@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.
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.
RD doesn't even need to pay the lot of them off to lease The Valley and Sparrows Lane.
My understanding based on Airman Brown answering my questions a few pages ago is that if we have the scenario of 3 ex directors refusing to take a haircut on there loans RD could potentially pay the 3 off in full leaving us with 4 ex directors all happy for RD to lease The Valley and Sparrows Lane. RD wouldn't even need to pay off the 4 remaining ex directors to then be able to strike a deal with The Aussies.
This for me should it happen is the worst possible outcome of this takeover.
I don't know if anyone knows the terms but the charges are listed individually rather than as a group.
@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.
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.
RD doesn't even need to pay the lot of them off to lease The Valley and Sparrows Lane.
My understanding based on Airman Brown answering my questions a few pages ago is that if we have the scenario of 3 ex directors refusing to take a haircut on there loans RD could potentially pay the 3 off in full leaving us with 4 ex directors all happy for RD to lease The Valley and Sparrows Lane. RD wouldn't even need to pay off the 4 remaining ex directors to then be able to strike a deal with The Aussies.
This for me should it happen is the worst possible outcome of this takeover.
I don't know if anyone knows the terms but the charges are listed individually rather than as a group.
It does beg the question though with the relatively small sum to be cleared from the those directors who are holding out for full repayment why RD doesn't bite the bullet. Still the bloke is so unpredictable, never wrong and doesn't do failure it should be no surprise to us unless the devil is the detail for him.
Maybe because he sold Lennon and Konsa for cash discounts he might think he's on a roll and arrogant enough to think that the ex-directors will accept cash discounts too.
From what I understand the three in question have had this position for over a year and are not going to budge, however if they are paid in full and the other four ex Directors take discounts thereafter and or allow Leases then he can do what he likes.
And from what the VOTV article implied, the cost of paying them off is less than half of the 7 million total. Surely Roland could afford that?
@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.
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.
RD doesn't even need to pay the lot of them off to lease The Valley and Sparrows Lane.
My understanding based on Airman Brown answering my questions a few pages ago is that if we have the scenario of 3 ex directors refusing to take a haircut on there loans RD could potentially pay the 3 off in full leaving us with 4 ex directors all happy for RD to lease The Valley and Sparrows Lane. RD wouldn't even need to pay off the 4 remaining ex directors to then be able to strike a deal with The Aussies.
This for me should it happen is the worst possible outcome of this takeover.
I don't know if anyone knows the terms but the charges are listed individually rather than as a group.
@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.
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.
RD doesn't even need to pay the lot of them off to lease The Valley and Sparrows Lane.
My understanding based on Airman Brown answering my questions a few pages ago is that if we have the scenario of 3 ex directors refusing to take a haircut on there loans RD could potentially pay the 3 off in full leaving us with 4 ex directors all happy for RD to lease The Valley and Sparrows Lane. RD wouldn't even need to pay off the 4 remaining ex directors to then be able to strike a deal with The Aussies.
This for me should it happen is the worst possible outcome of this takeover.
I don't know if anyone knows the terms but the charges are listed individually rather than as a group.
It does beg the question though with the relatively small sum to be cleared from the those directors who are holding out for full repayment why RD doesn't bite the bullet. Still the bloke is so unpredictable, never wrong and doesn't do failure it should be no surprise to us unless the devil is the detail for him.
Maybe because he sold Lennon and Konsa for cash discounts he might think he's on a roll and arrogant enough to think that the ex-directors will accept cash discounts too.
From what I understand the three in question have had this position for over a year and are not going to budge, however if they are paid in full and the other four ex Directors take discounts thereafter and or allow Leases then he can do what he likes.
On the other hand if I was an ex director who saw 3 others get paid off I would probably think about changing my position to get a pay off as well - i assume these ex directors talk occasionally...
@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.
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.
RD doesn't even need to pay the lot of them off to lease The Valley and Sparrows Lane.
My understanding based on Airman Brown answering my questions a few pages ago is that if we have the scenario of 3 ex directors refusing to take a haircut on there loans RD could potentially pay the 3 off in full leaving us with 4 ex directors all happy for RD to lease The Valley and Sparrows Lane. RD wouldn't even need to pay off the 4 remaining ex directors to then be able to strike a deal with The Aussies.
This for me should it happen is the worst possible outcome of this takeover.
I don't know if anyone knows the terms but the charges are listed individually rather than as a group.
@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.
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.
RD doesn't even need to pay the lot of them off to lease The Valley and Sparrows Lane.
My understanding based on Airman Brown answering my questions a few pages ago is that if we have the scenario of 3 ex directors refusing to take a haircut on there loans RD could potentially pay the 3 off in full leaving us with 4 ex directors all happy for RD to lease The Valley and Sparrows Lane. RD wouldn't even need to pay off the 4 remaining ex directors to then be able to strike a deal with The Aussies.
This for me should it happen is the worst possible outcome of this takeover.
I don't know if anyone knows the terms but the charges are listed individually rather than as a group.
It does beg the question though with the relatively small sum to be cleared from the those directors who are holding out for full repayment why RD doesn't bite the bullet. Still the bloke is so unpredictable, never wrong and doesn't do failure it should be no surprise to us unless the devil is the detail for him.
Maybe because he sold Lennon and Konsa for cash discounts he might think he's on a roll and arrogant enough to think that the ex-directors will accept cash discounts too.
From what I understand the three in question have had this position for over a year and are not going to budge, however if they are paid in full and the other four ex Directors take discounts thereafter and or allow Leases then he can do what he likes.
On the other hand if I was an ex director who saw 3 others get paid off I would probably think about changing my position to get a pay off as well - i assume these ex directors talk occasionally...
I expect Murray is happy to leave his money there to keep his toe in.
@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.
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.
RD doesn't even need to pay the lot of them off to lease The Valley and Sparrows Lane.
My understanding based on Airman Brown answering my questions a few pages ago is that if we have the scenario of 3 ex directors refusing to take a haircut on there loans RD could potentially pay the 3 off in full leaving us with 4 ex directors all happy for RD to lease The Valley and Sparrows Lane. RD wouldn't even need to pay off the 4 remaining ex directors to then be able to strike a deal with The Aussies.
This for me should it happen is the worst possible outcome of this takeover.
I don't know if anyone knows the terms but the charges are listed individually rather than as a group.
@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.
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.
RD doesn't even need to pay the lot of them off to lease The Valley and Sparrows Lane.
My understanding based on Airman Brown answering my questions a few pages ago is that if we have the scenario of 3 ex directors refusing to take a haircut on there loans RD could potentially pay the 3 off in full leaving us with 4 ex directors all happy for RD to lease The Valley and Sparrows Lane. RD wouldn't even need to pay off the 4 remaining ex directors to then be able to strike a deal with The Aussies.
This for me should it happen is the worst possible outcome of this takeover.
I don't know if anyone knows the terms but the charges are listed individually rather than as a group.
It does beg the question though with the relatively small sum to be cleared from the those directors who are holding out for full repayment why RD doesn't bite the bullet. Still the bloke is so unpredictable, never wrong and doesn't do failure it should be no surprise to us unless the devil is the detail for him.
Maybe because he sold Lennon and Konsa for cash discounts he might think he's on a roll and arrogant enough to think that the ex-directors will accept cash discounts too.
From what I understand the three in question have had this position for over a year and are not going to budge, however if they are paid in full and the other four ex Directors take discounts thereafter and or allow Leases then he can do what he likes.
On the other hand if I was an ex director who saw 3 others get paid off I would probably think about changing my position to get a pay off as well - i assume these ex directors talk occasionally...
Sworn enemies.
Think Capulets & Montagues.
Damn ! I vowed not to contribute to this thread again !
@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.
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.
RD doesn't even need to pay the lot of them off to lease The Valley and Sparrows Lane.
My understanding based on Airman Brown answering my questions a few pages ago is that if we have the scenario of 3 ex directors refusing to take a haircut on there loans RD could potentially pay the 3 off in full leaving us with 4 ex directors all happy for RD to lease The Valley and Sparrows Lane. RD wouldn't even need to pay off the 4 remaining ex directors to then be able to strike a deal with The Aussies.
This for me should it happen is the worst possible outcome of this takeover.
I don't know if anyone knows the terms but the charges are listed individually rather than as a group.
@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.
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.
RD doesn't even need to pay the lot of them off to lease The Valley and Sparrows Lane.
My understanding based on Airman Brown answering my questions a few pages ago is that if we have the scenario of 3 ex directors refusing to take a haircut on there loans RD could potentially pay the 3 off in full leaving us with 4 ex directors all happy for RD to lease The Valley and Sparrows Lane. RD wouldn't even need to pay off the 4 remaining ex directors to then be able to strike a deal with The Aussies.
This for me should it happen is the worst possible outcome of this takeover.
I don't know if anyone knows the terms but the charges are listed individually rather than as a group.
It does beg the question though with the relatively small sum to be cleared from the those directors who are holding out for full repayment why RD doesn't bite the bullet. Still the bloke is so unpredictable, never wrong and doesn't do failure it should be no surprise to us unless the devil is the detail for him.
Maybe because he sold Lennon and Konsa for cash discounts he might think he's on a roll and arrogant enough to think that the ex-directors will accept cash discounts too.
From what I understand the three in question have had this position for over a year and are not going to budge, however if they are paid in full and the other four ex Directors take discounts thereafter and or allow Leases then he can do what he likes.
On the other hand if I was an ex director who saw 3 others get paid off I would probably think about changing my position to get a pay off as well - i assume these ex directors talk occasionally...
I expect Murray is happy to leave his money there to keep his toe in.
Well if there is a scenario where the other 6 directors got paid up and walk away would he really want to take the entire fall on his own for the club essentially losing the valley and training ground?
@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.
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.
RD doesn't even need to pay the lot of them off to lease The Valley and Sparrows Lane.
My understanding based on Airman Brown answering my questions a few pages ago is that if we have the scenario of 3 ex directors refusing to take a haircut on there loans RD could potentially pay the 3 off in full leaving us with 4 ex directors all happy for RD to lease The Valley and Sparrows Lane. RD wouldn't even need to pay off the 4 remaining ex directors to then be able to strike a deal with The Aussies.
This for me should it happen is the worst possible outcome of this takeover.
I don't know if anyone knows the terms but the charges are listed individually rather than as a group.
@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.
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.
RD doesn't even need to pay the lot of them off to lease The Valley and Sparrows Lane.
My understanding based on Airman Brown answering my questions a few pages ago is that if we have the scenario of 3 ex directors refusing to take a haircut on there loans RD could potentially pay the 3 off in full leaving us with 4 ex directors all happy for RD to lease The Valley and Sparrows Lane. RD wouldn't even need to pay off the 4 remaining ex directors to then be able to strike a deal with The Aussies.
This for me should it happen is the worst possible outcome of this takeover.
I don't know if anyone knows the terms but the charges are listed individually rather than as a group.
It does beg the question though with the relatively small sum to be cleared from the those directors who are holding out for full repayment why RD doesn't bite the bullet. Still the bloke is so unpredictable, never wrong and doesn't do failure it should be no surprise to us unless the devil is the detail for him.
Maybe because he sold Lennon and Konsa for cash discounts he might think he's on a roll and arrogant enough to think that the ex-directors will accept cash discounts too.
From what I understand the three in question have had this position for over a year and are not going to budge, however if they are paid in full and the other four ex Directors take discounts thereafter and or allow Leases then he can do what he likes.
On the other hand if I was an ex director who saw 3 others get paid off I would probably think about changing my position to get a pay off as well - i assume these ex directors talk occasionally...
Sworn enemies.
Think Capulets & Montagues.
Damn ! I vowed not to contribute to this thread again !
All the more reason to assume the other 4 may get pissed off if 3 of them get paid up and they don't and maybe change their stances?
@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.
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.
RD doesn't even need to pay the lot of them off to lease The Valley and Sparrows Lane.
My understanding based on Airman Brown answering my questions a few pages ago is that if we have the scenario of 3 ex directors refusing to take a haircut on there loans RD could potentially pay the 3 off in full leaving us with 4 ex directors all happy for RD to lease The Valley and Sparrows Lane. RD wouldn't even need to pay off the 4 remaining ex directors to then be able to strike a deal with The Aussies.
This for me should it happen is the worst possible outcome of this takeover.
I don't know if anyone knows the terms but the charges are listed individually rather than as a group.
@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.
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.
RD doesn't even need to pay the lot of them off to lease The Valley and Sparrows Lane.
My understanding based on Airman Brown answering my questions a few pages ago is that if we have the scenario of 3 ex directors refusing to take a haircut on there loans RD could potentially pay the 3 off in full leaving us with 4 ex directors all happy for RD to lease The Valley and Sparrows Lane. RD wouldn't even need to pay off the 4 remaining ex directors to then be able to strike a deal with The Aussies.
This for me should it happen is the worst possible outcome of this takeover.
I don't know if anyone knows the terms but the charges are listed individually rather than as a group.
It does beg the question though with the relatively small sum to be cleared from the those directors who are holding out for full repayment why RD doesn't bite the bullet. Still the bloke is so unpredictable, never wrong and doesn't do failure it should be no surprise to us unless the devil is the detail for him.
Maybe because he sold Lennon and Konsa for cash discounts he might think he's on a roll and arrogant enough to think that the ex-directors will accept cash discounts too.
From what I understand the three in question have had this position for over a year and are not going to budge, however if they are paid in full and the other four ex Directors take discounts thereafter and or allow Leases then he can do what he likes.
And from what the VOTV article implied, the cost of paying them off is less than half of the 7 million total. Surely Roland could afford that?
But don’t they ALL have to agree to being payed off first ... so if even one disagrees then it can’t go ahead??
@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.
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.
RD doesn't even need to pay the lot of them off to lease The Valley and Sparrows Lane.
My understanding based on Airman Brown answering my questions a few pages ago is that if we have the scenario of 3 ex directors refusing to take a haircut on there loans RD could potentially pay the 3 off in full leaving us with 4 ex directors all happy for RD to lease The Valley and Sparrows Lane. RD wouldn't even need to pay off the 4 remaining ex directors to then be able to strike a deal with The Aussies.
This for me should it happen is the worst possible outcome of this takeover.
I don't know if anyone knows the terms but the charges are listed individually rather than as a group.
@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.
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.
RD doesn't even need to pay the lot of them off to lease The Valley and Sparrows Lane.
My understanding based on Airman Brown answering my questions a few pages ago is that if we have the scenario of 3 ex directors refusing to take a haircut on there loans RD could potentially pay the 3 off in full leaving us with 4 ex directors all happy for RD to lease The Valley and Sparrows Lane. RD wouldn't even need to pay off the 4 remaining ex directors to then be able to strike a deal with The Aussies.
This for me should it happen is the worst possible outcome of this takeover.
I don't know if anyone knows the terms but the charges are listed individually rather than as a group.
It does beg the question though with the relatively small sum to be cleared from the those directors who are holding out for full repayment why RD doesn't bite the bullet. Still the bloke is so unpredictable, never wrong and doesn't do failure it should be no surprise to us unless the devil is the detail for him.
Maybe because he sold Lennon and Konsa for cash discounts he might think he's on a roll and arrogant enough to think that the ex-directors will accept cash discounts too.
From what I understand the three in question have had this position for over a year and are not going to budge, however if they are paid in full and the other four ex Directors take discounts thereafter and or allow Leases then he can do what he likes.
On the other hand if I was an ex director who saw 3 others get paid off I would probably think about changing my position to get a pay off as well - i assume these ex directors talk occasionally...
@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.
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.
RD doesn't even need to pay the lot of them off to lease The Valley and Sparrows Lane.
My understanding based on Airman Brown answering my questions a few pages ago is that if we have the scenario of 3 ex directors refusing to take a haircut on there loans RD could potentially pay the 3 off in full leaving us with 4 ex directors all happy for RD to lease The Valley and Sparrows Lane. RD wouldn't even need to pay off the 4 remaining ex directors to then be able to strike a deal with The Aussies.
This for me should it happen is the worst possible outcome of this takeover.
I don't know if anyone knows the terms but the charges are listed individually rather than as a group.
@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.
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.
RD doesn't even need to pay the lot of them off to lease The Valley and Sparrows Lane.
My understanding based on Airman Brown answering my questions a few pages ago is that if we have the scenario of 3 ex directors refusing to take a haircut on there loans RD could potentially pay the 3 off in full leaving us with 4 ex directors all happy for RD to lease The Valley and Sparrows Lane. RD wouldn't even need to pay off the 4 remaining ex directors to then be able to strike a deal with The Aussies.
This for me should it happen is the worst possible outcome of this takeover.
I don't know if anyone knows the terms but the charges are listed individually rather than as a group.
All 7 debentures are listed individually on the companies house website. Click on each debenture and the terms are listed - but look a bit complex to decipher.
I've had a look at those, they're pretty basic and don't specifically list the Property titles however no doubt this was covered by the registration of them at the Land Registry. Sight of the loan agreement forms would be more revealing as to the specific details of the advance.
I would like to observe that it's slightly worrying that a significant proportion of our user base hasn't worked out that pages all have exactly 30 posts, and long posts don't help the page count in that way.
Whether it's a simple WIOTOS or a Grapevine extravaganza, they all count the same toward the page count.
For anyone who doesn’t want to read the first 994 pages i’ll sum it up below...
Roland still wants out Aussies don’t have the dough Doucher is Colin James Seed supports Millwall A lot of us like Pot Noodles NLA doesn’t know certain long words I vaguely recall a section on some sort of kettle We’re all really good at fish puns Blackpool still wants him to sell up and fuck off Most of us would like him to take Murray with him Nappa’s shit at maths Scarfy made a brief appearance Mark Curry from Blue Peter showed up once and hasn’t been seen again We’re not moving to the peninsular... yet And in the words of Henry - let’s all WIOTOS!
I would like to observe that it's slightly worrying that a significant proportion of our user base hasn't worked out that pages all have exactly 30 posts, and long posts don't help the page count in that way.
Whether it's a simple WIOTOS or a Grapevine extravaganza, they all count the same toward the page count.
For anyone who doesn’t want to read the first 994 pages i’ll sum it up below...
Roland still wants out Aussies don’t have the dough Doucher is Colin James Seed supports Millwall A lot of us like Pot Noodles NLA doesn’t know certain long words I vaguely recall a section on some sort of kettle We’re all really good at fish puns Blackpool still wants him to sell up and fuck off Most of us would like him to take Murray with him Nappa’s shit at maths Scarfy made a brief appearance Mark Curry from Blue Peter showed up once and hasn’t been seen again We’re not moving to the peninsular... yet And in the words of Henry - let’s all WIOTOS!
I can't answer for everyone. But you are spot on regarding me.
Spaceman came down to answer some things Charlton Life gathered round from paupers to kings "I'll answer your questions, I'll answer them true, I'll show you the way, you'll know what to do"
Who is wrong and who is right? Yellow, brown, black or white?
Spaceman, he answered, "You'll no longer mind I've opened your eyes, you're now colour-blind"
The spaceman looked human, but with black shiny eyes He spoke brilliant English, his voice synthesised Travelled the web just spreading the word Of love and takeovers, he picked up a bird The bird it was dead, but he made it just fine He walked on the water, and turned it to wine A young poster he said, "Are you Muir in a mask?" No I'm just ITK but I can see why you'd ask
I would like to observe that it's slightly worrying that a significant proportion of our user base hasn't worked out that pages all have exactly 30 posts, and long posts don't help the page count in that way.
Whether it's a simple WIOTOS or a Grapevine extravaganza, they all count the same toward the page count.
Comments
Think Capulets & Montagues.
Damn ! I vowed not to contribute to this thread again !
Whether it's a simple WIOTOS or a Grapevine extravaganza, they all count the same toward the page count.
#NoOneElseHasAnythingConstructiveToAddAnywaySoIThoughtIWouldSayThis
http://www.eurofootballfives.com/algarveopen.asp
Roland still wants out
Aussies don’t have the dough
Doucher is Colin
James Seed supports Millwall
A lot of us like Pot Noodles
NLA doesn’t know certain long words
I vaguely recall a section on some sort of kettle
We’re all really good at fish puns
Blackpool still wants him to sell up and fuck off
Most of us would like him to take Murray with him
Nappa’s shit at maths
Scarfy made a brief appearance
Mark Curry from Blue Peter showed up once and hasn’t been seen again
We’re not moving to the peninsular... yet
And in the words of Henry - let’s all WIOTOS!
But you are spot on regarding me.
Is Henry paying you, so he can get to a 1,000 pages by midnight?
I feel it should be organic and not for members just to quote the verbose but talented Mr
RipleyGrapevineThere's enough compost we can use to reach the milestone.
Charlton Life gathered round from paupers to kings
"I'll answer your questions, I'll answer them true,
I'll show you the way, you'll know what to do"
Who is wrong and who is right?
Yellow, brown, black or white?
Spaceman, he answered, "You'll no longer mind
I've opened your eyes, you're now colour-blind"
The spaceman looked human, but with black shiny eyes
He spoke brilliant English, his voice synthesised
Travelled the web just spreading the word
Of love and takeovers, he picked up a bird
The bird it was dead, but he made it just fine
He walked on the water, and turned it to wine
A young poster he said, "Are you Muir in a mask?"
No I'm just ITK but I can see why you'd ask
[x4]
Spaceman came down (Spaceman)
The achievement of starting the site and the site's greatest thread is enough.
"It is not the mountain we conquer but ourselves."
Henners :-'What do I expect you to do Mr Bond? I expect you to implode with this site and all who post on it! Ha ha ha ha'.
Just close the thread and open a new one on 999