rlhttps://www.bradfordbulls.co.uk/news/5791/BULLS%20CHAIRMAN%20CLARIFIES%20CLUBS%20BANKING%20RELATIONSHIPrl

Thank you Mr Hood

Can someone reconcile the assertion made by Hood in sentence 3 with the other two sentences from Hood's statement please?

Hood says that

1) "the Club provided NatWest with a ‘debenture' - a type of ‘mortgage' over all of the Club's assets in whatever form."

2) "the debenture was left in place against the possibility of a new facility perhaps being needed in future."

and yet he asserts

3) "At no time has NatWest (overdraft) ever been specifically secured on the stadium"


This seems contradictory to me and accords with the Bank's version (much as I despise RBS). i.e. The Bank believed their credit line (overdraft) was secured against the 'Club's assets in whatever form' (Hood's own words) and once we sold the leasehold to Odsal (presumably without informing the Bank) they withdrew the overdraft because of the reduction in security such a sale represents.

Took long enough for him to tell us that, instead he kept quiet.

It would have taken him an hour to compose and post that on the bulls website right after the announcement was made, so we all knew where the club stood

Think he has been rather busy, give the guy some credit for doing this.

Onward and forward, lets save the Bulls COYB

A debenture is a floating charge. Which, by definition, is over assets that are NOT fixed, like property, but change from time to time.

You secure a loan on specific property by means of a fixed charge (mortgage).

At the time the debenture was put in place, there WAS no property asset to give a fixed charge over.

And one was never granted even once there was. (Source: Companies House).

If you're busy fighting a fire, it might take someone slightly removed from the situation to help you direct the water better? Maybe he got a bit of outside advice today that he didn't have yesterday?

Any clarification is welcome, even more would be good.

This seems contradictory to me and accords with the Bank's version (much as I despise RBS). i.e. The Bank believed their credit line (overdraft) was secured against the 'Club's assets in whatever form' (Hood's own words) and once we sold the leasehold to Odsal (presumably without informing the Bank) they withdrew the overdraft because of the reduction in security such a sale represents.'"

Perhaps he wasn't aware of the incorrect information that was being put around until someone informed him. Anyway it's good he has clarified the situation. It was strange to think the club would do that without thinking it through.

Why all the talk about RBS then? It's NatWest? Or am I being dim?
My account is in NatWest in Bradford. I think I might be going to close it tomorrow.

Company's net assets INCREASE significantly in January, due to profit on sale of lease (book value zero).

Bank has personal guarantees anyway to cover more than what is owed, quite apart from security over all the assets anyway, ranking only behind preferntial creditors (effectively employees to a certain limit).

Lease (as was) of doubtful value, if any at all, for purposes of security.

Bank pulls facility.

I'm struggling to see how this equates with "bad financial management", tbh.

rlhttps://www.natwest.com/global/about-us.ashxrl

o

Right, s. That's my account closed then.

I've been meaning to shut it anyway, ever since they f*****d me over when I was a student.

23 years ago.

Why do you think the bank pulled the facility if there was no change, was it just getting debt off the RBS book?

Two simple questions Adey,

Did they speak with the Bank about any impacts the sale of the lease might have on their overdraft facility?

Do you consider Hood's statement to be clear and to show a good understanding of the way their overdraft facility was structured?