SHAFTED

SHAFTED

Long Time Blade
Long Time Blade

July 18th, 2012, 9:05 am #1

Having witnessed the demise of our once great club, for me the last straw was losing our ground and assets. WE HAVE BEEN WELL AND TRULY SHAFTED.
Quote
Share

Duncan Disorderly.
Duncan Disorderly.

July 18th, 2012, 3:40 pm #2

I've been following this story quite closely. I'm aware that this is being seen somewhere between Administration and Armageddon. But can anyone explain to me, in terms other than a stream of bile and hatred for the 'Evil' McCabe, what real difference it really makes if the property is owned by the club or by the Plc that owns the club? I'm not defending what has been done, before I'm accused of being the clubs stooge (...again. Yawn). Genuine question, looking for a genuine answer.

On a point of fact, we have been lower than this, so we are towards the bottom of the cycle not necessarily 'demised', just yet anyway...
Quote
Share

granthamblades
granthamblades

July 18th, 2012, 9:22 pm #3

The following is a quote from Ian Rankins Blog, A United View On Football.

" In simple terms this means that Sheffield United PLC will own the real estate assets of the Group,leasing them on appropriate terms to Sheffield United Football Club Ltd.The non real estate football club assets will continue to be owned by Sheffield United Football Club Ltd"
the above is an extract from a letter dated 11/07/1 sent to the shareholders.

My reaction is that Mr McCabe is securing his investment against a background of recent negative forecasts regarding the ongoing concerns of further down turns in the UK economy.Cant say I blame him.Not sure what it means for our club,but in the short term it will not, imo, make much difference to things on the field.I think our financial plans in terms player turn over are now in place for this season and we will not,or he will not, be splashing the cash.

UTB.

A good read and worth the effort is unitedview@gmail.com .Also some interesting comments from David R re similarities between our club and Rotherams a few seasons ago
Quote
Share

Long Time Blade
Long Time Blade

July 18th, 2012, 10:03 pm #4

Thanks Dunc and Grantham. The pills have taken effect now ; you have put a better slant on things, the pendelum swings. Onwards and upwards we go.
UTB
Quote
Share

Reading Blade
Reading Blade

July 19th, 2012, 2:55 pm #5

I've been following this story quite closely. I'm aware that this is being seen somewhere between Administration and Armageddon. But can anyone explain to me, in terms other than a stream of bile and hatred for the 'Evil' McCabe, what real difference it really makes if the property is owned by the club or by the Plc that owns the club? I'm not defending what has been done, before I'm accused of being the clubs stooge (...again. Yawn). Genuine question, looking for a genuine answer.

On a point of fact, we have been lower than this, so we are towards the bottom of the cycle not necessarily 'demised', just yet anyway...
Hi Duncan

I don't profress to have any great understanding but...


Isn't the real difference that the football club will pay the PLC rent to lease the stadium/property. This would SEEM to leave us worse off than before as it is an additional cost (assuming there is one).

Did we receive a fee from the PLC for the transferring of assets? If we did and that fee is likely to be in excess or equal the amount of rent we are likely to pay then it won't be a bad thing. If it's not then I don't agree with it being done.

I don't fully understand but I'll be disappointed if it has left United in a worst position especially as McCabe is a Blade.

Perhaps someone with a good understanding of finace and of the actual situation can help us!?
Quote
Share

TrueBlade
TrueBlade

July 19th, 2012, 3:59 pm #6

Lets not forget that the Assets of Bramall lane have never been owned by the fans. McCabe bought the club including the title deeds to Bramall lane from the previous club owners. It is his right that should he decide to walk away from club that he can sell all the assets to the next owners or keep them.

It seems to me that a lot of fans see Bramall Lane as belonging to them. Well the truth is it doesn't and never has done.

McCabe has never maliciouly done anything to harm the club. All his money and investments appear to been put in in good faith to benefit the club. There are no guarantees to success and when the investments started to go wrong he pulled them out of the club and took them on personally. (For example, China, the fans didn't like the drain it was having on the club finances so he pulled it out , same goes for the hotel, making losses, fan disapproved, so he pulled it out.

I think a lot of this McCabe hatred is totally unjustified. He got us to premiership unfortunately he couldn't keep us there but it wasn't for the want of him trying.
Quote
Share

Reading Blade
Reading Blade

July 19th, 2012, 5:26 pm #7

Can't argue with the gist of your post save for that if it wasn't for the fans the club and stadium as we know it wouldn't exist and so, in a way, it does belong to the fans.
Quote
Share

Duncan Disorderly
Duncan Disorderly

July 19th, 2012, 5:30 pm #8

Hi Duncan

I don't profress to have any great understanding but...


Isn't the real difference that the football club will pay the PLC rent to lease the stadium/property. This would SEEM to leave us worse off than before as it is an additional cost (assuming there is one).

Did we receive a fee from the PLC for the transferring of assets? If we did and that fee is likely to be in excess or equal the amount of rent we are likely to pay then it won't be a bad thing. If it's not then I don't agree with it being done.

I don't fully understand but I'll be disappointed if it has left United in a worst position especially as McCabe is a Blade.

Perhaps someone with a good understanding of finace and of the actual situation can help us!?
Fair point re rent, but maybe the plc is now paying for the upkeep and it cancels out. Can't imagine McCabe disadvantaging the football club through this...
Quote
Share

Reading Blade
Reading Blade

July 19th, 2012, 5:33 pm #9

Me either to be honest. A bit of clarity would help. Not that he is under any obligation to provide it whatsoever....

Good point re up keep.
Quote
Share

Joined: November 10th, 2009, 9:35 pm

July 19th, 2012, 6:05 pm #10

Can't argue with the gist of your post save for that if it wasn't for the fans the club and stadium as we know it wouldn't exist and so, in a way, it does belong to the fans.
"it wasn't for the fans the club and stadium as we know it wouldn't exist and so, in a way, it does belong to the fans."

Not a very good argument imho.

If if wasn't for their loyal customers, Marks & Spencer would not exist, but M & S doesn't belong to the customers.
The same applies to any commercial organisation.
Quote
Like
Share