0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.
the other in favour of MacQuarie Bank specifically relating to the Dawson fee.
From accounts to June 2019 (latest accounts)
If a lender has a charge against the clubs assets or a future income flow then these are registered at Companies House. There seem to be two in place at the moment. One is broad floating charge on pretty much everything current and future in favour of Barclays and I am guessing that is an overdraft (totally standard terms) and the other in favour of MacQuarie Bank specifically relating to the Dawson fee. I am not sure about how quickly any charge needs to be lodged with companies house but I am guessing it is more timely than the report and accounts.
What's that about, do you know?
From what I can gather from 35 pages of legalese the MacQuarie charge hands over the rights to what looks like the 2nd instalment of the Dawson fee (£2.3m) which is due September this year. It also refers to £470k of sell on fee to be lodged with the EFL for onward transmission to Rochdale. As far as I can make out there is no reference in the Charge to what the club has received in exchange for signing over the rights. Typically on transfer factoring it will be something in the region of 4 to 5 percent of the receivable amount
Isn’t is the other way round?Watford owed us £2.3m so Macquarie pay us cash now of (say) £2.1m and so we sign over to Macquarie all rights in respect of that £2.3m due from Watford and Macquarie pocket the extra £200k as their fee. The security document is the charge over that £2.3m fee.
You're both saying the same thing.
No - Standaman’s 2nd paragraph queried how much we received for transferring the rights. In my example the club would have paid, not received, £200,000 for handing over the rights as security (the effective “feeâ€) in order to receive the discounted cash sum now. Not quite the same thing.
Thanks, both/all of you. It was the first I'd heard of that which was why I asked.
The £4m owing the club has, apparently, accrued interest of £1m so far and Lai doesn't have the funds to pay it off because of the pandemic, allegedly
Where have you heard that from?
Sounds plausible until this part which sounds like hearsay.
It wasn’t hearsay, it was given as the reason for none payment and I did qualify by “allegedlyâ€
Just don't see that anyone knows Lai's financial position Colin.
Seems strange he hasn't paid it because of a shortage of funds due to the pandemic when the official party line for some time has been he can't pay it because he can't get money out of China.I wonder if this will become the new party line (reason/ready made excuse given) should the Chinese government relax it's rules on foreign investments.Ed: whatever the original reason for none payment I'm thinking he's hoping to pass the debt onto any prospective buyer, on the grounds he has no intention of throwing more good money after bad.
Grant 15mDiangana 12m (potentially. rising to £17m)Kipre £1m Button £1mPereira £8m Robinson £2m (in addition to Burke) Krov loan fee Gallagher loan fee Forgetting the factoring, you could spin that we did commit to spending approximately £47m, which shocks me a little now I see it written down.
