• Welcome to the ShrimperZone forums.
    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which only gives you limited access.

    Existing Users:.
    Please log-in using your existing username and password. If you have any problems, please see below.

    New Users:
    Join our free community now and gain access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and free. Click here to join.

    Fans from other clubs
    We welcome and appreciate supporters from other clubs who wish to engage in sensible discussion. Please feel free to join as above but understand that this is a moderated site and those who cannot play nicely will be quickly removed.

    Assistance Required
    For help with the registration process or accessing your account, please send a note using the Contact us link in the footer, please include your account name. We can then provide you with a new password and verification to get you on the site.

Update - Elounda

this seems a relevant piece of info - the charges CBRE holds as security against Roots Hall and Fossets Farm ..
CBRE Loan Services are a company that administer loans on behalf of the actual Lender - they themselves will not have lent the money. The borrower will know who the Lender is but CBRE will deal with collecting the interest and day to day issues. Essentially they act as a middle man between Lender and Borrower. A side effect of that is that the Lender doesn’t appear on Companies House against any charges.
 
"Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive" Sir Walter Scott saw it coming all those years ago!
 
CBRE Loan Services are a company that administer loans on behalf of the actual Lender - they themselves will not have lent the money. The borrower will know who the Lender is but CBRE will deal with collecting the interest and day to day issues. Essentially they act as a middle man between Lender and Borrower. A side effect of that is that the Lender doesn’t appear on Companies House against any charges.
Good summary
Additional Explanation of their role/services here
 
I am not an accountant and know even less about property development.
It seems from this thread that Ron has involved himself with some entities who have serious assets at their disposal.
To the ignorant this begs at least two questions:
(a) Now Ron finds himself in a predicament would it be regarded as normal to leave him twisting in the wind? The entities involved would surely not regard the amount required for the bridging loan as hard to access.
(b) Hypothetically speaking could it be to the commercial advantage of any of Ron's 'partners' to see him go to the wall and then be able to take over the development for themselves? I am speaking generally of course and not in any way implying that anyone presently involved with Ron would ever contemplate such a course of action.
Forgive me if these questions only display my ignorance and I have missed the point.
If that is the case can someone who fully understands the situation offer a guess as to how likely accessing a bridging loan now seems?
I believe this was Carl's suggestion, the backers he has including the pension fund wanted to take the whole development due to the massive potential profits.

We need to be careful about anyone interested in purchasing the whole development now when things are close to being built, they are likely to not have the clubs long term interests at heart.

I actually think Ron does care about the club but is inept, if he wanted the club to go to the wall he's taken a bloody long time doing it
 
There are so many parties involved and contractual arrangements in place that Ron couldn't himself sell the whole project even if he wanted to- which he doesn't. At this point however anyone may or may not wish such an outcome it's a pointless distraction.

Even if you dedicated hours of time trying to get to the bottom of all this I don't think you would.

There are two things that I hang on to as I think they have value:

1. Tom is a man of integrity and hence the club statement provides some comfort.
2. HMRC are ruthless and to agree in advance an adjournment for 56 days tells me they have been presented with something/some evidence that makes them believe they will get their money
 
Last edited:
There are so many parties involved and contractual arrangements in place that Ron couldn't himself sell the whole project even if he wanted to- which he doesn't. At this point however anyone may or may not wish such an outcome it's a pointless distraction.

Even if you dedicated hours of time trying to get to the bottom of all this I don't think you would.

There are two things that I hand on to as I think they have value:

1. Tom is a man of integrity and hence the club statement provides some comfort.
2. HMRC are ruthless and to agree in advance an adjournment for 56 days tells me they have been presented with something/some evidence that makes them believe they will get their money
Did they agree in advance, or did the court decide the adjournment? Genuinely interested in the answer to that as I've not heard that before and, as you say, that does look better, or (more accurately) less bad.
 
Did they agree in advance, or did the court decide the adjournment? Genuinely interested in the answer to that as I've not heard that before and, as you say, that does look better, or (more accurately) less bad.
Well even if they didn't agree as such, they didn't oppose adjournment as far as I can tell. If they did then they wouldn't get their money. I'm sure RM will have been in regular contact with HMRC in the run-up to the hearing.
 
I am not an accountant and know even less about property development.
It seems from this thread that Ron has involved himself with some entities who have serious assets at their disposal.
To the ignorant this begs at least two questions:
(a) Now Ron finds himself in a predicament would it be regarded as normal to leave him twisting in the wind? The entities involved would surely not regard the amount required for the bridging loan as hard to access.
(b) Hypothetically speaking could it be to the commercial advantage of any of Ron's 'partners' to see him go to the wall and then be able to take over the development for themselves? I am speaking generally of course and not in any way implying that anyone presently involved with Ron would ever contemplate such a course of action.
Forgive me if these questions only display my ignorance and I have missed the point.
If that is the case can someone who fully understands the situation offer a guess as to how likely accessing a bridging loan now seems?
On point a.

Consider it like a mortgage on a home. There is only a certain loan to value percentage they can go to. Large organisations have credit control teams who effectively will reject any loan that pushes that percentage too high. They will have set lending parimeters and can't just sign of more money without added value to the land. So in essence if the loan is already at the max percentage with the existing lender they will not lend anymore. You can get secondary charges but that requires the agreement of the existing lender and again will take quite some time to arrange. So it would require a third party who will provide a loan with no charge which is quite frankly not going to happen given the payment history of certain companies and people involved in this deal. It makes it hard to see where the loan could come from especially if there are no other assets to provide as collateral for a lender.

B, yes and no.

Whilst for the football club it would be disastrous; for the lender potentially beneficial as they will in theory get their loan repaid for the sale of the land they hold a charge over. No different to a normal mortgage. Most finance houses don't like to do this as it is time intesive and expensive. That said if left with no choice they most certainly will. Should the HMRC debt not get paid and we get wound up, the house of cards will fall very quickly as the likes of CBRE will no doubt very quickly call their loan in. (If it is unpaid).

Hope that helps to explain it.
 
Well even if they didn't agree as such, they didn't oppose adjournment as far as I can tell. If they did then they wouldn't get their money. I'm sure RM will have been in regular contact with HMRC in the run-up to the hearing.
They could oppose and the court could still decide to adjourn. The court and HMRC are separate.

My point wasn't that though, my point was that if what @kentblues said is correct things may not be as bad as we fear. It could, however, be that HMRC opposed and the court decided to give us the benefit of the doubt anyway.
 
They could oppose and the court could still decide to adjourn. The court and HMRC are separate.

My point wasn't that though, my point was that if what @kentblues said is correct things may not be as bad as we fear. It could, however, be that HMRC opposed and the court decided to give us the benefit of the doubt anyway.
My understanding is both parties informed the court they had mutually agreed to an adjournment of the case and the court agreed. I may be wrong but I think the ST may have known the case was going to be adjourned before the day as well.

If HMRC had not agreed, the hearing would have proceeded and we would have had to make a case to the court as to why the court should agree an adjournment with, no doubt, HMRC arguing against. None of that happened.

It is correct to say had the hearing gone ahead with HMRC opposing, the court might very well still have adjourned the case, based on the strength of arguments about future funds being imminent. And we would have through that process found out more about where the funds were coming from and when.

I do take the prior agreement of an adjournment with HMRC as positive- for them the next best thing to payment in full is clear sight of where the monies are coming from. If that wasn't provided in sufficient detail then they traditionally aren't shy of forcing the issue on the day (remember Ron producing the letter from Sainsbury on the day of a past hearing?). Ron would have been very keen to not have to disclose in open court something he could convince HMRC of in private...
 
My understanding is both parties informed the court they had mutually agreed to an adjournment of the case and the court agreed. I may be wrong but I think the ST may have known the case was going to be adjourned before the day as well.

If HMRC had not agreed, the hearing would have proceeded and we would have had to make a case to the court as to why the court should agree an adjournment with, no doubt, HMRC arguing against. None of that happened.

It is correct to say had the hearing gone ahead with HMRC opposing, the court might very well still have adjourned the case, based on the strength of arguments about future funds being imminent. And we would have through that process found out more about where the funds were coming from and when.

I do take the prior agreement of an adjournment with HMRC as positive- for them the next best thing to payment in full is clear sight of where the monies are coming from. If that wasn't provided in sufficient detail then they traditionally aren't shy of forcing the issue on the day (remember Ron producing the letter from Sainsbury on the day of a past hearing?). Ron would have been very keen to not have to disclose in open court something he could convince HMRC of in private...
That's actually good to hear. I wasn't aware of any of that.

As an aside, as you say HMRC "traditionally aren't shy of forcing the issue". It's also true to say they're traditionally bad at it!
 
On point a.

Consider it like a mortgage on a home. There is only a certain loan to value percentage they can go to. Large organisations have credit control teams who effectively will reject any loan that pushes that percentage too high. They will have set lending parimeters and can't just sign of more money without added value to the land. So in essence if the loan is already at the max percentage with the existing lender they will not lend anymore. You can get secondary charges but that requires the agreement of the existing lender and again will take quite some time to arrange. So it would require a third party who will provide a loan with no charge which is quite frankly not going to happen given the payment history of certain companies and people involved in this deal. It makes it hard to see where the loan could come from especially if there are no other assets to provide as collateral for a lender.

B, yes and no.

Whilst for the football club it would be disastrous; for the lender potentially beneficial as they will in theory get their loan repaid for the sale of the land they hold a charge over. No different to a normal mortgage. Most finance houses don't like to do this as it is time intesive and expensive. That said if left with no choice they most certainly will. Should the HMRC debt not get paid and we get wound up, the house of cards will fall very quickly as the likes of CBRE will no doubt very quickly call their loan in. (If it is unpaid).

Hope that helps to explain it.
Yes, many thanks.
 
CBRE Loan Services Ltd took out a charge on Roots Hall Ltd 1st March. This will have been the infamous bridging loan (weeks not months).

The charge covers all amounts owed by SUFC to Roots Hall Ltd under a loan agreement between SUFC and RHL on or around the date of the charge. I believe RHL is the entity that owns Roots Hall.

Unlike SUFC, Roots Hall Ltd’s accounts are up to date, having been updated 16th January (this would have been a requirement of any lenders).

RHL owed its parent company Elounda LLP £25,225,924. Up about £1.5m. £1.5m is about the amount Ron (and indeed Tom) says he subsidises the club each year and £25m the total Ron says he’s pumped into the club.

Elounda also had their accounts signed off by Jack Martin at the same time as RHL. Ron is no longer an individual with significant control since Feb last year. His wife and sons became significant controllers at that time. Elounda owns property worth just under £14m but owes loans of just under £33m.

Martin Dawn plc and South Eastern Leisure both still have accounts overdue. Ron is still director of both. SEL is the entity that controls SUFC (owning 70.47% of the shares. Martin Dawn and Mezcal Investments Ltd owned SEL. SEL still has a fixed and floating charge over SUFC.
 
Last edited:
CBRE Loan Services Ltd took out a charge on Roots Hall Ltd 1st March. This will have been the infamous bridging loan (weeks not months).

The charge covers all amounts owed by SUFC to Roots Hall Ltd under a loan agreement between SUFC and RHL on or around the date of the charge. I believe RHL is the entity that owns Roots Hall.

Unlike SUFC, Roots Hall Ltd’s accounts are up to date, having been updated 16th January (this would have been a requirement of any lenders).

RHL owed its parent company Elounda LLP £25,225,924. Up about £1.5m. £1.5m is about the amount Ron (and indeed Tom) says he subsidises the club each year and £25m the total Ron says he’s pumped into the club.

Elounda also had their accounts signed off by Jack Martin at the same time as RHL. Ron is no longer an individual with significant control since Feb last year. His wife and sons became significant controllers at that time. Elounda owns property worth just under £14m but owes loans of just under £33m.

Martin Dawn plc and South Eastern Leisure both still have accounts overdue. Ron is still director of both. SEL is the entity that controls SUFC (owning 70.47% of the shares. Martin Dawn and Mezcal Investments Ltd owns SEL. SEL still has a fixed and floating charge over SUFC.
Thanks for that, I think ??
I would like a bit of help with the subsidy thing

Ron/Tom as you advise suggests Ron subsidizes to the possible tune of £1.5m per annum, which presumably is the shortfall

Im not necessarily disputing that. However if you take the accounts say for the year ending 2017, it is clear that a charge of £400,000 for renting the ground alone is made. On top of that for that year an additional £300,000 Management charge was made, separate to the £125,000 paid to Directors,
Just wondering what we were getting for an annual £825,000 charge ?

I
 
CBRE Loan Services Ltd took out a charge on Roots Hall Ltd 1st March. This will have been the infamous bridging loan (weeks not months).

The charge covers all amounts owed by SUFC to Roots Hall Ltd under a loan agreement between SUFC and RHL on or around the date of the charge. I believe RHL is the entity that owns Roots Hall.

Unlike SUFC, Roots Hall Ltd’s accounts are up to date, having been updated 16th January (this would have been a requirement of any lenders).

RHL owed its parent company Elounda LLP £25,225,924. Up about £1.5m. £1.5m is about the amount Ron (and indeed Tom) says he subsidises the club each year and £25m the total Ron says he’s pumped into the club.

Elounda also had their accounts signed off by Jack Martin at the same time as RHL. Ron is no longer an individual with significant control since Feb last year. His wife and sons became significant controllers at that time. Elounda owns property worth just under £14m but owes loans of just under £33m.

Martin Dawn plc and South Eastern Leisure both still have accounts overdue. Ron is still director of both. SEL is the entity that controls SUFC (owning 70.47% of the shares. Martin Dawn and Mezcal Investments Ltd owns SEL. SEL still has a fixed and floating charge over SUFC.
Although Martin Dawn is now less than 25% owner of SEL as no longer a PSC- maybe now no % at all. In fact at this precise moment we don’t know who holds 50% of SEL shares…
 
Last edited:
Back
Top