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

Come the end of the season Jenkins debt will probably have mysteriously risen to two and a half million pounds, it is like burning money giving those three anything.

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.

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?

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.

10 cola bottles.

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.

Surely the point of having a director on the clubs boards and a Trust board is so they don't have to ask the members every time they get asked anything.

That is the whole point of electing a board isn't it ?

I'm only guessing but this feels like change to me-in a positive way but probably borne out of lack of cash.The stadium has no value other than as a stadium so mortgaging it to a new lender is probably more about control.Be thankful it's not some dodgy Syrian with a aggrophobia

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.

I think this loan may be substantial enough to pay off PFD loan and the money owed the EWM will be converted into shares, equivalent to AJ. I think AJ will wave his personal loan to club.
Others monies from the loan will pay wages.
I see this as a positive step, if it is something like that.
Phillip Day will attract more investment.

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

Holdings would definitely have to have signed off on it.

When they did the board restructuring, putting King, Clibbens and Kidd on the 1921 board and the Owners know the Holdings, they said that 1921 was for day-to-day running of the club and Holdings was for long term.

Taking a loan which is secured on the ground seems like a long term thing, not day-to-day

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

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.

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!:P

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!:P

If there are other charges, there would have to be agreement between all parties before the new charge could be added? Is this correct?

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???

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"

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.

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"

Hmmmmm? we shall see!

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.

We'll have to let it take its course, but I have to admit to being cautiously optimistic on this one.

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.

Almost certainly PFD will be repaid from EWM's loan. PFD filed its accounts to the end of April 2016 in January 2017. Nobody noticed that the loan to CUFC (1921) which then stood at £690,750 had become repayable within 12 months. i.e. by 30th April 2017 at the latest. On that basis the loan from EWM may just be a round £1 million.

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?

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?

You'd hope so otherwise why would Philip Day loan the club a sum of money he knows he's highly unlikely to get back to allow the club to pay a loan back to the clubs owners other company.

Just no getting rid of them three is there - Rentokill wouldn't even touch this job, you get rid of one of them and he just grows back again.

Now that the new money has acted as fertiliser they will be more cocky than ever, especially now the season ticket sales shortfall has been covered.

So, is this Philip Day making a play with a view to a takeover?

Is it a case of him paying off the debt to AJ in an attempt to make the club more attractive to other potential investors?

Is it something else altogether?

I can't imagine he's done this out of pure benevolence, put a big sum in for it to potentially disappear immediately? Nah! Can't see it, people like him don't do that, or at least not in this way. He has remember, put a charge on the ground against this loan, it's got a big string attached right there. Let's hope the next string to come out is Nixon and Patty's quick departure.

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.

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.

The Edinburgh Woollen Mill Stadium? When people are desperate you have a very good bargaining position.

Jumpers for goalposts?

I am 100% confident in Philip Day. He has huge backing in the city of London and more important respect. His predecessor at EWM David Stevenson is an equally respected person and knowing David as I do I knew he would sell EWM only to someone who would carry the EWM banner to the ultimate for the benefit of all the staff.If Philip comes on board which seems very likely then I think the club will be in very good hands for the future. However, as supporters we must not expect fireworks although Days strategy is move quickly to build things up.
What I would like to say is that AJ in particular has always had the club at heart and always will and I knew that he would not sell the club down the river and if this comes off he should be truly thanked for all he has done for Carlisle United.

Reports say he is/was worth 1.05 billion.

He can remain a billionaire whilst spending £50,000,000 building us a new ground and establishing us as a self-sufficient second tier club :woohoo:

No, I'm not serious.

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.

In hindsight you are probably right, I think it's all the abuse and vitriol on here at the slightest opportunity,mostly all cyber warriors.

If you look at the protest last week it looked like the junior supporters club, photos I saw there looked to be 2 or 3 over fifteen.

Most will spout off on here but would not say boo to goose given the chance.

But there are always the odd nutter who might take things too far.

Not aimed at MRF by the way.

I wouldn't get too giddy about this as a couple of wins will see a "mystery overseas investor" appear and Day will be given his money back and told to wait for 5 to 10 days whilst they have "talks".

Hey Alan son, dijd you have a picture of Derwent Water on North News tonight

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???

Any charge on a football stadium is basically useless, other than as Laffy said for control, because nobody is every going to want to bear the resentment of kicking a team out if it's ground.

Just look at Rangers, when they went bust they valued Ibrox at about £110m and had debts secured against it, but no one was ever going to be able to realise that value.

Philip Day's personal fortune grew by 300 million over the last financial year, believe
Also rumoured to be close to a deal for EWM to take over Jagger fashion clothing firm.
Busy man is Mr Day.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

*Jaeger

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Is Phillip day a Carlisle fan, as I'm sure if most of the people on here were worth £1.05 billion that would be giving club money not loaning it.

Is Phillip day a Carlisle fan, as I'm sure if most of the people on here were worth £1.05 billion that would be giving club money not loaning it.

If I was worth that much I wouldn't give the club a penny having seen some of the ungrateful [censored] on here! :lol:

I'm not ungrateful to him, i think him being involved could be fantastic for the club, he's a clever businessman , knows how to turn around failing business , knows the importance of keeping up with the times. The club needs dragged into the 21st century hopefully Phillip can do it.

Got himself into bother a few years ago

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2382652/Tycoon-Philip-Day-turned-woodland-Hadrians-Wall-quarried-wasteland.html

Jon Colman on Twitter...

EWM charge at #CUFC: CUOSC say their representatives have been "fully involved" in the discussions and decisions leading to the arrangement

CUOSC also say the EWM arrangement with #CUFC "will be beneficial to the club both in the short term and moving forward" @newsandstar

Interesting...

Says nothing - bet there is a confidentiality clause in place.

Would you expect the club to release the details of everything they do ?

Did you put a copy of your mortgage agreement out to the public when you signed it ?

Yes I think I would expect them to put a decent statement out. They've been after investment for years so if they've finally got it then why wouldn't they say? Your being a right fanny lately deckchair

I asked Jim from the trust 3-4 weeks ago if they have spoken to Philip Day and the answer was no.

So either it's another lie or this has been very quick.

Email from Jim 22nd Feb - Hadn't met Philip Day.

Trust have said to News and Star they have been involved in this.

So either it's been very quick or indeed they haven't met Day and it's all dine by paper work,which is extremely poor, or they have lied again!

Re: Philip Day
R

Richard
Fri 24/02/2025 11:53
Sent Items
To:
Jim Mitchell ();
Cc:
info@cuosc.org.uk;
Hi Jim

And were you allowed to ask questions/receive answers.

I'm at a bit of a loss to Mike's comment that its not black/white as to whether the poi has been involved from the start 640+ days ago.




From: Jim Mitchell
Sent: 24 February 2025 10:02
To: Richard
Cc: info@cuosc.org.uk
Subject: Re: Philip Day

Hi Richard,

Yes, the person involved was sitting close to us and we had a clear view of the individual. Speaking personally, I had sufficient information to confirm the person's identity.

Jim

Sent from my iPad

On 24 Feb 2017, at 09:51, Richard <mullen103@hotmail.com> wrote:

Hi Jim

I presume the trust were allowed to ask the "POI" questions? did you see his/her face? was research done to prove the person was who they said they were?



From: Jim Mitchell
Sent: 23 February 2025 18:40
To: Richard
Cc: info@cuosc.org.uk
Subject: Re: Philip Day

Hi Richard,

Firstly, despite the subject heading, I presume you are not referring to Philip Day as I told you yesterday we had not met him.

Regarding the person who has become known as the POI, as you know we are limited in what we can say due to the agreements we entered into in order to participate in the process. What I can tell you is that when we met him the focus of the meeting was solely on his ideas and ambitions for improving the Club's situation and details of his investment plans.

Jim

Sent from my iPad

On 23 Feb 2017, at 16:25, Richard <mullen103@hotmail.com> wrote:

Hi

We have been told that the trust have met the investor at least once.

Did the trust ask the question whether or not the investor has been involved since day one 600+ days ago and if yes did you get a response and if no why wasn't the question asked?


From: Richard <mullen103@hotmail.com>
Sent: 22 February 2025 18:21
To: Jim Mitchell
Subject: Re: Philip Day

Thanks Jim
From: Jim Mitchell
Sent: 22 February 2025 18:20:26
To: Richard
Subject: Re: Philip Day

Hi Richard,

No.

Cheers.

Jim


Sent from my iPad

On 22 Feb 2017, at 16:59, Richard <mullen103@hotmail.com> wrote:

Hi Jim

Have the trust met with Philip Day recently?

I am 100% confident in Philip Day. He has huge backing in the city of London and more important respect. His predecessor at EWM David Stevenson is an equally respected person and knowing David as I do I knew he would sell EWM only to someone who would carry the EWM banner to the ultimate for the benefit of all the staff.If Philip comes on board which seems very likely then I think the club will be in very good hands for the future. However, as supporters we must not expect fireworks although Days strategy is move quickly to build things up.
What I would like to say is that AJ in particular has always had the club at heart and always will and I knew that he would not sell the club down the river and if this comes off he should be truly thanked for all he has done for Carlisle United.

Like that nice Mr Knighton?

Email from Jim 22nd Feb - Hadn't met Philip Day.

Trust have said to News and Star they have been involved in this.

So either it's been very quick or indeed they haven't met Day and it's all dine by paper work,which is extremely poor, or they have lied again!

Re: Philip Day
R

Richard
Fri 24/02/2025 11:53
Sent Items
To:
Jim Mitchell;
Cc:
info@cuosc.org.uk;
Hi Jim

And were you allowed to ask questions/receive answers.

I'm at a bit of a loss to Mike's comment that its not black/white as to whether the poi has been involved from the start 640+ days ago.




From: Jim Mitchell
Sent: 24 February 2025 10:02
To: Richard
Cc: info@cuosc.org.uk
Subject: Re: Philip Day

Hi Richard,

Yes, the person involved was sitting close to us and we had a clear view of the individual. Speaking personally, I had sufficient information to confirm the person's identity.

Jim

Sent from my iPad

On 24 Feb 2017, at 09:51, Richard <mullen103@hotmail.com> wrote:

Hi Jim

I presume the trust were allowed to ask the "POI" questions? did you see his/her face? was research done to prove the person was who they said they were?



From: Jim Mitchell
Sent: 23 February 2025 18:40
To: Richard
Cc: info@cuosc.org.uk
Subject: Re: Philip Day

Hi Richard,

Firstly, despite the subject heading, I presume you are not referring to Philip Day as I told you yesterday we had not met him.

Regarding the person who has become known as the POI, as you know we are limited in what we can say due to the agreements we entered into in order to participate in the process. What I can tell you is that when we met him the focus of the meeting was solely on his ideas and ambitions for improving the Club's situation and details of his investment plans.

Jim

Sent from my iPad

On 23 Feb 2017, at 16:25, Richard <mullen103@hotmail.com> wrote:

Hi

We have been told that the trust have met the investor at least once.

Did the trust ask the question whether or not the investor has been involved since day one 600+ days ago and if yes did you get a response and if no why wasn't the question asked?


From: Richard <mullen103@hotmail.com>
Sent: 22 February 2025 18:21
To: Jim Mitchell
Subject: Re: Philip Day

Thanks Jim
From: Jim Mitchell
Sent: 22 February 2025 18:20:26
To: Richard
Subject: Re: Philip Day

Hi Richard,

No.

Cheers.

Jim


Sent from my iPad

On 22 Feb 2017, at 16:59, Richard <mullen103@hotmail.com> wrote:

Hi Jim

Have the trust met with Philip Day recently?

You can't help yourself can you? Thats almost a month ago and l'm sure he's glad you've plastered his e mail address all over the internet.

Admin Edit - Email address has been removed!

Email from Jim 22nd Feb - Hadn't met Philip Day.

Trust have said to News and Star they have been involved in this.

So either it's been very quick or indeed they haven't met Day and it's all dine by paper work,which is extremely poor, or they have lied again!

Re: Philip Day
R

Richard
Fri 24/02/2025 11:53
Sent Items
To:
Jim Mitchell
Cc:
info@cuosc.org.uk;
Hi Jim

And were you allowed to ask questions/receive answers.

I'm at a bit of a loss to Mike's comment that its not black/white as to whether the poi has been involved from the start 640+ days ago.




From: Jim Mitchell
Sent: 24 February 2025 10:02
To: Richard
Cc: info@cuosc.org.uk
Subject: Re: Philip Day

Hi Richard,

Yes, the person involved was sitting close to us and we had a clear view of the individual. Speaking personally, I had sufficient information to confirm the person's identity.

Jim

Sent from my iPad

On 24 Feb 2017, at 09:51, Richard <mullen103@hotmail.com> wrote:

Hi Jim

I presume the trust were allowed to ask the "POI" questions? did you see his/her face? was research done to prove the person was who they said they were?



From: Jim Mitchell
Sent: 23 February 2025 18:40
To: Richard
Cc: info@cuosc.org.uk
Subject: Re: Philip Day

Hi Richard,

Firstly, despite the subject heading, I presume you are not referring to Philip Day as I told you yesterday we had not met him.

Regarding the person who has become known as the POI, as you know we are limited in what we can say due to the agreements we entered into in order to participate in the process. What I can tell you is that when we met him the focus of the meeting was solely on his ideas and ambitions for improving the Club's situation and details of his investment plans.

Jim

Sent from my iPad

On 23 Feb 2017, at 16:25, Richard <mullen103@hotmail.com> wrote:

Hi

We have been told that the trust have met the investor at least once.

Did the trust ask the question whether or not the investor has been involved since day one 600+ days ago and if yes did you get a response and if no why wasn't the question asked?


From: Richard <mullen103@hotmail.com>
Sent: 22 February 2025 18:21
To: Jim Mitchell
Subject: Re: Philip Day

Thanks Jim
From: Jim Mitchell
Sent: 22 February 2025 18:20:26
To: Richard
Subject: Re: Philip Day

Hi Richard,

No.

Cheers.

Jim


Sent from my iPad

On 22 Feb 2017, at 16:59, Richard <mullen103@hotmail.com> wrote:

Hi Jim

Have the trust met with Philip Day recently?

You can't help yourself can you? Thats almost a month ago and l'm sure he's glad you've plastered his e mail address all over the internet.

Correct, No

Email address is public.

As I said extremely quick if what Jim said was true. A lot quicker than the 650 days billionaire nonsense.