Jump to content
Note to existing users - password reset is required Read more... ×
Sign in to follow this  
Making Plans

Sheff Utd fall out

Recommended Posts

Interesting stuff.

Former Sheffield United owner Kevin McCabe has questioned new owner Prince Abdullah's suitability to run the club.

The article concludes with this rather eye opening piece -

McCabe has questioned why Prince Abdullah had been to only four Sheffield United games in six years.

But Prince Abdullah said: "I've seen every game in the past three or four years. I don't like to attend games really. I like to watch games in mute and alone. I will appoint my son-in-law as chairman of club. He will move to Sheffield.

"I'll be there when I need to be."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this what we want City fans? An apathetic billionaire, appointing a stooge at the top and using the club as a play thing? Good luck to Sheff U. As soon as this chap is bored they will likely be in trouble.

As an aside. Are we the only club without billionaire backing??? It seems all the clubs that are perceived to be small, e.g Bournemouth and Sheff U, have billionaires that go unnoticed by general media but they get plaudits when they get mid table as if they haven’t bought their way in. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll appoint my son in law to run the club...

That should raise about a million red flags. No matter what happens this season if that sale goes through our little rivalry with Sheff Utd will drop flying back into the rear view mirror pretty quickly. They can have all the cash they want, I'd rather be paupers and have Webber running the club than millions and the random son in law of some "Prince" calling the shots

Edited by Christoph Stiepermann

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Prince is a Prince in name only.  He has no personal fortune and borrowed cash from the Bin Laden's for his stake.  McCabe owns the ground and the training academy.  If he decides to play tough he may either charge a fortune in rent or even evict the club a la Coventry.  Whatever the Prince has to find a substantial amount of cash very quickly, which many people doubt he can.  The Blad3s are looking at very turbulent times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

The Prince is a Prince in name only.  He has no personal fortune and borrowed cash from the Bin Laden's for his stake.  McCabe owns the ground and the training academy.  If he decides to play tough he may either charge a fortune in rent or even evict the club a la Coventry.  Whatever the Prince has to find a substantial amount of cash very quickly, which many people doubt he can.  The Blad3s are looking at very turbulent times.

I haven't been on their forum or spoke to any of their fans, but I'd imagine the locals are pretty angry at the situation? They have such a good thing going at the moment and some shady guy with no connection to the club is trying to spoil everything. I assume they're united in all wanting this sale to fail?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a really bizarre situation. I'm guessing it's not great for Sheffield United fans that Prince Abdullah won this court case as McCabe seems a far more stable owner, but you never know. I bet McCabe seriously regrets agreeing to the clause which allows Abdullah to buy his half for a measly £5m.

For anyone who wants to know more about the case, this is a good article: https://www.theguardian.com/football/2019/sep/16/sheffield-united-battle-kevin-mccabe-prince-abdullah

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, WD40 said:

Is this what we want City fans? An apathetic billionaire, appointing a stooge at the top and using the club as a play thing? Good luck to Sheff U. As soon as this chap is bored they will likely be in trouble.

As an aside. Are we the only club without billionaire backing??? It seems all the clubs that are perceived to be small, e.g Bournemouth and Sheff U, have billionaires that go unnoticed by general media but they get plaudits when they get mid table as if they haven’t bought their way in. 

It makes me wonder, especially after the global coverage of our Man C win, are we now a prime target for anyone wanting to get involved in the premier league? Sorry slightly off topic but since you asked wd40

Edited by Canary Jedi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man said:

It's a really bizarre situation. I'm guessing it's not great for Sheffield United fans that Prince Abdullah won this court case as McCabe seems a far more stable owner, but you never know. I bet McCabe seriously regrets agreeing to the clause which allows Abdullah to buy his half for a measly £5m.

For anyone who wants to know more about the case, this is a good article: https://www.theguardian.com/football/2019/sep/16/sheffield-united-battle-kevin-mccabe-prince-abdullah

McCabe had been desperate to sell for a while. I don't think either party is innocent here. Funny how McCabe is suddenly desperate to keep the club now that they've got Sky money isn't it.

I bet what McCabe is actually interested in is the opportunity to sell the club at its now much larger market value. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, shefcanary said:

The Prince is a Prince in name only.  He has no personal fortune and borrowed cash from the Bin Laden's for his stake.

Can't help but feel their is an unjustified heavy bias being deployed here towards the English party in this dispute. 

Firstly, he definitely goes have money as he founded one of the largest companies in the Middle East 30 years ago and still owns 40 percent of the shares. 

Secondly, he had invested £18m in the club and only £3m of that money came from the Bin Laden family. Ever thought that may just him doing them a favour by moving some cash across borders? Can be tough to do, this is a legitimate way.

From another perspective you've got McCabe flogging 50 percent of his shares for £1 in return for £10m initial investment in the club. Why? Because McCabe wasn't willing or able to prop up the club with his own cash. 

The Saudi's have since put another £8m in. McCabe has obviously asked the for £500k at some point and had it refused. 

Easy to see why. McCabe had the benefit of owning 50 percent of the club but wanted the Saudi to plug 100 percent of the holes in the finances? McCabe was matching that £500k was he?

And now after using £18m of the Saudi money to bankroll promotion and probably tripling the value of the club he wants 50 percent of the club back for £5m. Why? So he can sell 100 percent for £80m to an American or some Chinese people and cut the Saudi out of the deal after using him for his money? 

Easy to see why McCabe lost this case and the Saudi may not be the dodgy one here. 

Also, there was that bizarre period under McCabe where Sheffield United actually owned three foreign clubs including a Chinese one. English people can be the dodgy foreign owner in other countries you know! 

Edited by TeemuVanBasten
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It sounds as though the Saudi is a bit dodgy from the way that he transferred his previous shareholding into another company before pursuing this so that he didn't trigger the clause in the contract stating he'd have to buy the ground and training facilities if his shareholding reached 75%...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, cornish sam said:

It sounds as though the Saudi is a bit dodgy from the way that he transferred his previous shareholding into another company before pursuing this so that he didn't trigger the clause in the contract stating he'd have to buy the ground and training facilities if his shareholding reached 75%...

They are both dodgy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

Can't help but feel their is an unjustified heavy bias being deployed here towards the English party in this dispute. 

Firstly, he definitely goes have money as he founded one of the largest companies in the Middle East 30 years ago and still owns 40 percent of the shares. 

Secondly, he had invested £18m in the club and only £3m of that money came from the Bin Laden family. Ever thought that may just him doing them a favour by moving some cash across borders? Can be tough to do, this is a legitimate way.

From another perspective you've got McCabe flogging 50 percent of his shares for £1 in return for £10m initial investment in the club. Why? Because McCabe wasn't willing or able to prop up the club with his own cash. 

The Saudi's have since put another £8m in. McCabe has obviously asked the for £500k at some point and had it refused. 

Easy to see why. McCabe had the benefit of owning 50 percent of the club but wanted the Saudi to plug 100 percent of the holes in the finances? McCabe was matching that £500k was he?

And now after using £18m of the Saudi money to bankroll promotion and probably tripling the value of the club he wants 50 percent of the club back for £5m. Why? So he can sell 100 percent for £80m to an American or some Chinese people and cut the Saudi out of the deal after using him for his money? 

Easy to see why McCabe lost this case and the Saudi may not be the dodgy one here. 

Also, there was that bizarre period under McCabe where Sheffield United actually owned three foreign clubs including a Chinese one. English people can be the dodgy foreign owner in other countries you know! 

You didn’t mention the fact that McCabe has invested £100 million in the club. Neither did the Guardian article.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mr Angry said:

You didn’t mention the fact that McCabe has invested £100 million in the club. Neither did the Guardian article.

Is that relevant? I mean I'd take that with a pinch of salt anyway because he did weird things like buy a club in China with that money, and Sheffield United co-funded his own property develompent projects (it has been a weird arrangement) 

The fact remains that the club has taken £18m in Saudi investment in the past couple of years and McCabe wanted the court to force the Saudi's to hand over 50 percent of an asset worth £100m for £5m. 

Who is ripping off who? Best thing for them to do is find a new buyer to purchase the shares of both parties. 

Ground thing is confusing, it's owned by Sheffield United. Why would that need to be sold off seperately as part of the deal if somebody buys 100 percent if the club? Or is this another dodgy thing where Mcabe (a property developer) wants to split other property assets from the club so he can walk away with them? 

Naive to paint McCabe as the good guy and the Saudi as the villian, McCabe looks dodgy as hell to me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever the rights and wrongs, the people I feel sorry for are, as always, the fans. If this goes wrong it's them that'll suffer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

Is that relevant? I mean I'd take that with a pinch of salt anyway because he did weird things like buy a club in China with that money, and Sheffield United co-funded his own property develompent projects (it has been a weird arrangement) 

The fact remains that the club has taken £18m in Saudi investment in the past couple of years and McCabe wanted the court to force the Saudi's to hand over 50 percent of an asset worth £100m for £5m. 

Who is ripping off who? Best thing for them to do is find a new buyer to purchase the shares of both parties. 

Ground thing is confusing, it's owned by Sheffield United. Why would that need to be sold off seperately as part of the deal if somebody buys 100 percent if the club? Or is this another dodgy thing where Mcabe (a property developer) wants to split other property assets from the club so he can walk away with them? 

Naive to paint McCabe as the good guy and the Saudi as the villian, McCabe looks dodgy as hell to me. 

I agree with what you're saying, but there's no doubt McCabe, a proper Sheffield United fan all his life, would be more likely to make sure the club comes to no harm. Abdullah has no connection to the club so would be more likely leave it in the **** if things take a turn for the worse.

However, I've read that McCabe actually owns the training ground and the stadium, and if Abdullah owns more than 75% of the club then he's obliged to purchase them for around £35-40m. He doesn't want to do that, hence why he's transferred enough of his shares to a third party in order to be just under 75%. This is where it becomes messy, because if McCabe does indeed own the club's property, then he can either charge sky high rent to spite- and squeeze money out of- Abdullah, or he can lease them to the club he loves on the cheap for the benefit of Sheffield United.

It's all a mess, anyway. Makes me never want to get involved with an owner who has no connection to the club.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Canary Jedi said:

It makes me wonder, especially after the global coverage of our Man C win, are we now a prime target for anyone wanting to get involved in the premier league? Sorry slightly off topic but since you asked wd40

Ironically, the fact that we are debt-free means that we are more attractive as a potential takeover target. Buyers would not have to take on large amounts of debt, which is often the case with takeovers.

On the other side of this, some owners take over clubs and lend their new club money at rates of interest generally higher than the market rate. Some of the money that Sullivan and King lent West Ham was at 8% (from memory).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

Is that relevant? I mean I'd take that with a pinch of salt anyway because he did weird things like buy a club in China with that money, and Sheffield United co-funded his own property develompent projects (it has been a weird arrangement) 

The fact remains that the club has taken £18m in Saudi investment in the past couple of years and McCabe wanted the court to force the Saudi's to hand over 50 percent of an asset worth £100m for £5m. 

Who is ripping off who? Best thing for them to do is find a new buyer to purchase the shares of both parties. 

Ground thing is confusing, it's owned by Sheffield United. Why would that need to be sold off seperately as part of the deal if somebody buys 100 percent if the club? Or is this another dodgy thing where Mcabe (a property developer) wants to split other property assets from the club so he can walk away with them? 

Naive to paint McCabe as the good guy and the Saudi as the villian, McCabe looks dodgy as hell to me. 

Yes, I think it’s relevant that someone who has been a lifelong Utd supporter and has invested money in the club-maybe not £100 million if you think some of the funding has been a bit dubious but probably more than the £18 million that the prince has put in-has been forced to sell his shares to someone who has been involved in the club for 6 years and has hardly attended a game.

The clause in the original deal allowed either of them to buy back the other’s share for £5 million so neither of them would have been ripping the other off.

it just seems strange that the court has found in favour with the person with less investment-personal as well as financial-in the club.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Mr Angry said:

Yes, I think it’s relevant that someone who has been a lifelong Utd supporter and has invested money in the club-maybe not £100 million if you think some of the funding has been a bit dubious but probably more than the £18 million that the prince has put in-has been forced to sell his shares to someone who has been involved in the club for 6 years and has hardly attended a game.

The clause in the original deal allowed either of them to buy back the other’s share for £5 million so neither of them would have been ripping the other off.

it just seems strange that the court has found in favour with the person with less investment-personal as well as financial-in the club.

Presumably some of that £100m was in exchange for the deeds to the ground and training ground and the rest of it was a loan. 

Unless you know the repayment terms of the loan or how much rent McCabe is currently charging the club I'd perhaps suggest you are being a bit naive here.

"Investment" and philanthropy very different things.

They both come across like crooks. I assume the Saudi's £18m is a loan as well. Only his will be unsecured, there's no ground to secure it against. Not always black and white is it. 

McCabe should probably offer the £5m then remortgage his football ground to repay the £18m in loans. Why would the Saudi trust him with £18m in unsecured loans? 

See... This is what impartiality looks like. 

Edited by TeemuVanBasten

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

How many other PL clubs are 'debt free' ?

Burnley and Arsenal. Leicester only owe £10m in last accounts which is peanuts. 

That's probably it. 

Are you saying Norwich are debt free or Sheffield United? I suspect the latter have a lot of debt, and not much by way of assets. 

Edited by TeemuVanBasten

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Canary Jedi said:

It makes me wonder, especially after the global coverage of our Man C win, are we now a prime target for anyone wanting to get involved in the premier league? Sorry slightly off topic but since you asked wd40

Prime target? Nah,as Pig Mince and a few others(most noticeable by their absence recently)will never tire of telling us ...........the Suffolk Socialists will NEVER give up their plaything :classic_wink::classic_wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fascinating read this. Some of you are close to the truth, some are miles off. In a nutshell, McCabe has shown gross misjudgement and done himself up like a kipper. He over estimated the Prince's wealth when he invited him to buy 50% of the club for £1, in 2013, and subsequently underestimated the Prince's  ability to trigger a buy-out clause, instigated by McCabe as a means of getting the 50% share back, in 2017, when we started to perform well on the pitch. McCabe, although well intentioned, is a scheming megalomaniac who has invested a lot of money over the years, but always with an eye on feathering his own nest. He has bare face lied several times, and often has a version of events that differ from reality. In the recent court case he came out of it terribly, and was torn to pieces by the judge. The Prince actually seems an honourable bloke by comparison, and strangely I have a feeling he will do well. He is understated, happy to be in the background etc, but very ambitious I think. Not sure he has 'mega' money, but the hope is that he can attract backing from his obvious connections to the real Saudi oil money. Bottom line is if he keeps Chris Wilder happy, we should be OK. The whole saga is fairly unedifying clearly, and may still rumble on for some time, and that is the biggest concern that it may harm the dressing room and subsequently performances on the pitch. It could go either way, but I'm sure it will be 'interesting' to say the least. 

Anyway, well done on your fantastic result at the weekend. You must be buzzing and still on a high? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Blademark, thanks for the input, great that you took the trouble to fill us in. I've seen a couple of your games on YouTube and you look more than capable of handing out a few bloody noses, good luck for the rest of the season. 👍

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, splendidrush said:

Hey Blademark, thanks for the input, great that you took the trouble to fill us in. I've seen a couple of your games on YouTube and you look more than capable of handing out a few bloody noses, good luck for the rest of the season. 👍

Cheers buddy, same to you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm very grateful for the board that we have. 

They might not be billionaires but they are genuine loyal and caring custodians of the club who also have the bravery to back young unproven talent.  

In this regard we are very fortunate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×