Did anybody else notice this popping up on Companies House recently? https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/comp ... eJ1wMTdQaY I know a little bit about the sorts of notices that go on CH, but I'm not an expert and I know a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. I'm hoping maybe someone here is a little more well versed than I am. Now the way that I read that is that Marc Green (and I assume his wife) have VERY RECENTLY taken out a charge against the Company in relation to the Leasehold Title. That would suggest to me that MG has ploughed a chunk of his own money into buying the lease from the RFL. Bearing in mind an article popped up completely out of the blue in the T&A a couple of weeks ago about the future of the ground, but after this apparent charge was created. I wouldn't put it past Ross to be hinting that something's in the works. I'm not out to be a rumour-monger and if I'm reading this completely wrong someone please let me know. But that's how it sounds to me. Apparently the full documents should be available some time in the next few days.

Did anybody else notice this popping up on Companies House recently? https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/comp ... eJ1wMTdQaY I know a little bit about the sorts of notices that go on CH, but I'm not an expert and I know a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. I'm hoping maybe someone here is a little more well versed than I am. Now the way that I read that is that Marc Green (and I assume his wife) have VERY RECENTLY taken out a charge against the Company in relation to the Leasehold Title. That would suggest to me that MG has ploughed a chunk of his own money into buying the lease from the RFL. Bearing in mind an article popped up completely out of the blue in the T&A a couple of weeks ago about the future of the ground, but after this apparent charge was created. I wouldn't put it past Ross to be hinting that something's in the works. I'm not out to be a rumour-monger and if I'm reading this completely wrong someone please let me know. But that's how it sounds to me. Apparently the full documents should be available some time in the next few days.

Quote ="SombreroBu11"Did anybody else notice this popping up on Companies House recently? https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/comp ... eJ1wMTdQaY I know a little bit about the sorts of notices that go on CH, but I'm not an expert and I know a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. I'm hoping maybe someone here is a little more well versed than I am. Now the way that I read that is that Marc Green (and I assume his wife) have VERY RECENTLY taken out a charge against the Company in relation to the Leasehold Title. That would suggest to me that MG has ploughed a chunk of his own money into buying the lease from the RFL. Bearing in mind an article popped up completely out of the blue in the T&A a couple of weeks ago about the future of the ground, but after this apparent charge was created. I wouldn't put it past Ross to be hinting that something's in the works. I'm not out to be a rumour-monger and if I'm reading this completely wrong someone please let me know. But that's how it sounds to me. Apparently the full documents should be available some time in the next few days.'" You can pay £23 and have access to the files immediately. This will be one of the many talking points on Wednesday evening.

Quote ="SombreroBu11"Did anybody else notice this popping up on Companies House recently? https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/comp ... eJ1wMTdQaY I know a little bit about the sorts of notices that go on CH, but I'm not an expert and I know a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. I'm hoping maybe someone here is a little more well versed than I am. Now the way that I read that is that Marc Green (and I assume his wife) have VERY RECENTLY taken out a charge against the Company in relation to the Leasehold Title. That would suggest to me that MG has ploughed a chunk of his own money into buying the lease from the RFL. Bearing in mind an article popped up completely out of the blue in the T&A a couple of weeks ago about the future of the ground, but after this apparent charge was created. I wouldn't put it past Ross to be hinting that something's in the works. I'm not out to be a rumour-monger and if I'm reading this completely wrong someone please let me know. But that's how it sounds to me. Apparently the full documents should be available some time in the next few days.'" You can pay £23 and have access to the files immediately. This will be one of the many talking points on Wednesday evening.

I know bugger all about this sort of thing. Can you explain what taking out a charge actually means, and how that relates to the entity 'Bradford Bulls Northern Ltd'? I realise you don't know the ins and outs, but my understanding of this is way short of requiring any special insight or subtlety!

To the best of my knowledge it would mean that the Company owes the person taking the charge out some money for something or other. So it this case it would suggest to me that Marc Green has registered with Companies house, the fact that Bradford Bulls Northern Limited owe him an amount in relation to the lease title of the stadium.

It's pretty much the same as when you get a Mortgage. If you look at your deeds the mortgage provider will have a "Registered Charge" in relation to the property you bought using their money.

I may be reading this wrong, but are you suggesting that Green is trying to get the club (or Bradford Bulls Northern Limited) to give him some of his money back? If so, that would scream that he's trying to get out. (I accept, I may be misunderstanding that)

That's what it looked like to me.

No no, nothing like that. To me it reads more like the mortgage example I posted. It's not an active step to get some money, it a case of registering that some money has been borrowed for a particular purpose. For example if he has put money into the company to purchase the lease, if the Company subsequently sold the lease on years down the line without having paid back the funds it borrowed, he would need to be paid from the proceeds of sale. Again the same way a mortgage works.

I was going to say... I thought that the RFL still owned the leasehold? If that's the case, it would only make sense to take out a charge in the context of buying back some or all of the lease, with at least some of the money used being borrowed? Unless I've missed something, I don't see how Green could be trying to get his money back at this point.

I see what you're saying. But that still screams to me that he wants out. Otherwise why do this now? Pure speculation, but that reads to me like "I'm about to sell the club but want to make sure I get my money back from the lease when I do". Again, pure speculation (trying to make sure this doesn't get removed....)

If he's recently (eg 11 July when the charge was created, which importantly is before the failure at the Fev game) managed to acquire the lease from the RFL, he wouldn't have been able to register a charge until now because there would have been no event to register it for. A mortgage company wouldn't be able to register a charge on a property until they've actually loaned the money to buy.

In the Mortgage example, Odsal would be the house, BBN Limited would be the buyer and MG would be the mortgage company/lender, if that clears up what I mean.

So either he's trying to get his money back and do a runner, or he may have finally made some headway on buying the lease? If I'm not right this time, I'm tapping out as I clearly don't get it.

I know nothing about these things but if I was Mr Tinfoil-hat, I'd misread all this into something conspiratorial such as Green's put money in (Like re-furbing the Coral Stand and launcing the 'South Bank'), the RFL have come up with a wizardly wheeze for the Venerable Old Dump and MG is making sure he doesn't lose out? Even protecting the clubs prospective revenue streams...

Good lord I am optimistic....

That one's the way it reads to me. It would suggest to me that it's done an dusted.

I can see what you mean, but the fact that the description specifies the "lease title" persuaded me otherwise.

I don't understand them either, but from what sombrebull has put, Green wouldn't get his money back from the charge, unless the lease is sold??

Correct. Or the Company pay him back in the meantime, at which point he would notify CH that the charge was settled.

Wasn't it mentioned in the T&A a few weeks ago,that the Council were remaining tight lipped as negotiations were at a delicate stage between all parties.

My head hurts

Sorry!

I saw this conversation on twitter t'other day with Rod Stud. Does this tie in with what's been said here?

@Rod_Studd Looks like Marc & Jane Green have taken a charge over the stadium, in exchange for a loan to the holding company

@AndyGilder thanks Andy. I'm a bit naive!! - what does that mean in layman's terms bearing in mind RFL still actually own Odsal?

@Rod_Studd It means if the company defaults on the loan (say because it goes bust), the lease from the RFL moves into the Greens' name.

@Rod_Studd Green can then sublet to any new tenant he can get into the stadium, e.g. a reformed Bulls club.

I dont really understand whats happening here but it sounds like Green may now be holding a couple of aces in regards to getting the lease back from the RFL. Does that sound right or have I got the wrong end of the stick?

Who is the holding company? Is that Bradford council? Is it a underhanded way of doing it or fair game? I can't see the RFL being happy about it.

'The holding company' being Bradford Bulls Northern Ltd? Or whichever vehicle is set up to own the lease? If the former, I don't understand where the charge comes in. If the latter, I get it even less. This is getting pretty Byzantine now. Looking forward to knowing what the craic is!

I mean, technically he's correct. But if Marc Green actually has the balls to go through with such a stunt just to get the lease back from the rfl.....

I think it's more likely that Marc is finally doing what he's said all along he was trying to do. The club have got the leasehold back and Marc has lent the club the money to be able to do it.

I don't know all the ins and outs, but if the Bulls went bust, hasn't he just ensured that he's first in the queue when the administrators move in?

I don't believe for one second that the rfl would agree to sell him/the club the leasehold - after all this time - without doing some due diligence first. Even they aren't that dumb.

It is a fixed (mortgage) and floating (debenture) charge on the company's assets, in favour of the Greens I think. Which includes the "leasehold property" (i.e. anything like the Coral Stand erected on a leased site or any value in the lease itself. In other words, the Greens have lent money to the company (no poop, Sherlock...) and have put in place a charge - i.e. taken security - to ensure they get first dibs in the event of insolvency or anyone trying to sell any club assets. There is reference to a "negative pledge" which usually means an undertaking that the Greens' charge will not rank ahead of anyone else's charge/security. However you really need to see the charging documents for more details.

The thing is, at present no-one else has lent anything to the Bulls secured on the assets (who in their right mind would, apart from maybe the RFL...?) and it is clear that Green must have lent money to the club - from his own statement, even if it was not otherwise obvious. So he is making sure he gets first bite (after main employee claims, regarding some of the assets) at getting his money back. This is understandable, but may well REALLY have vexed off HMRC and other unsecured creditors, and might have been a factor in triggering the winding-up petition? We'll never know. Although the Negative Pledge MIGHT be about ensuring he does not rank ahead of HMRC? Again, need to see the actual charging documents.

So your guess is as good as mine.