Re: Peter Hood says Bulls on brink of going bust. : Thu Mar 29, 2012 11:18 am
Adeybull wrote:
RBS have not taken away a £1m overdraft. The facility was nowhere anywhere near that. I have not personally beenn told the number, but I know a man who has. The Bulls asked for a small increase (again I know a man who knows how much), which seemingly triggered a credit review. The outcome was as stated.
I expect that the Bulls had received the stadium settlement from the RFL, meaning they had received funds that RBS saw they could effectively "grab" as a one-off opportunity to get out of their exposure. I have seen it happen any number of times before with banks - they dare not foreclose because they would take a hit, but the minute the customer receives a big receipt they immediately reduce the facility and threrby theri exposure. I suspect (although I do not know) that that is what happened in this case.
I have already explained why, IMO, the lease itself was of little value to a secured lender in the event of insolvency. I stand by that, and await anyone putting up a better counter-argument. The bank has a long-standing charge on all the assets - like the Coral Stand, the debtors, the fixtures and fittings, and so on as well as any intangibles that might have value that would survive in an insolvency.
The requirement to repay the loan early clearly put a huge dent in the cash flow. I suspect this is what has led to the tax liabilities not being paid (again, I am surmising albeit with some substance) and I suspect that the existence of the unpaid tax liabilities may then have given the bank more of a reason/excuse to seemingly take the opportunity to cut and run when they did. If that is the case, the domino effect started with having to repay the loan earlier (as I understand it, we are tyalking MUCH earlier) than expected, I'd suggest? Why that came about, how much it flew in the face of any previous assurances, and whether it could have been foreseen, is perhaps the most significant unanswered question of all IMO.
Why don't you ring Ryan (or even Hood) and ask him if he can put you a bit more in the picture, and form your own views? I did.
His number was on the flyer, and I know you are not the sort of person (as some others are) who would refrain from seeking the facts in case they were at variance with what you have convinced yourself must be the case. At least then, you could form your own view about how truthful the overall story is, rather than listening to the comments of others?
I expect that the Bulls had received the stadium settlement from the RFL, meaning they had received funds that RBS saw they could effectively "grab" as a one-off opportunity to get out of their exposure. I have seen it happen any number of times before with banks - they dare not foreclose because they would take a hit, but the minute the customer receives a big receipt they immediately reduce the facility and threrby theri exposure. I suspect (although I do not know) that that is what happened in this case.
I have already explained why, IMO, the lease itself was of little value to a secured lender in the event of insolvency. I stand by that, and await anyone putting up a better counter-argument. The bank has a long-standing charge on all the assets - like the Coral Stand, the debtors, the fixtures and fittings, and so on as well as any intangibles that might have value that would survive in an insolvency.
The requirement to repay the loan early clearly put a huge dent in the cash flow. I suspect this is what has led to the tax liabilities not being paid (again, I am surmising albeit with some substance) and I suspect that the existence of the unpaid tax liabilities may then have given the bank more of a reason/excuse to seemingly take the opportunity to cut and run when they did. If that is the case, the domino effect started with having to repay the loan earlier (as I understand it, we are tyalking MUCH earlier) than expected, I'd suggest? Why that came about, how much it flew in the face of any previous assurances, and whether it could have been foreseen, is perhaps the most significant unanswered question of all IMO.
Why don't you ring Ryan (or even Hood) and ask him if he can put you a bit more in the picture, and form your own views? I did.
His number was on the flyer, and I know you are not the sort of person (as some others are) who would refrain from seeking the facts in case they were at variance with what you have convinced yourself must be the case. At least then, you could form your own view about how truthful the overall story is, rather than listening to the comments of others?
Considering we're being asked for £100 why don't they simply tell the whole story in the T and A? Then we have the definitive version as opposed to these 'I don't know but I know a man who does tales'. I don't want private conversations I want the true story put into the public domain. The breakdown of trust has come about precisley because we have different versions of the same fiasco filtered for effect. Confidentiality agreements, undisclosed fees, conversations in corners with unnamed persons - all smoke and mirrors.
I'm sorry this sounds like I'm holding you to account, which I'm really not as I think you're a passionate, decent bloke whose love for the Bulls is being abused and it's really not fair.
