kobayashi

Do I need to explain question marks? So, did they explain why?

Attendances were lower but more so in the early 90s because of the reduced capacities as grounds were converted from standing to seating. From mid to late 90s teams like Spurs and Everton were basically sold out whereas Wednesday had under used capacity and average crowds lower than the early 90s.

Fascinating… but they are not a mortgagee of S3 or SWFC, so totally irrelevant. They are an unsecured creditor of SWFC.

A promissory note is just that, a note. The loan agreement is not the promissory note. They are not a secured creditor of SWFC, and were never a creditor of S3, so on what legal basis do they become a preferred creditor of either? Feel free to explain the 1925 Property Act.

The promissory note will be a few lines in which “SWFC promises to pay seven million… £7.4 m on 30/9/25 to NAP Ltd etc.” As to the guarantee, why does it say “within 7 days” if the period is open ended? Within seems fairly easy to understand. Not “after”, “within”. Does it make sense that they seemingly didn’t, no it doesn’t, but has there been any suggestion that they did, no there hasn’t. Finally, if “within” means “after”, what are they waiting for? The business is now in administration, you’d they would get moving to secure their rights over the title to the ground. And yet we are hearing nothing.

Might want to keep your identity to yourself “Hi, I’m Horny”

The administrators job is to get the best outcome for the creditors. If that’s by selling the business on then so much the better, but that’s the means to the end, not the end.

Assuming that they didn’t exercise the charge, and if they had we would have surely heard about it by now, they are an unsecured creditor of SWFC for the value of the £7.4m of unpaid loan. They were never a creditor - secured or unsecured - of S3.

It’s not semantics…it’s the important bit. NPA were always an unsecured creditor of SWFC, and therefore to satisfy the 25% rule the repayment would be approx £1.8m. As to the security from S3 and Chansiri, the details of the charge are publicly available on Co House and it is clear that the lender had to take action “exercisable by the lender within 7 days”. As far as we know they didn’t, and therefore presumably now have no call over S3 assets.

And they were never a secured creditor of SWFC

the deadline was for them.

is the NAP loan still secured? if the loan wasn’t repaid at 30/9 they had 7 days to exercise their right to claim the title to the property. if they failed to exercise that right then presumably the right lapsed, otherwise what was the point of the 7 day stipulation?

err no never a bad time to be promoted, never a good time to be relegated

Cold. Friend’s car broke down on the way there, and broke down on the way back. Had to pretend to be someone else who hadn’t gone but who was a member of the AA to get it fixed. But Wednesday were so good it was all just part of the day out.’

Confusing…£50m in the morning, £50 in the evening. It wasn’t a charity when Chansiri was in charge, it’s not a charity whilst the administrators look to get the best financial outcome for the creditors.