Quite possibly.

RBS has got to shrink its balance sheet significantly. And has to pay fees to HMG on its assets (i.e. loans etc it makes).

I was told categorically a few years ago that RBS had no appetite whatsoever for RL clubs. From RBS.

Lending to the likes of Bulls will never be seen as high-quality lending.

And banks are looking at the likes of Rangers FC and Plymouth FC and all the other sporting club disasters waiting to happen with considerable concern.

So yes, it seems quite feasible to me, in the absence of more detailed information.

Needed the money to give RBS directors their bonuses!

I believe the assumption was that the bank would actually be happier, since they turned an "asset" with no book value and probably no real value as a security into cash, which has.

I believe the staement is worded to try and make it relatively easy to understand. I am very satisfied that the club had a good understanding of the way their overdraft was structured, since it was explained directly to me and I was able to (and took) the opportunity to ask direct questions. And to hear the tone of the responses, and the feeling behind them.

Personally? It looks to me like RBS used this as an excuse. But only those party to the discussions will know for sure.

But stop keep asking me. Ring Duckett or Hood and ask them. And form your own view, like I did.

Furthermore, the directors provided NatWest with personal guarantees. Today those personal guarantees are collectively amount to approximately twice what the Club owes the bank.

So if there are guarantees in place then were is the issue, why the need for £1million. Time to pay the overdraft or call in the guarantees. Surely thats the purpose of a Guarantee.

Eh?

The guarantees were from the directors to the bank. To be called in by the bank if the club did not repay the overdraft.

What the hell has that got to do with why the need for funds? The club need the funds in part to plug the gap left now they have no overdraft facility, and in part to pay the RFL earlier than they expected. As they have stated.

No idea what your point is?

I must admit that its the RFL deal that is confusing me far more than the role of RBS. RBS seem to be acting like a bank, perhaps unreasonably, but thats not entirely surprising.

But I just dont understand the RFL deal. I was under the impression that, rather than turning the "asset" into cash , they were using it to cancel a loan from the RFL? Would RBS have known about this debt? And its how that loan came about in the first place, and its terms, that I find mystifying. From what I can gleam it seems there are three elements to the crisis:

1) RBS withdrawing the facility (presumably we still owe them the money?)

2) Some vague suggestion of a large but unquantified HMRC debt.

3) The RFL seemingly arbitrarily re-scheduling repayment dates on what was a debt but is now a lease

All very confusing

See PM.

So your point is they have paid the overdraft releasing the directors of their guarantees. But left no funds to plug the gap.

In the end it was the BOD who took the loans, who took the overdraft, who offered the guarantees and then have paid off in the fashion you describe.

So my point is the Chairman is saying they had guarantees in place to cover this overdraft. However because the overdraft has been called in they are now short of cash. To the tune of £1million.

We can all moan if our loans are called in, but in the end if we take those loans then it's our job to pay them and have the assets in place to pay them.

No.

The bank called in the overdraft. It was not the directors's choice. They were happy to leave the guarantees - assets - in place.

And the overdraft is only a part of the cash requirement. Far less than the £1m.

I suspect you don't really understand the process of commercial lending?

Adey, think you're being slightly harsh on people who aren't as savvy at all this as you are.

Think people are just trying to get their heads round it - I'm blooming struggling myself!

So, the bank called the overdraft in - contrary to what they said t'other day. The bit im lost on is this guarantees business - what exactly does that entail?

I only Joined 2 days ago to be able to post in the situation that exists.

Respect to Adeybull for posting common sense information and comments to nonsense posts in the forum

But the point is that we don't want private conversations - we want openness and transparency. Whilst this is something of a start, there is very little in there to ease the minds of those who did not already have a firm grasp of the situation.

That's not good enough.

Call me stupid but.......isn't the whole idea of having guarantees/assets in place as security for the overdraft/loan, to allow the bank to take them as a money value (as a debt collector would)

On much smaller terms I know but if for example I take out a loan with these log book loan people & use my car as a guarantee, if they suddenly ask me for the money back and I don't have it, I either sell my car or give it to them for an agreed amount?

Something isn't quite adding up for me and I still feel the same way as I did earlier in the week.

Adey, I asked you because you have regularly used your own professional status to lend weight to the position of the Board, and most people don't understand commercial lending as you pointed out to another poster, consequently your opinion carries a lot of influence on here.

I notice that from your own account it would appear you believe they didn't speak to the Bank before selling the lease to the RFL. That to me, as I've said, is poor management irrespective of the 'tone' in which they conveyed the story to you.

I, like others, would also like to know how the loan from the RFL was managed and how the HMRC liability has been handled. It seems only reasonable given their asking people for cash, many of whom can't afford to give it, but are doing so out of a passion for the club.