Correct. Or the Company pay him back in the meantime, at which point he would notify CH that the charge was settled.

Wasn't it mentioned in the T&A a few weeks ago,that the Council were remaining tight lipped as negotiations were at a delicate stage between all parties.

My head hurts

Sorry!

I saw this conversation on twitter t'other day with Rod Stud. Does this tie in with what's been said here?

@Rod_Studd Looks like Marc & Jane Green have taken a charge over the stadium, in exchange for a loan to the holding company

@AndyGilder thanks Andy. I'm a bit naive!! - what does that mean in layman's terms bearing in mind RFL still actually own Odsal?

@Rod_Studd It means if the company defaults on the loan (say because it goes bust), the lease from the RFL moves into the Greens' name.

@Rod_Studd Green can then sublet to any new tenant he can get into the stadium, e.g. a reformed Bulls club.

I dont really understand whats happening here but it sounds like Green may now be holding a couple of aces in regards to getting the lease back from the RFL. Does that sound right or have I got the wrong end of the stick?

Who is the holding company? Is that Bradford council? Is it a underhanded way of doing it or fair game? I can't see the RFL being happy about it.

'The holding company' being Bradford Bulls Northern Ltd? Or whichever vehicle is set up to own the lease? If the former, I don't understand where the charge comes in. If the latter, I get it even less. This is getting pretty Byzantine now. Looking forward to knowing what the craic is!

I mean, technically he's correct. But if Marc Green actually has the balls to go through with such a stunt just to get the lease back from the rfl.....

I think it's more likely that Marc is finally doing what he's said all along he was trying to do. The club have got the leasehold back and Marc has lent the club the money to be able to do it.

I don't know all the ins and outs, but if the Bulls went bust, hasn't he just ensured that he's first in the queue when the administrators move in?

I don't believe for one second that the rfl would agree to sell him/the club the leasehold - after all this time - without doing some due diligence first. Even they aren't that dumb.

It is a fixed (mortgage) and floating (debenture) charge on the company's assets, in favour of the Greens I think. Which includes the "leasehold property" (i.e. anything like the Coral Stand erected on a leased site or any value in the lease itself. In other words, the Greens have lent money to the company (no poop, Sherlock...) and have put in place a charge - i.e. taken security - to ensure they get first dibs in the event of insolvency or anyone trying to sell any club assets. There is reference to a "negative pledge" which usually means an undertaking that the Greens' charge will not rank ahead of anyone else's charge/security. However you really need to see the charging documents for more details.

The thing is, at present no-one else has lent anything to the Bulls secured on the assets (who in their right mind would, apart from maybe the RFL...?) and it is clear that Green must have lent money to the club - from his own statement, even if it was not otherwise obvious. So he is making sure he gets first bite (after main employee claims, regarding some of the assets) at getting his money back. This is understandable, but may well REALLY have vexed off HMRC and other unsecured creditors, and might have been a factor in triggering the winding-up petition? We'll never know. Although the Negative Pledge MIGHT be about ensuring he does not rank ahead of HMRC? Again, need to see the actual charging documents.

So your guess is as good as mine.

Could be yes, could be no. Depends what the actual documents say. However, we can all speculate.