PLC will keep with KM but that's where the assets will also lie. If I'm wrong, so be it, but I'm not Scully!

Secondly, we as fans have in the past called for KM (Or McScrooge) to open his wallet to a) get us back to the PL, and then b) back to the Championship. All well and good, but all it appears has happened is that the spending actually just came from SUFC anyway and if it didn't, with the share options that KM took up, it came from one hand in his pocket while his other hand was tightening the grip around the clubs neck. What do we want? We're asking for money to be spent, but not at any cost to the Club, while still peddling (or at least we used to) that we're a well run-club unlike our neighbours. We weren't well run. We just had access to cheap credit and the future would pay it back for us.

Thirdly, and perhaps because we've seen our neighbours implode up until their takeover, we've taken the eye off the ball on our own problems and taken a high ground regarding finances and IMO, we were wrong to do so. Wednesday struggled with debt to effectively 1 bank, and a couple of individuals. How we laughed. The same years, such as the previous couple, we announced losses in the tens of millions of pounds. But, so what, we've got a chairman who'll never call in his loans etc etc. It's other clubs who have debt problems. Sure, we owe £50m, but it's not like real debt, SUFC owe money to KM. KM owns SUFC, therefore SUFC have no debt and KM has lots of debt. Not only that, we had loads of assets which more than cover the debt. Happy days. I have read the boards of here and Blades Mad, I've seen all sorts of terms banded about (mostly plausible possibilities in my opinion) but the one that I have an issue with is that of "asset stripping". Going back a few squares, how can KM strip SUFC assets? For the same reason that SUFC have no debt other than to SUFC, he owns the Club, he owns the debt and owes it to himself, therefore if SUFC has no "real debt", then really, we have no real assets. And how did we get here? By ignoring the very obvious signs given out every year in the accounts and by asking KM to get his wallet out. We didn't want to be well run, we didn't want to be self-sufficient, we just wanted money now, we wanted the best players now, and we want someone else to pay for it.

In my own opinion, say KM never walked in the door, I think SUFC would be standing on its own two feet, much like KM now desires. We've have some debt and it'd be to a bank but it'd be much smaller than the £50m (or whatever it is these days, how much do smoke and mirrors cost?), BDTBL would probably be less developed but adequate for the level of football, we'd probably be a mid-level Championship club who occasionally punches above its weight, less ambition and less expectant about where we should be in the scheme of things. We wouldn't have £20k a week players and our academy would be less glamorous, but we'd still churn out youngsters because we're not half bad at that. Personally, I'd take that over what we have now. We had a year in the sun and it just wasn't worth it.

Could we stand on our own two feet now? No, clearly not. Our debt is un-managable at L1 level, our assets aren't our own, our gates and revenue are getting lower, our debt is getting higher. Why? Because KM gambled his company away and there's a tipping point (surely) that you get past a point and after that, it becomes a spiral. Too much debt, less to spend, debt increases, performances suffer, revenues fall, debt increases, less to spend etc. In my opinion once more, we passed that point a couple of years ago but have been banking on a return to a higher level.

Last year was a disaster and in no way am I going to aim that at DW or the squad. Another year in L1 is another year of a growing financial burden and another year of SUFC getting weaker, not stronger.

Sorry for the ramble, I'm off for a hot choccy now!

UTB!

 

[CG Blade]

Hello all,

Long time listener, first time caller etc Decided to sign up yesterday to vent my spleen after the notice to shareholders, and the frustration not just with KM but also with us, the fans and the whole financial situation surrounding the club for the past few years.

Firstly, I don't believe this transfer of assets to be a good move, but with the total ambiguity of the statement it's hard to really know the whys, so as fans we jump to our own conclusions because that's the best we can do and all we've got. My take on it is that the FC will have a reduced debt as along with the assets, the debt will have moved to the PLC too. I'm no accountant, but the debt levels at SUFC in L1 are a)un-sustainable, and b) hardly attractive to an investor considering the £M's it would take to get pennies returned. I'm assuming the investment/sale of SUFC will be the debtless football club, and the debt-ridden PLC will keep with KM but that's where the assets will also lie. If I'm wrong, so be it, but I'm not Scully!

Secondly, we as fans have in the past called for KM (Or McScrooge) to open his wallet to a) get us back to the PL, and then b) back to the Championship. All well and good, but all it appears has happened is that the spending actually just came from SUFC anyway and if it didn't, with the share options that KM took up, it came from one hand in his pocket while his other hand was tightening the grip around the clubs neck. What do we want? We're asking for money to be spent, but not at any cost to the Club, while still peddling (or at least we used to) that we're a well run-club unlike our neighbours. We weren't well run. We just had access to cheap credit and the future would pay it back for us.

Thirdly, and perhaps because we've seen our neighbours implode up until their takeover, we've taken the eye off the ball on our own problems and taken a high ground regarding finances and IMO, we were wrong to do so. Wednesday struggled with debt to effectively 1 bank, and a couple of individuals. How we laughed. The same years, such as the previous couple, we announced losses in the tens of millions of pounds. But, so what, we've got a chairman who'll never call in his loans etc etc. It's other clubs who have debt problems. Sure, we owe £50m, but it's not like real debt, SUFC owe money to KM. KM owns SUFC, therefore SUFC have no debt and KM has lots of debt. Not only that, we had loads of assets which more than cover the debt. Happy days. I have read the boards of here and Blades Mad, I've seen all sorts of terms banded about (mostly plausible possibilities in my opinion) but the one that I have an issue with is that of "asset stripping". Going back a few squares, how can KM strip SUFC assets? For the same reason that SUFC have no debt other than to SUFC, he owns the Club, he owns the debt and owes it to himself, therefore if SUFC has no "real debt", then really, we have no real assets. And how did we get here? By ignoring the very obvious signs given out every year in the accounts and by asking KM to get his wallet out. We didn't want to be well run, we didn't want to be self-sufficient, we just wanted money now, we wanted the best players now, and we want someone else to pay for it.

In my own opinion, say KM never walked in the door, I think SUFC would be standing on its own two feet, much like KM now desires. We've have some debt and it'd be to a bank but it'd be much smaller than the £50m (or whatever it is these days, how much do smoke and mirrors cost?), BDTBL would probably be less developed but adequate for the level of football, we'd probably be a mid-level Championship club who occasionally punches above its weight, less ambition and less expectant about where we should be in the scheme of things. We wouldn't have £20k a week players and our academy would be less glamorous, but we'd still churn out youngsters because we're not half bad at that. Personally, I'd take that over what we have now. We had a year in the sun and it just wasn't worth it.

Could we stand on our own two feet now? No, clearly not. Our debt is un-managable at L1 level, our assets aren't our own, our gates and revenue are getting lower, our debt is getting higher. Why? Because KM gambled his company away and there's a tipping point (surely) that you get past a point and after that, it becomes a spiral. Too much debt, less to spend, debt increases, performances suffer, revenues fall, debt increases, less to spend etc. In my opinion once more, we passed that point a couple of years ago but have been banking on a return to a higher level.

Last year was a disaster and in no way am I going to aim that at DW or the squad. Another year in L1 is another year of a growing financial burden and another year of SUFC getting weaker, not stronger.

Sorry for the ramble, I'm off for a hot choccy now!

UTB!

Excellent first post Sir, agree with a lot of it.

 

[judge]

Stopped reading when you started banging on about how great the pigs are

 

[StarBlade]

Stopped reading when you started banging on about how great the pigs are

Hi, I think you've mis-interpreted my post, but also proved a point. We've looked to Wednesday for failure and had an abundance of it, and that has meant that our failings seemed relatively small compared to theirs. But, actually, our own failings are/were very real and now lead us to the moment where our ground and football club are separated, albeit under the same umbrella. Somehow, taking our home away from the Club on the balance sheets make us more attractive. But, instead of concentrating on that point, you've gone to point out how non-great the pigs are, which I guess makes us feel better for our own failings.

Ironically, Wednesday are now mimicking us by having a one-man setup ploughing "investment" (read, future debt) into them.

 

[metalblade]

Hi, I think you've mis-interpreted my post, but also proved a point. We've looked to Wednesday for failure and had an abundance of it, and that has meant that our failings seemed relatively small compared to theirs. But, actually, our own failings are/were very real and now lead us to the moment where our ground and football club are separated, albeit under the same umbrella. Somehow, taking our home away from the Club on the balance sheets make us more attractive. But, instead of concentrating on that point, you've gone to point out how non-great the pigs are, which I guess makes us feel better for our own failings.

Ironically, Wednesday are now mimicking us by having a one-man setup ploughing "investment" (read, future debt) into them.

I think you will find a lot on here only read the bits they like, I can agree with a lot of your sentiments but when McCabe separates the football side from the PLC by moving the main assets (The stadium and Academy) to the PLC I am wondering how or why you can't or don't see it as asset stripping ? Sure he can sell the football bit easier but at present they (the team) have very little value and if someone does buy the team they need to budget for paying rent for the privilege of using the training facilities and the stadium which should rightly be theirs. But then again it could be more profitable to build shops or student flats. We could soon be in a Rotherham Utd situation but I don't suppose the biggest Blade ever will be too bothered either way, the debt owed to him which was of his own making is now ring fenced and is more than covered by the assets, he can raise the rent or sell the land at his whim not a chance of him losing a penny now more than likely it will make him a lot of money.

 

[CG Blade]

Stopped reading when you started banging on about how great the pigs are

And where does he say that?

 

[Darren]

Darren the only potential difference is that Sheffield United plc could now divest an interest in Sheffield United FC Ltd to a third party without having to hand over control of its fixed assets. It's this which is getting a lot of the posters in this thread scared.

The scenario people are worried about is that McCabe, through SU plc, sells off his shareholding in SUFC Ltd but retains the fixed assets. He would then be free to charge rent to the new owner at whatever level he saw fit - and you could bet that there would be a clause in the contract guaranteeing that United would play at the Lane.

All the clubs people have quoted above - Leeds, Palace, Rotherham et al - have all run into trouble when the football club has changed hands, leaving the stadium with the previous owners. That's not happened here.

Fair enough, but couldn't placing the fixed assets in the hands of the plc seen as a way of stopping asset stripping investors coming in and buying the whole club, including the ground, and then flogging off the ground for property development. That way the fixed assets are safely in the hands of someone (who whatever one may think of his decision making) is a genuine fan and has an emotional commitment to the club.

 

[super_pig]

I go away for a week or two and look what fookin happens !

i think they must have deliberately waited until you went on holiday BB.. we'll announce it in July and then that c**t will be at the TdF.. i'm starting to think you weren't as mad as i originally thought!

 

[StarBlade]

I think you will find a lot on here only read the bits they like, I can agree with a lot of your sentiments but when McCabe separates the football side from the PLC by moving the main assets (The stadium and Academy) to the PLC I am wondering how or why you can't or don't see it as asset stripping ? Sure he can sell the football bit easier but at present they (the team) have very little value and if someone does buy the team they need to budget for paying rent for the privilege of using the training facilities and the stadium which should rightly be theirs. But then again it could be more profitable to build shops or student flats. We could soon be in a Rotherham Utd situation but I don't suppose the biggest Blade ever will be too bothered either way, the debt owed to him which was of his own making is now ring fenced and is more than covered by the assets, he can raise the rent or sell the land at his whim not a chance of him losing a penny now more than likely it will make him a lot of money.

Hi, I totally and 100% agree that if the ground and club go their separate ways, then we have been stripped of assets. Purely from an emotional viewpoint, the home and club are entwined. My point being, that every year we've lost lots of money, we've said that it isn't our debt. We've said it's somehow KM's debt because he owns SUFC, SUFC FC owe SUFC plc, and therefore not our problem but his. Without questioning the losses and the debt and what it means for the football club, we've stated these presumptions that all will be alright in the end because KM "will have to take a hit", but by rights, if they aren't our debts then they really aren't our assets either and weren't the minute we/KM/SUFC started to get into serious debt. That's what I'm trying to say. The minute we had £1 of debt to KM, that was actually £1 in assets transferred from the football club to KM because he owns SUFC, he is SUFC in business. Over time, the debt to him has far exceeded the assets of the club., therefore we have nothing, KM has £M's of our assets to make up for the £M's of our loans from him, loans that we never applied for but that were given to us, by him. Work that one out!

Of course they are our assets by the heart, by history and by common sense, but they are now SUFC plc's by law, as is the debt.

Sorry if I'm not being clear, the web and mess that is SUFC is frustrating, the latest development just makes the web even more confusing, purposefully in my opinion.

 

[metalblade]

Fair enough, but couldn't placing the fixed assets in the hands of the plc seen as a way of stopping asset stripping investors coming in and buying the whole club, including the ground, and then flogging off the ground for property development. That way the fixed assets are safely in the hands of someone (who whatever one may think of his decision making) is a genuine fan and has an emotional commitment to the club.

Who is it ? (I mean the genuine fan with an emotional attachment to the club) I reckon that could be a whole new debate