Really Kevin Really?

[baggie192]

Yep, he was ready to dot the i's until his agent explained to him that if he sat out his contract, he'd be able to pocket a heftier signing on fee when his Reading contract was done.



Or having a manager who fancied playing golf half of the week meant we didn't get as far as discussing budgets.

legally though you couldn't approach him and he couldn't speak to you without buying his contract out. Plus for someone who like his golf, he seems to have won the Champion's League

 

[alcoblade]

legally though you couldn't approach him and he couldn't speak to you without buying his contract out. Plus for someone who like his golf, he seems to have won the Champion's League

Aye, it's amazing what can be done with a billion quid.



UTB

 

[jezzablade]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...-Manchester-City-won-the-stadium-lottery.html

Leasing from one part of the company to another part of it is not a problem unless it has been divided to sell off the real estate side to someone for development. The two parts of the company are still owned by the Plc. Maersk the worlds largest shipping company and 11% of Danish GDP do something similar in which the tug owning part are paid for their services by the ship owning part. Its a similar scheme. It also makes the financial management of the club more transparent to the UEFA and now football league rules on player pay v turnover etc. I don't think its time to panic and think its more to do with finding ways of structuring the whole business such that profits can be scene and areas of loss can be looked at. I may be wrong but since the letter states that the two assets are part of the same overhead company I don't see a problem other than one or the other assets sold to someone else. The Citeh lease was and is very favourable (despite us all paying for the place through the lottery) at all stages hopefully ours is to.

 

[Revolution]

Leasing from one part of the company to another part of it is not a problem unless it has been divided to sell off the real estate side to someone for development.

Not to speak for others, but it's the "unless" that bothers me.

 

[Pedro Verde]

Theres a lot of people acting like Drama Queens on here, I know McCabe hasnt made the best of decisions with regard to his tenure in charge of United. but if this move makes it easier for an outside investor to come in whats the problem.
There are people going on about SUFC having to pay rent for BDTBL where has this been proposed by McCabe.

 

[Revolution]

There are people going on about SUFC having to pay rent for BDTBL where has this been proposed by McCabe.

In the letter in the first post in this thread. The poster has helpfully highlighted the relevant bit.

Seems like you are even less well informed than the drama queens.

 

[Selly]

Theres a lot of people acting like Drama Queens on here, I know McCabe hasnt made the best of decisions with regard to his tenure in charge of United. but if this move makes it easier for an outside investor to come in whats the problem.
There are people going on about SUFC having to pay rent for BDTBL where has this been proposed by McCabe.

IF

Thats the big word here.

The letter doesn't tell us why we are doing this.

The letter doesn't tell us what the impacts are for the plc or the Club

Consequently people get worried. Tell us the above, and many would withdraw their objections (unless something nefarious is going on of course...)

 

[Grecian2000]

There are people going on about SUFC having to pay rent for BDTBL where has this been proposed by McCabe.

See the OP and the box highlighted in red.

It very much states that the football club will pay rent on ALL the facilites it uses (i.e. ground, training ground etc.). There has to be major trust that this suitable rent is affordable. This is exactly the sort of situation both Palace and Rotherham fell into when their owners decided they wanted money instead of kudos.

 

[raul]

Oh Pedro!

Getting a bit emotive now isn't it? Where's Duncy to tell us all to stop worrying and go for a walk in the park?

 

[Gareth]

This is really concerning, whilst I have been a general support of McCabe and appreciate the position we are in I simply can not get to grips with the club in the state that it is.

Over the years McCabe has constantly bemoaned bad luck and misfortune but in reality the only piece of bad luck we have really received is in the run in last year. We simply could not legislate to lose that many strikers over such a short period outside of the transfer window.

Really the poor decisions started when Mr Dooley left the club. Mr Dooley was a true football man who knew his stuff and stood by his decisions, he held people accountable on a daily basis and ran the football club with every decision at the heart of what's best for Sheffield United. Since his departure we have seen nothing but poor decision after poor decision from top to bottom of the whole football.

Sheffield United FC and/or PLC owe Mr McCabe in the region of £50m, I understand this and I think we all understand this but why it never really discussed is why... Why did we get ourselves into a situation where McCabe had to pump that money into the club? Here's my thoughts,

1. The hotel - The cost of the hotel was a huge burden for Sheffield United which had to be sold at huge less whilst hemerging money in the process
2. The appointment of Brian Robson
3. Post Premiership wages - Why offer wages over 4 years that you can only afford over 18 months ala James Beattie
4. Chengdua (SP) Blades - Why? £4m really???
5. The appointment of Trevor Birch
6. 3 year contacts on high wages for players in their 30s
7. Un-sustainable contracts for average players

I'm sure there's some more into the mix but the point behind my post is that all of these decisions were sanctioned by Mr McCabe. All of the above needed additional investment and needed it due to the poor decisions which lead to financial loss for SUFC.

SUFC, the staff and more importantly the fans have all paid for these decisions, we are now watching 3rd division football for crying out loud!!! So why does Mr McCabe believe that he should be immune from his mistakes. By SUFC PLC taking ownership of BDTBL and the training ground he is in effect ring fencing his money whilst securing his interest payments and locking his debt against the assets which he doesn't own.

SUFC PLC might have the name of Sheffield United but it is a company that is owned by the McCabe family, he could call it whatever he wants. It is company that now owns 2 assets in Sheffield that is able to charge rent back Sheffield United FC. Where will this rent go?

The football club has been raped of it's biggest asset, there have been some bad times at Bramall Lane over the years but I can't help but feel this is the final nail in the coffin for SUFC.

 

[FleaPitBlade]

In reality, nothing has changed. McCabe owns the club, ground, academy and the tea ladies apron lock, stock and barrel regardless of whether the paperwork says Ltd or PLC – so in reality he has always been at liberty to do whatever he wants with whatever he wants.

Personally, I really don’t buy to the guster and bollocks about it making SUFC Ltd more ‘investible’ because from where I’m sitting it does exactly the opposite. Is Joe Sheik going to come and throw millions into SUFC Ltd’s transfer kitty in exchange for 51% of 25 footballers who will take it and retire/move/not perform and ride off into the sunset never to be seen again? The only conceivable return on that investment would be sustained premiership football and that’s a mighty big risk to take given that there is now zero protection in the form of concrete assets.

I don’t think we’re ever going to see a situation where we are evicted from BDTBL with nowhere else to go - If he was prepared to do that, he'd have done so by now because he's been wanting out for the last 5 years.

I do have my suspicions as to why this has been done – they’ve already been mentioned on this thread by several other posters. I don’t think it is immediately imminent but I think this little bit of restructuring is probably Mr McCabe’s way of ensuring that when it does, he comes out of it with his £50m returned.

 

[Darren]

SUFC PLC might have the name of Sheffield United but it is a company that is owned by the McCabe family, he could call it whatever he wants. It is company that now owns 2 assets in Sheffield that is able to charge rent back Sheffield United FC. Where will this rent go?
.

Someone who knows more about accountancy than I do can tell me if this is wrong, but I always thought SUFC was a wholly owned subsidiary of SUFC plc. As such, the former is owned by the McCabe family just as much as the latter is.

I have no idea why McCabe is doing this accounting wheeze with the ownership of the land owned by the club passing to the plc (and cane we get rid of the American term "real estate"), but I agree it does look a bit strange and he should explain in words the financially illiterate can understand why he is doing this.

For what its worth, I don't think McCabe intends to screw over the club. No-one with any financial sense would have put the money he has into SUFC in an effort to make more money. It was/is a vanity project for him and whilst he may want out now, I doubt he will exit at the expense of the club.

 

[Selly]

I do have my suspicions as to why this has been done – they’ve already been mentioned on this thread by several other posters. I don’t think it is immediately imminent but I think this little bit of restructuring is probably Mr McCabe’s way of ensuring that when it does, he comes out of it with his £50m returned.

Ground share?

 

[Sothall_Blade]

In reality, nothing has changed. McCabe owns the club, ground, academy and the tea ladies apron lock, stock and barrel regardless of whether the paperwork says Ltd or PLC – so in reality he has always been at liberty to do whatever he wants with whatever he wants.

Personally, I really don’t buy to the guster and bollocks about it making SUFC Ltd more ‘investible’ because from where I’m sitting it does exactly the opposite. Is Joe Sheik going to come and throw millions into SUFC Ltd’s transfer kitty in exchange for 51% of 25 footballers who will take it and retire/move/not perform and ride off into the sunset never to be seen again? The only conceivable return on that investment would be sustained premiership football and that’s a mighty big risk to take given that there is now zero protection in the form of concrete assets.

I don’t think we’re ever going to see a situation where we are evicted from BDTBL with nowhere else to go - If he was prepared to do that, he'd have done so by now because he's been wanting out for the last 5 years.

I do have my suspicions as to why this has been done – they’ve already been mentioned on this thread by several other posters. I don’t think it is immediately imminent but I think this little bit of restructuring is probably Mr McCabe’s way of ensuring that when it does, he comes out of it with his £50m returned.

I don't see it as such a massive risk. A shrewd investor could probably buy just the football side of the club for less than £10M now. Spending another £1M on the playing side would almost guarantee getting us promoted to The Championship. Increased revenues, attendances, sponsorship, derbies with Wednesday and Leeds etc..
Already the club is worth more than the initial investment, so they could sell up and make a profit at that point.

Or, pump in another £10M on good, young players whose value is more likely to go up than down.
If you're not promoted after 2 or 3 years, sell on at a profit (or sell the best players at a profit).
If you do get promoted to The Premiership, jackpot time. Massive profits to be made on a comparitively small investment.

 

[norfolkblade]

Someone who knows more about accountancy than I do can tell me if this is wrong, but I always thought SUFC was a wholly owned subsidiary of SUFC plc. As such, the former is owned by the McCabe family just as much as the latter is.

I have no idea why McCabe is doing this accounting wheeze with the ownership of the land owned by the club passing to the plc (and cane we get rid of the American term "real estate"), but I agree it does look a bit strange and he should explain in words the financially illiterate can understand why he is doing this.

For what its worth, I don't think McCabe intends to screw over the club. No-one with any financial sense would have put the money he has into SUFC in an effort to make more money. It was/is a vanity project for him and whilst he may want out now, I doubt he will exit at the expense of the club.

I don't think the FC is a wholly owned subsidiary (correct me if I'm wrong, I've not checked up on this level of info), but I would assume the PLC has a majority (and probably controlling) stake in the FC, so it doesn't mean that they own everything relating to Sheffield United FC, they just own a controlling stake in the Football Club.

This would probably explain how they have transferred the ground over to the PLC without having to go to vote with any other share/stakeholders, as their vote would outweigh any opposition (i.e. if there were 100 shares in the FC, the PLC owns 51 of those shares with everyone else making up the remaining 49. That's what I make of it anyway, but I'm young and inexperienced in that area of accounting so hopefully someone will correct me if I am wrong!)

There is definitely something odd going on here IMHO, why hasn't he explained the reasoning behind this in the letter? I'm not asking for a full 100 page report on why, but surely a couple of paragraphs or a page at the most would suffice? All he seems to have done is worry rather a lot of people and left them with many questions.

If he has the interest of the club and especially the fans at heart as he says, then the shareholders would and SHOULD have received much more than a one page letter with no real explanation of whats going on. It literally reads like "oh we've been trying to get investors for some time, but it hasn't happened so I'm moving the assets to the plc. Kthanksbye UTB blah blah". Why though Kevin? That literally doesn't mean anything to anyone but yourself as nothing is made particularly clear otehr than the fact the transfer of assets is going ahead!

"It makes it more attractive to potential investors." How? I would quite like that area in particular to be explained because I'm not so sure it does in all honesty, surely an investor would want some form of security against their investment as opposed to what will now effectively be just staff?

Perhaps we really do need a supporters group now. I'm not saying one to create problems and harass every decision that is made by the club, because that would not be beneficial at all, but this is a huge decision that quite clearly needs clarifying and he doesn't appear to have to answer to anyone as to why he has done it, which is a huge concern for a lot of people.

 

[Micalijo]

Remind me who has the controlling stake in both anyway Micalijo ?

Clue for you, it isn't Valad

Foxy lad - I've always suspected you would be at your happiest if SUFC turn into a complete joke outfit with you and a few mates watching them so you can tell us all how loyal you are etc and tell us how wonderful it all is. Your stuff on this thread has confirmed it. Fair enough - nowt wrong with that of course.

I really have to say you are completely wrong on this one and it is a strange set of cirmumstances which sees Uber-Clappers like you (and there is no other way of describing you I am afraid from what I read from you) actually being the supporters of our beloved club with no sense of the history and heritage surrounding our once meaningful football club. Either that you are so ubelievably gullible as to be a danger to yourself and I am certain that is not the case.

PS - before you say I don't know you - I know I don't know you but these are my opinions.

 

[Darren]

I don't think the FC is a wholly owned subsidiary (correct me if I'm wrong, I've not checked up on this level of info), but I would assume the PLC has a majority (and probably controlling) stake in the FC, so it doesn't mean that they own everything relating to Sheffield United FC, they just own a controlling stake in the Football Club.

This would probably explain how they have transferred the ground over to the PLC without having to go to vote with any other share/stakeholders, as their vote would outweigh any opposition (i.e. if there were 100 shares in the FC, the PLC owns 51 of those shares with everyone else making up the remaining 49. That's what I make of it anyway, but I'm young and inexperienced in that area of accounting so hopefully someone will correct me if I am wrong!)

There is definitely something odd going on here IMHO, why hasn't he explained the reasoning behind this in the letter? I'm not asking for a full 100 page report on why, but surely a couple of paragraphs or a page at the most would suffice? All he seems to have done is worry rather a lot of people and left them with many questions.

If he has the interest of the club and especially the fans at heart as he says, then the shareholders would and SHOULD have received much more than a one page letter with no real explanation of whats going on. It literally reads like "oh we've been trying to get investors for some time, but it hasn't happened so I'm moving the assets to the plc. Kthanksbye UTB blah blah". Why though Kevin? That literally doesn't mean anything to anyone but yourself as nothing is made particularly clear otehr than the fact the transfer of assets is going ahead!

"It makes it more attractive to potential investors." How? I would quite like that area in particular to be explained because I'm not so sure it does in all honesty, surely an investor would want some form of security against their investment as opposed to what will now effectively be just staff?

Perhaps we really do need a supporters group now. I'm not saying one to create problems and harass every decision that is made by the club, because that would not be beneficial at all, but this is a huge decision that quite clearly needs clarifying and he doesn't appear to have to answer to anyone as to why he has done it, which is a huge concern for a lot of people.

You might be right about who owns SUFC, I am not sure (does anyone here own shares in the club as opposed to the plc?), but the decision to buy and sell assets would be taken by the directors (i.e. McCabe and his cronies), not the shareholders.

 

[Studge]

Someone who knows more about accountancy than I do can tell me if this is wrong, but I always thought SUFC was a wholly owned subsidiary of SUFC plc. As such, the former is owned by the McCabe family just as much as the latter is.

I have no idea why McCabe is doing this accounting wheeze with the ownership of the land owned by the club passing to the plc (and cane we get rid of the American term "real estate"), but I agree it does look a bit strange and he should explain in words the financially illiterate can understand why he is doing this.

For what its worth, I don't think McCabe intends to screw over the club. No-one with any financial sense would have put the money he has into SUFC in an effort to make more money. It was/is a vanity project for him and whilst he may want out now, I doubt he will exit at the expense of the club.

You are correct Sheffield United Football Club Limited is indeed a awholly owned subsidiary of SUFC PLC
which in turn it is considered that its ultimate parent company is Scarborough Group PLC.

Mr Mccabe will not be charging rent to anybody in the near future as the property will still be owned by the PLC and as far as the Group is concerned unless Sheffield United FC Limited is disposed of any inter group charges will be neutral for the purpose of the groups consolidated accounts.

 

[Darren]

Foxy lad - I've always suspected you would be at your happiest if SUFC turn into a complete joke outfit with you and a few mates watching them so you can tell us all how loyal you are etc and tell us how wonderful it all is. Your stuff on this thread has confirmed it. Fair enough - nowt wrong with that of course.

I really have to say you are completely wrong on this one and it is a strange set of cirmumstances which sees Uber-Clappers like you (and there is no other way of describing you I am afraid from what I read from you) actually being the supporters of our beloved club with no sense of the history and heritage surrounding our once meaningful football club. Either that you are so ubelievably gullible as to be a danger to yourself and I am certain that is not the case.

PS - before you say I don't know you - I know I don't know you but these are my opinions.

Sheffield United is - and has been for a very long time - a rich man's toy (only the identity of the said rich man changes) to which a lot of idiots like you and I feel a completely irrational attachment. Just like most other football clubs.

To that extent nothing has really changed.

 

[Micalijo]

too right.

anyone who thinks property developer mccabe wants to secure the future of sheffield united by taking ownership of a vast area of land (maybe not premium housing land but premium shopping centre land....) in the form of its traditional stadium needs to have a word with themselves

Top stuff Pup

 

[Micalijo]

You are correct Sheffield United Football Club Limited is indeed a awholly owned subsidiary of SUFC PLC
which in turn it is considered that its ultimate parent company is Scarborough Group PLC.

Mr Mccabe will not be charging rent to anybody in the near future as the property will still be owned by the PLC and as far as the Group is concerned unless Sheffield United FC Limited is disposed of any inter group charges will be neutral for the purpose of the groups consolidated accounts.

Hang on Studgey son. Not sure what you are getting at - why won't he be charging rent?

I'm not an auditor but I can definitely say that plc can charge say £1m per annum to Ltd for use of the 'real estate'. Assume this is cash paid to PLC. PLC then dividend it up to Scarborough or if PLC has no reserves and a dividend is not possible the cash in PLC is used to say pay off a loan that McCabe has with Scarborough etc.

 

[Micalijo]

Sheffield United is - and has been for a very long time - a rich man's toy (only the identity of the said rich man changes) to which a lot of idiots like you and I feel a completely irrational attachment. Just like most other football clubs.

To that extent nothing has really changed.

Fair comments - totally agree, but I would like my beloved club (or beloved Ltd Company) to own it's stadium etc.

 

[norfolkblade]

You might be right about who owns SUFC, I am not sure (does anyone here own shares in the club as opposed to the plc?), but the decision to buy and sell assets would be taken by the directors (i.e. McCabe and his cronies), not the shareholders.

Got it, though I thought for something as big as transferring BDTBL out of the FC, that there would have been a bit more communication about it, even to perhaps calm the inevitable shitstorm that follows.

I guess it makes sense why he hasn't really explained it then, because he doesn't have to. In which case, why even bother with the letter in the first place as he seems to have just created a problem?!

 

[Studge]

You might be right about who owns SUFC, I am not sure (does anyone here own shares in the club as opposed to the plc?), but the decision to buy and sell assets would be taken by the directors (i.e. McCabe and his cronies), not the shareholders.

Subsidiary undertakings are as follows:-
The Sheffield United Football Club Limited

Ordinary 100% Professional football club
Sheffield United Conference & Events Limited

Ordinary 100% Conference & banqueting
Bobby Charlton International Limited

Ordinary 100% Royalty income
Cranbourne Limited



(trading as Taylor Made Sports) Ordinary 100% Corporate training


Premier Sports Services Limited
(trading as Major Event Security Services) Ordinary 100% Stewarding
Sheffield United (Enterprises) Limited



Ordinary 100% Business centre
Thames Club Limited
Ordinary 100% Health Club
Chengdu Blades Football Club Co. Limited
(A company incorporated in China) Ordinary 90% Professional football club
John Street Developments Limited
(formerly, USE (Sheffield) Limited) Ordinary 100% Property development
Sheffield United (Hotel) Limited

Ordinary 100% Hotel

 

[super_pig]

anyone who thinks property developer mccabe wants to secure the future of sheffield united by taking ownership of a vast area of land (maybe not premium housing land but premium shopping centre land....) in the form of its traditional stadium needs to have a word with themselves

i just woke up and i can smell coffee.. we're about to do a Rotherham

 

[S6Blade]

If only there was someone to explain this in slightly more detail, a link between the club and it's fans, a communications officer perhaps .

 

[Micalijo]

If only there was someone to explain this in slightly more detail, a link between the club and it's fans, a communications officer perhaps .

You naughty boy!

 

[raul]

To anyone who can answer -

Is it possible for SUFC PLC to sell BDTBL to, say Scarborough, for, say £50m, wind itself up and pay the revenue in direct proportion to shareholdings?

 

[Isiah]

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.

 

[TarquinDelouche]

To anyone who can answer-

Is it possible that the transferring of BDTBL to a Belgian-registered company such as SUFC PLC would mean we pay less property tax?