Prince v KM in Court | Page 14 | Vital Football

Prince v KM in Court

FatherKnowsBest said:
Well, its Friday morning, and they are still at it with Mr Giansiracusa.

Bit of to and fro really. Insinuations of lies and misleading statements, rebuttals and nowt much. Although he's just revealed that the HRH side have a potential buyer in the wings as well. No details as subject to Non-disclosure.

To be honest, the longer this goes on, the less sure I am of what each side was trying to prove. Lots of what I'd call slightly sharp, but pretty normal business activity on both sides, and little for the Kev side to do other than portray HRH and his man as a pair of dreadful cads. I'm not sure that the contract would be null and void if that were the case anyway.
Click to expand...
Do we know anything about the day's proceedings that were not covered by te Stir?
Saw a bit on FB that said McC's sons were giving evidence and sowing the seeds of a bit of senility and forgetfulness creeping in.

Intermittent wifi ATM so difficult to keep up to date
 
To some extent it doesn't matter what your personal opinion on the whole thing was. The facts at the time were that he was a convicted rapist and that McC's involvement was just as threatening to the club's reputation as the source of the loan being the Bin Laden family.
 
I don;'t see it that way.....two camps.....two different views....both no longer important. And, it never mattered what any other people thought, just our people.
 
Longshortandtall said:
Hearing adjourned until Tuesday 4 June. After two weeks of both sides trying to prove the other is the more unreasonable I think its safe to say so far its a draw.
Click to expand...



My analysis is this. Kev invited HRH in as a partner, but only really to provide half the cash and keep his nose out of the rest. It didn't go well, and with no real signs of advancement HRH wanted to put his own guys on the ground to make sure the cash was being spent wisely, and that he knew what was happening day to day. This put Kevs nose out of joint, as he didn't see HRH as 'in tune' with the whole 'being a Blade' thing and devalued his involvement further.

This in turn got HRH's dander up which led to both of them being a bit beastly to each other and doing stuff behind each others backs. Finally it becomes obvious that they can't work together, and HRH's guys work out that the option to buy the club (envisaged for different circumstances) is an option they can take, and they decide to bring it all to a head by forcing it (am I close...?)

I don't know about you LST, but have we heard owt yet that is worth a month in the high court? Other than Kev acting like he still owned 100% of the business, and HRH triggering a clause in their contract which was expected to be done in different circumstances, where is the meat and potatoes..?
 
FatherKnowsBest said:
My analysis is this. Kev invited HRH in as a partner, but only really to provide half the cash and keep his nose out of the rest. It didn't go well, and with no real signs of advancement HRH wanted to put his own guys on the ground to make sure the cash was being spent wisely, and that he knew what was happening day to day. This put Kevs nose out of joint, as he didn't see HRH as 'in tune' with the whole 'being a Blade' thing and devalued his involvement further.

This in turn got HRH's dander up which led to both of them being a bit beastly to each other and doing stuff behind each others backs. Finally it becomes obvious that they can't work together, and HRH's guys work out that the option to buy the club (envisaged for different circumstances) is an option they can take, and they decide to bring it all to a head by forcing it (am I close...?)

I don't know about you LST, but have we heard owt yet that is worth a month in the high court? Other than Kev acting like he still owned 100% of the business, and HRH triggering a clause in their contract which was expected to be done in different circumstances, where is the meat and potatoes..?
Click to expand...

Thats a pretty good take FKB IMO on the reasons for this getting to Court and why positions are so entrenched. I said a while ago on Blades mad I couldn't see how this was going to work once KM had engineered Phipps exit from the Club and there was no replacement of the same standing on the Princes side.

We now know from the last two weeks that they have been at war with each other ever since hence my desire to see the back of both of them.

KM's team have tried to prove unlawful prejudice and conspiracy on the part of Team Prince. Not sure to date anything has come out that is compelling but we await the Princes evidence and a lot could hinge on proving the bribery allegation.

Two more weeks will probably cover Prince evidence, Property valuation points, an issue on a forged document that Team KM don't seem to want to let go and the main issue of contract interpretation of the transfer of shares to a third party company. Expect a plethora of case law and legal precedent for the last few days together with closing arguments.

Its seems both sides have investors waiting in the wings and won't give ground because they stand to lose big bucks if they compromise and split the dosh 50/50. Obvious whose interests they are serving and its not SUFC.
 
tomytony said:
Censorious def-severely critical of others.

Censorship def- suppression or prohibition of eg book/film/news etc


No point arguing when the base of the post has been misunderstood or misinterpreted.

I wouldn't ever comment on your level of 'brightness', particularly when there's enough going on in court with the varying degrees of 'brightness' to keep us all entertained.
Click to expand...

I didn't say you shouldn't have an opinion, or post it, nor that you shouldn't hold it. So there's no censorship, real or imagined, involved.

I asked a question of you. A simple one. The answer, which for some reason you can't bring yourself to answer despite years of criticism of McCabe, is that you liked it purely because it criticised him, despite the fact that much of it is arrant nonsense. (So maybe "brightness" does come into it.).

I must have misinterpreted many posts of yours over the years. :)

Anyway, when he's gone, we can all meet up at BL for a beer......
 
FatherKnowsBest said:
My analysis is this. Kev invited HRH in as a partner, but only really to provide half the cash and keep his nose out of the rest. It didn't go well, and with no real signs of advancement HRH wanted to put his own guys on the ground to make sure the cash was being spent wisely, and that he knew what was happening day to day. This put Kevs nose out of joint, as he didn't see HRH as 'in tune' with the whole 'being a Blade' thing and devalued his involvement further.

This in turn got HRH's dander up which led to both of them being a bit beastly to each other and doing stuff behind each others backs. Finally it becomes obvious that they can't work together, and HRH's guys work out that the option to buy the club (envisaged for different circumstances) is an option they can take, and they decide to bring it all to a head by forcing it (am I close...?)

I don't know about you LST, but have we heard owt yet that is worth a month in the high court? Other than Kev acting like he still owned 100% of the business, and HRH triggering a clause in their contract which was expected to be done in different circumstances, where is the meat and potatoes..?
Click to expand...


The Princes men were onboard from day one. Jim and Sel Baki. Various others came and went over the time. See BL at Companies House.

Didn't the McCabes trigger the events with the £5m offer?
 
Haitchu said:
The Princes men were onboard from day one. Jim and Sel Baki. Various others came and went over the time. See BL at Companies House.

Didn't the McCabes trigger the events with the £5m offer?
Click to expand...

Fair comments.

Jim seemed a lovely guy, but a bit naive in the ways of dealing with social media, it was cringeworthy stuff at times, and as the case has hinted, Cloughie pulled the wool over his eyes. Sel was knocking around, buying drinks and telling stories of Turkish football, but was he ever really taken seriously here?

Clearly HRH was troubled by the 'day to day' and that must have been exaggerated if Kev appeared to be carrying on as if he owned the lot. It is terribly difficult working with a partner if you don't share the same vision. I haven't had the sense that they ever sat down with a cup of tea, discussed and agreed what they were going to do next.

Unless I misunderstood, the offer from the McCabes then opened the door for the counter-offer. (I don't have the contract in front of me...) IMO £5m was a low-ball, and was never going to get HRH to go away.
 
Haitchu said:
I didn't say you shouldn't have an opinion, or post it, nor that you shouldn't hold it. So there's no censorship, real or imagined, involved.

I asked a question of you. A simple one. The answer, which for some reason you can't bring yourself to answer despite years of criticism of McCabe, is that you liked it purely because it criticised him, despite the fact that much of it is arrant nonsense. (So maybe "brightness" does come into it.).

I must have misinterpreted many posts of yours over the years. :)

Anyway, when he's gone, we can all meet up at BL for a beer......
Click to expand...

There's only one of us talking about CENSORSHIP and it's not me.

As pointed out CENSORIOUS has a different meaning but don't bother to read the response before knee jerking.

Hypothetical for you- if you were against a cause/person/issue/action and saw remarks critical of such cause would you not endorse them if they enhanced your stance?

Your third paragraph is probably the truest you have ever posted.

Even if he did go I doubt that I'd quaff a pint with you- I like to choose my beer and the pub I drink it in, somehow I don't think that fits your way of working.

Have a lovely BH, maybe McC and the princes last in charge????????
 
Last edited:
tomytony said:
There's only one of us talking about CENSORSHIP and it's not me.

As pointed out CENSORIOUS has a different meaning but don't bother to read the response before knee jerking.

Hypothetical for you- if you were against a cause and saw remarks critical of such cause would you not endorse them?

Your third paragraph is probably the truest you have ever posted.

Even if he did go I doubt that I'd quaff a pint with you- I like to choose my beer and the pub I drink it in, somehow I don't think that fits your way of working.

Have a lovely BH, maybe McC and the princes last in charge????????
Click to expand...
possibly tt i dont think either can give us the financial backing we need to have a chance of establishing the club in the premier league but of course we have to be careful what we wish for dont we
 
You must log in or register to reply here.