+ Visit Sheffield United FC Mad for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 23

Thread: Ruling that allows SUFC to continue to trade

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    5,610

    Ruling that allows SUFC to continue to trade

    My lad rang me just after the ruling that gave the club £10m for running costs but only £7m for new transfer and wages.
    He told me this was available to view and this including any clubs who might want to trade with us. (This was before the Brooks deal).

    From what he read to me, I don't like the business set of UTB by the Prince and hope that Mr McCabe is successful in his desire to severe the deal. But, either way this si going to cost them both and that has a knock on to us all,

    Anyone seen this?

  2. #2
    This is all going over my head.

    Can someone put what's going off into simple terms for idiots like me?

    Are we worried or is it something and nothing?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,734
    Quote Originally Posted by DannyRotten View Post
    This is all going over my head.

    Can someone put what's going off into simple terms for idiots like me?

    Are we worried or is it something and nothing?
    Having read most of the judgement (it is rather long) it appears that this preliminary case was KM wanting to loan £2.5 million to the club and therefore the Prince, through his company to do the same. This was to cover current expenditure and to provide a fund for new players. The Prince refused, but offered to donate £2.5m if KM did the same. KM refused because the ultimate ownership is in doubt, so if he lost, he would be unable to get back his donation. The Prince argued that the loan was currently not needed as the club had enough funds for the time being. The judge found in favour of the Prince’s arguments.
    After KM made his original application to the court, the Prince had transferred 80% of his shares from UTB to UTB(2018). As I am a simple old soul and not an international corporate lawyer, I have no idea what is the relevance of this move - but I doubt if it was simply done for fun.
    In the end, I suspect that the only real winners will be the lawyers and one of the losers will be us lot, the fan base.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    30,699
    Quote Originally Posted by RonnieWaldock View Post
    Having read most of the judgement (it is rather long) it appears that this preliminary case was KM wanting to loan £2.5 million to the club and therefore the Prince, through his company to do the same. This was to cover current expenditure and to provide a fund for new players. The Prince refused, but offered to donate £2.5m if KM did the same. KM refused because the ultimate ownership is in doubt, so if he lost, he would be unable to get back his donation. The Prince argued that the loan was currently not needed as the club had enough funds for the time being. The judge found in favour of the Prince’s arguments.
    After KM made his original application to the court, the Prince had transferred 80% of his shares from UTB to UTB(2018). As I am a simple old soul and not an international corporate lawyer, I have no idea what is the relevance of this move - but I doubt if it was simply done for fun.
    In the end, I suspect that the only real winners will be the lawyers and one of the losers will be us lot, the fan base.




    And possibly the football club if our HRH is nothing more than looking to asset strip the club

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    1,544
    Quote Originally Posted by blades58 View Post
    [/B]

    And possibly the football club if our HRH is nothing more than looking to asset strip the club
    Why would he be? Seriously, what assets have we got? The club doesn't own the ground or the training facilities, so the only assets the club has is the staff.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    30,699
    Quote Originally Posted by Carpe_diem View Post
    Why would he be? Seriously, what assets have we got? The club doesn't own the ground or the training facilities, so the only assets the club has is the staff.
    Sorry Carpe, I haven't read the transcript or every post on S2. I thought he was after the lot. Buying out McCabes half, thinking that would equate to taking control of the stadium, academy etc

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    4,430
    Quote Originally Posted by DannyRotten View Post
    Are we worried or is it something and nothing?
    Yes, and no...

    Think of it as a case where a married couple want to divorce, both want custody of the kid, but it can only be one or the other. The judge has told them that they have to pay the mortgage and feed the kid while they get it sorted out. Coming to an amicable settlement seems to be out of the question, neither are willing to back-down or compromise, so they will put their case and the judge will decide.

    One will win, one will lose. The outcome will be grossly unfair to the losing partner, but that's that. Unfortunately, like marriage, you go into it with the very best of intentions. Sometimes it goes great, and happily ever after. Sometimes it turns to shyte and what used to be love becomes the deepest, deepest hatred and enmity. C'est la vie.

    So who will win out, and what does it mean? Well, we just don't know. King Kev could win out, but there's then doubt that he can afford to keep funding the club, and in any case he's 70's now and been looking to get out for a long time. HRH could win, and that's even harder to predict. Has he got money to put in, would his cousins put money in, what happens with the ground (which is effectively McCabes...), tbh, we haven a feckin clue about any of it. The best plan would seem to be 'don't panic, sit tight, wait for developments'.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    1,544
    No doubt this is another example of the 'bad luck' that plagues our club like no other. It's of course nothing to do with jumping into bed with some random bloke after a chance meeting in an airport and not properly planning how the relationship would work moving forward.

  9. #9
    Thanks for the explanations.

    I only hope things don't drag on and hinder any recruitment.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    4,430
    Quote Originally Posted by Carpe_diem View Post
    No doubt this is another example of the 'bad luck' that plagues our club like no other. It's of course nothing to do with jumping into bed with some random bloke after a chance meeting in an airport and not properly planning how the relationship would work moving forward.
    I think its more like, after being on your own for ages and struggling to pay for your flat, you happen to meet a lady in the Maggie Mays Motown night. It goes well, its not magic, but its okay, and if you can get her to move in that's all your immediate money worries gone. But three years later, she never cleans or cooks dinner, she'd rather be on Facebook than talk to you and you don't even get your leg over anymore. Its going nowhere, so you politely suggest that she takes her stinking carcass and gets it out of your life, which is when she digs her talons in and claims ownership of all your possessions, tells all her friends what a b'stard you are (you're not...), and after the lawyers have been all over it, you have to give her everything you own, and end up in abject poverty, while she has nights out on your money and flirts outrageously with another mug.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •