I raised this a few days ago, linked the Bartlett story, and the thread was locked.

Can we leave it open for some debate?

We have a user contract with the SMC, as do City, they chose to mortgage theirs with RBS to fund the PL

What if they cannot make the required payments? (If/when City go down, i fully expect them to hit the wall, go in to freefall and admin.) Will they offer the lease to someone who can pay their way?

Grimsby?

Scunny?

Rovers?

I heard that city have pre-sold 7000 passes at £280 to a london based company for next season to balance the books.

Depends. If it turns into a "let's all laugh at City" thread like the last one then no.

It has to affect us in some way or another? I hate some city fans. I hate some FC fans. I hate some rovers fans. THis can affect us and is worrying.

Duffen was a complete and utter charlatan and his dealings for city ( and I say this with sympathy for the geniune city fans) have raped them, and the upshot of it all could be bad for us.

City

Basically if you read the linked article its all about the ticket and other revenue as part of their user agreement.

A lease on a ground in the PL is clearly worth something, £4mill i think it was without reading the article

Nope. Bartlett (not the club) borrowed the money to buy the lease (not the user agreement) from RBS and personally guaranteed the loan. As a result, RBS own the mortgage on the lease and Bartlett (not City) owns the lease itself.


If payments are defaulted then RBS can foreclose on the mortgage and take ownership of the lease. They can then choose to sell it to whoever they want - within the covenant that covers it.

Forgot about that!

Now Kosh told me i cant laugh on here at City

Basically thats what i said! The lease has been mortgaged, the mortgage company can do what they want!

A lease on the ground is worthless unless the football club closes, a new one is set up and someone is prepared to pay to take it over, which they wouldn't be as the SMC would be desperate to hand out a new lease to anyone wishing to sign it

Actually it's Bartlett personally as far as I can make out from the article.


He bought it for £3.4m but it who knows what RBS would flog it for.

Who would buy a lease to play in the KC?

Are we sure it isn't the head lease that's been mortgaged?

East stand extension anyone?

On that point i have been informed that Duffen approached the council, basically saying there was no money but the extension needed building and he wanted the council to fund it. He'd be more than happy having the income that would have given him for about 6 games once it opened mid this season.

Not really. You keep saying that City have mortgaged the lease when in fact Bartlett did it himself and then sucked money out of City to finance the debt.

And IIRC there are some pretty restrictive covenants on the leases which would still be in force and could limit exactly what RBS could so in the event of a repossession and sale.

There was a clause in the lease if thing were not run properly the Council could terminate that lease ps the SMC still have to report and answer to the Council