Sat is a room with the biggest set of fools ever (shareholders)

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




South Bucks said:
So if I sold you my car and after we had agreed a price and contract and you'd sent the cheque I told you 3 of the wheels are owned by someone else would people think I'm a good guy or a bad guy. I'd expect a brick through my window soon after.
Click to expand...
Carry on like this and you might
 
Esablade You clearly have an agenda and either cannot understand how this played out or as alluded to before by others, have no reason to wish to understand. There are many subtle nuances throughout, but it has been explained before in multiple explanations and answers..

In proper Pinchy mode let me try and bring it down to very simple. I will not go into the ins and outs that have been done to death from the reading of all the material, but just concentrate on one thing you have said which seems to me to be that McCabe should be reasonable and get Prince round a table and say, "sorry lad, its not working let's go our separate ways. You've invested 20 mill, well, fuck me, investments can go up or down, but in your case, it's really a win win isn't it. Here's your 20 mill back. Thanks awfully old chap you are thankfully so reasonable for accepting that your investment in this basket case has cost you nothing. It's been a blast.

So over 4/5 years, Kev has invested 20 mill with a bloke who accepted the risks of a joint venture with a russian roulette clause because he was supposed to want to buy the club. The clause was there for either to take advantage of. (See Buckinghams post), However, in your scenario, this agreement and joint venture means nothing. McCabe should just give Princey his £20 mill back because he's obviously fucking him over!? So McCabe ends up putting his own £20 mill in and paying someone else's £20 mill out. Result for McCabe eh? £40 mill down! Would you do that to a partner in a joint venture? Princey knew the game. He tried to "cheat". I have put that in inverted commas because I think its sharp practice if you can get away with it but could have been guarded against by McCabe. My view is the moment he assigned his shares out of the vehicle that was part of the agreement, he lost the protection of it and was incapable of entering into the contemplated agreement he wanted to take advantage of. But I know nothing.

The Prince has reluctantly put cash in over the years (on one notable occasion referred to by other posters flirted with administration) and properly been called out. That's the deal, pay it or fuck off. The fact that McCabe ultimatum of what is payable doesn't fit your agenda is regrettable. The fact that it is governed by an agreement is paramount and that is what both parties entered into and are governed by. Whether they were both advised properly is a completely separate matter.
 
Snowman said:
No he couldn't. Read the material.
Click to expand...

You’ll have to re-read em as you’re wrong.

McCabe made the £5 million offer on Dec 29th, 2017...Princey didn’t set up UTB 2018 until Jan 22nd 2018, serving his counter notice on the 28th of January 2018:

The Scheme
24. However UTB devised a scheme to evade clause 9.1.12. The Prince (together it seems with his advisors including Mr Giansiracusa) set up a SPV, UTB 2018 LLC (“UTB 2018”) on 22nd January 2018. On 24th January 2018 UTB purported to transfer 40% of the shares in Blades (ie 80% of the shares it held) to UTB 2018. Then on 26th January 2018 UTB served its Counter Notice requiring SUL to sell its 50% shareholding to UTB at the offered price of £5m.



  1. had deteriorated to the point that Mr wanted to put an end to the joint venture basis on which Blades operated and was even willing to give up his involvement in the football club. Sheffield therefore served notice on UTB on 29 December 2017 pursuant to clause 11 of the ISA, offering to buy UTB's shares for £5m. Mr knew that that was a low price. He expected UTB to serve a counternotice to buy Sheffield's shareholding at the same price. The low price for its own shares would be compensated, Mr believed, by the fact that UTB and Sheffield would thereupon become bound to cause FC to exercise the FC Options, thereby realising the full market value of the Properties (estimated to be about £20 million) for Sheffield.

  2. expected, UTB did indeed serve a counternotice, but before it did so it transferred 80% of its own shareholding to another corporate vehicle, UTB 2018, LLP. As a result, when the counternotice was served, UTB claimed that it did not then own more than 75% of Blades' shares and so the FC Options did not have to be exercised. Indeed, UTB took steps to ensure that FC did not purport to exercise them. If effective, this manoeuvre would mean that UTB was entitled to purchase all Sheffield's shares at a low price and retain the benefit of the underrented long leases of the Properties, with Sheffield not being able to realise their full value.
 
Snowman said:
Esablade You clearly have an agenda and either cannot understand how this played out or as alluded to before by others, have no reason to wish to understand. There are many subtle nuances throughout, but it has been explained before in multiple explanations and answers..

In proper Pinchy mode let me try and bring it down to very simple. I will not go into the ins and outs that have been done to death from the reading of all the material, but just concentrate on one thing you have said which seems to me to be that McCabe should be reasonable and get Prince round a table and say, "sorry lad, its not working let's go our separate ways. You've invested 20 mill, well, fuck me, investments can go up or down, but in your case, it's really a win win isn't it. Here's your 20 mill back. Thanks awfully old chap you are thankfully so reasonable for accepting that your investment in this basket case has cost you nothing. It's been a blast.

So over 4/5 years, Kev has invested 20 mill with a bloke who accepted the risks of a joint venture with a russian roulette clause because he was supposed to want to buy the club. The clause was there for either to take advantage of. (See Buckinghams post), However, in your scenario, this agreement and joint venture means nothing. McCabe should just give Princey his £20 mill back because he's obviously fucking him over!? So McCabe ends up putting his own £20 mill in and paying someone else's £20 mill out. Result for McCabe eh? £40 mill down! Would you do that to a partner in a joint venture? Princey knew the game. He tried to "cheat". I have put that in inverted commas because I think its sharp practice if you can get away with it but could have been guarded against by McCabe. My view is the moment he assigned his shares out of the vehicle that was part of the agreement, he lost the protection of it and was incapable of entering into the contemplated agreement he wanted to take advantage of. But I know nothing.

The Prince has reluctantly put cash in over the years (on one notable occasion referred to by other posters flirted with administration) and properly been called out. That's the deal, pay it or fuck off. The fact that McCabe ultimatum of what is payable doesn't fit your agenda is regrettable. The fact that it is governed by an agreement is paramount and that is what both parties entered into and are governed by. Whether they were both advised properly is a completely separate matter.
Click to expand...
For the sake of a bit of balance against your "clear agenda"

You very easily put yourself in McCabes shoes to justify his actions, how about the same for the prince.

From his perspective since his investment we have gone from a club in league one on the decline to a championship promotion contender. Whilst not reaching the premier league would you not expect a better return than 5 mill? I would.
From the princes perspective he's looking at losing alot of money on an asset that as a championship club could be an attractive prospect to a new buyer, or even an outside chance of getting the mega bucks from the premier league.
From the princes perspective he's been backed into a corner and is doing what he can to not lose out on a return on his investment.

I fully understand McCabe also does not want to lose his money by the princes sneaky method. But there is merits to both sides arguments and that's ultimately why there will be a compromise when there done flexing.
 
Snowman said:
Esablade You clearly have an agenda and either cannot understand how this played out or as alluded to before by others, have no reason to wish to understand. There are many subtle nuances throughout, but it has been explained before in multiple explanations and answers..

In proper Pinchy mode let me try and bring it down to very simple. I will not go into the ins and outs that have been done to death from the reading of all the material, but just concentrate on one thing you have said which seems to me to be that McCabe should be reasonable and get Prince round a table and say, "sorry lad, its not working let's go our separate ways. You've invested 20 mill, well, fuck me, investments can go up or down, but in your case, it's really a win win isn't it. Here's your 20 mill back. Thanks awfully old chap you are thankfully so reasonable for accepting that your investment in this basket case has cost you nothing. It's been a blast.

So over 4/5 years, Kev has invested 20 mill with a bloke who accepted the risks of a joint venture with a russian roulette clause because he was supposed to want to buy the club. The clause was there for either to take advantage of. (See Buckinghams post), However, in your scenario, this agreement and joint venture means nothing. McCabe should just give Princey his £20 mill back because he's obviously fucking him over!? So McCabe ends up putting his own £20 mill in and paying someone else's £20 mill out. Result for McCabe eh? £40 mill down! Would you do that to a partner in a joint venture? Princey knew the game. He tried to "cheat". I have put that in inverted commas because I think its sharp practice if you can get away with it but could have been guarded against by McCabe. My view is the moment he assigned his shares out of the vehicle that was part of the agreement, he lost the protection of it and was incapable of entering into the contemplated agreement he wanted to take advantage of. But I know nothing.

The Prince has reluctantly put cash in over the years (on one notable occasion referred to by other posters flirted with administration) and properly been called out. That's the deal, pay it or fuck off. The fact that McCabe ultimatum of what is payable doesn't fit your agenda is regrettable. The fact that it is governed by an agreement is paramount and that is what both parties entered into and are governed by. Whether they were both advised properly is a completely separate matter.
Click to expand...

Not sure where this little fantasy came from but you’re both deluded and wrong.
See post #159
 
BladeInIreland said:
For the sake of a bit of balance against your "clear agenda"

You very easily put yourself in McCabes shoes to justify his actions, how about the same for the prince.

From his perspective since his investment we have gone from a club in league one on the decline to a championship promotion contender. Whilst not reaching the premier league would you not expect a better return than 5 mill? I would.
From the princes perspective he's looking at losing alot of money on an asset that as a championship club could be an attractive prospect to a new buyer, or even an outside chance of getting the mega bucks from the premier league and HRH would have been in control of it all.
From the princes perspective he's been backed into a corner and is doing what he can to not lose out on a return on his investment.

I fully understand McCabe also does not want to lose his money by the princes sneaky method. But there is merits to both sides arguments and that's ultimately why there will be a compromise when there done flexing.
Click to expand...
But the prince could simply then have bought up the shares at the low price set by McCabe.
The only downer for him would be that he would have to buy the properties as well and become an actual owner instead of a reluctant part-investor.
If he wanted the megabucks of a PL team he could have invested an iota of the amount McCabe had over the years and his club would have been within a spit of the PL and HRH would have been in control of it all.
 



Esablade said:
You’ll have to re-read em as you’re wrong.

McCabe made the £5 million offer on Dec 29th, 2017...Princey didn’t set up UTB 2018 until Jan 22nd 2018, serving his counter notice on the 28th of January 2018:

The Scheme
24. However UTB devised a scheme to evade clause 9.1.12. The Prince (together it seems with his advisors including Mr Giansiracusa) set up a SPV, UTB 2018 LLC (“UTB 2018”) on 22nd January 2018. On 24th January 2018 UTB purported to transfer 40% of the shares in Blades (ie 80% of the shares it held) to UTB 2018. Then on 26th January 2018 UTB served its Counter Notice requiring SUL to sell its 50% shareholding to UTB at the offered price of £5m.



  1. had deteriorated to the point that Mr wanted to put an end to the joint venture basis on which Blades operated and was even willing to give up his involvement in the football club. Sheffield therefore served notice on UTB on 29 December 2017 pursuant to clause 11 of the ISA, offering to buy UTB's shares for £5m. Mr knew that that was a low price. He expected UTB to serve a counternotice to buy Sheffield's shareholding at the same price. The low price for its own shares would be compensated, Mr believed, by the fact that UTB and Sheffield would thereupon become bound to cause FC to exercise the FC Options, thereby realising the full market value of the Properties (estimated to be about £20 million) for Sheffield.

  2. expected, UTB did indeed serve a counternotice, but before it did so it transferred 80% of its own shareholding to another corporate vehicle, UTB 2018, LLP. As a result, when the counternotice was served, UTB claimed that it did not then own more than 75% of Blades' shares and so the FC Options did not have to be exercised. Indeed, UTB took steps to ensure that FC did not purport to exercise them. If effective, this manoeuvre would mean that UTB was entitled to purchase all Sheffield's shares at a low price and retain the benefit of the underrented long leases of the Properties, with Sheffield not being able to realise their full value.
Click to expand...

Obviously not clear. No he couldn't because the offer was made to UTB not UTB 2018 and UTB (not UTB 2018) was not entitled to serve a counter notice in the circumstances. My paragraph 3 last sentence.

That is a discrete issue I refer to. The major part of the post is in relation to why should McCabe shoulder all the investment in a joint venture and give the Prince his money back?
 
GrayBlade said:
We really need to hear more from HRH. His failure to put his case forward makes it seem like he has no interest in the club and will be used against him accordingly. It’s like a general election where only one party really campaigns, a bit like the Conservatives last time out.
Click to expand...
As long as neither side get Diane Abbott on board, they’ve got a chance
 
It’s all very interesting despite the fact I don’t understand any of it. Who do we think will win more importantly ?
 
Worksop II said:
The "Dianne Abbott Stand", its got possibilities

Maybe they will have a vote on it at the next Rally
Click to expand...
We could blow the pigs out the water with out attendance figures if that stand was opened. 289,651 in attendance for the opener next Sat ;). But this is off topic to be fair
 
BladeInIreland said:
For the sake of a bit of balance against your "clear agenda"

You very easily put yourself in McCabes shoes to justify his actions, how about the same for the prince.

From his perspective since his investment we have gone from a club in league one on the decline to a championship promotion contender. Whilst not reaching the premier league would you not expect a better return than 5 mill? I would.
From the princes perspective he's looking at losing alot of money on an asset that as a championship club could be an attractive prospect to a new buyer, or even an outside chance of getting the mega bucks from the premier league.
From the princes perspective he's been backed into a corner and is doing what he can to not lose out on a return on his investment.

I fully understand McCabe also does not want to lose his money by the princes sneaky method. But there is merits to both sides arguments and that's ultimately why there will be a compromise when there done flexing.
Click to expand...


Why would you expect a better return than £5m on a loss making business that you've had to help shore up? That you're a 50/50 partner in, no doubt having an equal shout and have, to a great extent, failed. Why does he deserve his money back, let alone shoukd have a profit? His investment has cost him money. It happens every day all over the world.

Basically your argument says McCabe deserves all he gets but the Prince, since 2013 an equally bad businessman, deserves our sympathy? Really? And you talk about agendas?
 
Snowman said:
Obviously not clear. No he couldn't because the offer was made to UTB not UTB 2018 and UTB (not UTB 2018) was not entitled to serve a counter notice in the circumstances. My paragraph 3 last sentence.

That is a discrete issue I refer to. The major part of the post is in relation to why should McCabe shoulder all the investment in a joint venture and give the Prince his money back?
Click to expand...

My reply wasn’t to post #154.I hadn’t read that.
It was to this:

Snowman said:
No he couldn't. Read the material.
Click to expand...

Having now read #154 it changes little other than the Judge will decide whether Princey was entitled to serve the counter notice or not.

The point still stands that, to me, it looks like McCabe tried to fuck Princey over and get full control on the cheap...Princey has got the face on and apparently found a way round the option to buy the assets.

As I said, the judge will decide what’s legit or not if it gets that far....
 
Pinchy said:
Another cheap shot at a politician not in government whist cheerfully allowing the incompetent Tory loathsome slugs lurch the nation from chaos to crisis and back again.

View attachment 42222

A Tory.
Click to expand...


Gove balances Abbott out. They aren't the same though. Gove us a slimy backstabbing chancer with dreams of power way above his station, or intellect. Abbott has somehow already got to that station. There are now leaves on the line.

But this is off topic. McCabe is the moustachioed villain tying the club to the railway line as a train approaches. Driven by HRH.
 
I think 99% of us (myself included) would like to see McCabe win through this but trying to pretend he's the one with the halo against the devil like a handful are, really doesn't sit with me.

Some arguments are contradictory and as expected, today had the expected element of propaganda.

The Prince made his intentions clear from day one. A business deal to hopefully make money. No false love for the club.

The key part of this for me is the fact that KM was willing to let the Prince take control by trying to force him into buying him out.

Neither cover themselves in glory imho.
 
Sean Thornton said:
Gove balances Abbott out. They aren't the same though. Gove us a slimy backstabbing chancer with dreams of power way above his station, or intellect. Abbott has somehow already got to that station. There are now leaves on the line.

But this is off topic. McCabe is the moustachioed villain tying the club to the railway line as a train approaches. Driven by HRH.
Click to expand...

I don’t particularly bat for Diane Abbott or Jeremy Corbyn mate, but it’s a bit rich to hurl all the derision at the opposition when we have such complete buffoons actually in office and ‘running’ the country with Johnson and Smogg biding their time in the wings. They are the people who worry me.

I agree, however, that McCabe is the devil incarnate and eats babies alive.
 
Sean Thornton said:
Gove balances Abbott out. They aren't the same though. Gove us a slimy backstabbing chancer with dreams of power way above his station, or intellect. Abbott has somehow already got to that station. There are now leaves on the line.

But this is off topic. McCabe is the moustachioed villain tying the club to the railway line as a train approaches. Driven by HRH.
Click to expand...

Phillip Hammond, the chancellor of the the exchequer no less, would be a more apt comparison when it comes to failing at his sums: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...4-today-programme-election-2017-a7742006.html
 



BladeInIreland said:
Seems like kevin is trying to put the pressure on the prince to make a mistake.

I get the impression the prince has the upper hand and has probably sensibly been told keep your mouth shut publicly till this is over.

Obviously pure guess work but it's not uncommon in situations like this for people to keep away from public comment. I just get the impression kev is trying to drum up support in a last attempt to dissuade the Prince.
Click to expand...


There's a bribery allegation. No one would want that all over the media.

In any event HRH doesn't have any shareholders to keep informed. McCabe does. As has been pointed out repeatedly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Bartleby
Derby (H) Press Conference
Replies
25
Views
2K
Large Mendonca
Large Mendonca
Silky Sabella
Wilders Psychology/Reverse Psychology !
Replies
16
Views
1K
utd4ever
U
Bartleby
Blades v Mansfield Pre-match press conference
Replies
24
Views
2K
Ndiayewillalwaysloveyou
Ndiayewillalwaysloveyou
INTERUNITED
To celebrate the special achievement.....a minutes laughter...
Replies
15
Views
1K
Stevo71
Stevo71
Bartleby
Southampton (A) Presser
Replies
3
Views
539
Nesh Blade
Nesh Blade

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