|
|
Post by thehatchet on Oct 16, 2016 7:54:48 GMT
Besides there is a covenant on the ground that it must be used for sporting purposes, so it would be difficult to redevelop. Who is the current beneficiary of that covenant and, realistically, are they likely to seek to enforce it? In practice, such covenants are regularly overcome by developers via application to the Lands Tribunal. One of the potential grounds for discharge is apparently that "The restriction ought to be deemed obsolete because of changes in the character of the property or the neighbourhood, or there are other circumstances of the case which the Tribunal may deem material. Alternatively, the continued existence of those circumstances would restrict the reasonable use of the land for public or private purposes without any practical benefit to other persons" I think it's the 'football club' I.e. The B*** Football Club Company Ltd. I agree, I'm sure the covenant could be overturned - e.g. if the club were to relocate to a new ground and part of the financing for that relocation was the sale of the current ground for redevelopment. However, I could see a situation where if the club went under and a Phoenix club started owned by the supporters then a court may not lift the covenant and the new club could continue to play there. Let's hope for everyone it doesn't come down to that!
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,875 
Likes: 7,924
|
Post by SteveT on Oct 16, 2016 8:08:17 GMT
Who is the current beneficiary of that covenant and, realistically, are they likely to seek to enforce it? I think it's the 'football club' I.e. The B*** Football Club Company Ltd. If the owner of land were also the beneficiary of a covenant over the same land then it would be redundant, since only the beneficiary of a covenant can seek to enforce it. In this sort of situation, the original beneficiary is likely to have been the local landowner that first gave or sold the land to the club.
|
|
|
|
Post by thehatchet on Oct 16, 2016 8:42:24 GMT
I think it's the 'football club' I.e. The B*** Football Club Company Ltd. If the owner of land were also the beneficiary of a covenant over the same land then it would be redundant, since only the beneficiary of a covenant can seek to enforce it. In this sort of situation, the original beneficiary is likely to have been the local landowner that first gave or sold the land to the club. Well, for a bit of irrelevant history(?!), the club was formed in 1885 and the pitch was acquired in that year from Mr Thomas Barlow who was an agent for the Earl of Derby. I don't know when the covenant was established, or, and thank you for the correction, who the beneficiaries are - perhaps the townspeople or the local authority / metropolitan borough? Anyhow, let's hope this never unravels!
|
|
|
|
Post by thehatchet on Oct 16, 2016 10:21:25 GMT
I'm genuinely interested in the risk investors are willing to take on loans like this. The interest may just about be affordable to the club but how is the principal going to be repaid in three years time? The club has been making losses of around £50k per month for the last few years. Actually I got my numbers wrong there -annual losses have in in excess of £2.4m so monthly losses around £200k; £40k a week or so. Each and every game the club is losing money; essentially propped up by an ever increasing debt burden.
|
|
am
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 601
|
Post by am on Oct 16, 2016 11:39:27 GMT
I hadn't looked at this loan previously - I was worried about the difficulty in extracting value from the security (and the bad publicity) in the face of opposition from the supporters' club.
Having started to peruse the valuation I find the statement "Shared Access Ltd paid a premium to hold the rights to the telephone masks for 30 years". I presume that should be "masts". I suspect that if the site was to be sold for redevelopment the masts would be removed, and Shared Access would have to be bought out, reducing the value of the site as development land. (As would be expected, this isn't reflected in the valuation, which is based on the estimated market rent of the site operated as a football stadium.)
|
|
|
|
Post by thehatchet on Oct 16, 2016 12:16:07 GMT
I hadn't looked at this loan previously - I was worried about the difficulty in extracting value from the security (and the bad publicity) in the face of opposition from the supporters' club. Haven't started to peruse the valuation I find the statement "Shared Access Ltd paid a premium to hold the rights to the telephone masks for 30 years". I presume that should be "masts". I suspect that if the site was to be sold for redevelopment the masts would be removed, and Shared Access would have to be bought out, reducing the value of the site as development land. (As would be expected, this isn't reflected in the valuation, which is based on the estimated market rent of the site operated as a football stadium.) I would have thought that in terms of the valuation, the estimated market rent of the site operated as a football stadium would be irrelevant? The security would only be needed if the club went under, in which case there'd be no rent?!
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Oct 16, 2016 17:00:11 GMT
Not according to the loan details provided by MT. Do you have reason to doubt them? ...but the club is owned by the property developer. (A fans' forum have been in lengthy discussions as to whether or not he is the "owner" or "sole trustee" I hope MT have dug deeper because on the surface the true ownership of the club appears a bit opaque. Just a quick follow up on this post; A company (M****** (BFC) LTD) has a 78% stake in the club (B*** FOOTBALL CLUB COMPANY LIMITED (THE)). The sole director & 100% shareholder of M****** Ltd is S****** P*** D** (the property developer). The above information comes from the most recent Annual returns.
|
|
|
|
Post by thehatchet on Oct 16, 2016 18:43:20 GMT
...but the club is owned by the property developer. (A fans' forum have been in lengthy discussions as to whether or not he is the "owner" or "sole trustee" I hope MT have dug deeper because on the surface the true ownership of the club appears a bit opaque. Just a quick follow up on this post; A company (M****** (BFC) LTD) has a 78% stake in the club (B*** FOOTBALL CLUB COMPANY LIMITED (THE)). The sole director & 100% shareholder of M****** Ltd is S****** P*** D** (the property developer). The above information comes from the most recent Annual returns. Not sure it's as simple as that. The latest annual return shows 'M*r*****' [sic] as the majority shareholder but that is believed to be 'M****** Ltd'. That company is only 50% owned by Mr D**, though he has said he will take full ownership [somehow]. There is also uncertainty as to how M****** Ltd 'acquired' those shares as they were previously held by a supporters trust following a previous administration. It's not clear how the trust and trustees allowed the transfer of the shares into the private company.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,318
Likes: 11,526
|
Post by ilmoro on Oct 16, 2016 18:44:16 GMT
...but the club is owned by the property developer. (A fans' forum have been in lengthy discussions as to whether or not he is the "owner" or "sole trustee" I hope MT have dug deeper because on the surface the true ownership of the club appears a bit opaque. Just a quick follow up on this post; A company (M****** (BFC) LTD) has a 78% stake in the club (B*** FOOTBALL CLUB COMPANY LIMITED (THE)). The sole director & 100% shareholder of M****** Ltd is S****** P*** D** (the property developer). The above information comes from the most recent Annual returns. That has got to be the most pointless use of asterix ever. 
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Oct 16, 2016 18:57:32 GMT
Just a quick follow up on this post; A company (M****** (BFC) LTD) has a 78% stake in the club (B*** FOOTBALL CLUB COMPANY LIMITED (THE)). The sole director & 100% shareholder of M****** Ltd is S****** P*** D** (the property developer). The above information comes from the most recent Annual returns. Not sure it's as simple as that. The latest annual return shows 'M*r*****' [sic] as the majority shareholder but that is believed to be 'M****** Ltd'. That company is only 50% owned by Mr D**, though he has said he will take full ownership [somehow]. There is also uncertainty as to how M****** Ltd 'acquired' those shares as they were previously held by a supporters trust following a previous administration. It's not clear how the trust and trustees allowed the transfer of the shares into the private company. Probably isn't as simple as that (rarely is!). However, are you sure you using the most recent annual returns? There is a Second filing of the annual return made up to 31 December 2014 which appears above the 31 December 2015 annual returns, however, the 2015 returns are the most recent. I've mined all the shareholders from the most recent annual returns and it shows that M****** (it's misspelt, but it's presumed to be M****** (BFC) LTD) is 78% shareholder. So, it does seem that the majority shareholder seems to be a M****** (BFC) LTD not M****** Ltd; the prior is 100% owned by SD. 
|
|
|
|
Post by thehatchet on Oct 16, 2016 19:09:03 GMT
Not sure it's as simple as that. The latest annual return shows 'M*r*****' [sic] as the majority shareholder but that is believed to be 'M****** Ltd'. That company is only 50% owned by Mr D**, though he has said he will take full ownership [somehow]. There is also uncertainty as to how M****** Ltd 'acquired' those shares as they were previously held by a supporters trust following a previous administration. It's not clear how the trust and trustees allowed the transfer of the shares into the private company. Probably isn't as simple as that (rarely is!). However, are you sure you using the most recent annual returns? There is a Second filing of the annual return made up to 31 December 2014 which appears above the 31 December 2015 annual returns, however, the 2015 returns are the most recent. I've mined all the shareholders from the most recent annual returns and it shows that M****** (it's misspelt, but it's presumed to be M****** (BFC) LTD) is 78% shareholder. Also, the shareholder's list is unclear; the majority shareholder seems to be M****** (BFC) LTD not M****** Ltd; the prior is 100% owned by SD. It's difficult to follow and not made any easier by the fact that the directors are repeatedly late with company filings for their companies. From meetings and the full accounts for the club, then indications are that the owner of those shares is M Ltd and not M (BFC) Ltd. BFC is also BarrowFold Close, a separate development. My point remains though about how the shares previously held in trust became held by one of the Chair's companies (50% or fully owned). It's all a bit murky.
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Oct 16, 2016 19:20:44 GMT
Probably isn't as simple as that (rarely is!). However, are you sure you using the most recent annual returns? There is a Second filing of the annual return made up to 31 December 2014 which appears above the 31 December 2015 annual returns, however, the 2015 returns are the most recent. I've mined all the shareholders from the most recent annual returns and it shows that M****** (it's misspelt, but it's presumed to be M****** (BFC) LTD) is 78% shareholder. Also, the shareholder's list is unclear; the majority shareholder seems to be M****** (BFC) LTD not M****** Ltd; the prior is 100% owned by SD. It's difficult to follow and not made any easier by the fact that the directors are repeatedly late with company filings for their companies. From meetings and the full accounts for the club, then indications are that the owner of those shares is M Ltd and not M (BFC) Ltd. BFC is also BarrowFold Close, a separate development. My point remains though about how the shares previously held in trust became held by one of the Chair's companies (50% or fully owned). It's all a bit murky. Sounds like it. Seems some more digging is required (I will get my shovel) You seem to have a head start of me... I like your username 
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,318
Likes: 11,526
|
Post by ilmoro on Oct 16, 2016 19:30:44 GMT
If you look at the latest return SOS transferred their shares on 1/1/2015, doesnt say where to but it is fairly obvious as M****** are not listed on previous returns.
|
|
|
|
Post by thehatchet on Oct 16, 2016 19:33:32 GMT
If you look at the latest return SOS transferred their shares on 1/1/2015, doesnt say where to but it is fairly obvious as M****** are not listed on previous returns. Which is not consistent with the club's (full) audited accounts to May 2015.
|
|
am
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 601
|
Post by am on Oct 16, 2016 19:34:37 GMT
I hadn't looked at this loan previously - I was worried about the difficulty in extracting value from the security (and the bad publicity) in the face of opposition from the supporters' club. Having started to peruse the valuation I find the statement "Shared Access Ltd paid a premium to hold the rights to the telephone masks for 30 years". I presume that should be "masts". I suspect that if the site was to be sold for redevelopment the masts would be removed, and Shared Access would have to be bought out, reducing the value of the site as development land. (As would be expected, this isn't reflected in the valuation, which is based on the estimated market rent of the site operated as a football stadium.) I would have thought that in terms of the valuation, the estimated market rent of the site operated as a football stadium would be irrelevant? The security would only be needed if the club went under, in which case there'd be no rent?! It's not quite so simple. If the club doesn't go under, but does default on the loan, there's the option for finding a buyer for a sale and leaseback deal. (Perhaps more likely, if the club foresaw difficulty in repaying the loan, it could pursue such a deal on its own initiative.) But this is a situation where an AC style credit report would have been desirable.
|
|
