Analysing the reasons behind the latest disagreement between Sheffield United owner and his predecessor

The news was revealed in a document, released on behalf of another of McCabe’s companies called Scarborough International Properties Limited (SIPL), confirming its investment plans for the region including projects at the Olympic Legacy Park and surrounding areas. Later in the day, when The Star approached the Premier League club for a comment, officials at United countered with a statement outlining their own interpretation of events which had led to the breakdown of the deal.

Our United writer James Shield, who has covered the dispute between Prince Abdullah and McCabe from day one, examines some of the issues behind the latest development and explains how the situation is now likely to unfold.

Who are the men at the heart of the dispute?: Kevin McCabe, aged 72, is a lifelong United supporter and was the longest serving member of the club’s board until he was forced to step down following last year’s High Court battle between Prince Abdullah and himself. Born in Sheffield, he set up his own property company in 1976 which proved the catalyst for the growth of his business interests. As well as investing in England and other European countries, McCabe has also been responsible for a number of projects in China. Seven years ago, he effectively gifted Prince Abdullah a 50 per cent stake in United’s parent company Blades Leisure Limited (BLL) in return for certain financial guarantees. Hailing from Riyadh and a member of Saudi Arabia’s royal family, Prince Abdullah studied in Beirut before returning to his homeland, where he later established a paper manufacturing firm. Aged 55, he has also served as chairman of Saudi club Al-Hilal and for a period held a government position in the Kingdom. He also has a controlling stake in Belgian outfit Beerschot and Al-Hilal United; a new entity in Dubai. After initially working together well, McCabe and Prince Abdullah found themselves disagreeing on a number of issues and their partnership at United became untenable. In September, after a lengthy hearing at the High Court in London, a judge declared Prince Abdullah the sole owner of United.

How has this latest disagreement come about?: When Mr Justice Fancourt arrived at his decision, the reasons for which were outlined in a lengthy document, he stipulated that Prince Abdullah had until July 1 to buy property interests, including Bramall Lane, the Copthorne Hotel and Steelphalt Academy training complex, from Sheffield United Limited (SUL); the vehicle McCabe used to control his share of BLL. Earlier this year, senior figures at United were briefing the two men were close to agreeing a price, which could see these sites come back under the club’s umbrella. This eventually happened. But then - and both sides have offered different reasons why - that deal broke down. Put simply, the two can not agree how much the property is worth and other aspects of the transaction. But the deadline the judge set is still applicable.

Remind me why they fell out again: The exact reasons remain unclear. But around three years ago it became obvious that Prince Abdullah and McCabe did not see eye to eye on a number of subjects. Privately, the latter had doubts about his fellow co-owner’s commitment to the club while Prince Abdullah, who disputed this, was also frustrated by aspects of McCabe’s business model. They had, to be blunt, very different ways of doing things. These frustrations bubbled to the surface in 2017, when SUL offered UTB, the vehicle Prince Abdullah used to control his interest in BLL, £5m for its shares. Under the terms of their original investors agreement, UTB had the right to match this sum and then take control of BLL. A counter notice was duly served. But the arrangement between SUL and UTB also meant Prince Abdullah was obliged to purchase United’s property holdings, which were under McCabe’s banner. But he refused to sign over his shares after being angered by a manoeuvre he argued was designed to sidestep this requirement. It was the creation of a new company, entitled UTB 2018, which had assumed control of enough of UTB’s shares to keep it below the threshold required to trigger this aspect of the arrangement with SUL. The dispute then went to the High Court, where it was decided Prince Abdullah was the new owner of United. Mr Justice Fancourt said McCabe had “injected tens of millions of pounds into the club out of love and loyalty, not for financial return”, but stated the contract of sale and purchase of SUL’s shares could not be set aside.

So what exactly was said this week?: The latest war of words between the two men erupted when a public relations firm acting on behalf of SIPL sent out an email, which included an update on its work in Sheffield. The email also made reference to events at United, stating: “Agreement in principle was reached in January for Sheffield United FC (under the ownership of HRH Prince Abdullah bin Mosaad bin Abdulaziz al Saud) to acquire from Scarborough the freehold of the Bramall Lane Stadium together with its interests in the four star Copthorne Hotel and the Enterprise Centre along with the 20 acre Academy and First Team Training Centre at Shirecliffe as well as the Junior Development Centre at Crookes and other properties,” the statement read. “Although it was expected that formal contracts - the detailed contents of which had been settled - would have been exchanged with completion to occur prior to 31 March this year and thereafter extended to the end of April, until Prince Abdullah withdrew his offer earlier this month.” That prompted United to publish a statement of their own which claimed McCabe had asked for “more money” and “more concessions” than had been “agreed initially.” It also said “The club will take all necessary steps to ensure that Bramall Lane remains the long-term home of SUFC. We will also vigorously defend any claims put forward by SUL, including the outrageous suggestion put forward in the litigation that the price that SUL wants the club to pay for the stadium should be on the assumption that SUFC leaves Bramall Lane with the site being developed for residential housing.” This provoked fears among United supporters, which have since been vigorously denied by sources close to McCabe, that SUL was looking to force the club to move ground.

Why isn’t Boundary Corner included in the purchase proposal?: The press release United issued in response to SIPL’s statement also contained reference to “certain parcels” of land within the “Bramall Lane footprint” which they dubbed “The Kop sites”. One of these is Boundary Corner, which had been earmarked for residential and retail development before Prince Abdullah became United’s sole owner. Indeed, the plans had been widely reported upon in the regional media. Unlike the stadium, the first team and academy training centre and the hotel, this land is not included in the sites Mr Justice Fancourt ordered must be bought by United.

What takes place now?: Both Prince Abdullah and McCabe have said the price of SUL’s property interests will now be decided by an independent arbitrator. The provision for this to happen has always existed but, clearly, the two men had tried to reach an understanding over the total value of the sites. The arbitrator will do a number of things during this process, which could include investigating how much the land might be worth for residential or commercial use, as well as a sporting facility, before arriving at a figure. But people who have acted in this capacity before have told The Star that this is a way of measuring worth, not an order about how the sites must be used in the future. Prince Abdullah and McCabe could, of course, return to the negotiating table. But, in light of recent events, this seems unlikely.