Really Kevin Really?

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

TarquinDelouche said:
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?
Click to expand...

Belgian registered? Is it? It has a UK Companies House number.

What proeprty tax do we pay at moment - you getting at business rates?
 



raul said:
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?
Click to expand...

Scarborough could pay £50m cash to plc yes for the property but no point. The assets of plc (£50m cash) would just go back to Scarborough so not sure what you are getting at.
 
I'm really surprised the local media have not picked up on this story, then again if the media's pig bias is true they will be laughing their bollocks off. :(
 
Studge said:
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.
Click to expand...

So why bother mentioning the "leased back at appropriate rates" at all?

He could, just as easily, have not mentioned it (if it were simply internal accounting then that's what the company I work for would have done) OR said something like "will be leased back at a peppercorn rent in perpituity" thus saving us all any angst.

The fact it is mentioned means it can happen at any given rate he chooses. I know he never will because big fans wouldn't ever do that sort of thing (hang on there Boothy, mines a Martini, hold the olives) and he's the biggest blade of all isn't he?
 
Micalijo said:
Scarborough could pay £50m cash to plc yes for the property but no point. The assets of plc (£50m cash) would just go back to Scarborough so not sure what you are getting at.
Click to expand...

Scarborough shareholders (Km being a minority one I assume) agree to pay £50m to SUFC PLC for the whole shooting match. SUFC PLC (KM being the majority one I assume) decide as they no longer hold any assets to wind the thing up. Scarborough in effect pay KM £50m give or take in cash. He gets all his dosh back, his company get an asset and rental for it as a brucie bonus on top of all the doors SUFC opened for them in China/Hungary etc. We get an assetless third division football club.

Is this an achievable scenario?
 
Micalijo said:
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.
Click to expand...

Totally, pointing out that from an ownership and control point of view nothing really changes means exactly that Mic, you cracked the code... I'd just love everything to go tits up.

I don't want anyone else in and around my exclusive club, which is why I throw money at running this place instead of spending it on a holiday or a car every year... It's just to bait you outside the secret club sections, not to give you a platform to use at your leisure to discuss the Blades and access any content we may provide. I have to arse about with bloody match updates and similar coverage just to keep you off the scent.

The same reason I regularly give criticism and feedback to the club, it's purely to tell tales on you rather than get a response or to try and get action from SUFC. I offered to try and set you up a discussion with Mr Winter as I planned for him to be hidden behind a wall in St Marys ready to ambush you and beat you silly with a print out of my loyalty points.

Should he screw us over, I'll be first in the queue to take it up with him, unlike yourself, I'll not exclusively do it hidden behind a keyboard though.
 
I'm really surprised the local media have not picked up on this story

There are certainly questions that could be asked...
 
Nobody will invest in the club with the spectre of McCabe's huge debt hanging over it.

McCabe could convert all the debt to equity, but then you're looking at someone paying an additional £30m to acquire the club and its unencumbered assets, McCabe isn't going to give a new owner the ground having just written off £30m. There just isn't the return in football at our level to make that investment a viable proposition for anyone other than an Arab or Russian who wants a toy, not a return on investment.

If McCabe takes those assets and his debt out of the club into the holding company, the club is left with just football club assets and liabilities which I guess is a much more affordabe proposition. An 'investor' can buy the club with only football assets and debts.

If the debt has been moved up into the holding company then the interest disappears from the club and is replaced by rent, which would be a consideration for any new investor.

If it does go ahead I would expect the club to be given a long lease and option to buy back to allay any fears about his intentions.

I'm not saying that is right or wrong, but that seems to be the line given in the letter, although there is no explanation of how much the 'assets' would be sold for and therefore how much debt would disappear from the club. Definitely some clarification required there.

I think if he wanted to sell the gound he could do it without the hassle of transferring up from a 100% owned subsidiary, I might be proven wrong, but I think that is a red herring.
 
Foxy said:
Totally, pointing out that from an ownership and control point of view nothing really changes means exactly that Mic, you cracked the code... I'd just love everything to go tits up.

I don't want anyone else in and around my exclusive club, which is why I throw money at running this place instead of spending it on a holiday or a car every year... It's just to bait you outside the secret club sections, not to give you a platform to use at your leisure to discuss the Blades and access any content we may provide. I have to arse about with bloody match updates and similar coverage just to keep you off the scent.

The same reason I regularly give criticism and feedback to the club, it's purely to tell tales on you rather than get a response or to try and get action from SUFC. I offered to try and set you up a discussion with Mr Winter as I planned for him to be hidden behind a wall in St Marys ready to ambush you and beat you silly with a print out of my loyalty points.

Should he screw us over, I'll be first in the queue to take it up with him, unlike yourself, I'll not exclusively do it hidden behind a keyboard though.
Click to expand...

Just ban him Foxy , it would improve the forum by 1,000,000%...
 
Foxy said:
Totally, pointing out that from an ownership and control point of view nothing really changes means exactly that Mic, you cracked the code... I'd just love everything to go tits up.

I don't want anyone else in and around my exclusive club, which is why I throw money at running this place instead of spending it on a holiday or a car every year... It's just to bait you outside the secret club sections, not to give you a platform to use at your leisure to discuss the Blades and access any content we may provide. I have to arse about with bloody match updates and similar coverage just to keep you off the scent.

The same reason I regularly give criticism and feedback to the club, it's purely to tell tales on you rather than get a response or to try and get action from SUFC. I offered to try and set you up a discussion with Mr Winter as I planned for him to be hidden behind a wall in St Marys ready to ambush you and beat you silly with a print out of my loyalty points.

Should he screw us over, I'll be first in the queue to take it up with him, unlike yourself, I'll not exclusively do it hidden behind a keyboard though.
Click to expand...

Superb post Foxy. Keep 'em coming ;)
 
Revolution said:
If this makes no difference because McCabe owns everything anyway, as some claim above, why bother?

I defy anyone who thinks this is a good idea to find one, just one, example of a British club prospering after separating the corporate ownership of club and ground. There isn't one. Wherever it's been done - Wrexham, Rotherham, Stockport, Cambridge City, Crystal Palace, Portsmouth to give but a few examples - it's been a financial disaster for the club in question, usually accompanied by relegation into the bargain.
Click to expand...

I totally agree.
 
I go away for a week or two and look what fookin happens ! :eek:

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 !
 



beightonblade said:
I go away for a week or two and look what fookin happens ! :eek:

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 !
Click to expand...

Is that it? You've been waiting for this for 3 years.... I was expecting an explosion.
 
SellyOakBlade said:
Just ban him Foxy , it would improve the forum by 1,000,000%...
Click to expand...

Whilst I think Mic is a clown I am not sure that banning someone for a difference of opinion is the right thing to do. Having said that Mic is sailing close to personal abuse so it's up to Foxy. However, he took the best option (IMO) this occasion and posted a rebutle that made Mic look more stupid than he is attempting to make himself out to be.
 
beightonblade said:
I go away for a week or two and look what fookin happens ! :eek: 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 !
Click to expand...

At least you now have an inkling of who owns the freehold - you've been asking for years.
Typical that you should be away when your favorite subject splatters off the fan.

That's set me thinking. Is the definition of a fan a set of rotating blades, spinning wildly around an axis going absolutely nowhere?
 
beightonblade said:
I go away for a week or two and look what fookin happens ! :eek:

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 !
Click to expand...

Call me stupid, but the position appears to be this:

1. Previously the ground was owned by SUFC Ltd, a wholly owned subsidiary of Sheffield United plc, which is itself owned and controlled by KM; it follows there was nothing to stop KM flogging off the Lane if he so wished.

2. The current position is that the ground is owned by Sheffield United plc, a company owned and controlled by KM; it follows that there is nothing to stop KM flogging off the Lane if he so wished.

In other words KM has and had the club by the short and curlie and whichever of the companies technically owns the ground seems to make little practical difference.
 
Darren said:
Call me stupid, but the position appears to be this:

1. Previously the ground was owned by SUFC Ltd, a wholly owned subsidiary of Sheffield United plc, which is itself owned and controlled by KM; it follows there was nothing to stop KM flogging off the Lane if he so wished.

2. The current position is that the ground is owned by Sheffield United plc, a company owned and controlled by KM; it follows that there is nothing to stop KM flogging off the Lane if he so wished.

In other words KM has and had the club by the short and curlie and whichever of the companies technically owns the ground seems to make little practical difference.
Click to expand...
Bang on the money ................................so why the letter ?
 
beightonblade said:
Bang on the money ................................so why the letter ?
Click to expand...

More to the point why the messing around with the ownership.

Maybe, just maybe, KM is telling us the truth in his letter and is not in his secret underground lair cackling away with delight at yet again shafting United and their long suffering supporters.

I do think though that we need a bit more info about this and what it means - for PR reasons if nothing else.
 
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.
 
Darren said:
More to the point why the messing around with the ownership.

Maybe, just maybe, KM is telling us the truth in his letter and is not in his secret underground lair cackling away with delight at yet again shafting United and their long suffering supporters.

I do think though that we need a bit more info about this and what it means - for PR reasons if nothing else.
Click to expand...


Well Darren if it were for the benifit of the Blades I know an easy peazey lemon squeezy way of doing it and so does McWobbleGob so forgive me if I don't trust the barsteward more than i cud throw our gert !
 
Foxy said:
Totally, pointing out that from an ownership and control point of view nothing really changes means exactly that Mic, you cracked the code... I'd just love everything to go tits up.

I don't want anyone else in and around my exclusive club, which is why I throw money at running this place instead of spending it on a holiday or a car every year... It's just to bait you outside the secret club sections, not to give you a platform to use at your leisure to discuss the Blades and access any content we may provide. I have to arse about with bloody match updates and similar coverage just to keep you off the scent.

The same reason I regularly give criticism and feedback to the club, it's purely to tell tales on you rather than get a response or to try and get action from SUFC. I offered to try and set you up a discussion with Mr Winter as I planned for him to be hidden behind a wall in St Marys ready to ambush you and beat you silly with a print out of my loyalty points.

Should he screw us over, I'll be first in the queue to take it up with him, unlike yourself, I'll not exclusively do it hidden behind a keyboard though.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Kenilworth said:
Whilst I think Mic is a clown I am not sure that banning someone for a difference of opinion is the right thing to do. Having said that Mic is sailing close to personal abuse so it's up to Foxy. However, he took the best option (IMO) this occasion and posted a rebutle that made Mic look more stupid than he is attempting to make himself out to be.
Click to expand...

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



Darren said:
Call me stupid, but the position appears to be this:

1. Previously the ground was owned by SUFC Ltd, a wholly owned subsidiary of Sheffield United plc, which is itself owned and controlled by KM; it follows there was nothing to stop KM flogging off the Lane if he so wished.

2. The current position is that the ground is owned by Sheffield United plc, a company owned and controlled by KM; it follows that there is nothing to stop KM flogging off the Lane if he so wished.

In other words KM has and had the club by the short and curlie and whichever of the companies technically owns the ground seems to make little practical difference.
Click to expand...

You're missing the point Darren - as you said SUFC runs in the blood. Part of that is the knowledge that SUFC will always play at BDTBL. OK it as always been possible for any owner to sell BDTBL - you are spot on - but this has brought home the reality that it just may happen - or at best the club we support owned by 3rd party pays rent to McCabe for use of BDTBL.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

AlienWoodward
Shoes Off
Replies
3
Views
3K
metalblade
metalblade
Tony Currie
Restructure loan against assets - for January spending?
Replies
19
Views
2K
Kenilworth
Kenilworth
Pilley-Blade
Our identity and what we want that to be.
Replies
22
Views
2K
Champagneblade
Champagneblade
C
Chris Wilder new contract
6 7 8
Replies
210
Views
20K
BangorBlade
BangorBlade
R
'Memries' Blades v Liverpool 1 April 1961
Replies
12
Views
503
bornandbred
B

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