Sheffield United Shares

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

H

Holmfirth Blade 1977

New Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2018
Messages
71
Reaction score
158
Afternoon all, I was left some share by my Grandad, I have now moved house and the original certificate has been lost in the move. Does anyone know how to change your address without the certificate please?
 

My advice would be to contact the club first, who should be able to put you onto the brokers. The name and address on the shares should be enough.
 
coaxingstar71 said:
My advice would be to contact the club first, who should be able to put you onto the brokers. The name and address on the shares should be enough.
Click to expand...
I tried the club first, just told me nothing to do with them and to contact a broker. They couldnt tell me who the broker was!
 
Wont the shares be in the PLC rather than Sheffield United Limited?. I have lost track to be honest, as they then switched to AIM market. Then it changed again when the Prince came on board. I thought the shares were compulsory purchased at that point.
 
Droppingwell said:
Wont the shares be in the PLC rather than Sheffield United Limited?. I have lost track to be honest, as they then switched to AIM market. Then it changed again when the Prince came on board. I thought the shares were compulsory purchased at that point.
Click to expand...

SUPlc became SUL some years ago.
 
Suddenly all the shareholders are coming out of the woodwork, what's going on?
 
Well when we were last back in the top flight and mom was still alive and I was going to games she wanted to buy some (she had bought me a season ticket), so we did, we bought 500 squids (the PLC era) worth, now though I am not bothered how much they are worth, they are sentimental to me now, up and till she died she would always ask what they where worth every month or so, I would laugh and say, about as much use as a chocolate fireguard...
 

Although by rights if the shares pertained to what people thought they were buying, SUFC as a going concern, there should be no reason why a dividend shouldn't be paid and then they would start to have value. However I suspect the shares that people hold probably do not include the part of the business that brings in the cash (I don't know I'm guessing) and if they did why would you pay it as a dividend when you could take any money out of it as a paid director to your account in Saudi. Of course I'm just hypothesising and I don't know much of how big business works...
 
8lade said:
Although by rights if the shares pertained to what people thought they were buying, SUFC as a going concern, there should be no reason why a dividend shouldn't be paid and then they would start to have value. However I suspect the shares that people hold probably do not include the part of the business that brings in the cash (I don't know I'm guessing) and if they did why would you pay it as a dividend when you could take any money out of it as a paid director to your account in Saudi. Of course I'm just hypothesising and I don't know much of how big business works...
Click to expand...


SUL WAS the holding company. It owned the shareholding in SUFC. It then owned certain of the properties, the ground for example. Now it has to sell them. The price currently being talked about doesn't clear the debts ( the hotel for instance is nothing to do with SUL) so there's no money for dividends or shareholders.

There have never been sufficient net assets on the balance sheet to pay a dividend. You can only pay dividends from accrued profits. There are none and have been none.
 
Sean Thornton said:
You can only pay dividends from accrued profits. There are none and have been none.
Click to expand...
I appreciate that but I imagine when people bought shares they mistakenly thought they would be getting a share in the whole of the club, including the part which takes in the vast sums of money accrued by being in the Premiership. Who in their right mind would buy shares in a company that would never make money sufficient to pay a dividend? It is what gives shares value if you are not going to own the company.
 
8lade said:
I appreciate that but I imagine when people bought shares they mistakenly thought they would be getting a share in the whole of the club, including the part which takes in the vast sums of money accrued by being in the Premiership. Who in their right mind would buy shares in a company that would never make money sufficient to pay a dividend? It is what gives shares value if you are not going to own the company.
Click to expand...


Not being funny but has the whole court case on ownership passed you by?

When the shares were issued, SU owned SUFC. Continuing losses made the payment of a dividend legally impossible. Now it doesn't. HRH owns SUFC and therefore it's all his baby, money profits etc.
 
Since: (1) SUL at this stage still technically owns 50% of the shares of Blades Leisure Limited (the 100% owner of SUFC), all of which shares SUL must (under court order) sell to UTB for £5 Million, per KM's irrevocable offer of 12/17; and (2) SUL owns most of the real estate to be acquired by SUFC for +/- £45 Million (my estimate) per the original ISA and associated property sale option contracts; one might surmise that SUL shares have value North of zero. By how much, I have no idea, as there are lots of variables not known to me. It goes without saying, however, that at a time like this SUL creditors and minority shareholders will likely be paying close attention and doing whatever they can to ensure that the +/- £50 Million in proceeds from pending SUL asset sales are handled in a way that takes account of their rights and interests, especially since the assets being sold may represent all or substantially all of the remaining assets of SUL.
 
8lade said:
I appreciate that but I imagine when people bought shares they mistakenly thought they would be getting a share in the whole of the club, including the part which takes in the vast sums of money accrued by being in the Premiership. Who in their right mind would buy shares in a company that would never make money sufficient to pay a dividend? It is what gives shares value if you are not going to own the company.
Click to expand...
But who in their right minds would buy shares in a football team who had just been relegated into DIVISION FOUR of the Football League????.

The share issue was a fund raiser for the club (at what was again a very bad time financially )
Every £500 share bought got a season ticket free for the next 10 seasons.
That was all the benefit/punishment anyone expected.
It was never about making a profit, simply a chance to help the club out.
 
Harrisblade said:
It was never about making a profit, simply a chance to help the club out.
Click to expand...
1. Why call it a share issue then, which confuses people into believing they have regular shares (ie stockmarket value goes up and down, might pay dividend shares)?
2. At least 2 posters have asked this week what their shares are worth.

Why am I bothered? I have a mild interest in the stock market as a form of investment but with the little I know and my cynical nature it's apparent to me that the only people making money from non main stream shares are those issuing them and brokers. 'Falklands Oil and Gas', anybody?
 
JimPhipps said:
Since: (1) SUL at this stage still technically owns 50% of the shares of Blades Leisure Limited (the 100% owner of SUFC), all of which shares SUL must (under court order) sell to UTB for £5 Million, per KM's irrevocable offer of 12/17; and (2) SUL owns most of the real estate to be acquired by SUFC for +/- £45 Million (my estimate) per the original ISA and associated property sale option contracts; one might surmise that SUL shares have value North of zero. By how much, I have no idea, as there are lots of variables not known to me. It goes without saying, however, that at a time like this SUL creditors and minority shareholders will likely be paying close attention and doing whatever they can to ensure that the +/- £50 Million in proceeds from pending SUL asset sales are handled in a way that takes account of their rights and interests, especially since the assets being sold may represent all or substantially all of the remaining assets of SUL.
Click to expand...


Jim, SUL has been funded by Scarborough and the McCabe family for a number of years. They are owed a significant sum as per the accounts. The £50 +/- you quote also includes the hotel and business centre which aren't owned by SUL meaning the amounts due this summer for the assets held by SUL are unlikely to cover creditors. Shareholders rights won't be affected in any way - no dividend, no share value - unless BOTH parties act otherwise. Something I'm sure neither would consider.

I thought you would be aware of this because it looks like a cheap shot.
 
8lade said:
1. Why call it a share issue then, which confuses people into believing they have regular shares (ie stockmarket value goes up and down, might pay dividend shares)?
2. At least 2 posters have asked this week what their shares are worth.

Why am I bothered? I have a mild interest in the stock market as a form of investment but with the little I know and my cynical nature it's apparent to me that the only people making money from non main stream shares are those issuing them and brokers. 'Falklands Oil and Gas', anybody?
Click to expand...


McCabe paid for his shares as well. His aren't worth much either. He loses far more than anyone else so how you think he's made money on issuing is beyond me. Like it or not it was a gamble, most of us just wanted to be a part of the club. Believing you'd make money on a loss making football club really should mean one shouldn't have ever been looking at share investment.

In any event, when the shares were issued, McCabe was a minority shareholder. MikeMcDonald owned the club.
 
Sean Thornton said:
McCabe paid for his shares as well. His aren't worth much either. He loses far more than anyone else so how you think he's made money on issuing is beyond me.
Click to expand...
Only because he lost the club, trying to pull a fast one on somebody who turned out to be his match in the financial markets.

Sean Thornton said:
Believing you'd make money on a loss making football club really should mean one shouldn't have ever been looking at share investment.
Click to expand...
I didn't but other people have (obviously, why people are asking what their shares are worth) and also as one poster has said, a family member bought them for him.
 

For years supporters have bought shares in THEIR football club. Just for fun and a bit of kudos. But no ordinary supporter would buy shares in a football club to make money and get paid a dividend. The vast majority of clubs lose money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Sothall_Blade
Sheffield United Honours Board
Replies
5
Views
684
Pollingtonblade
P
Deadly_D'Jaffo
Legends @ The Lane | The Archer Project | Friday 7th March 2025 ♥️🤍🖤
Replies
11
Views
1K
SW12 to S12 to S18
SW12 to S12 to S18
Balham
'Memries' Where are they now? United 0-0 Coventry City (Championship, 20 November 2021)
Replies
7
Views
434
Chilttheblade
Chilttheblade
Balham
'Memries' Where are they now? United 1-1 Coventry City (FA Cup quarter final replay, 17 March 1998)
Replies
11
Views
829
Pollingtonblade
P
Deadbat
United 2 Cardiff 0 - report/ratings
2
Replies
41
Views
2K
Booker4
Booker4

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