Yep, and isn't that a Ted company?

There seems to be some myth here that somehow the club and thus the ground was owned by the club and thus the fans. This is not really the case. The club was owned by Ted Richardson as he owned over 70% of the shares. Thus he owned the ground and could move it about as he wished. I'm not sure on the rules but it seems clear he didn't have to inform the other shareholders otherwise he would have committed a fraud? As the only serious investor in the club Ted bought BV or at least guaranteed the loans required so as far as I can tell it was his to do as he wished with. The old club was a LTD company, there was no trust or supporters control other than a small group of minor shareholders and that's exactly how it was run and that's the problem with limited liability companies running RL clubs.

Not saying it's right but in reality that's how it is as far as I can see.

The valid question here is: What would be different from where we were with the old regime to where we would be with the new regime if they were to buy the ground? Unless the ground were to be purchased through the club there would be no difference apart from the names and faces. I generally prefer the idea of NM being owned and operated by a Trust as a separate entity to, but with links to, the club itself - and I would further suggest that a Supporters Trust member should be a condition of the Stadium Trust - in order to ensure that the supporters cannot have the rug pulled from under them by whoever so be in charge of our club!

Indeed. Fans have never really moved on from the days when RL clubs were members clubs and thus every season ticket holder (I think) had a say. Once a club becomes Ltd and has a majority shareholder then that is who it belongs to, the ground, the name , the history the whole lot. The fans are in theory at least just customers. That's why I don't get the Ted bashing, why antagonise someone who still holds some of the keys. And for those who don't believe me look at the Tony Gartland?? issue and what it did to Halifax - it can get real nasty.

The best way to run any club IMO is to have the ground and thus the heritage of the club owned separately. Either by the local Council or a trust of some sort.

Agree totally, just like Barcelona !!!!

Did not think that Ted still had hold of the keys Vasty? Thought the BOI had repossessed the ground.

In a sense, it's a shame the Trust was around a lot earlier and we could have been in charge of our own destiny, and if that meant starting at the bottom then so be it.

Have they? Not sure they can as I don't think they are the only ones with a charge on it but you could be right. However it's not a great deal of use to them at the moment. Despite what some seem to think the covenants on the ground are IMO strong enough to make it very difficult for them to realise the debt. Perhaps we will find out more at the big meeting.

Remember Ted is a property developer and I'm sure he knows the value of what he has. He also has strong connections with Yorkcourt and as far as I'm aware still has some involvement in the trust both directly and third party. Either way, keep your friends close and your enemies (not mine obviously) closer is a good motto to follow.

Sainsburys must have forgotten that,when they took him to the cleaners.

The whole point of having a charge over any asset is to enable you to take possession of the asset in the event of the borrower defaulting on their debt.

So assuming ted has not the funds to pay the BoI, BV becomes their's?
I know this has all been done to death, but nobody still seems to know exactly what the state of play is with BV.
Hopefully all will become clear in little over a week.

Does that mean that someone with enough money couldn't do a deal to buy it back!

Not as far as I can tell - the BoI will be aware of the value of the land; will know the value of cash against assett and will also be aware of the complications involved in the site. Not easy I would say - but not impossible.

The Richardsons no longer have any stake in the ground, the BOI in effect now own it. Tillion borrowed from the bank to buy it, used the land as collateral and then defaulted on the payments and thus the bank called in the charge, effectively repossessing the ground as a mortgage lender would do if you defaulted on your mortgage. The bank will sell it to recover their losses. So yes its feasable someone could buy it back and in fact could make a tidy sum on a future re-sale should it be handled correctly.

Indeed, I hear there is quite a bit of money in selling a parcel of land to a supermarket.

Where have you got this from, not what I hear. Can you provide a link to back up your statement. Not saying you're wrong but anyone can come on here and post what you have said by guessing. Who's defaulted? Why are we still at the ground? Why is it not for sale? What happened to the second charge?

You appear to be making an assumption all be it a very possible one. Now I know for certain that Ted put all his companies in an IVA so I'd guess that whichever one owned BV would be included, wouldn't you? Ted is not a bankrupt so I can't see why he's default on a potential asset would you.

I'm not convinced by what you say, sorry.

Who says he's defaulted, that's an assumption.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, Sainsbury's are not the problem - try again

That's how I understood it, and that we are now renting the ground from the BoI at a pretty reasonable rate, based on last years terms.

That's partly why I'm sceptical about vasty's precious covenants; if I was the BoI for example, and I wanted WTW out of my newly acquired stadium so I could do the property developer thing, I'd just put the rent up for next season to such a level that it wasn't affordable by the tenant - that way, whilst they still move out, I'm not officially kicking them out without an alternative being available and am therefore safe from the covenant being invoked.

All of that notwithstanding, I wouldn't be at all surprised if someone has done a deal with the BoI to acquire BV from them; they're in the shizzle and need cash, and that's a fact (not a Fully style one) based on my business dealings with them - I don't think therefore that they have the luxury of speculating about the future value of a land asset; I reckon that if they could shift BV and clear a debt in one deal, they would be all over it like a rash.

I wish I'd have asked this of Glover & Elston last week. Who owns Belle Vue? The club pays rent to someone so they must know!

Ask next time! I've heard a few versions and I'v no idea. I've narrowed it down to either Ted in some form or BOI which appears the favourite - it's all

Ask next time! I've heard a few versions and I'v no idea. I've narrowed it down to either Ted in some form or BOI which appears the favourite - it's all

Quote ="vastman"A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, Sainsbury's are not the problem - try again '" You seem to like links,so here you go: www.wakefieldexpress.co.uk/sport ... a_1_976084 Unless you can post a link direct from Ted that denies it -- i would read that Sainsburys were most definately the problem.

Quote ="vastman"A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, Sainsbury's are not the problem - try again '" You seem to like links,so here you go: www.wakefieldexpress.co.uk/sport ... a_1_976084 Unless you can post a link direct from Ted that denies it -- i would read that Sainsburys were most definately the problem.

The last time I checked (just after the Administrators were appointed) the Land Registry showed that Tillion Partnership owned BV. There were 3 charges against the land - BoI, Tillion's solicitors and another company (can't remember who off the top of my head) with the charges ranked in the same order.

BoI were owed around about a million quid by Tillion and IIRC it was reported by League Express that the first couple of years of the facility were payment free (possibly with interest added to the loan rather than needing to be paid). This meant that the club didn't have to pay rent aft selling BV.

Because Tillion is registered on the Isle of Man it's difficult to get much information about the current state of that business, but it is thought that BoI have called the debt in as Tillion couldnt make the payments that were due after the payment free period ended. BoI would have appointed an LPA (Law of Property Act) Receiver to get the best possible deal for the creditors with a charge on the land. Part of this will have included getting the club to start to pay rent for BV.

The only way that Ted (as one of the partners in Tillion) could "get his hands on" BV would be to repay all the creditors with a charge registered against BV at the Land Registry - probably somewhere in the region of £1.5m to £2m once all parties' costs have been taken into consideration. Given that Ted entered an IVA in the last 18 months or so & that he couldn't raise £350k to pay what the club owed HMRC (let alone the "£500k" needed to keep the club afloat in January) I very much doubt that he will be able to raise sufficient funds to "bail out" Tillion.

AG may well have been able to negotiate a better deal to bring the ownership of BV back into the club's hands and will certainly be in a much better position to get funding to support the purchase. If he has done this (and at this stage it's a big if) I think it will be for something around £750k to £1m. The creditors will certainly accept a lower amount from a third party than if Ted/Tillion were lookipng to repay what was owed.

Ultimately, we need to draw a line under the Richardson era and move on with whatever AG & Spirit of 1873 brings us. Regardless of the Administration, we have a far better chance of retaining our place in SL with AG than we ever would have done with the Richardsons.

Is it also fair to say that the land was sold for £2.8M but the club were only paid £1.7M as tillion renaged on the last two instalments. Therefore as well as finding the money as you have quite rightly summerised above, should they try and get the loan paid off they would still owe £1.1M to the old club/reciever

Very good point about the underpayments, although it's something that falls under the Administrator's remit rather than AG's.

I think the reality is that the Administrators are unlikely to recover any funds from Tillion (who are the party who actually owe the money) given that their only source of funds will be from the sale of BV and IMHO this is never going to be for a figure that exceeds what is owed to Tillion's creditors.