Shall we discuss chelsea and portsmouth next?

[Snake]

I wonder if Barclays would be happy running OUFC if for whatever reason it called in its charge on the club's assets? Somehow I doubt it.

They wouldn't run it, the administrator would.

I doubt it. Barclays would go straight to Firoka and offer them £13m for the Stadium, and if it was accepted they would close the club down and either sell the land to a developer or (more probably) wait a few years for the property market to pick up and then sell it to a developer.

In these troubled times they made £6.1b last year, so they know how to make money. And they even know how to make money out of football, being the sponsors of the Premier League.

I really would like to get to the bottom of that charge on the club..

[Mally]

I wonder if Barclays would be happy running OUFC if for whatever reason it called in its charge on the club's assets? Somehow I doubt it.

They wouldn't run it, the administrator would.

I doubt it. Barclays would go straight to Firoka and offer them £13m for the Stadium, and if it was accepted they would close the club down and either sell the land to a developer or (more probably) wait a few years for the property market to pick up and then sell it to a developer.

In these troubled times they made £6.1b last year, so they know how to make money. And they even know how to make money out of football, being the sponsors of the Premier League.

I really would like to get to the bottom of that charge on the club..

The club have always had a bank charge in the accounts so it's not necesarily anything to get too concerned about. There's been a charge by HSBC since 2002. If this is an additional charge then it looks like the club potentially owes money to 2 banks. However if it's simply replacing the existing HSBC charge then all it suggests is that the club has switched its overdraft to another bank.

[Ascension Ox]

I wonder if Barclays would be happy running OUFC if for whatever reason it called in its charge on the club's assets? Somehow I doubt it.

They wouldn't run it, the administrator would.

I doubt it. Barclays would go straight to Firoka and offer them £13m for the Stadium, and if it was accepted they would close the club down and either sell the land to a developer or (more probably) wait a few years for the property market to pick up and then sell it to a developer.

In these troubled times they made £6.1b last year, so they know how to make money. And they even know how to make money out of football, being the sponsors of the Premier League.

I really would like to get to the bottom of that charge on the club..

You are having a laugh. No way. Barclays would never do that in the current market place. Why on earth would they want to put at risk another £13 million?

[slappy]

The club have always had a bank charge in the accounts so it's not necesarily anything to get too concerned about. There's been a charge by HSBC since 2002. If this is an additional charge then it looks like the club potentially owes money to 2 banks. However if it's simply replacing the existing HSBC charge then all it suggests is that the club has switched its overdraft to another bank.

The HSBC charge was I think across the Firoka group, eminently sensible when Firoka was borrowing money to finance the construction of the Ozone, the hotels, Stadium, cinema, fitness, etc. If any one company was in trouble, the bank could get its money back from the others.

When WPL took over, they had to repay all debt to Firoka, leaving the club essentially with zero or little bank borrowings. I presume they also changed bankers. This then meant the HSBC charge could be released.

Up until recently, WPL have been funding the club (by loans from its shareholders). Very strong rumour has it that Lenagan won't lend anymore / has reduced the amount of losses he will fund each season.

So the club has been borrowing from Barclays. There has been an overdraft in the club's accounts for a while, but presumably this latest charge is a reaction to I guess:-
- the club is unable to repay the overdraft on demand
- the club has probably had to increase bank borrowings to keep the club going - any shortfall in funding of losses needs to be met somehow, and I can't imagine the club breaking even any time soon without a very good cup run or a decent transfer fee.
- the bank's risk team has decided that having an unsecured overdraft / loan ranking equally with other unsecured creditors is unacceptable.
- the bank want more security on top of any personal guarantees by directors (or anyone else) which may or may not exist as well.

Sorry if this is all a bit obvious, but I can never work out when Snakey is fishing for an answer which no-one wants to post because it means giving serious consideration to the current state of the club's finances / bring awkward matters into the open, or if he is genuinely asking the question and wants to know the real reason for the charge as opposed to my speculation above, or some other reason.

[Ascension Ox]

The club have always had a bank charge in the accounts so it's not necesarily anything to get too concerned about. There's been a charge by HSBC since 2002. If this is an additional charge then it looks like the club potentially owes money to 2 banks. However if it's simply replacing the existing HSBC charge then all it suggests is that the club has switched its overdraft to another bank.

The HSBC charge was I think across the Firoka group, eminently sensible when Firoka was borrowing money to finance the construction of the Ozone, the hotels, Stadium, cinema, fitness, etc. If any one company was in trouble, the bank could get its money back from the others.

When WPL took over, they had to repay all debt to Firoka, leaving the club essentially with zero or little bank borrowings. I presume they also changed bankers. This then meant the HSBC charge could be released.

Up until recently, WPL have been funding the club (by loans from its shareholders). Very strong rumour has it that Lenagan won't lend anymore / has reduced the amount of losses he will fund each season.

So the club has been borrowing from Barclays. There has been an overdraft in the club's accounts for a while, but presumably this latest charge is a reaction to I guess:-
- the club is unable to repay the overdraft on demand
- the club has probably had to increase bank borrowings to keep the club going - any shortfall in funding of losses needs to be met somehow, and I can't imagine the club breaking even any time soon without a very good cup run or a decent transfer fee.
- the bank's risk team has decided that having an unsecured overdraft / loan ranking equally with other unsecured creditors is unacceptable.
- the bank want more security on top of any personal guarantees by directors (or anyone else) which may or may not exist as well.

Sorry if this is all a bit obvious, but I can never work out when Snakey is fishing for an answer which no-one wants to post because it means giving serious consideration to the current state of the club's finances / bring awkward matters into the open, or if he is genuinely asking the question and wants to know the real reason for the charge as opposed to my speculation above, or some other reason.

Put more pithily, Dean Whitehead is still captain of Sunderland.

[GodalmingYellow]

The club have always had a bank charge in the accounts so it's not necesarily anything to get too concerned about. There's been a charge by HSBC since 2002. If this is an additional charge then it looks like the club potentially owes money to 2 banks. However if it's simply replacing the existing HSBC charge then all it suggests is that the club has switched its overdraft to another bank.

The HSBC charge was I think across the Firoka group, eminently sensible when Firoka was borrowing money to finance the construction of the Ozone, the hotels, Stadium, cinema, fitness, etc. If any one company was in trouble, the bank could get its money back from the others.

When WPL took over, they had to repay all debt to Firoka, leaving the club essentially with zero or little bank borrowings. I presume they also changed bankers. This then meant the HSBC charge could be released.

Up until recently, WPL have been funding the club (by loans from its shareholders). Very strong rumour has it that Lenagan won't lend anymore / has reduced the amount of losses he will fund each season.

So the club has been borrowing from Barclays. There has been an overdraft in the club's accounts for a while, but presumably this latest charge is a reaction to I guess:-
- the club is unable to repay the overdraft on demand
- the club has probably had to increase bank borrowings to keep the club going - any shortfall in funding of losses needs to be met somehow, and I can't imagine the club breaking even any time soon without a very good cup run or a decent transfer fee.
- the bank's risk team has decided that having an unsecured overdraft / loan ranking equally with other unsecured creditors is unacceptable.
- the bank want more security on top of any personal guarantees by directors (or anyone else) which may or may not exist as well.

Sorry if this is all a bit obvious, but I can never work out when Snakey is fishing for an answer which no-one wants to post because it means giving serious consideration to the current state of the club's finances / bring awkward matters into the open, or if he is genuinely asking the question and wants to know the real reason for the charge as opposed to my speculation above, or some other reason.

Put more pithily, Dean Whitehead is still captain of Sunderland.

And the lesson is, don't spend transfer fees until the cash is in the bank.

[ty cobb]

So the plan is to fund ourselves through bank loans for the foresable future, so much for OUFC being debt free as WPL stated when they took over.

But hey we're winning on the pitch so why worry about the fact that our owner has pulled the plug and can't be bothered anymore?

[Baboo]

Kelvin is on BBC Radio Oxford tomorrow night I believe. A chance for key questions on the financial situation to be asked. Could ask the manager about the team as well cos I think he's on too.

[The Enforcer]

(not to mention another who may have to step down through 'health' problems {now where have I heard that before}).

Good riddance to bad rubbish as far as I'm concerned.

[Mally]

The club have always had a bank charge in the accounts so it's not necesarily anything to get too concerned about. There's been a charge by HSBC since 2002. If this is an additional charge then it looks like the club potentially owes money to 2 banks. However if it's simply replacing the existing HSBC charge then all it suggests is that the club has switched its overdraft to another bank.

The HSBC charge was I think across the Firoka group, eminently sensible when Firoka was borrowing money to finance the construction of the Ozone, the hotels, Stadium, cinema, fitness, etc. If any one company was in trouble, the bank could get its money back from the others.

When WPL took over, they had to repay all debt to Firoka, leaving the club essentially with zero or little bank borrowings. I presume they also changed bankers. This then meant the HSBC charge could be released.

Up until recently, WPL have been funding the club (by loans from its shareholders). Very strong rumour has it that Lenagan won't lend anymore / has reduced the amount of losses he will fund each season.

So the club has been borrowing from Barclays. There has been an overdraft in the club's accounts for a while, but presumably this latest charge is a reaction to I guess:-
- the club is unable to repay the overdraft on demand
- the club has probably had to increase bank borrowings to keep the club going - any shortfall in funding of losses needs to be met somehow, and I can't imagine the club breaking even any time soon without a very good cup run or a decent transfer fee.
- the bank's risk team has decided that having an unsecured overdraft / loan ranking equally with other unsecured creditors is unacceptable.
- the bank want more security on top of any personal guarantees by directors (or anyone else) which may or may not exist as well.

Sorry if this is all a bit obvious, but I can never work out when Snakey is fishing for an answer which no-one wants to post because it means giving serious consideration to the current state of the club's finances / bring awkward matters into the open, or if he is genuinely asking the question and wants to know the real reason for the charge as opposed to my speculation above, or some other reason.

The HSBC charge was on OUFC and not the stadco so it wasn't related to any of the Firoka development activity. The point being that until somebody at the club tells us this may just be switching of banks and a standard procedure or it could mean that the club has taken on additional lending indicating (in case we were in any doubt) that Lenagan has turned off the dripping tap.

However if the club have borrowed additional money from Barclays I'd find it hard to believe in the current climate. Why on earth in such dramatic credit crunch conditions would a bank lend money to a non-league football club that doesn't own its ground, has no other assets and is already up to its eyebrows in debt? The bank's management would have to be completely brainless morons with no idea how to...... Oh I get it.

[slappy]

Mally - not sure where you get the charge to HSBC on OUFC assets from. I must have confused this with something else (or another group of companies altogether) so I am not sure why I thought it was a group loan facility.

There was a charge on the club's assets dated 4 June '99 to Firoka London Park Ltd. This charge was released on 25 April 2006. A couple of other charges (to Herd and Kassam) were also cleared by June '02 leaving just the FLPL loan as secured.

On 21 March 2006 a charge was created over the assets of Howper 565 (aka WPL) to Ian Lenagan.

On 21 March 2006 a charge was created over the assets of OUFC to Howper 565 (aka WPL).

and now there is a charge over assets of OUFC to Barclays.

[GodalmingYellow]

The club have always had a bank charge in the accounts so it's not necesarily anything to get too concerned about. There's been a charge by HSBC since 2002. If this is an additional charge then it looks like the club potentially owes money to 2 banks. However if it's simply replacing the existing HSBC charge then all it suggests is that the club has switched its overdraft to another bank.

The HSBC charge was I think across the Firoka group, eminently sensible when Firoka was borrowing money to finance the construction of the Ozone, the hotels, Stadium, cinema, fitness, etc. If any one company was in trouble, the bank could get its money back from the others.

When WPL took over, they had to repay all debt to Firoka, leaving the club essentially with zero or little bank borrowings. I presume they also changed bankers. This then meant the HSBC charge could be released.

Up until recently, WPL have been funding the club (by loans from its shareholders). Very strong rumour has it that Lenagan won't lend anymore / has reduced the amount of losses he will fund each season.

So the club has been borrowing from Barclays. There has been an overdraft in the club's accounts for a while, but presumably this latest charge is a reaction to I guess:-
- the club is unable to repay the overdraft on demand
- the club has probably had to increase bank borrowings to keep the club going - any shortfall in funding of losses needs to be met somehow, and I can't imagine the club breaking even any time soon without a very good cup run or a decent transfer fee.
- the bank's risk team has decided that having an unsecured overdraft / loan ranking equally with other unsecured creditors is unacceptable.
- the bank want more security on top of any personal guarantees by directors (or anyone else) which may or may not exist as well.

Sorry if this is all a bit obvious, but I can never work out when Snakey is fishing for an answer which no-one wants to post because it means giving serious consideration to the current state of the club's finances / bring awkward matters into the open, or if he is genuinely asking the question and wants to know the real reason for the charge as opposed to my speculation above, or some other reason.

The HSBC charge was on OUFC and not the stadco so it wasn't related to any of the Firoka development activity. The point being that until somebody at the club tells us this may just be switching of banks and a standard procedure or it could mean that the club has taken on additional lending indicating (in case we were in any doubt) that Lenagan has turned off the dripping tap.

However if the club have borrowed additional money from Barclays I'd find it hard to believe in the current climate. Why on earth in such dramatic credit crunch conditions would a bank lend money to a non-league football club that doesn't own its ground, has no other assets and is already up to its eyebrows in debt? The bank's management would have to be completely brainless morons with no idea how to...... Oh I get it.

I'm not sure where you get this charge over the club's assets from HSBC from Mally. I've not seen it on any Companies House document, and to my knowledge they haven't had one since WPL took over.

I'm thinking about setting up a web space to store mortgage charges, club accounts, Annual Returns etc on, then everyone can access them. I need to check copywrite issues before I do though.

[slappy]

Mally - not sure where you get the charge to HSBC on OUFC assets from. I must have confused this with something else (or another group of companies altogether) so I am not sure why I thought it was a group loan facility.

Found it I think - Stadco had a bank loan secured by fixed and floating charge over the company's freehold property. A cross guarantee exists as security for that bank loan with Firoka (Kings Cross) Limited.

So, it seems that there hasn't been a bank charge on OUFC (at least in the Kassam era and beyond) until this new Barclays one in Jan 2009.

But how does this fit in with WPL also having a charge over all the club's assets?

(Sorry if this is all a bit technical and boring beancounter stuff)

[Snake]

Sorry if this is all a bit technical and boring beancounter stuff.

About as boring as speculating for months about why the Minchery Farm builders were taking such a long Christmas break 12 years ago

[Boogie]

I see Ancelotti has ruled out Chelsea in the summer and they have had to get a part-timer in as a stop-gap.