If successful and the debt was removed to help aid Aussie take over a lease back was being discussed
If not the Aussies have to find clear funds by this week
British consortium are reviewing situation and ready to step in
Now I guess that makes me not a liar not trouble Maker for anyone
Apologies accepted in advance
What you said was useful and it seemed fair to acknowledge that, but you made a big thing about the Aussies wanting to lease the ground because they don’t have the money. I’m hearing it’s the opposite way round, with RD looking to impose it on them.
Impose it on them unless they prove they have the funds to buy 100%?
Or blame them and use the situation to try to lever the ex-directors to take a deal so he can get a long-term rental income.
What's the delay with the British consortium then? Now that we accept they exist.
It’s a bloody good question Tbh and one I don’t know the answer too
I heard that one of the people involved in the British consortium is still involved in another Club. But I could be lying, who knows?
@Airman Brown I've read your latest VOTV article and it's given me some hope if I've understood it correctly. Can you reassure me please?
- it only needs one ex director to refuse the debt to be cleared by RD and he can't lease out the Valley
- the ex-directors can refuse to have the debt paid (this bit I don't get)
Thank you
As I understand it the ex directors cannot refuse FULL repayment of their loans and that RD had tried to cut a deal or he was not prepared to satisfy the repayment terms as per the debentures. Therefore a lease on the Valley cannot be granted without ALL the debenture holders agreement.
@Airman Brown I've read your latest VOTV article and it's given me some hope if I've understood it correctly. Can you reassure me please?
- it only needs one ex director to refuse the debt to be cleared by RD and he can't lease out the Valley
- the ex-directors can refuse to have the debt paid (this bit I don't get)
Thank you
As I understand it the ex directors cannot refuse FULL repayment of their loans and that RD had tried to cut a deal or he was not prepared to satisfy the repayment terms as per the debentures. Therefore a lease on the Valley cannot be granted without ALL the debenture holders agreement.
@Airman Brown I've read your latest VOTV article and it's given me some hope if I've understood it correctly. Can you reassure me please?
- it only needs one ex director to refuse the debt to be cleared by RD and he can't lease out the Valley
- the ex-directors can refuse to have the debt paid (this bit I don't get)
Thank you
As I understand it the ex directors cannot refuse FULL repayment of their loans and that RD had tried to cut a deal or he was not prepared to satisfy the repayment terms as per the debentures. Therefore a lease on the Valley cannot be granted without ALL the debenture holders agreement.
So if Roland did pay out according to the repayment terms he could lease the Valley?
What's a debenture?
Yes that's it, clear all the debt secured by the ex directors debentures and the Valley becomes unencumbered (free of charges).
Mortgage Debentures per se are Legal charges usually sought by banks from Limited Companies who have lending facilities which are regarded as security attaching all assets of the company both fixed (including specific charges over land) and floating over all current assets i.e. the debtor book.
Without seeing the actual terms of the debentures entered into it is difficult to comment further but it would appear four directors were happy to give priority (agree to a lease and sign a deed to this effect) and three weren't because full repayment has not been offered.
@Airman Brown I've read your latest VOTV article and it's given me some hope if I've understood it correctly. Can you reassure me please?
- it only needs one ex director to refuse the debt to be cleared by RD and he can't lease out the Valley
- the ex-directors can refuse to have the debt paid (this bit I don't get)
Thank you
As I understand it the ex directors cannot refuse FULL repayment of their loans and that RD had tried to cut a deal or he was not prepared to satisfy the repayment terms as per the debentures. Therefore a lease on the Valley cannot be granted without ALL the debenture holders agreement.
So if Roland did pay out according to the repayment terms he could lease the Valley?
What's a debenture?
Yes that's it, clear all the debt secured by the ex directors debentures and the Valley becomes unencumbered (free of charges).
Mortgage Debentures per se are Legal charges usually sought by banks from Limited Companies who have lending facilities which are regarded as security attaching all assets of the company both fixed (including specific charges over land) and floating over all current assets i.e. the debtor book.
Without seeing the actual terms of the debentures entered into it is difficulty to comment further but it would appear four directors were happy to give priority (sign a deed to this effect) and three weren't because full repayment has not been offered.
Am I right in thinking that the ex directors blocking the purchase of debt is a GOOD thing rather than a bad?
Your article gave the impression that it was a negative, however I can see that as being the only thing stopping RD from keeping the ground etc but selling the club
Wasnt there the rumour that another consortium had matched the Aussie bid but the structure of payment was different. Or did I just make that up. Im so confused now.
After 14 notifications it seems I need to respond.
I will argue the posts from sundry parties since my last contribution prove my point. There are so many stories out there nobody apart from those at the negotiating tables can be certain of their information beyond the fact the takeover has not been completed with EFL approval.
I have made no suggestion NLA has an agenda. If I had it would have put me in the same category as the "miscreants" the other night.
My argument is the tone of the message, the persistence of its repetition, the nature of the information/ disinformation, the positioning of the argument indicate to me (as I clearly stated) someone somewhere has an agenda.
I have not even attached any negative connotation to such agenda. Due to the nature of the argument I could but unlike the scenarios faced within 40yrs of the corporate world I am not close enough to the parties to determine the ambition of such an agenda.
Unless you are a party directly involved with the negotiations, bound by NDAs, someone linked to those negotiations is sharing what they believe to be true. I have been to far too many meetings with where people actually at the same meeting walked away with entirely different perceptions all before they added their own influence to the information. It is precisely why people take minutes.
Thus by definition such information is 2nd or 3rd hand and for every layer open to further "interpretation" all of which ignores the point, until the deal is done or not done, people play games.
IF the deal means separation of the ownership of club and ground I will reserve judgement as to what that means for the future of the club until the details are known. I have stressed it is not ideal but it has to be viewed in the context of where we are today and how we get out of this friggin mess. In such event the devil will be in the detail.
In terms of negotiations I lost count of the lendings I declined as a bank manager because the customer was not investing sufficient equity into the deal. It is amazing what people will do when push comes to shove. I would estimate at least 60% came back with a more appropriate application or greater equity investment.
With this level of investment there are no guarantees. In 1993 I spent 6 months on a team working with a US bank to launch a joint venture. We even announced the deal at a conference in NY. The US bank paid for the industry conference and the celebratory dinner. The CEO of the Financial Corporation who owned the US bank killed the deal at the dinner table.
In 1995 I spent 2 weeks in NY thrashing out the same deal with another US Bank. We shook hands on the deal on a Friday. Monday morning we received a letter to buy us out!!!
In 1997/8 I spent 18 months working on a different joint venture with a technology company in Texas. They walked away once. We walked away once. We shook hands on the deal twice and then the bank was subject to a takeover bid and the funding was pulled.
Fortunately I was somewhat more successful with other negotiations or I would have been out of a job. . For us there is ultimately only one man who knows where he will allow ithe numbers to fall and even he will not know whether he can indeed walk away with what he wants.
Thus I can but repeat the nature of the debate which transpired served nobody.
If the Australians decide to walk away we are left with what exactly?
I have no problem with anyone sharing what they are hearing but at any given point unless you are sitting at the negotiating table 24/7 there is no call to attack or aggressively dismiss anyone.
Such an approach shuts people down and reduces the flow of information. Who exactly does that serve?
Wasnt there the rumour that another consortium had matched the Aussie bid but the structure of payment was different. Or did I just make that up. Im so confused now.
YOU’RE confused.......so are the rest of us Shooters!
Comments
Are are they just an interested party at this stage?
So if Roland did pay out according to the repayment terms he could lease the Valley?
What's a debenture?
It's only if they are offered less than they are owed that they can do this.
There may be other interested parties but they hadn’t bid last week
This seems like bad news to me.
Mortgage Debentures per se are Legal charges usually sought by banks from Limited Companies who have lending facilities which are regarded as security attaching all assets of the company both fixed (including specific charges over land) and floating over all current assets i.e. the debtor book.
Without seeing the actual terms of the debentures entered into it is difficult to comment further but it would appear four directors were happy to give priority (agree to a lease and sign a deed to this effect) and three weren't because full repayment has not been offered.
This confirms my fear that he'll pay them all off and try to lease the Valley.
It also reminds me why I don't work in finance. Chickens are so much easier to understand.
Am I right in thinking that the ex directors blocking the purchase of debt is a GOOD thing rather than a bad?
Your article gave the impression that it was a negative, however I can see that as being the only thing stopping RD from keeping the ground etc but selling the club
I will argue the posts from sundry parties since my last contribution prove my point. There are so many stories out there nobody apart from those at the negotiating tables can be certain of their information beyond the fact the takeover has not been completed with EFL approval.
I have made no suggestion NLA has an agenda. If I had it would have put me in the same category as the "miscreants" the other night.
My argument is the tone of the message, the persistence of its repetition, the nature of the information/ disinformation, the positioning of the argument indicate to me (as I clearly stated) someone somewhere has an agenda.
I have not even attached any negative connotation to such agenda. Due to the nature of the argument I could but unlike the scenarios faced within 40yrs of the corporate world I am not close enough to the parties to determine the ambition of such an agenda.
Unless you are a party directly involved with the negotiations, bound by NDAs, someone linked to those negotiations is sharing what they believe to be true. I have been to far too many meetings with where people actually at the same meeting walked away with entirely different perceptions all before they added their own influence to the information. It is precisely why people take minutes.
Thus by definition such information is 2nd or 3rd hand and for every layer open to further "interpretation" all of which ignores the point, until the deal is done or not done, people play games.
IF the deal means separation of the ownership of club and ground I will reserve judgement as to what that means for the future of the club until the details are known. I have stressed it is not ideal but it has to be viewed in the context of where we are today and how we get out of this friggin mess. In such event the devil will be in the detail.
In terms of negotiations I lost count of the lendings I declined as a bank manager because the customer was not investing sufficient equity into the deal. It is amazing what people will do when push comes to shove. I would estimate at least 60% came back with a more appropriate application or greater equity investment.
With this level of investment there are no guarantees. In 1993 I spent 6 months on a team working with a US bank to launch a joint venture. We even announced the deal at a conference in NY. The US bank paid for the industry conference and the celebratory dinner. The CEO of the Financial Corporation who owned the US bank killed the deal at the dinner table.
In 1995 I spent 2 weeks in NY thrashing out the same deal with another US Bank. We shook hands on the deal on a Friday. Monday morning we received a letter to buy us out!!!
In 1997/8 I spent 18 months working on a different joint venture with a technology company in Texas. They walked away once. We walked away once. We shook hands on the deal twice and then the bank was subject to a takeover bid and the funding was pulled.
Fortunately I was somewhat more successful with other negotiations or I would have been out of a job.
.
For us there is ultimately only one man who knows where he will allow ithe numbers to fall and even he will not know whether he can indeed walk away with what he wants.
Thus I can but repeat the nature of the debate which transpired served nobody.
If the Australians decide to walk away we are left with what exactly?
I have no problem with anyone sharing what they are hearing but at any given point unless you are sitting at the negotiating table 24/7 there is no call to attack or aggressively dismiss anyone.
Such an approach shuts people down and reduces the flow of information. Who exactly does that serve?