Have the accounts been published yet?

[The Butler 0]

[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote] I feel the need to jump to the rescue everytime someone has a point that does not match the clubs view.[/quote]

You do, however, feel the need to jump to the rescue of anyone who holds an opposing point of view...
[/quote]

Nice to see Elsie and Doris working  together again.

Try reading my posts Bla, I don''t oppose the club. I support it.

I am just a seeker of truth and justice and hate the modern use of spin.(the caped Butler loses some magic doesn''t it)

Lambert great, McNally great, the football played at present good.

Being nearly broke and in the third division VERY VERY bad.

Now what is wrong with that view.

[Desert Fox 0]

Canary Cherub,

No it wasnt in last years accounts as it was renegotiated in Dcember (i.e. after the accounts and the AGM). I am sure this came up in one of the supporters forums (possibly the infamous Munby and Doomy seesion) and that it was posted on here as one of the Q&A''s.

As T has implied, this is unlikley to be the subject of the going concern problem as it is asset backed and attacting a very high rate of interest. So long as the club maintain these interest payments, the debt holder should be happy as they can step in recover their asset (which is effetcively mortgaged by them).

The real problem will be those debt holders whose loans are securitised against future ticket revenue. Unlike the LSE land there is no little advanatge to recovering the asset as there is no real secondary value to a football ground.

This is why Norwich Union let Ipswich off a big chunk of their debt becuase effectively they had a gun put to their head. If Ipswich had folded they would have no one to repay their debt, so they took the view to write a slab of it off enabled their loanee to mainatin some cashflow repayment. I suspect this is a tactic that the club may be exploring as part of our restructuring exercise.

The problem will be (again as T has alluded to) that the debt holders may call the club''s bluff in that they believe that the Delia is capable of pumping in more cash first.

Interesting times - particularly if you are a supplier to the club.

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="The Butler"]I am just a seeker of truth[/quote]So YOU are Truthseeker! [:O]

You certainly gave poor old Tilly a hard time! [;)]

And all that just to get on the Committee! [:$]

Shame on you Butler! [:)][;)]

[The Butler 0]

[quote user="lappinitup"]

[quote user="The Butler"]I am just a seeker of truth[/quote]So YOU are Truthseeker! [:O]

You certainly gave poor old Tilly a hard time! [;)]

And all that just to get on the Committee! [:$]

Shame on you Butler! [:)][;)]

[/quote]

You must be on something very good Lapp.

Left over from the SPEEDway days perhaps[:D]

[Mello Yello 2,289]

Hopefully, (for some) by the time the AGM is held....We''ll be doing exceptionally well in the league - and finance won''t even be discussed....much.

 

 

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

[quote user="canary cherub "][quote user="T"]

[quote user="whoareyou"]There is always the possibility that the auditors want to qualify their Auditors Report which could have huge ramifications for the future viability of the club. My guess is that that £2.5 million loan repayment due next year could mean that the club is not able to claim it is a going concern without the debt being restructered.[/quote]

I think that you might well be right.

[/quote]

Having read their explanation for postponing the accounts, it certainly sounds like it . . . oh dear [+o(]

The £2.5m loan to buy the LSE land was originally due for repayment in December 2008, so it''s been rolled over once already. 

[/quote]

The Bank of Scotland loan (re the ex LSE land) ison a two year cycle now, so its due for repayment in December 2010.

In the past I suspect the going concern has been dealt with by the directors stating in a letter to the Auditors that they will fund the finance gap.

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

[quote user="canary cherub "][quote user="Desert Fox"]

Canary Cherub,

I am sure that the LSE loan was rolled over for two years. 

If it is a going concern issue, the commercial debt holders of the loan notes may be entitled to repayment or increased interest.

[/quote]

Thanks for that DF.  How did you find out btw, there hasn''t been a word in the press about it, was it in last year''s accounts?

[/quote]

I asked the question to N.D. at a NCISA. forum and the answer was that the Bank of Scotland loan re the ex LSE had been rolled over for two years. That information was then posted on this bb.

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

May be its the annual cost of servicing ALL NCFC''s debts that is the problem not just the £2.5m Bank of Scotland Loan.

May be the plan includes:

a) Lengthen the loan and reduce the annual capital repayments, which is £1m a season just for the securitised loan.

b) Refinance the Bank of Scotland loan by adding the £2.5m to the securitised loan and paying off the Bank of Scotland loan. If you have to pay a 10% arrangement fee every two years thats in effect adding £125k a year to the roughly £175k annual interest (although the interest payments may have varied as a result of the last rollover and we will only discover this when we get our hands on the new Accounts when they are published).  At say £300k a year thats in effect 12% a year. I would expect the interest rate on a new securitised loan to be cheaper. 

c) Reduced service payments at the start of the new securitised loan just like the start of the current securitised loan. Thus allowing some money (that would otherwise be used to service the existing debt structure) to be diverted towards Lamberts player budget.