[Archived] Barclays Mortgage or Charge

[PAFELL]

Manager and chairman are fairly significant positions at any football club - plus due to the timing of these decisions, have they not already broken some of the commitments within the offer document?

Maybe significant positions at any football club. But it is still their choice / option to sack, replace them etc. We have no say in any of those things.

Changes in any business is likely to upset some and make other happy. Change takes time to be accepted. First Sam went then after a few weeks JW went. They waited a month after buying the club to do this, which maybe shows they took time to assess things. Again waited awhile before removing / retiring JW. I cannot help thinking that they waited to see JW's reaction to Sam's sacking, before acting. That is only my opinion.

The delay in appointing a chairman is a strange one - unless they were surprised that JW resigned.

In my view it is still too early to judge to condemnation the current owners handling of the club. Though their PR has been bad, especialy at the beginning. But even that appears to be improving a little.

[Kelbo]

No. They were only committed to keeping Jack's statue and the JAck Walker stand name, which shows that all the Turst really cared about was Jack's memory, not his legacy. All the rest were just statements of intent which are never worth anything. "Once we saw in detail etc etc"

I would argue the fact on these grounds, in the absence of something written down, a verbal agreement would suffice and in the event of the owners stating they would do this or that, that would be a basis on which the |Trust agreed to sell. There was a precident recently, when at a job interview, a person made a statement which was quite untrue and was given the job, it was later discovered that he had lied at the interview and was dismissed, it went to court but the dismissal was deemed to be fair with no right of appeal, I do not see any difference in both those instances.

[67splitscreen]

No. They were only committed to keeping Jack's statue and the JAck Walker stand name, which shows that all the Turst really cared about was Jack's memory, not his legacy. All the rest were just statements of intent which are never worth anything. "Once we saw in detail etc etc"

I'm no expert but from reading the offer to the shareholders these were assurances.

Assurances are supposed (in this case) to inspire confidence in the new owner to the shareholders, is an assurance not a pledge, promise or guarantee.

Thesaurus: Assurance: a binding commitment to do or give or refrain from something;

As I say I'm no expert by any means but did Gillet and Hick not give assurances to RBS that none of the board would be removed, they broke their assurances given to RBS by removing two members of the board in an attempt to block the sale.

The High Court found that this was in breach of undertakings given to RBS and awarded an injunction allowing the board to be reconvened to pursue the sale.

Who would currently wish to challenge the Raos with regard to their undertakings is a different matter.

[PAFELL]

I'm no expert but from reading the offer to the shareholders these were assurances.

Assurances are supposed (in this case) to inspire confidence in the new owner to the shareholders, is an assurance not a pledge, promise or guarantee.

Thesaurus: Assurance: a binding commitment to do or give or refrain from something;

As I say I'm no expert by any means but did Gillet and Hick not give assurances to RBS that none of the board would be removed, they broke their assurances given to RBS by removing two members of the board in an attempt to block the sale.

The High Court found that this was in breach of undertakings given to RBS and awarded an injunction allowing the board to be reconvened to pursue the sale.

Who would currently wish to challenge the Raos with regard to their undertakings is a different matter.

I suppose that is where the difference is - Rovers have nobody to challenge the owners. There wasn't that big a queue of people wanting to buy Rovers - not a genuine one anyway.

[RovertheHill]

I would argue the fact on these grounds, in the absence of something written down, a verbal agreement would suffice and in the event of the owners stating they would do this or that, that would be a basis on which the |Trust agreed to sell. There was a precident recently, when at a job interview, a person made a statement which was quite untrue and was given the job, it was later discovered that he had lied at the interview and was dismissed, it went to court but the dismissal was deemed to be fair with no right of appeal, I do not see any difference in both those instances.

I'm surprised you don't see any difference in those instances as they really are very, very different. However, that is unimportant given that I don't see the trust rushing back with a view to giving the money back and taking the club back

[SIMON GARNERS 194]

So good old Venkatash is doing his now infamous denial stance about this 'mortgage' by all accounts?

Here we go,here we go,here we go!

[deftangel]

This seems like the right thread. Five Live investigates tweeted recently they had come across some further information of concern regarding Racing Santander's new owner, Mr Syed. They suggested that we had dodged a bullet, if true. Anyhow, I asked them if they would consider looking into Venky's and it looks like they won't be. Here is the exchange we had;-

We have thought about it, but we know other journos have been looking at the new owners. We're certainly not planning anything

We are also somewhat aware that if we looked into this twice, fans might think we have a vendetta (which is not the case!)

I understand. Thanks for letting me know. And idea who? I'm sure most fans would appreciate it wouldn't be a vendetta.

We *think* BBC North/Manchester have already run an edition of Inside Out on Venkys - didn't see it, though.

We hope to say more on Ahsan Ali Syed in next week's show, though, if things work out. It's pretty amazing.

Read into that what you will but I thanked them for a considered response in any event. Whilst I don't think they would sit on a genuine megaton type public interest story in Rovers on grounds of they've looked at us once already (think the worse case scenario of agents running a mortgaged up to the hilt football club into the ground), it sounds to me like they've just not looked into it rather than any kind of validation that there are no issues.

Anyone aware of this Inside Out thing then and/or bugging BBC North/Manchester given the LET haven't yet showed any interest?

[Paul]

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.

Worth repeating in my view

[Mattyblue]

Fair play to you Paul, you kept pressing this issue and was of course largely ignored.

[Paul]

Fair play to you Paul, you kept pressing this issue and was of course largely ignored.

More than anything I was remembering Philip's post quoted above.

I'd also like people to know I got the Barclay's info from Philip. I posted it because he was getting so much flak at the time.

[Stuart]

This seems like the right thread. Five Live investigates tweeted recently they had come across some further information of concern regarding Racing Santander's new owner, Mr Syed. They suggested that we had dodged a bullet, if true. Anyhow, I asked them if they would consider looking into Venky's and it looks like they won't be. Here is the exchange we had;-

Read into that what you will but I thanked them for a considered response in any event. Whilst I don't think they would sit on a genuine megaton type public interest story in Rovers on grounds of they've looked at us once already (think the worse case scenario of agents running a mortgaged up to the hilt football club into the ground), it sounds to me like they've just not looked into it rather than any kind of validation that there are no issues.

Anyone aware of this Inside Out thing then and/or bugging BBC North/Manchester given the LET haven't yet showed any interest?

I wonder if 5live Investigates will be looking into this now, 6 months later?

[deftangel]

I wonder if 5live Investigates will be looking into this now, 6 months later?

The chap behind it was courteous enough to afford me a reply. I'll drop him another line. He doesn't want to be seen on our case all the time in the main. Events might have super-ceded that so we'll see.

I saw Mr Cryer on Twitter suggesting it would be inappropriate to comment on rumours etc. at this stage. Given the mortgage stuff is verifiable fact and they were made aware of it in January, I find that a little disappointing. Hiding behind the fact nobody printed it so there was nothing to ask, in regard to Venky's, is bunkum, IMO.

[A cup of beans]

I saw Mr Cryer on Twitter suggesting it would be inappropriate to comment on rumours etc. at this stage. Given the mortgage stuff is verifiable fact and they were made aware of it in January, I find that a little disappointing. Hiding behind the fact nobody printed it so there was nothing to ask, in regard to Venky's, is bunkum, IMO.

you seem surpised that cryer is fence sitting and procrastonating YET AGAIN!

many thanks for your efforts deft angel.

[philipl]

Nobody should be coming on here thinking poor Mrs D or why has the Bank turned against Rovers.

This is utter mismanagement by Pune- pure and simple.

It has nothing to do with the strangeness of running a football club- it is straightforward business incompetence.

If you were the bank, you would have seen:

- a sale agreement that was supposed to guarantee the future of Rovers systematically dishonoured in every phrase of the agreement

- a long standing well-established business lose its entire management team and be replaced with nothing

- the new owners take out mortgages which DOUBLED the Bank's exposure to the Rovers

- £49m come into the club's accounts which was left unused and untouchable

- a security line expire and receive no communication about the continuing debt which remain unpaid

This is an absolute no brainer. Of course the bank would call in the debt.

[dave birch]

Nobody should be coming on here thinking poor Mrs D or why has the Bank turned against Rovers.

This is utter mismanagement by Pune- pure and simple.

It has nothing to do with the strangeness of running a football club- it is straightforward business incompetence.

If you were the bank, you would have seen:

- a sale agreement that was supposed to guarantee the future of Rovers systematically dishonoured in every phrase of the agreement

- a long standing well-established business lose its entire management team and be replaced with nothing

- the new owners take out mortgages which DOUBLED the Bank's exposure to the Rovers

- £49m come into the club's accounts which was left unused and untouchable

- a security line expire and receive no communication about the continuing debt which remain unpaid

This is an absolute no brainer. Of course the bank would call in the debt.

philipl, a couple of points:

"£49m come into the club's accounts which was left unused and untouchable", into which bank account did this go, and where did it come from, and how did you find out? Someone providing privileged , supposedly confidential information?

"a security line expire and receive no communication about the continuing debt which remain unpaid". How do you know this? If it came from the Bank, that's surely confidential information?

Now, from time to time, Banks will, as a matter of course, change their lending focus and consider industry risk. It could well be that this is what Barclays (or whoever the Banker is) have chosen to do. They may well have realised that their exposure to Football Teams is too great and they'll start at the worst risk and work upwards till they get the balance they want. This is not to say that the Rovers were at the bottom of the pile, but were in the region that they wanted to be rid of.

As for "utter mismanagement", I have doubts, as they seem to be running other businesses well. If you had said "advised badly", or "ignored advice", then I might have been more inclined to agree with you.

Having said that, it's often said that it's the third generation that kills a business. If that's the case, it won't just be the Rovers that go down, it will be the Venkys Empire.

We shall see

[philipl]

Dave, the security in the mortgage is explicitly for the 2010/11 season.

It expired on 30 June 2011 as surely as 2010/11 turned into 2011/12.

There is no change of policy on lending. The basis for Barclays to make a loan simply ceased to exist.

Under the Companies Acts all securities giving any creditor preference have to be registered at Companies House and be available for inspection by the public. I can send you a copy of the Rovers mortgage if you would like.

The £49m arrived in more than one chunk and went into a Rovers account transferred from Venky's London Ltd.

[dave birch]

Dave, the security in the mortgage is explicitly for the 2010/11 season.

It expired on 30 June 2011 as surely as 2010/11 turned into 2011/12.

There is no change of policy on lending. The basis for Barclays to make a loan simply ceased to exist.

Under the Companies Acts all securities giving any creditor preference have to be registered at Companies House and be available for inspection by the public. I can send you a copy of the Rovers mortgage if you would like.

The £49m arrived in more than one chunk and went into a Rovers account transferred from Venky's London Ltd.

So, here: "a security line expire and receive no communication about the continuing debt which remain unpaid' you are saying that the Rovers (or Venkys) did not communicate to the Bank,or the Bank did not communicate with the Rovers, any information about renewing the facility? Very strange. At the very least it would have been a "we would like to..." or a "Pay up within 30 days" sort of communication. Roll overs are the norm in business except when a change in "attitude" is made. If Barclays didn't like their exposure to the Rovers, then, OK, but that would constitute a change in policy towards one sector of their business, however small.

[philipl]

It expired on 30 June but became an issue this week- I think that shows forebearance.

[BangkokRover]

So for all those who were adamant bank had frozen funds, what do you think now? :Andy Cryers Twitter

[philipl]

Andy Cryer's article in the LT in my reading does not address the point about the bank account and the question he poses in his twitter account is an open question.

[Baz]

Phillip

To help could you please make clear from what you are saying which parts are fact, and those based on conjecture.

[philipl]

That a mortgage in favour of Barclays Bank expired with the end of the 2010/11 season on 30 June and has not yet been renewed is fact unless Rovers are in default of their filing requirements with Companies House.

That the bank called the cash in has been reported as a solid fact in the Mirror and has pretty solid support from people who have inside contacts.

That Rovers are not paying their bills on time I have heard from three people/organisations owed money.

That Kentaro are not being paid at all has come from several very reliable sources.

[Athlete]

That a mortgage in favour of Barclays Bank expired with the end of the 2010/11 season on 30 June and has not yet been renewed is fact unless Rovers are in default of their filing requirements with Companies House.

That the bank called the cash in has been reported as a solid fact in the Mirror and has pretty solid support from people who have inside contacts.

That Rovers are not paying their bills on time I have heard from three people/organisations owed money.

That Kentaro are not being paid at all has come from several very reliable sources.

So how are venkys going to pay for any new signings ?

Out of their own pocket ? Which they havent dipped into yet

[Baz]

Fact

That a mortgage in favour of Barclays Bank expired with the end of the 2010/11 season on 30 June and has not yet been renewed is fact unless Rovers are in default of their filing requirements with Companies House.

Conjecture

That the bank called the cash in has been reported as a solid fact in the Mirror and has pretty solid support from people who have inside contacts.

Insider knowledge - without evidence

That Rovers are not paying their bills on time I have heard from three people/organisations owed money.

That Kentaro are not being paid at all has come from several very reliable sources.

This is the biggest problem on the site right now. 1 small fact wrapped in rumour and speculation. I understand that you have certain contacts, and dont want this to be directed at you in particular either. I find this all very frustrating. Also, understand that Im not pro-Venkys either - they have made several serious errors.

[philipl]

Nixon has gone very firm about the bank calling the debt in tonight. I'd say if he is not right, both Barclays and Rovers can sue the Mirror.

If someone says "I haven't been paid what I am owed and it is past due", it is hardly conjecture.