[Guest_freelander2_*]

valemadness, on 22 July 2016 - 09:09 PM, said:

Instead of us owing the council and paying them 6% interest, we now owe Dave Allen at around 2%. Makes sense to me

Who has mentioned 2%?

[Tips M'Gee]

How long before the hospitality and the football side are split into two separate businesses?

[spireitenag]

Extremely concerned where this move and the separation of the hospitality/catering is taking the club.

[Tips M'Gee]

Didn't Haslam do something similar?

[Mr Mercury]

valemadness, on 22 July 2016 - 09:09 PM, said:

Instead of us owing the council and paying them 6% interest, we now owe Dave Allen at around 2%. Makes sense to me

https://youtu.be/GWAmvAgLMBA ��

This post has been edited by Mr Mercury: 22 July 2016 - 10:33 PM

[starsky72]

To be fair it's a move I'm sure I recall being suggested at one stage on here, DA to take on the councils debt and charge CFC a lower rate of interest.

[dim view]

valemadness, on 22 July 2016 - 09:09 PM, said:

Instead of us owing the council and paying them 6% interest, we now owe Dave Allen at around 2%. Makes sense to me

I think the crucial point here is that in terms of the future security of the club, the best institution to have 'first charge' on the ground is the Council because it's them that are most likely to want the land to be continuously used as a football stadium. That though is unlikely to sit well with an owner, whoever he might be, who is further down the 'charge' pecking order and who is therefore not in control.

Some might argue that it's far better to pay the council a few % more in order to reduce risk. Too late now.

[Stockholm Spireite]

Info from t'offy:

Read all about it

[Guest_freelander2_*]

Stockholm Spireite, on 23 July 2016 - 08:06 AM, said:

Info from t'offy:

Read all about it

What interest rate was associated with CBC's debenture? I had been under the impression it was 4.5% above based rate.

Any ideas?

[Dazspire]

dim view, on 23 July 2016 - 07:48 AM, said:

I think the crucial point here is that in terms of the future security of the club, the best institution to have 'first charge' on the ground is the Council because it's them that are most likely to want the land to be continuously used as a football stadium. That though is unlikely to sit well with an owner, whoever he might be, who is further down the 'charge' pecking order and who is therefore not in control.

Some might argue that it's far better to pay the council a few % more in order to reduce risk. Too late now.

If memory serves me the land on which the ground is built has a covenant stating that it can only be used for a football stadium. I think it was written in as security for the supporters including CFSS at the time before they sold the shares eventually to DA and was insisted upon by Tesco as part of the deal to "gift" the land to the Club to enable the build and was part of the overall deal with the land owners and CBC allowing Tesco to purchase the land and relocate. My memory also is that the CBC loan was at 7% not 5% but I stand to be corrected.

Perhaps we reading too much into this transfer of first charge on the ground which I accept is wholly understandable in the current climate surrounding the Club

[60s 70s Spireite]

Dazspire, on 23 July 2016 - 08:25 AM, said:

If memory serves me the land on which the ground is built has a covenant stating that it can only be used for a football stadium. I think it was written in as security for the supporters including CFSS at the time before they sold the shares eventually to DA and was insisted upon by Tesco as part of the deal to "gift" the land to the Club to enable the build and was part of the overall deal with the land owners and CBC allowing Tesco to purchase the land and relocate. My memory also is that the CBC loan was at 7% not 5% but I stand to be corrected.

Perhaps we reading too much into this transfer of first charge on the ground which I accept is wholly understandable in the current climate surrounding the Club

You may be right about undue concern.
However my take is that the ground and hospitality could be transferred to Newco (no breach of covenant as the ground is still used for football), but gross income drops dramatically meaning the club can then say they have to reduce the playing budget pro rata.
Moreover the football club side is put up for sale, with any incoming owners being stuck with a rent that is impossible to pay out of football income, with no access to the ancillary income.

[First of the gang]

Are the fans being wound up or the club wound down ?
WE ARE CHESTERFIELD FC

[starsky72]

So.... 5% fixed for ten years, rather than the 2% mentioned...

[ELTON 2020]

dim view, on 22 July 2016 - 07:50 PM, said:

In other words, it's not been paid off. CFC now owes the money to DA rather than the council. I wonder if DA is charging more for it than the council did?

This is dangerous stuff. The first thing DB did when he got in was to borrow money to pay off the council loan. Very shrewd as the council at the time had first charge on the debt. DA has presumably now done the same thing.

Comparing DA to DB is dodgy ground. Why is it dangerous? Are you suggesting DA has acted in a negative way?

[ELTON 2020]

valemadness, on 22 July 2016 - 09:09 PM, said:

Instead of us owing the council and paying them 6% interest, we now owe Dave Allen at around 2%. Makes sense to me

I think this is half the problem on here. Chinese whispers. If anyone can verify we are now paying 2% compared to 6% or whatever. I have no problem with DA doing this - as long as he is acting in the best interests of CFC.

dim view, on 23 July 2016 - 07:48 AM, said:

I think the crucial point here is that in terms of the future security of the club, the best institution to have 'first charge' on the ground is the Council because it's them that are most likely to want the land to be continuously used as a football stadium. That though is unlikely to sit well with an owner, whoever he might be, who is further down the 'charge' pecking order and who is therefore not in control.

Some might argue that it's far better to pay the council a few % more in order to reduce risk. Too late now.

Ridiculous comment. What are you implying sir?

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

I think fans have every right to be extremely concerned over this.

I'd guess there were certain criteria associated with the Council contracts preventing DA from pursuing avenues he's now free to explore.

Possible scenario?

DA separates CFC from the bricks and mortar, perhaps placing CT in charge of the football club whilst the recently recruited ex Owlerton bloke takes over the stadium facilities.

This would mean a debt free and far more attractive to a buyer football club, however it'd have to pay an unknown amount for use of the Proact, we'd possibly be saddled with someone whose running of CFC and PPP has resulted in a catalogue of criticism - and would DA really give a toss whom he sold the Club to?

Be afraid...be very afraid.

[Radders]

dim view, on 22 July 2016 - 07:50 PM, said:

In other words, it's not been paid off. CFC now owes the money to DA rather than the council. I wonder if DA is charging more for it than the council did?

This is dangerous stuff. The first thing DB did when he got in was to borrow money to pay off the council loan. Very shrewd as the council at the time had first charge on the debt. DA has presumably now done the same thing.

I haven't read all this thread so I'm assuming most of what I'm about to say has been copvered, but I haven't posted for awhile so here goes!
As I understand it (from CBC) the club approached them a couple of months ago and the debt has been paid off for a few weeks now. The council were charging (I think) nearly 4% on that. My assumption is that we now owe Dave Allen who I thought was charging around 6% on his loans - so we haven't paid any debt off - we've just increased it.
Worryingly, from my point of view, The council's security on their loan was the ground, they had a vested interest in seeing football being played. That security has now gone and it would seem DA has total control.
What happened to that CFSS statement that boldly predicted that no single man would ever have complete ownership of the club again?

[azul]

The ball is certainly in DA's court now, so we all better behave

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

Radders, on 23 July 2016 - 11:58 AM, said:

I haven't read all this thread so I'm assuming most of what I'm about to say has been copvered, but I haven't posted for awhile so here goes!
As I understand it (from CBC) the club approached them a couple of months ago and the debt has been paid off for a few weeks now. The council were charging (I think) nearly 4% on that. My assumption is that we now owe Dave Allen who I thought was charging around 6% on his loans - so we haven't paid any debt off - we've just increased it.
Worryingly, from my point of view, The council's security on their loan was the ground, they had a vested interest in seeing football being played. That security has now gone and it would seem DA has total control.
What happened to that CFSS statement that boldly predicted that no single man would ever have complete ownership of the club again?

I believe some of Allen's later loans attract a much lower rate, so it's unclear what's being charged for replacing the Council one.

Though I also believe the CBC loans that covered the payments allowing us to exit administration were structured over a given timescale - so why the sudden haste to address them?

My suspicion is you're spot on to focus on the security issue; payments aren't met and CBC had a part claim to the Proact footprint - however doesn't DA now get everything if he decides to liquidate the business?

This post has been edited by MDCCCLXVI: 23 July 2016 - 12:06 PM