Close Brothers loan

Laudrups Barnet said:
"But, but, but Phil macgobbledygook said!"

Never forget the lengths Celtic fans on twitter went to over this. Seen one post minutes from a close brothers meeting 8 years ago where an employee confirmed they don't offer overdraft facilities and we had said the loan was an overdraft.

The natural conclusion the weird lady's front bottom took from this was that we were obviously going to go bust.

You'd think they'd get bored after 6 years of the same bollocks every week ?
Click to expand...

He was just writing yesterday that we are seeking emergency finance though a bond which would give the bondholder day to day control of the club. Next day we pay back a £3m loan six months early.
 
Laudrups Barnet said:
"But, but, but Phil macgobbledygook said!"

Never forget the lengths Celtic fans on twitter went to over this. Seen one post minutes from a close brothers meeting 8 years ago where an employee confirmed they don't offer overdraft facilities and we had said the loan was an overdraft.

The natural conclusion the weird lady's front bottom took from this was that we were obviously going to go bust.

You'd think they'd get bored after 6 years of the same bollocks every week ?
Click to expand...

They don’t get bored, they just get more and more bitter because that’s all they know.
 
Arminius said:
Our success in Europe, and the scum's abject failure, could not have come at a better time. Created a much more even playing field, although it would be churlish to suggest that they don't still hold a financial advantage.

The gap is well and truly closing, though. The board are doing a fabulous job of extracting us from the spiv legacy. Quite astonishing what those spivvy bastards were doing to us in full view of our mhedia and not a word from any of them. :(
Click to expand...
Sadly they still hold a huge financial advantage. I think this season is our best hope of stopping them. If they win the title and get into the CL, the financial advantage just gets even wider still. Unthinkable.
 
FirstToFifty said:
He was just writing yesterday that we are seeking emergency finance though a bond which would give the bondholder day to day control of the club. Next day we pay back a £3m loan six months early.
Click to expand...

It's almost like DK and the board sit in meetings pishing themselves with laughter then do the opposite just to show him up.

Funny as it is sometimes I wish they'd start court proceedings just to watch his arse collapse.

"Sorry, sorry oh sorry, so sorry"
 
Valley Bluenose said:
There’s a bit more detail/discussion/speculation in this thread - including links to the Companies House Documents.

https://www.followfollow.com/forum/threads/two-statements-from-companies-house.50794/

As things stand it shows the Standing Charge as ‘satisfied’ but the Floating Charge still outstanding. They cover basically the same things so that’s a bit confusing. It may simply be a delay in submitting the paperwork for the Floating Charge.



I’m sure @BrownBrogues has it correct in his OP - everything would point to this loan having been fully repaid/never drawn down.

Good news.
Click to expand...

Now updated Bro, showing absolutely no charges AKA no Assets sitting as Security with any Third Party no floating or fixed :D.

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/SC437060/filing-history
 
BrownBrogues said:
Now updated Bro, showing absolutely no charges AKA no Assets sitting as Security with any Third Party no floating or fixed :D.

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/SC437060/filing-history
Click to expand...

Had me all excited there @BrownBrogues but, sadly, your link is to RIFC. The charges are against TRFC and 3 still show as outstanding: 2 long-standing, and non-contentious, relating to Auchenhowie and still the Floating Charge for Close Brothers (ending 013). I still feel it’s clear the loan has been repaid/not drawn down so nothing to be concerned about. I hope.

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/SC425159/charges
 
uneasydaz said:
No still up to his old tricks his source has told him we were forced into a share issue as we have no money and the close brothers called in the loan
Click to expand...

Ha ha, forced into a share issue that has been in the planning since BEFORE we even took out the Close Bros loan. Right ye are Mr McGobblegiver.
 
uneasydaz said:
No still up to his old tricks his source has told him we were forced into a share issue as we have no money and the close brothers called in the loan
Click to expand...
His sources really suck. Why do they always inform him after the fact!
The reality is the facility was repaid in June, and afterwards stinky Phil was still blogging the yarn it had to be repaid in Feb next year. Like it was an ominous deadline. He's been exposed so often as being completely clueless he is going to jeopardise donations. That's got to be a worry because Phil will never make a living out of his awful books and terrible plays.:D
 
Superrangers said:
Sadly they still hold a huge financial advantage. I think this season is our best hope of stopping them. If they win the title and get into the CL, the financial advantage just gets even wider still. Unthinkable.
Click to expand...
In the current set up, no Scottish side will make the Champions League again.
 
mart22 said:
His sources really suck. Why do they always inform him after the fact!
The reality is the facility was repaid in June, and afterwards stinky Phil was still blogging the yarn it had to be repaid in Feb next year. Like it was an ominous deadline. He's been exposed so often as being completely clueless he is going to jeopardise donations. That's got to be a worry because Phil will never make a living out of his awful books and terrible plays.:D
Click to expand...
id say the main reason is all is 'sources' are in his head people believe what they want to hear especially idiots he's the worst kind of person preying on the weak minded for money
 
Coatbridge Chancellor said:
They'll need HUGE luck to do it, as they're only going to decrease in quality (at that level).
Click to expand...
They have had plenty of luck in the past. They’ve twice been papped out of Europe and been wrongly reinstated for ridiculous reasons. I wouldn’t be surprised if they fluked easy draws again and scraped in. I would rather not depended upon chance. We need to win this title.
 
mrsjr1872 said:
id say the main reason is all is 'sources' are in his head people believe what they want to hear especially idiots he's the worst kind of person preying on the weak minded for money
Click to expand...

It's really just fan fiction he sells, a small number of weirdos seem to like buying it.

The rest of us live in the real world.
 
Valley Bluenose said:
Had me all excited there @BrownBrogues but, sadly, your link is to RIFC. The charges are against TRFC and 3 still show as outstanding: 2 long-standing, and non-contentious, relating to Auchenhowie and still the Floating Charge for Close Brothers (ending 013). I still feel it’s clear the loan has been repaid/not drawn down so nothing to be concerned about. I hope.

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/SC425159/charges
Click to expand...

Indicates we still have the facility, but are not using it. A floating charge is only relevant if there is a debt for it to crystallise against.
 
Valley Bluenose said:
Had me all excited there @BrownBrogues but, sadly, your link is to RIFC. The charges are against TRFC and 3 still show as outstanding: 2 long-standing, and non-contentious, relating to Auchenhowie and still the Floating Charge for Close Brothers (ending 013). I still feel it’s clear the loan has been repaid/not drawn down so nothing to be concerned about. I hope.

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/SC425159/charges
Click to expand...

No idea whether the facility has ended or not. However don't see why we would end it as its an overdraft facility which provides immediate liquidity when needed. Its a perfectly normal & rational facility for us to have and will likely draw and then be repaid numerous times over the course of a year.

Plus I wouldn't entirely rely on the companies website for real time news. It takes a reasonable time to update after the companies make submissions.
 
Valley Bluenose said:
Had me all excited there @BrownBrogues but, sadly, your link is to RIFC. The charges are against TRFC and 3 still show as outstanding: 2 long-standing, and non-contentious, relating to Auchenhowie and still the Floating Charge for Close Brothers (ending 013). I still feel it’s clear the loan has been repaid/not drawn down so nothing to be concerned about. I hope.

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/SC425159/charges
Click to expand...

Two of them are The Scottish Sports Council from 2002 for the Hummel, that is cause that was a Partnership with the Sports Council. That will always remain. Looks like floating charges on Close Leasing. I suspect that is because the second aspect was an Overdraft Facility, and although not presently drawn down, it gives the Club access to borrow again from the current arrangement with same floating Charges terms if ever required and that is why that one will remain.
 
Love the way deranged Phil always bumps into these "sources" at lunch! Walter Mitty type weirdo cretin!
 
BrownBrogues said:
Two of them are The Scottish Sports Council from 2002 for the Hummel, that is cause that was a Partnership with the Sports Council. That will always remain. Looks like floating charges on Close Leasing. I suspect that is because the second aspect was an Overdraft Facility, and although not presently drawn down, it gives the Club access to borrow again from the current arrangement with same floating Charges terms if ever required and that is why that one will remain.
Click to expand...

That’s seems to be thbe consensus mate.
 
Valley Bluenose said:
Had me all excited there @BrownBrogues but, sadly, your link is to RIFC. The charges are against TRFC and 3 still show as outstanding: 2 long-standing, and non-contentious, relating to Auchenhowie and still the Floating Charge for Close Brothers (ending 013). I still feel it’s clear the loan has been repaid/not drawn down so nothing to be concerned about. I hope.

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/SC425159/charges
Click to expand...

I don’t think there was a loan, it was a revolving credit facility more akin to an overdraft. This being the case it will have been repaid and redrawn as required. In the summer months with receipt of season ticket money it should not be required.

With retail income now being received and with fresh equity it’s useage may not be necessary but it’s handy to have. However, facilities of this nature will fall due for an annual review in terms of serviceability, security and or appropriateness. I was surprised at the outset at both fixed and floating charges being taken as there was an element of belt and braces here. However this may have been due to the floater requiring time to become effective and with this period now passed the fixed elements of the security may no longer be required.

But, as you say, in all of this there is nothing to be concerned about I don’t think.
 
Grant K said:
I don’t think there was a loan, it was a revolving credit facility more akin to an overdraft. This being the case it will have been repaid and redrawn as required. In the summer months with receipt of season ticket money it should not be required.

With retail income now being received and with fresh equity it’s useage may not be necessary but it’s handy to have. However, facilities of this nature will fall due for an annual review in terms of serviceability, security and or appropriateness. I was surprised at the outset at both fixed and floating charges being taken as there was an element of belt and braces here. However this may have been due to the floater requiring time to become effective and with this period now passed the fixed elements of the security may no longer be required.

But, as you say, in all of this there is nothing to be concerned about I don’t think.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. It was used to get work on the roofs underway, the Europa Revenue has ultimately eliminated the need for it. With the Cash at bank from Share Issue the Board have done the responsible thing here and got rid of the TP Debt ASAP. Kudos to them.
 
Grant K said:
I don’t think there was a loan, it was a revolving credit facility more akin to an overdraft. This being the case it will have been repaid and redrawn as required. In the summer months with receipt of season ticket money it should not be required.

With retail income now being received and with fresh equity it’s useage may not be necessary but it’s handy to have. However, facilities of this nature will fall due for an annual review in terms of serviceability, security and or appropriateness. I was surprised at the outset at both fixed and floating charges being taken as there was an element of belt and braces here. However this may have been due to the floater requiring time to become effective and with this period now passed the fixed elements of the security may no longer be required.

But, as you say, in all of this there is nothing to be concerned about I don’t think.
Click to expand...

Loan, Working Capital Facility - referred to as both on the official site. The title of the document, however, is ‘Loan Facility’ so I’m happy to refer to it as a loan. Under the current regime it is not a concern and, as we now see, if any of it was ever drawn down it has now been repaid.

We’ve a bit to go still in terms of ‘repairing’ the business but we should not be afraid to call a spade a spade or, indeed, a loan a loan - or even a repaid loan.:D

https://media.rangers.co.uk/uploads/2018/02/20180207_Loan-Facility.docx
 
Valley Bluenose said:
Loan, Working Capital Facility - referred to as both on the official site. The title of the document, however, is ‘Loan Facility’ so I’m happy to refer to it as a loan. Under the current regime it is not a concern and, as we now see, if any of it was ever drawn down it has now been repaid.

We’ve a bit to go still in terms of ‘repairing’ the business but we should not be afraid to call a spade a spade or, indeed, a loan a loan - or even a repaid loan.:D

https://media.rangers.co.uk/uploads/2018/02/20180207_Loan-Facility.docx
Click to expand...

Not sure where the word afraid comes from. Facilities if required are negotiated, agreed utilised and repaid/renewed. However depending upon purpose different types of facility are requested. My memory suggested this was a revolver and loans are not normally for working capital purposes. Whilst terminology is often wrongly attributed I stand corrected. However I understand that the floater has not been discharged which is then a bit of a conundrum, is it not?
 
Grant K said:
Not sure where the word afraid comes from. Facilities if required are negotiated, agreed utilised and repaid/renewed. However depending upon purpose different types of facility are requested. My memory suggested this was a revolver and loans are not normally for working capital purposes. Whilst terminology is often wrongly attributed I stand corrected. However I understand that the floater has not been discharged which is then a bit of a conundrum, is it not?
Click to expand...

Wasn't a go at you Grant. I well remember some heated threads on here because some folk, myself included, had the temerity to refer to this as a 'loan'. Presumably because of all the (incorrect) connotations the likes of Phil McGobblegiver put on it plus the memories of the numerous Ashley loans in the past.

The reality is, whatever its purpose, the Club referred to it as a loan. All businesses have loans, even the Dhims! We shouldn't shy away from it yet some seemed intent on doing so, they appeared to 'fear' using the term (not you).

The consensus on the thread seems to be that we borrowed/drew down the money, it has now been repaid (and the charge satisfied) but the floating charge remains in place because we may choose to borrow/draw down funding again at some point in the future. I'm happy to agree with that view. In reality the terminology used is largely semantics. At the end of the day this is further good news of our Club's recovery and return to normality.
 
Valley Bluenose said:
Wasn't a go at you Grant. I well remember some heated threads on here because some folk, myself included, had the temerity to refer to this as a 'loan'. Presumably because of all the (incorrect) connotations the likes of Phil McGobblegiver put on it plus the memories of the numerous Ashley loans in the past.

The reality is, whatever its purpose, the Club referred to it as a loan. All businesses have loans, even the Dhims! We shouldn't shy away from it yet some seemed intent on doing so, they appeared to 'fear' using the term (not you).

The consensus on the thread seems to be that we borrowed/drew down the money, it has now been repaid (and the charge satisfied) but the floating charge remains in place because we may choose to borrow/draw down funding again at some point in the future. I'm happy to agree with that view. In reality the terminology used is largely semantics. At the end of the day this is further good news of our Club's recovery and return to normality.
Click to expand...

You are right that we (me) should not get hung up on terminology and be happy that we are now in a business as normal situation. The probability that the facility remains in place, with reduced security for what ever reason, adds to this sense of normality, confirming that off field progress is being made.
 
Valley Bluenose said:
There’s a bit more detail/discussion/speculation in this thread - including links to the Companies House Documents.

https://www.followfollow.com/forum/threads/two-statements-from-companies-house.50794/

As things stand it shows the Standing Charge as ‘satisfied’ but the Floating Charge still outstanding. They cover basically the same things so that’s a bit confusing. It may simply be a delay in submitting the paperwork for the Floating Charge.

I’m sure @BrownBrogues has it correct in his OP - everything would point to this loan having been fully repaid/never drawn down.

Good news.
Click to expand...

Here you go mate

pic.twitter.com/5Q0w1UqO6N

Copy of papers confirming Close Brother cleared, No fixed or floating over Albion or Edminston.
 
Grant K said:
This appears only to confirm what we know that the fixed charges (Standard Security’s) have been discharged. There should also be a discharge of the Floating Charge which is a security separate from the fixed charges.
Click to expand...

Page 2 Mate discharge over both assets.
 
The pensioner killers spin on us paying back the loan is fantastic



Says we only paid back because close brothers were worried about our financial situation they called it in asap and we had to rush a share issue



So it was originally to be paid back in febuary (i think) so worse case scenario we could have punted a player or 2 in the transfer window and easily cover it



Guys an absolute loony cannot believe people still buy into his lies
 
IrvineLoyal said:
The pensioner killers spin on us paying back the loan is fantastic



Says we only paid back because close brothers were worried about our financial situation they called it in asap and we had to rush a share issue



So it was originally to be paid back in febuary (i think) so worse case scenario we could have punted a player or 2 in the transfer window and easily cover it



Guys an absolute loony cannot believe people still buy into his lies
Click to expand...

Nobody does though mate, people laugh at his obvious bullshit. :D
 
BrownBrogues said:
Here is the updated land doc

Note Securities nil

Click to expand...
Good news indeed. The swift repayment of this you would also think will effectively improve our credit rating with the more mainstream lenders. We finally look like becoming a normal football club with responsible owners once more.
Loans aren’t always a bad thing as long as they are used correctly.
 
Wilkinsvolley said:
Phil must be contemplating suicide by now.
Click to expand...

As long as he can exploit his mindless yahoo acolytes out of paypal donations while he sits on his lazy unemployed backside all day he won't be going anywhere sadly.

That's all the conman cares about raking in money from the filth and lots of it. It won't be long before he goes down the road of the other mental case John James and starts hiding his blogs behind paywalls charging fools £10 a time to read them.

The yahoos think these two morons are trolling us but it's them who are being trolled by two snake oil salesmen who's primary purpose is to extort as much money out of them as they can.
 
Walters80 said:
As long as he can exploit his mindless yahoo acolytes out of paypal donations while he sits on his lazy unemployed backside all day he won't be going anywhere sadly.

That's all the conman cares about raking in money from the filth and lots of it. It won't be long before he goes down the road of the other mental case John James and starts hiding his blogs behind paywalls charging fools £10 a time to read them.

The yahoos think these two morons are trolling us but it's them who are being trolled by two snake oil salesmen who's primary purpose is to extort as much money out of them as they can.
Click to expand...
This post gives me a warm fuzzy feeling.
 
An overdraft by any other name is a loan. This looks to be secured with a Floating Charge given to Close Brothers and it can stay there until the cows come home as long as the o/d facility is there. Any security is better than no security is an old lenders saying. And I am an old lender.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top