Further tension on day two of Sheffield United ownership hearing

Bad blood continues between the shared owners of Sheffield United as a heated ownership hearing heads into it’s second day.

Kevin McCabe and Prince Abdullah both own 50 percent of Sheffield United’s parent company Blades Leisure Limited (BLL) and are involved in a dispute over ownership of the club, after Mr McCabe initiated a takeover bid in late 2017.

Prince Abdullah responded to the £5m buyout offer with an equal bid but McCabe saw this as an attempt to ensure Abdullah did not have to buy property linked with the club and pursued legal action.

This comes amidst McCabe expressing his wishes to leave the club boardroom.

Kevin McCabe has attended the hearing but Prince Abdullah remains absent.

In today’s proceedings, Andreas Glendhill, the lawyer for Prince Abdullah has said that the company has been making a loss consistently and that the five properties linked to Sheffield United are worth £40m.

Recent promotion to the Premier League and the anticipation of property options being carried out has changed the situation as such that Mr McCabe’s claim no longer has any validity, according to Mr Glendhill.

The buyout scheme that was initiated by Abdullah has been accused of intending to cheat Mr McCabe into giving up control of the club for £5m, but Mr Glendhill says that even if this is found to be unlawful, there is still no case for the buyout claim made by Mr McCabe.

There is obvious animosity between the two owners with both sides accusing the other of intentionally picking a fight and the judge having to remind advocates that witnesses must be treated with respect.

Mr McCabe’s lawyer has accused the decision to take up property options of being a tactic to delay rights and that affordability is still a concern.

Sheffield United Limited, the company that holds Mr McCabe’s shares has been promised a projected cash flow from Sheffield United Football Club.

The judge of the hearing has excluded the press and the public from the room while part of the case containing commercially sensitive information is heard.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *