Do you think we have paid the RFL back?

Couldn't agree more Adey. If I'd had the salary of the "Bankers" that I'm accused of being one of over the last few years I'd be able to bail out the Buulls on my own with change to spare!!!

If the RFL got wind of the image rights issue and didn't think we could deal with it, surely they wouldn't be doing their job if they didn't take the oportunity to get their money back? Rest of SL would rightly be angry if we went to the wall owing the RFL £700K after they'd just given us £1.2m. Not good for us but not a poor decision by the RFL in those circumstances.

Maybe the RFL and Bulls assumed the other £500K would cover the image rights but then the bank got wind of the image rights, gets all nervous and takes the oportunity to get their money back. We are left with nothing to pay HMRC.

Hypothesising over dinner...

PG's given by guarantors are either supported by additional security or unsupported. If unsupported this means it is a signature on a piece of paper to say you will pay it back if company cant. If supported, in most cases it is backed by a charge over their residential property. If the debt lets say was £50k and the PG was £100k but unsupported this would be deemed as unsecured lending. It would be no more secured thsn me asking for a £5k loan to decorate my house

The log book loan referred to earlier would see the debt secured directly against the vehicle thus giving a tangible asset securing the debt

I think this must be how Wakey are surviving, saw this on a streaming site. perhaps rah rah money would be use?

17:30 London Irish - Wakefield Wildcats

Spot on - if the PGs are unsupported then the bank can really only see them as a tool to keep the guarantors committed to the business. The bank won't actually consider them to be of significant financial value.

Hood claims that RBS still have security value in the "land & buildings" - realistically he will see the majority of this value to be the main stand and the hospitality block. From the bank's perspective, they will consider two key factors when working out how much security value these actually provide. First is how easy it would be to sell these assets and second is how much money they would raise.

In a doomsday scenario, given that the RFL own the land RBS may not even be able to get easy access to the land in order to claim possession of the buildings. Even if they could, unless there is a buyer moving into Odsal the value of the buildings would be severely reduced because there'd be a substantial cost in dismantling the buildings to sell of the main parts (such as the plastic seating).

It's exactly the same scenario that Wakefield's bankers had to consider after the land was sold leaving the "Benidorm flats" as an asset within the debenture. The club's management at the time considered these to have a value of something like £750k, but once their bank had taken "disposal costs" into account the security value as considered to be less than £50k.

All very well, but the Coral stand wasn't built yesterday, and if it was the disposal of the head lease that upset RBS then they seem to have got upset over something that viewed at from ANYBODY's angle was worth in actual cash terms jack schitt. It is my experience of banks at this level that the bean-counters who decide a business's fate really not only have NO CLUE how a business operates, but actually don't care, not in the slightest, they go entirely 100% by numbers, there is no talking to them, and if their decisions mean they take a massive hit, when by supporting a business they may have not done, that is of zero importance to them. They punch their numbers into whatever number machine they use, it tells them what to do, they do it like Pavlov's bleedin dogs.

The irony of the fact that they have history for ruining thousands of small businesses in precisely this way whilst trading hopelessly insolvently themselves and but for us taxpayers, going spectacularly to the wall, is lost on them.

To those banking apologists who are making woeful excuses about how the banks in these days post-banking crash need to "tighten up on lending" - what planet are you on? Do you actually believe that the banking crash had even 0.0000005% to do with mismanaged lending to small businesses??? FFS. And here's a case in point; unless benefactors can unfeasibly raise a million pounds or so to pay off debts, the Bulls will fold, and the bank, which would otherwise have continued to make money from the Bulls for the foreseeable, will do its bollox in on the deal. And this - even if you don't factor in the negative value of the appalling publicity for RBS if they collapse a hundred year old community sports club - to me just shows how out of touch with reality they are, and how they really are not in the slightest bit interested in the business, or in the wider picture. Utter ba5tard5, I detest them.

Not sure which is 'head office' and which is subsidiary but I'm sure they are the same outfit.

As someone who had a very similar experience with the same branch of the same bank last autumn and had it not been for the fact that I could quickly access some emergency funds, would have been on the streets. I wholeheartedly echo those sentiments.

They weren't in the slightest bit interested in how successful my business was, the fact that I asked to extend a facility was enough for them to decide to withdraw it.

Natwest was bought by RBS some years ago.

So basically selling the Odsal lease was a mistake as the bank sorts their overdraft length (and amount of money loaned out) based on what assets the club has, so in theory we sold our biggest assets to the RFL, the bank saw us selling this big asset and reduced our overdraft as we didn't have that asset anymore?

For about the hundredth time, there is no way the Odsal lease from the council was ever any significant asset for security purposes. Ask RBS how much they believe a liquidator could have realised it for?

So why did the bank reduce our overdraft? Dumb it down please because tbh i dont understand whats been written before. Sorry for being a nuciense (sp) :/

Ah okay cheers