So really, were RBS entitled to call this debt in then?

Think with most overdrafts banks have the right to remove the facility at anytime. Adey will know more.

Yup, I bow down to Adey on this one, he's much more financially savvy than me (and most).

I read it as, there were enough personal guarantees and assets such as the Coral Stand to prevent the bank from pulling the plug so suddenly after the club sold Odsal?

Correct.

However unreasonably.

This might not be layman's terms but I hope it's clear.

The Bank has tightened its lending criteria now they're owned by the tax payer and personal guarantees are worth very little in this environment.

The Bank's lack of faith in the Board seems to be partially born out by the fact that the Board are asking supporters for the money rather than providing it themselves (i.e. their guarantees are not worth anything).

Hood's statement about having to pay off a mortgage if you sell your house is an interesting analogy.

However it only applies if you tell the Bank you're selling the asset they believe their credit line is secured on. If no-one told the Bank they were selling the lease and the Bank believe the arrangement of an overdraft was secured on the lease, then they have every right to pull the overdraft, which seemingly they have done.

Ho do we know whether the Bank or Hood's position is the correct one?

If you look at Hood's statement carefully you will find he contradicts his own position and essentially confirms the Bank's account.

In Hood's words:
the Bank has "a ‘debenture' - a type of ‘mortgage' over all of the Club's assets in whatever form"

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

And yet he claims:

"At no time has NatWest ever been specifically secured on the stadium - otherwise, how could we have sold it? As everyone knows, if you have a mortgage on your home and you sell it, you have to pay the mortgage company off out of the proceeds."

Now unless I'm mistaken a debenture against all the Club's assets in whatever form means the leasehold on the stadium, meaning he couldn't sell it without informing the Bank. Once that was known the Bank pulled the plug.

I'm afraid it's just more evidence of incompetence, and in the meantime he's using emotional blackmail to divest ordinary people of a million quid. Amazing.

B/astards

After the experience getting a bank account set up for BullBuilder with no overdraft facility, I very much doubt there is time even if you could find a bank willing to lend.

I thought you weren't going to have the wool pulled over your eyes again?

Except that he makes it clear it was never on the land.

Or perhaps the "Bricks and mortar" isnt worth as much as a guarantee as it was?

RBS are not obliged to lend to anybody. Out of courtesy there should have been a dialogue between the club and RBS before the stadium was sold. Doesnt look like Hood thought this. If I was RBS, I'd be annoyed if the club had done this without any consultation.

This smells like more spin from Hood, but at least its something! Again, he's blaming others rather than simply saying he misjudged the situation.

Interesting stuff and a start from Peter Hood.

Is it that RBS pulled the overdraft facility or refused to stand behind a 500k (totally guessing here) payment to HMRC which they and the Bulls didn't expect? In other words the tax bill took RBS as much by surprise as the Bulls board.

Three things which strike me.

The Bulls didn't expect RBS to pull its overdraft facility. It's hard to fathom without the figures but from RBS' point of view their liabilities could have been rising substantially just as they became aware of the Bulls assets reducing. No bank would like this and one can understand the speed with which they pulled the agreement. I think Anarkik is correct on this.

Secondly, the Bulls appear surprised by the size of the tax bill which possibily precipitated the RBS wobbles. Again not unheard of but hard to imagine they didn't have ongoing discussions and some idea of what was coming.

Thirdly, the Bulls appear surprised by the RFL calling in the debt in one go when the consequences were there for all to see. I'm surprised they ever lent the club 700k but can't understand that having lent them the money they would demand it back in such drastic manner without making it clear to the club. The club were expecting money only to find out it wasn't coming in the last week? It's very odd.

There is a kind of strained logic between the three events but still one might expect the club should have known and managed the situation better. It doesn't explain why when we had the successful Pledge 1 we needed 700k from RFL but we are where we are .

Anyway we asked Peter Hood for info and we've got at least some.
What else is going on Adey that's giving you a warm feeling?

hmmmm. Hood makes much of the Coral Stand and the £3.6 million it cost to build it, and rightly lists it as an "asset".

But tell me Mr Hood, as you don't own either the land or the lease on the land on which it stands, what value would you put on this asset?

In layman's language, what could you flog it for?.....scrap value of the steel, fittings and fixtures? As a job lot to say Wakey, in case Newmarket doesn't get the go ahead?

It would be interesting to hear your and the bank's valuations.

No point in selling to Wakey they never paid for the Benidorm block did they?

Some interesting stuff, but just a couple of pieces of the jigsaw? Doesn't really explain the urgent need for £1m.

Could we be looking at something similar to a stock market crash to explain some of the suddeness of this? Most of it is based on nervousness and not actual fact. Rumours of a tax issue causing nervous creditors to pull debts. We can deal with one maybe two but not everything at once. Image rights thing hasn't been secret.