This charge secured over Ashton Gate- what's it for?

[Mr Popodopolous]

Reading the Training Ground stuff reminded me. There was a Bank Loan/Debt pertaining to Ashton Gate.

IF there is an AG Thread about it. please merge. The Bank debt was cleared by SL but..well I'll post the relevant docs in a mo and the Accounting segments. I don't see SL putting the Club at risk but could it be significant or nothing to see here?

Edited August 15 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Bank Loan plus Pula SL.

Happily we no longer owe to the Bank but..

[Mr Popodopolous]

As we can see, it is no longer to the Bank but to Pula in full.

The good news is it to SL, the bad news is it seems to have had both a Repayment Schedule and Interest Rate!

However possibly debt to equity conversions can reduce this.

Edited August 15 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Last but not least.

The good news is that there is now no Fixed Repayment Date and the Interest Rate is more Fixed.

Obviously this is included in the Consolidated.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Oh yes, the Charge in question.

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/05450440/filing-history/MzI4MDkzNjY3M2FkaXF6a2N4/document?format=pdf&download=0

[Henry]

They say the first sign of madness is talking to yourself.

[Mr Popodopolous]

2 minutes ago, Henry said:

They say the first sign of madness is talking to yourself.

*****.

This is a charge secured over Ashton Gate by SL's company. Anything useful to add.

Post it all in one post shall I, given it covered at least 3 separate periods.

Edited August 15 by Mr Popodopolous

[Henry]

2 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

*****.

This is a charge secured over Ashton Gate by SL's company. Anything useful to add.

Post it all in one post shall I, given it covered at least 3 separate periods.

Jeez, chill out. If you wanna get really picky about it, you could have just added to one of the multiple thread you’ve been discussing it.

[Mr Popodopolous]

42 minutes ago, Henry said:

Jeez, chill out. If you wanna get really picky about it, you could have just added to one of the multiple thread you’ve been discussing it.

Yeah okay but this is a specific charge that is separate to the Training Ground one albeit it is older.

I thought it was worthy as it is our Ground and the terms have changed once already.

Could be good, could be bad.

Edited August 15 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

I also apologise to Henry but a possible loan/debt albeit from Pula/SL secured against our Ground and or the whole stuff described isn't great.

[exAtyeoMax]

7 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I also apologise to Henry but a possible loan/debt albeit from Pula/SL secured against our Ground and or the whole stuff described isn't great.

Thanks for posting it in its own thread. I wouldn't have seen it otherwise.

[Monkeh]

11 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

*****.

This is a charge secured over Ashton Gate by SL's company. Anything useful to add.

Post it all in one post shall I, given it covered at least 3 separate periods.

Perhaps to do with rhe sporting quarter they want to build?

[Mr Popodopolous]

6 minutes ago, Monkeh said:

Perhaps to do with rhe sporting quarter they want to build?

Ah yes. Went on in 2020 didn't it.

[Hxj]

9 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

a possible loan/debt albeit from Pula/SL secured against our Ground and or the whole stuff described isn't great.

So some bloke lent the club the money to pay for the almost new stadium and isn't allowed to protect his loan with a charge?  The previous debenture was with SL personally and was replaced by the new charge.

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 hour ago, Hxj said:

So some bloke lent the club the money to pay for the almost new stadium and isn't allowed to protect his loan with a charge?  The previous debenture was with SL personally and was replaced by the new charge.

I'd rather the Charge/Debenture was to SL as opposed to an external lender.

Not knocking him at all, just trying to critique whether there is a Risk Factor.

Or it could be a way to neatly package a takeover ie Buyer pays the debt on Purchase and gets the Group thrown in.

(Football Club, AGL etc- plus possibly the Rugby and Basketball)

Edited August 16 by Mr Popodopolous

[Hxj]

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

just trying to critique whether there is a Risk Factor

As long as the company keeps paying the bills no.  If the company goes bust then the Pula investment will be repaid out of the sales proceeds of the stadium first (simplified for ease of reading).

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

9 minutes ago, Hxj said:

As long as the company keeps paying the bills no.  If the company goes bust then the Pula investment will be repaid out of the sales proceeds of the stadium first (simplified for ease of reading).

 

I get it commercially of course and thank you, but seems like there is a little bit of jeopardy here potentially. Mind you it is an Investment and there are many worse owners than SL.

The bills is an interesting one given it was varied in 2023.

No Fixed Repayment Date sounds better than that 20 year ticking clock scenario. Fixed Interest of 3% sounds better than the whole 2% above the Barclays Base Rate bit.

At least it isn't Repayable on Demand.

Edited August 16 by Mr Popodopolous

[Fjmcity]

A meal? A succulent Chinese meal?

Edited August 16 by Fjmcity

[Mr Popodopolous]

A curry with all the no expense spared sides etc?

I suppose while there is no Fixed Repayment Schedule and it isnt stated as Repayable on Demand it isn't a major issue.

Not sure what we can do about it anyway.  

[BigTone]

20 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Reading the Training Ground stuff reminded me. There was a Bank Loan/Debt pertaining to Ashton Gate.

IF there is an AG Thread about it. please merge. The Bank debt was cleared by SL but..well I'll post the relevant docs in a mo and the Accounting segments. I don't see SL putting the Club at risk but could it be significant or nothing to see here?

SL's business really and not ours

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 minute ago, BigTone said:

SL's business really and not ours

Well it is (was?) our Ground. However yes it seems a bit odd given he ultimately sits at the top of the chain and owns it all anyway, why would you need to secure your loan against assets that you already own directly or via companies?

[BigTone]

3 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Well it is (was?) our Ground. However yes it seems a bit odd given he ultimately sits at the top of the chain and owns it all anyway, why would you need to secure your loan against assets that you already own directly or via companies?

I'm sure he has his reasons

[The Bard]

3 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Well it is (was?) our Ground. However yes it seems a bit odd given he ultimately sits at the top of the chain and owns it all anyway, why would you need to secure your loan against assets that you already own directly or via companies?

Pretty obvious without being clear (if that makes sense).

Self interest.  Probably related to tax or some other financial rules.  The group of companies are constructed and organised in this way to his benefit.  

[Mr Popodopolous]

8 minutes ago, The Bard said:

Pretty obvious without being clear (if that makes sense).

Self interest.  Probably related to tax or some other financial rules.  The group of companies are constructed and organised in this way to his benefit.  

Tax did cross my mind certainly.

Still he is markedly in deficit so far..£260-270m all-in less any Interest in his favour or moderate Loan Repayments.

[Johnny Musicworks]

16 minutes ago, The Bard said:

why would you need to secure your loan against assets that you already own directly or via companies?

What if those companies are sold ? Doesn’t it then guarantee that the new owners have to repay him or isn’t that how it works. I will admit I’m not great on the financial stuff

[Mr Popodopolous]

Just now, Johnny Musicworks said:

What if those companies are sold ? Doesn’t it then guarantee that the new owners have to repay him or isn’t that how it works. I will admit I’m not great on the financial stuff

That could also work.

It could set a 'floor' under a selling price, some basis.

"Pay Secured Loan and this club and all its assets, Ashton Gate plus Ashton Gate Limited, the Holdings Company if you wish are yours".

[ExiledAjax]

Just now, Johnny Musicworks said:

What if those companies are sold ? Doesn’t it then guarantee that the new owners have to repay him or isn’t that how it works. I will admit I’m not great on the financial stuff

Wouldn't need it secured for that. Company would be sold debt free normally anyway.

Normally a lender takes security so that they rank first amongst creditors should a company go bust. That why you grant a mortgage - which is a type of security - to the bank that lends you money to buy your house. The bank wants to be first in line if you go bankruot. So it, so far as is possible, guarantees that they get their money back.

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 minute ago, ExiledAjax said:

Wouldn't need it secured for that. Company would be sold debt free normally anyway.

Normally a lender takes security so that they rank first amongst creditors should a company go bust. That why you grant a mortgage - which is a type of security - to the bank that lends you money to buy your house. The bank wants to be first in line if you go bankruot. So it, so far as is possible, guarantees that they get their money back.

Going bust while owned by SL is very unlikely though. It seems a little pointless on some levels but I'm sure he has his reasons.

[Mr Popodopolous]

I'll put it another way.

What if he alters the terms again and says Idk £90m across the BCFC Secured Loan and the AGL one needs repaying by 2050 say.

Can he then run us in a way at a Cash Profit of which a portion goes towards repaying the debt?

Edited August 16 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

I say SL, I obviously mean Pula. Can Pula do that?

*Equal Instalments and or On Demand

*Fixed Repayment Dates (The £0.5m x 6, the £5m per annum thereafter and the balance in 2040).

*No Fixed Repayment Date.

Repayments deferred indefinitely seems good.

[Hxj]

This is being over-thought.

SL is a benevolent owner - some think he should be more benevolent but that is for a different thread.

The charges simply ensure that if it all collapses for some unexpected reason he is at the front of the queue to get his money back.

Secured loans also carry lower interest rates than unsecured ones so there is a FFP advantage in the group having secured fixed rate loans.

This is being over-thought.

 

 

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

Definitely a benevolent owner can't argue there.

Lower Interest is positive too.

[Mr Popodopolous]

I still am looking to explore what separation of powers etc there are if SL suddenly wanted repayment over 25 years by way if example.

[Hxj]

16 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I still am looking to explore what separation of powers etc there are if SL suddenly wanted repayment over 25 years by way if example.

This is (for all intents and purposes) a privately owned group.

If SL wants his money back he can demand it.  If the company can’t pay he can enforce his charges and force the group into insolvency, take all the properties and sail off into the sunset.

[WarksRobin]

It adds security for Bristol Sport. If SL sold the football club only, the new owner wouldn't be able to sell the ground. Benefits the rugby and indirectly the fans.

[Mr Popodopolous]

5 hours ago, Hxj said:

This is (for all intents and purposes) a privately owned group.

If SL wants his money back he can demand it.  If the company can’t pay he can enforce his charges and force the group into insolvency, take all the properties and sail off into the sunset.

That's roughly my take but thanks for  confirming.

Anyway days like today should definitely help him stay in situ and happy.

[Mr Popodopolous]

6 hours ago, WarksRobin said:

It adds security for Bristol Sport. If SL sold the football club only, the new owner wouldn't be able to sell the ground. Benefits the rugby and indirectly the fans.

This is also correct and is by no means a negative outcome.

I suppose the flipside is, can you sell club without ground as in would someone want to buy us without the ground being owned.

[Henry]

On 16/08/2024 at 01:10, Mr Popodopolous said:

I also apologise to Henry but a possible loan/debt albeit from Pula/SL secured against our Ground and or the whole stuff described isn't great.

You’ve apologise but you’ve justify it because you’re concerned by a charge?

[Mr Popodopolous]

3 minutes ago, Henry said:

You’ve apologise but you’ve justify it because you’re concerned by a charge?

Your comment was unnecessary and I responded with an equally unnecessary bit of output.

[Henry]

15 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Your comment was unnecessary and I responded with an equally unnecessary bit of output.

I think you’re letting all this FFP and finance stuff go to your head.

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 minute ago, Henry said:

I think you’re letting all this FFP and finance stuff go to your head.

Maybe, maybe not. Still your comment the other day was unnecessary and I responded in kind albeit it wasn't a great response.

I'll try and focus on the football from here while keeping half an eye on this stuff.

[WarksRobin]

2 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

This is also correct and is by no means a negative outcome.

I suppose the flipside is, can you sell club without ground as in would someone want to buy us without the ground being owned.

Only someone with genuine investment would be able/willing to purchase the club, with this security 

[Mr Popodopolous]

54 minutes ago, WarksRobin said:

Only someone with genuine investment would be able/willing to purchase the club, with this security 

Yes agreed.

[Mr Popodopolous]

A final thought for now.

Henry may think I go over the top on the financial stuff and that has some merit but I do it because..

A) Closely keeping an eye on the off the field stuff can be important.

B) What @Hxj says I fully concur with..SL can basically demand his money back if he so chose in the fullness of time. It seems like common sense.

How we can affect it is a different issue. SL IS a benevolent owner though..we'll know when the 2023-24 Accounts are out if matters have altered again.

I'll amend how I do it obvs but won't apologise for trying to shine a light on the financial side, especially where it directly or indirectly could impact upon the Club.