So these personal guarantees made by the directors in the clubs halcyon days apparently are worth TWICE what the club owes the bank?

Anyone care to sum this statement up in Layman's terms?

RBS lied?

So that's basically saying we have been particularly hard done to by the bank, seen as the security is much more than the overdraft.

Adey, would there be any chance of getting the bank to reconsider its lending position at least partly before the deadline?

RBS? No chance. I was told a few years ago they had lost any appetite for lending to RL clubs.

Aren't there any other banks who'd be willing to offer us an overdraft facility? Even if it's not the size of the one we had with RBS.

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.