“Saddened”: Prince Abdullah’s camp responds to Sheffield United chief as £35m takeover dispute continues

Prince Abdullah’s United World has issued another response in the ongoing ownership dispute at Sheffield United, pushing back against comments made by chief executive Stephen Bettis and insisting that no negotiations are currently taking place over the outstanding £35 million payment owed to the former owner.

The disagreement between United World and Sheffield United’s current ownership has remained one of the major talking points surrounding the club, with a £35m instalment understood to still be outstanding following the 2024 takeover by Steven Rosen and Helmy Eltoukhy.

United World has now insisted that the agreed purchase price remains legally binding and that the club’s change in fortunes since the takeover does not provide a reason for renegotiating the amount originally agreed.

The dispute began after the outstanding payment was not made. United World subsequently took legal action by launching a winding-up petition against COH Sports Bidco, the company that Rosen and Eltoukhy had used to complete their purchase of the Blades.

However, by the time the legal proceedings progressed, Sheffield United had already been transferred into another holding company. COH Sports Bidco was eventually wound up by the High Court without opposition.

United World has maintained that it intends to recover the money through the appropriate legal channels.

The latest development follows comments from Sheffield United chief executive Stephen Bettis, who recently suggested that Rosen and Eltoukhy were seeking to reach an agreement with Prince Abdullah and his representatives.

Bettis told The Star that discussions were taking place between the two sides as they attempted to resolve the disagreement surrounding the unpaid instalment.

United World, however, has strongly disputed that account.

In a statement released this week, the organisation said Sheffield United supporters and the wider community deserved a clear and accurate understanding of the situation.

United World welcomed Bettis confirming publicly that there was no dispute over the existence of the debt itself. However, the group stressed that the price agreed for the club was established through a binding contract between parties who had professional advice at the time.

According to United World, the agreed amount therefore remains payable.

The statement also highlighted the legal position of the company through which the takeover was completed. That company has now been wound up by the High Court after failing to settle the outstanding debt, with independent liquidators appointed to oversee its affairs.

United World then directly challenged Bettis’ suggestion that negotiations were continuing.

The former owners’ representatives said they were not currently in negotiations with the present owners and had not been negotiating with them, despite making several attempts to contact them.

They also rejected the suggestion that developments at Sheffield United since the takeover should lead to a reconsideration of the original sale price.

United World argued that changes in the club’s fortunes after the deal was completed could not provide grounds for altering an agreement that had already been reached.

The organisation also pointed to the circumstances surrounding the takeover in 2024.

At the time the sale was completed, Sheffield United were sitting at the top of the Championship. United World stated that the club also possessed a young squad that appeared capable of challenging for promotion.

That situation, according to the statement, was an important part of the circumstances in which the purchase agreement was reached.

United World said it was now “saddened” by the position in which Sheffield United finds itself.

The group also referred to the club’s transfer activity during the summer and the sale of several players who had originally been recruited while Prince Abdullah’s United World remained in control.

According to the statement, those players were brought to Bramall Lane during United World’s ownership, while Bettis had indicated that the money generated from their departures would not all be reinvested into the first-team squad.

That point was used by United World to reinforce its concerns over the club’s current situation.

The organisation appears to believe that the current financial and sporting circumstances should not be used as justification for changing the financial terms that were agreed when ownership changed hands.

The £35m instalment remains at the centre of the dispute, and United World has made clear that it intends to pursue recovery of the money through formal legal channels rather than renegotiating the original agreement.

The disagreement has created an increasingly complicated situation for Sheffield United, with the club’s current owners facing continued pressure over the unpaid amount while United World maintains that the contractual obligation remains straightforward.

Bettis had attempted to clarify the position from the club’s perspective, explaining that the disagreement originated from the new owners being unhappy about certain aspects of the deal agreed in 2024.

The original agreement allowed the purchase price to be paid in instalments rather than requiring the entire amount to be settled immediately.

United World, however, maintains that the contract was agreed by all parties and remains legally binding.

The organisation’s latest statement appears intended to counter any suggestion that it is willing to revisit the agreed price because Sheffield United’s circumstances have changed since the takeover.

United World stressed that the club’s situation at the time of the sale was known and formed part of the agreement between the two sides.

The organisation also expressed concern about Sheffield United’s current position compared with the circumstances surrounding the club when the takeover was completed.

When the sale went through, the Blades were leading the Championship and had a young squad with promotion ambitions. United World now says it is disappointed to see how dramatically the situation has changed.

The former owners’ representatives also highlighted the summer departures and the club’s plans for reinvesting transfer income, arguing that not all of the proceeds are expected to go back into strengthening the team.

For now, there appears to be little indication of an immediate resolution.

United World says it remains focused on recovering the outstanding £35m through the proper legal process, while Sheffield United’s current ownership continues to deal with the consequences of the unresolved dispute.

With both sides offering contrasting accounts of whether discussions are taking place, the disagreement looks set to continue until the outstanding financial issue is settled.

The latest statement from Prince Abdullah’s camp has therefore added another chapter to an ownership dispute that has already dominated much of Sheffield United’s summer.

United World’s position is clear: the purchase price was agreed in a binding contract, the debt remains outstanding, and changes in Sheffield United’s fortunes since the takeover do not provide grounds for reducing or renegotiating the amount owed.