registration of charge

[OUFCGav]

Anybody with more knowledge of such things explain the ins and outs of the new registration of charge doc from companies house for OUFC?
link to companies house listing - the charge file is the most recent doc to download

edit: link updated as my cloud share blocked.

 

[arthurturner]

Anybody with more knowledge of such things explain the ins and outs of the new registration of charge doc from companies house for OUFC?
link to reg of charge pdf

It's a Debenture which is a fixed charge over specific assets eg contracts with other clubs for payments still due to the club and a floating charge over all other unspecified assets of OUFC in favour of Ensco. Security for Darryl in respect of the money he is owed but which has not yet been paid.

 

[OUFCGav]

It's a Debenture which is a fixed charge over specific assets eg contracts with other clubs for payments still due to the club and a floating charge over all other unspecified assets of OUFC in favour of Ensco. Security for Darryl in respect of the money he is owed but which has not yet been paid.

Ta.

 

[Lundinsponytail]

It's a Debenture which is a fixed charge over specific assets eg contracts with other clubs for payments still due to the club and a floating charge over all other unspecified assets of OUFC in favour of Ensco. Security for Darryl in respect of the money he is owed but which has not yet been paid.

What it effectively means is that Tiger has paid Darryl x million for the club, but the club (rather than Tiger separately) will have to keep forking over every bit of cash it receives for some time to come to its former owner. Ring any bells?

 

[ljs]

I thought Darryl said he wasn't going to leave us any debt when he sold the club... or something like that?

 

[Notaswindonfan]

The devil is in the details

 

[m]

I thought Darryl said he wasn't going to leave us any debt when he sold the club... or something like that?

My recollection is that what he said was more along the lines of 'no more debt will be accrued', although it was widely interpreted the way you say.

I've had a quick look to find the exact quote but failed.

 

[Foley]

My recollection is that what he said was more along the lines of 'no more debt will be accrued', although it was widely interpreted the way you say.

I've had a quick look to find the exact quote but failed.

He said a number of times that he would take on any NEW debt.

 

[m]

He said a number of times that he would take on any NEW debt.

Sounds right. So not that he wouldn't leave us any debt as any existing debt would remain.

 

[The Hawk]

It means that a chunk of monies on transfers past - like Roofe - and future go to DE. Not the club.
So the very model which was supposed to - and did - keep the club afloat is now worthless. Consider that for a second when Ledson and Eastwood are sold.
DE has successfully argued that because the model was his ‘baby’ And he funded the scout network, he should be paid for it.
So we’re paying 500k to play in a stadium and we won’t be receiving the full dues for outgoing transfers.
Goodnight Vienna

 

[Gary Baldi]

So is this just the IL/NM debt that is now being paid off?

 

[Oxymoron]

The note is for £4.2m and it is due to be paid "on demand", so (a) yes £5m would clear it and (b) it may not be paid in one go or even at all unless demanded.

Disclaimer: I'm not an accountant or do I have any legal expertise in Company Law, Insolvency or debt management. I just skimmed the document and drew my own conclusions

 

[arthurturner]

What it effectively means is that Tiger has paid Darryl x million for the club, but the club (rather than Tiger separately) will have to keep forking over every bit of cash it receives for some time to come to its former owner. Ring any bells?

DE owned the club and its assets. He agreed a price for the club presumably based on future assets which have yet to be realised. These could have been capitalised at the time of the sale but were not in order for DE to continue to have an interest going forward and to leave funds which are represented by those as yet unrealised assets. This is a perfectly normal business arrangement, but no, once again you find something to use as a stick to beat DE. You really are a piece of work.

 

[The Hawk]

So is this just the IL/NM debt that is now being paid off?

He paid a quid for that debt. Now it’s woth 4.3 million???!!!!

 

[Gary Baldi]

He paid a quid for that debt. Now it’s woth 4.3 million???!!!!

It could well be.

 

[OUFCGav]

Am I being simplistic in saying it is a a securing of debt against assets, and the only assets we have are player contracts and the future payments due under existing sales contracts?

 

[Deleted member 462]

So the club was around £10m in debt?? Tiger has brought the club off Darryl wiping some of that debt, and another £4.2 m will be cleared in payments on this. Is this what Darryl was talking about some of the debt has been cleared in the press conference? And does that (once this is paid leave us debt free) to date. Or will some just have been moved over to tiger ?

 

[windmill]

£10m? That seems a huge amount considering the income Daryl has recouped through transfer fees. Where has this figure come from? Most of us are not privy to this information. A huge debt, if true. This seems more like a Championship loss.

 

[Deleted member 462]

£10m? That seems a huge amount considering the income Daryl has recouped through transfer fees. Where has this figure come from? Most of us are not privy to this information. A huge debt, if true. This seems more like a Championship loss.

That might we wrong I thought that was around the figure that club had got up to in soft debt at one point. It may well have lessened with transfer income, but my under standing is most of that went to not making a loss in those years rather than clearing what was already there.

 

[windmill]

That might we wrong I thought that was around the figure that club had got up to in soft debt at one point. It may well have lessened with transfer income, but my under standing is most of that went to not making a loss in those years rather than clearing what was already there.

That makes sense, we must have been losing money, year on year, for the last three years. Has the Marvin Johnson fee come into this year's figures? Whichever way you cut it there must be some very lucrative contracts on the present payroll.