Toilet roll man - why no statement

[prince al 167]

With the impending High court SUFC control wrangle in mind, why has there been no statements of intent from the protagonists ? Never understood why anyone would hand over approximately 50% of assets to someone for seemingly nouthing in return?

Edited January 18, 2019 by prince al
Typo

[Albert smith 11]

If this is in retaliation to the one who calls , Mt Chansari names then forget it , It is obvious to any one  which Chairman has put his money where is mouth is in Sheffield even though  that chairman has had a wake up call due to things beyond his control .

Leave em to it!

[DerbyTup 10]

10 hours ago, prince al said:

With the impeding High court SUFC control wrangle in mind, why has there been no statements of intent from the protagonists ? Never understood why anyone would hand over approximately 50% of assets to someone for seemingly nouthing in return?

Is that an "impending" High Court wrangle, or an "impeding" one as you say?  I suspect your inadvertent description is more accurate.  

 

I don't quite get your logic though...How do you come to the conclusion that 50% of the club was handed over for nothing in return?  My understanding is that HRH has put in 50% towards the running costs of the club.  The issue is one about a power struggle.  And anyone that was taking note would have seen this coming for about 18 months actually.  Over that period, the United Board of Director's was constantly changing, with people from both sides, stepping up and stepping down.  It was Boardroom Hokey-Cokey, and this usually means one thing - a power struggle.  

 

It's now culminated in the High Court.  It won't be pretty.  But at least it is being dealt with in a High Court under English Law and not some other Law - that's a good thing for a start.  

 

In my view, McCabe has blundered once again.  A few years ago he was telling us he'd got some Nigerian businessman, Jacob Esan, to put money into the club.  That all went spectacularly quiet didn't it?  I wonder if Esan made the first contact to McCabe by email and said that he'd inherited a fortune, but needed to give it to someone with a UK bank account?  It sounds like one of those doesn't it?

 

Then...enter the Prince.  And McCabe is out there in the press shouting it out loud, "We're in the money".  How incredibly naive of him to do that, even if he believed, for one passing moment, that it was true.

 

So, now McCabe finds himself in a sort of "marriage" with an incompatible partner.  And a divorce is on the cards.  They aren't on speaking terms and they've been to see a counsellor and that's failed too.  And McCabe is going to do his damned best to get back the piece of the club that he sold off with such enthusiasm - and if he succeeds, he'll sell it off again with even greater enthusiasm, only this time it'll be a "job-lot" deal.

 

 

[petcharlie 10]

McCabe is not as daft as some on here might think.Now I can hear all the fans shouting he must be stupid giving away half the club for a quid .Remember McCabe is a self made man you can not be that daft and make your self around 400million quid.If it was easy we would all be doing it so to talk of someone who is daft making all that cash just will not add up.I feel the Prince might speak with folk tongue and he could have spun a few porkies and may be promised  McCabe a easy route to some nice little earners in the middle east via his contacts .Now of course I do not know this to be right but these guys seem to do things like that to feather their nests .That is how the world goes around and how these guys make fortunes by pulling strings for each other.The wheels only comes off when one side welches on their side of the bargain.So I feel there is a lot more to this than meets the eye because I tell you now McCabe is not daft.

[prince al 167]

9 hours ago, DerbyTup said:

Is that an "impending" High Court wrangle, or an "impeding" one as you say?  I suspect your inadvertent description is more accurate.  

 

I don't quite get your logic though...How do you come to the conclusion that 50% of the club was handed over for nothing in return?  My understanding is that HRH has put in 50% towards the running costs of the club.  The issue is one about a power struggle.  And anyone that was taking note would have seen this coming for about 18 months actually.  Over that period, the United Board of Director's was constantly changing, with people from both sides, stepping up and stepping down.  It was Boardroom Hokey-Cokey, and this usually means one thing - a power struggle.  

 

It's now culminated in the High Court.  It won't be pretty.  But at least it is being dealt with in a High Court under English Law and not some other Law - that's a good thing for a start.  

 

In my view, McCabe has blundered once again.  A few years ago he was telling us he'd got some Nigerian businessman, Jacob Esan, to put money into the club.  That all went spectacularly quiet didn't it?  I wonder if Esan made the first contact to McCabe by email and said that he'd inherited a fortune, but needed to give it to someone with a UK bank account?  It sounds like one of those doesn't it?

 

Then...enter the Prince.  And McCabe is out there in the press shouting it out loud, "We're in the money".  How incredibly naive of him to do that, even if he believed, for one passing moment, that it was true.

 

So, now McCabe finds himself in a sort of "marriage" with an incompatible partner.  And a divorce is on the cards.  They aren't on speaking terms and they've been to see a counsellor and that's failed too.  And McCabe is going to do his damned best to get back the piece of the club that he sold off with such enthusiasm - and if he succeeds, he'll sell it off again with even greater enthusiasm, only this time it'll be a "job-lot" deal.

 

 

Can’t argue with that sensible reply, thanks.

[Bash Street 10]

12 hours ago, DerbyTup said:

Is that an "impending" High Court wrangle, or an "impeding" one as you say?  I suspect your inadvertent description is more accurate.  

 

I don't quite get your logic though...How do you come to the conclusion that 50% of the club was handed over for nothing in return?  My understanding is that HRH has put in 50% towards the running costs of the club.  The issue is one about a power struggle.  And anyone that was taking note would have seen this coming for about 18 months actually.  Over that period, the United Board of Director's was constantly changing, with people from both sides, stepping up and stepping down.  It was Boardroom Hokey-Cokey, and this usually means one thing - a power struggle.  

 

It's now culminated in the High Court.  It won't be pretty.  But at least it is being dealt with in a High Court under English Law and not some other Law - that's a good thing for a start.  

 

In my view, McCabe has blundered once again.  A few years ago he was telling us he'd got some Nigerian businessman, Jacob Esan, to put money into the club.  That all went spectacularly quiet didn't it?  I wonder if Esan made the first contact to McCabe by email and said that he'd inherited a fortune, but needed to give it to someone with a UK bank account?  It sounds like one of those doesn't it?

 

Then...enter the Prince.  And McCabe is out there in the press shouting it out loud, "We're in the money".  How incredibly naive of him to do that, even if he believed, for one passing moment, that it was true.

 

So, now McCabe finds himself in a sort of "marriage" with an incompatible partner.  And a divorce is on the cards.  They aren't on speaking terms and they've been to see a counsellor and that's failed too.  And McCabe is going to do his damned best to get back the piece of the club that he sold off with such enthusiasm - and if he succeeds, he'll sell it off again with even greater enthusiasm, only this time it'll be a "job-lot" deal.

 

 

I've heard McCabe has offered to buy the princes half back for 2 quid which is not a bad profit for the prince, i'd snatch his hand off if I was him.

[DerbyTup 10]

3 hours ago, Bash Street said:

I've heard McCabe has offered to buy the princes half back for 2 quid which is not a bad profit for the prince, i'd snatch his hand off if I was him.

  Nice one mate!

[Brooker11 10]

A shareholder told me a snippet of something involving one of the chairmen that if it comes out in court will not be very popular with the fans at all, lets see.

[Jim Hardie 523]

3 minutes ago, Brooker11 said:

A shareholder told me a snippet of something involving one of the chairmen that if it comes out in court will not be very popular with the fans at all, lets see.

Oh no, he wasn't in the 15 man squad that flew to Turkey was he?

[DerbyTup 10]

10 hours ago, Brooker11 said:

A shareholder told me a snippet of something involving one of the chairmen that if it comes out in court will not be very popular with the fans at all, lets see.

Did he shout, "Shoot!" out of frustration at all this passing we keep doing in the box?

10 hours ago, Jim Hardie said:

Oh no, he wasn't in the 15 man squad that flew to Turkey was he?

Did they buy a rug?

[NERVY-OWL 192]

On 18/01/2019 at 06:45, DerbyTup said:

Is that an "impending" High Court wrangle, or an "impeding" one as you say?  I suspect your inadvertent description is more accurate.  

 

I don't quite get your logic though...How do you come to the conclusion that 50% of the club was handed over for nothing in return?  My understanding is that HRH has put in 50% towards the running costs of the club.  The issue is one about a power struggle.  And anyone that was taking note would have seen this coming for about 18 months actually.  Over that period, the United Board of Director's was constantly changing, with people from both sides, stepping up and stepping down.  It was Boardroom Hokey-Cokey, and this usually means one thing - a power struggle.  

 

It's now culminated in the High Court.  It won't be pretty.  But at least it is being dealt with in a High Court under English Law and not some other Law - that's a good thing for a start.  

 

In my view, McCabe has blundered once again.  A few years ago he was telling us he'd got some Nigerian businessman, Jacob Esan, to put money into the club.  That all went spectacularly quiet didn't it?  I wonder if Esan made the first contact to McCabe by email and said that he'd inherited a fortune, but needed to give it to someone with a UK bank account?  It sounds like one of those doesn't it?

 

Then...enter the Prince.  And McCabe is out there in the press shouting it out loud, "We're in the money".  How incredibly naive of him to do that, even if he believed, for one passing moment, that it was true.

 

So, now McCabe finds himself in a sort of "marriage" with an incompatible partner.  And a divorce is on the cards.  They aren't on speaking terms and they've been to see a counsellor and that's failed too.  And McCabe is going to do his damned best to get back the piece of the club that he sold off with such enthusiasm - and if he succeeds, he'll sell it off again with even greater enthusiasm, only this time it'll be a "job-lot" deal.

 

 

Pretty much sums it up from what I've read. The Nigerian businessman part though, from an owls perspective it was hilarious when it came out on TV. 

If you go up this season it seems McCabe could of done it without the prince, I'll never understand why he needed him in the first place

[Grappler 12]

I thought Esan came in to see if he could get African investors involved in the club, not invest himself.  Not that it matters in the long run.