[Archived] Barclays Mortgage or Charge

[Paul]

I'd just like to mention last autumn I carefully picked and cleaned all my apples. Wrapped them individually in newspaper, placed them in box in a cool, dry place. Sadly a lot of them rotted despite all this care. This is true, not idle speculation.

[patrickvalery]

Paul has ten apples which usually sees him through to the new harvest.

A few of those apples have already been bitten into so he may need more, Paul knows his mum has a big stash but she does not want to use them as she has other commitments.

Now Peter has a sack full, he's prepared to lend Paul more than enough to see him threw to the harvest but in return he wants all of the next harvest and his Tonka toys and Corgi collection as security.

As yet Paul may well be able to survive, Mummy is taking no chances and keeping the stash safe, while Peter as an agreement with Paul but nothing borrowed from him yet means it's a worthless piece of paper until he does.

Don't sweat the bells will ring loud and clear if Paul runs out of apples.

Phew! Thanks very much for that. The apples analogy has helped me through many dark moments of my life!

Paul's mum is coming across as a real arseh0le. If only she had as many apples as Peter we'd all sleep a lot better.

[Glenn]

Phew! Thanks very much for that. The apples analogy has helped me through many dark moments of my life!

Paul's mum is coming across as a real arseh0le. If only she had as many apples as Peter we'd all sleep a lot better.

The other view is Paul's mum has put the apples in storage, at the back of barn and to get at them would take a whole lot of farm hands to move stuff to get at them (who'll no doubt expect some apples along the way for doing it), so getting access to Peter's sack is much easier than Paul's mum's.

[broadsword]

so getting access to Peter's sack is much easier than Paul's mum's.

Careful.

[patrickvalery]

The other view is Paul's mum has put the apples in storage, at the back of barn and to get at them would take a whole lot of farm hands to move stuff to get at them (who'll no doubt expect some apples along the way for doing it), so getting access to Peter's sack is much easier than Paul's mum's.

Hang on one cotton picking minute Glen!! Don't bring farm hands in to all this! I struggle to keep up with apples.

All this talk of Peter's sack, Paul's mum and hay barns is unnerving me. This thread is turning into a literary version of a Channel 5 soft porn movie.

[BiggusLaddus]

Are we saying, in simplest terms, that Rovers have borrowed next years TV money early? The security being Ewood, Brockhall etc...?

No. As it has been put on this thread, we have aquired the facility to borrow money now, with the security being this years TV money and nothing else. We don't know if any money has actually been borrowed or not yet and we don't know if this arrangement was a one off or if it will continue after this season.

As I see it, worst case - Venky's are lumping on lots of debt as they said they wouldn't. Best case - it was a short-term insurance policy that didn't get used.

[Rovers Gals]

in simple light of things. please put our minds at rest and tell us we arnt going to do a Portsmouth ? it too early for me to analyse all news threads on this . I work few Bolton fans and they had change of owner years ago and he says they are over 90 million in debt and hanging in there. they hope there coyle is their saviour . Mmm ? let's hope kean is ours !

[philipl]

Marple leaf takes a middle of the road view of Venky's at Ewood.nw

Two things catch my eye:

- he quotes them making £12m on £100m turnover; that is the publicly quoted business

- he reveals Venky's London Limited's loan is against the security of its assets.

So Rovers' loan is secured against Rovers' income and the debt which Venky's London Limited transferred to itself is secured against all Rovers' assets.

This means Rovers became far more vulnerable to the banks within six weeks of Venky's buying than the club ever was under the Trust.

I think this is looking downright scary.

[roversmum]

Didn't Venky's set up Venky's London Limited purely to run Rovers? Im sure I read that somewhere.

Beginning to feel quite uneasy now, not liking the lack of a Chairman either and got the feeling I might not sit easy with the eventual choice either (although I suppose it's early days there).

[Athlete]

Marple leaf takes a middle of the road view of Venky's at Ewood.nw

Two things catch my eye:

- he quotes them making £12m on £100m turnover; that is the publicly quoted business

- he reveals Venky's London Limited's loan is against the security of its assets.

So Rovers' loan is secured against Rovers' income and the debt which Venky's London Limited transferred to itself is secured against all Rovers' assets.

This means Rovers became far more vulnerable to the banks within six weeks of Venky's buying than the club ever was under the Trust.

I think this is looking downright scary.

Scary is an understatement

[broadsword]

I am confused.

I thought Venky's London was just a holding company to serve as a vehicle for the takeover? So, essentially, Venky's took over the club using debt (secured on the asset they were buying), then to run the club they're using debt?

[deryck guyler's spoon]

Marple leaf takes a middle of the road view of Venky's at Ewood.nw

I think this is looking downright scary.

It could be scarier. We could have Santander's untidy, non rate paying owner.

Any sign of Diego yet?

[Mercer]

IMO, a number of jigsaw pieces don't fit.

Scared is not a strong enough adjective.

I just hope the speculation proves wrong, however, I fear we could be staring into the abyss.

[broadsword]

It could be scarier. We could have Santander's untidy, non rate paying owner.

Any sign of Diego yet?

Snipe snipe snipe snipe.

[chaddyrovers]

Any sign of Diego yet?

NNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!

NOPE!!!

[Exiled in Toronto]

Scary is an understatement

But not a word used by the knowledgeable author of the article in question

[Miker]

Any sign of Diego yet?

I don't understand why this keeps getting brought up by people when our owners initially confirmed that they were interested in getting him in as manager or in some other role at the club. Yes, it didn't happen, but the owners themselves stated that they were looking at it as an option before vehemently denying it ever happened.

[philipl]

You don't go pledging all your assets and all your income to the bank just for fun.

You do it because you have maxed out on your borrowing ability.

For this to have happened just two months into the new ownership who are telling us they don't use borrowing is scary.

[deryck guyler's spoon]

I don't understand why this keeps getting brought up by people

Maybe you should ask the bloke who started a thread about it.

[yeti-dog]

You don't go pledging all your assets and all your income to the bank just for fun.

You do it because you have maxed out on your borrowing ability.

For this to have happened just two months into the new ownership who are telling us they don't use borrowing is scary.

And yet..and yet,several seemingly knowledgable posters have clearly stated this is common business practice and more info is needed before it can be decided that the s**t has hit the fan..

Christ..glad you're not my accountant,I'd be permanently dosed up on valium.

[Mattyblue]

Is 'Where's Diego?' going to be your stock post now DGS? Tiresome. Just put it as your signature.

I asked repeatedly at the time of the takeover 'where is their money coming from? And 'have they actually PAID OFF the debt?'

I never got a proper answer, when I pointed out that they are barely profitable, I was told not to worry as they have lots of personal wealth and other companies, despite a Syed esque lack of evidence for this.

Also, the debt question, Venkys never confirmed that it was paid off, surely if they had it would have been publicised?

Manager replaced with a novice yes man, no Chairman, still not safe, player after player signed up on lucrative deals, the whole Kentaro/SEM issue, this Barclays question, it has left me very

uneasy.

[thenodrog]

You don't go pledging all your assets and all your income to the bank just for fun.

You do it because you have maxed out on your borrowing ability.

For this to have happened just two months into the new ownership who are telling us they don't use borrowing is scary.

Sounds like Rothschilds put the tea lady on our job?

[SouthAussieRover]

Sounds like Rothschilds put the tea lady on our job?

And a cleaner/laundry type person came along and took the biscuits?

[PAFELL]

Marple leaf takes a middle of the road view of Venky's at Ewood.nw

Two things catch my eye:

- he quotes them making £12m on £100m turnover; that is the publicly quoted business

- he reveals Venky's London Limited's loan is against the security of its assets.

So Rovers' loan is secured against Rovers' income and the debt which Venky's London Limited transferred to itself is secured against all Rovers' assets.

This means Rovers became far more vulnerable to the banks within six weeks of Venky's buying than the club ever was under the Trust.

I think this is looking downright scary.

If there is a need to be scared. Then questions should be asked of the trustees who sold the club to the Venky's. Did not both parties do DD. The trust must have known how and where the money was coming from for Venky's to buy the club.

If Venky's bought the club by putting debt onto the club - destroys any so called clauses the Trustees had to abide by when they sold the club.

[dj54nna]

Is 'Where's Diego?' going to be your stock post now DGS? Tiresome. Just put it as your signature.

Better still, ask Glenn to set it up as a t-shirt in the shop, buy one, and make the site a bit of money to go some way towards covering the bandwith you eat up EVERY TIME YOU POST IT.

Actually, it would make a pretty good t-shirt...