The EWM Thread

Laffy wrote: It's called control-without a degree of control why give a load of money to support the equity?

We obviously don't know whether the loan involves AJ/Pioneer loans being taken out.I suspect not as it's not exactly been given a fanfare.

At the end of the day,I think this is a good move for the Club despite the lack of detail

seesaw50 wrote: Presumably there are no other charges on the ground then

Dancingbear wrote:

Laffy wrote: It's called control-without a degree of control why give a load of money to support the equity?

We obviously don't know whether the loan involves AJ/Pioneer loans being taken out.I suspect not as it's not exactly been given a fanfare.

At the end of the day,I think this is a good move for the Club despite the lack of detail

But Andrew as i suggested above doesnt it put us in the same position as we were in before Story waived his loan? I hope its the start of a takeover but if it isnt and nothing changes then i fail to see how were better off. Id be reluctant to trust the clowns in charge to spend 10p wisely.

Gadge wrote: Forgive my ignorance in such matters, but is taking another loan (not investment) not just putting us deeper in the s***? Of course it seems this is all speculative until we know the detail and in past performance, I'm not holding my breath on that one.

Mullen103 wrote:

Dancingbear wrote: Would the trust not have to be agreeable to a loan from a outside agency that includes a charge on the ground? Is that not the very thing they're supposed to protect?

You'd of thought something like that would of gone to the trust.

There's 2 scenarios either the trust don't know about it, which is unlikely, or the 1921 rep has ok'd it without going to the members.

Dancingbear wrote: Would the trust not have to be agreeable to a loan from a outside agency that includes a charge on the ground? Is that not the very thing they're supposed to protect?

NORTHERNSOUL wrote:

Dancingbear wrote: Would the trust not have to be agreeable to a loan from a outside agency that includes a charge on the ground? Is that not the very thing they're supposed to protect?

Probably not unfortunately as their shareholding would give them a say if it was the holding company but it seems the money has been lent not to them but to 1921 directly.but still surely holdings would have the say on the charge as ultimately the stadium belongs to it

Croydonblue wrote: An excellent question. We do have a lovely board on the Warwick roof advertising Newcastle Airport. Other than that answers on a postcard please.

munchymagic wrote: Even if this guy gave us ten million, what use is it until the end of the season - couldn't he have gave us it in January?

Just saying like

Bruntonpasty wrote:

seesaw50 wrote: Presumably there are no other charges on the ground then

I may be wrong but I suspect that would not be possible. Think about your own home, could two lenders have charges over it? if you defaulted on one mortgage How could they repossess it if another lender had a charge over it? This is why it doesn't happen, I may be wrong?

NORTHERNSOUL wrote:

Croydonblue wrote: An excellent question. We do have a lovely board on the Warwick roof advertising Newcastle Airport. Other than that answers on a postcard please.

Not really anything to do with King

A simple 15 grand investment done to stop the new city international airport using the club as a cheap but very effective publicity vehicle. Myself i would of rather had Stobbarts back involved.

CarlisleWhite wrote: Must be missing something here - how is it good news that we are borrowing more money with no sign of any discernible change, especially to the money owed to Jenkins and Pioneer?
Just seems to be pushing things further down the track.
I suppose we will have to see the conditions and associated changes to the set up.
Part of Trust share going to PD anyone?

kells wrote:

Bruntonpasty wrote:

seesaw50 wrote: Presumably there are no other charges on the ground then

I may be wrong but I suspect that would not be possible. Think about your own home, could two lenders have charges over it? if you defaulted on one mortgage How could they repossess it if another lender had a charge over it? This is why it doesn't happen, I may be wrong?

Quite possible for there to be others charges on a home (I used to arrange 2nd charges), so stands to reason there could be others on a football stadium

Bruntonpasty wrote:

kells wrote:

Bruntonpasty wrote:

seesaw50 wrote: Presumably there are no other charges on the ground then

I may be wrong but I suspect that would not be possible. Think about your own home, could two lenders have charges over it? if you defaulted on one mortgage How could they repossess it if another lender had a charge over it? This is why it doesn't happen, I may be wrong?

Quite possible for there to be others charges on a home (I used to arrange 2nd charges), so stands to reason there could be others on a football stadium

I did say I may be wrong!

Bruntonpasty wrote:

seesaw50 wrote: Presumably there are no other charges on the ground then

I may be wrong but I suspect that would not be possible. Think about your own home, could two lenders have charges over it? if you defaulted on one mortgage How could they repossess it if another lender had a charge over it? This is why it doesn't happen, I may be wrong?

munchymagic wrote:

NORTHERNSOUL wrote:

Croydonblue wrote: An excellent question. We do have a lovely board on the Warwick roof advertising Newcastle Airport. Other than that answers on a postcard please.

Not really anything to do with King

A simple 15 grand investment done to stop the new city international airport using the club as a cheap but very effective publicity vehicle. Myself i would of rather had Stobbarts back involved.

The Stobarts of today is a different beast compared to the one that used to sponsor us.

They have moved loads of their operations from Carlisle down to Warrington hence their Rugby connections in the area.

Maybe if Edward was still around and involved in Stobarts they might have continued the sponsorship, think they are half German owned now anyhow so less connected to Carlisle.

Bruntonpasty wrote: Another thing about our club that seems to cause more problems than it solves, two boards!! That needs sorting out too come the day of reckoning.

seesaw50 wrote:

Bruntonpasty wrote: Another thing about our club that seems to cause more problems than it solves, two boards!! That needs sorting out too come the day of reckoning.

Two boards Brunton

Board 1 Holdings ......for secret meetings and hatching up unbelievable schemes

Board 2 1921 ............for all other club business that Board 1 can't be bothered with.

Hopefully Board 1 won't be able to continue in secret now CUOSC are on "board"

pacirv wrote: I wouldn't lend the three amigos a couple of pence, if this is a lead in to him taking over the club then great if it is only a loan to the owners then our decline will continue.

Bruntonpasty wrote: Whatever you think about Mr Day, this prevents the others raising money against the ground to repay themselves like Knighton did. Has Mr Day put this money in place to repay PFD as suggested further up? time will tell, but now there is one club asset that the BOD have less control over, Mr Day has a foot well wedged in the door now it would appear.

Kangshung wrote: Got to view this with caution until some kind of briefing comes from somewhere. Don't want to read something into this that isn't there, but it sounds very much like a major play is being made?

Hopefully the club and Mr Day will issue some kind of press release to clarify the situation?

Dentonholmersimpson wrote: He is local and has got more money than anyone else in Cumbria.

He has an obvious affection for the club and is the perfect candidate to most CUFC fans.

He has obviously got his head screwed on and is a serious business man.

Which begs the obvious question.

Why would anyone chuck their money at a football club just to get a load of abuse if things don't go to plan?

How do you become a millionaire by buying a football club?

Start off as a billionaire.

Bruntonpasty wrote:

Dentonholmersimpson wrote: He is local and has got more money than anyone else in Cumbria.

He has an obvious affection for the club and is the perfect candidate to most CUFC fans.

He has obviously got his head screwed on and is a serious business man.

Which begs the obvious question.

Why would anyone chuck their money at a football club just to get a load of abuse if things don't go to plan?

How do you become a millionaire by buying a football club?

Start off as a billionaire.

I agree with all of that but would add, Do you become a billionaire by being popular all the time? Generally these folks are able to deal with being unpopular and expect it as part of the territory.

seesaw50 wrote:

Bruntonpasty wrote:

seesaw50 wrote: Presumably there are no other charges on the ground then

I may be wrong but I suspect that would not be possible. Think about your own home, could two lenders have charges over it? if you defaulted on one mortgage How could they repossess it if another lender had a charge over it? This is why it doesn't happen, I may be wrong?

Depends on loan to equity maybe ...am sure you're right Brunton tho. But like I said the stadium is probably unsalable.... Flood plain...poss covenant stating for Sporting use only. How can a loian be secured against it ..and as Laffy said it must be a sizeable loan to need security. How do they propose to start repayments , when we haven't paid anything off AJs "loans".....or have we???